Does anyone know what the "deal" is with the Pipeline going through Indian Burial Grounds? From my perspective and understanding getting easements or land through Indian land, and even more so through sacred burial grounds is pretty much impossible. Did they go through a condemnation process, or did they already get some kind of Easement from the Indian Tribes? What is the legal principle by which they are able to just do it. (Maybe the Indians lost their claim to the land a long time ago and it's owned by someone else?)
Excuse my ignorance, but all I've heard about are the protests.
Has anyone here paid closer attention to this than I have?
I heard something today on a news report that I hadn't previously heard that it is on private property near a reservation but not on. If that is correct, I would assume that they had secured an easement from the landowner. Anyone confirm that?
Every project that I've heard of allows a period for the university's to come in and make a survey of the potential historical value of the site and to collect samples of the artifacts and record in detail of what they find and send it in for evaluation.
After a designated length of time, the big yellow machines are turned loose and puts in the pipeline or lake or whatever has been designed.
When finished, signs go up and no one is allowed on the sacred grounds anymore except research teams and maintenance crews.
🙁
I'm not sure of neutrality of the source, but here is an article that seems to confirm what I heard. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/296926-on-the-dakota-access-pipeline-lets-stick-to-the-facts
All pipelines I've been involved with have cultural surveys done if it crosses public lands, including private lands with public minerals.
Private lands are private, you don't have to have that done.
Andy Nold, post: 397285, member: 7 wrote: I'm not sure of neutrality of the source, but here is an article that seems to confirm what I heard. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/296926-on-the-dakota-access-pipeline-lets-stick-to-the-facts
That would make sense to me. From what I have seen, the Federal Government has very stringent guidelines in creating easements or roadways across the various lands by threat of condemnation. I am not taking sides, and I certainly can see why they wouldn't want the pipeline next to their reservation, but it would be pretty unlikely for them to be able to run it on or across reservation land and/or Indian burial grounds.
Indian burial ground huh?
Tom Adams, post: 397287, member: 7285 wrote: I am not taking sides, and I certainly can see why they wouldn't want the pipeline next to their reservation, but it would be pretty unlikely for them to be able to run it on or across reservation land and/or Indian burial grounds.
Okay, I've got to ask. How do you determine whether a proposed route will cross ancient burials just from examining the surface? I'd think that on DOT projects, SOP would be to stop construction if excavation uncovers evidence that the survey didn't disclose. Naturally, in the Ole Bidness, the sort of sleezy characters who run the show will be unlikely to be bothered by that detail.
I don't know the facts of this project, just what I've heard on the news. But I would like say that the feds can use words in prevaricated manner at times when it comes to "land use".
There are different kinds of "Indian" lands recognized by the US govt. Sovereign soil is exactly that, it is a different country that the USA. I would bet you the pipeline does not cross any sovereign soil of the Sioux Nation. In Oklahoma there are thousands of acres considered "private lands" owned by Native Nations but are held in trust by the US. And there are lands that were patented to Native Americans upon which easement$ can be bought just as if a non-native American owned them; whether the tribe liked it or not. The US also has a stranglehold on the subsurface rights of some of these lands. It is not uncommon for the US to negotiate use and dispose of natural resources on property of this nature with very little input from the tribal government. It is also common to have "historic sacred soil" that either by treaty or boundary issues actually fall outside of sovereign soils. It can become a very complex issue.
My educated guess there has probably been a lot of maneuvering by both sides on this issue. Neither side is as "innocent" as they would like us to believe.
Also the old "Indian burial grounds" is literally a joke around these parts when it comes to the public. If a public works project encounters artifacts (busted pottery or old whisky bottles) the Oklahoma Historical Survey steps in and accesses the area for archaeological sensitivity. Sure enough, the local evening news will mention the proverbial "Indian burial ground" in their report when no mention of such has actually been made. But it gets the public's attention and sells air time.
MightyMoe, post: 397286, member: 700 wrote: All pipelines I've been involved with have cultural surveys done if it crosses public lands, including private lands with public minerals.
Private lands are private, you don't have to have that done.
That is correct in most states, counties etc. Any prudent operator and most especially any publicly traded entity spends a lot of time and money performing cultural surveys to ensure they don't impact any more than they have to.
TXSurveyor, post: 397312, member: 6719 wrote: That is correct in most states, counties etc. Any prudent operator and most especially any publicly traded entity spends a lot of time and money performing cultural surveys to ensure they don't impact any more than they have to.
I agree that the "big boy" pipeline outfits do their homework. I've worked with a number of them and their R/W departments over the years and was amazed at the level of professionalism and "failsafe" procedures they incorporate.
I'm not personally particularly fond of large private entities that pursue condemnation for profit, but what are going to do?
Tom Adams, post: 397281, member: 7285 wrote: Does anyone know what the "deal" is with the Pipeline going through Indian Burial Grounds? From my perspective and understanding getting easements or land through Indian land, and even more so through sacred burial grounds is pretty much impossible. Did they go through a condemnation process, or did they already get some kind of Easement from the Indian Tribes? What is the legal principle by which they are able to just do it. (Maybe the Indians lost their claim to the land a long time ago and it's owned by someone else?)
Excuse my ignorance, but all I've heard about are the protests.
Has anyone here paid closer attention to this than I have?
Eminent domain is the legal principle, condemnation is the process. Private utilities (as well as public) have routinely disturbed burial grounds of native and non-native alike. If known beforehand, steps are taken to respectfully move the remains to other sites. If unexpectedly hit, then work is halted until acceptable means arranged for transition of the remains to other sites. Waters have routinely been contaminated by spills as well. They are questioning the status quo. So am I. What is the right thing to do will be decided by the weight of public opinion as always. Legal principles change with the times. Probably the route has already been altered more than once to avoid a better location that passed through a wealthy, politically connected owners property. I've never seen one go where it should go macro-geographically speaking. They go from point A to point B, but the in between always considering who has the most clout to object and cause trouble. But sometimes it's unavoidable to cross problem areas and still do the project. The reservation they are crossing is larger than some states if I recall. Hard to go around. So, some argue it shouldn't be done at all. They may be right. Too bad it's not getting more press, as it's an important topic the nation (world) needs to address.
paden cash, post: 397317, member: 20 wrote: I agree that the "big boy" pipeline outfits do their homework. I've worked with a number of them and their R/W departments over the years and was amazed at the level of professionalism and "failsafe" procedures they incorporate.
I'm not personally particularly fond of large private entities that pursue condemnation for profit, but what are going to do?
There is indeed a fine line. sometimes it is misused, sometimes most especially in the northeast where the terrain is tough tens of millions can be spent on finding a route that is not only buildable but buyable and permitable. I sometimes wonder if the folks who pushed back so much had their way how much the price of natural gas would be let alone the increased workload across other regions of the country with not so many crazies.
If you look at it by region if the Marcellus Shale had not been found how much would NG cost in New York City to be transported by line from the south? Most of the infrastructure that is being built and protested are the big lines that are really moving large amounts of gas. The "not so not it all's" hear about the projects from our media and throw a fit. Little do they know the gathering systems are being built to provide this gas to market.
These people shouldn't complain if they don't completely understand the process of getting gas to market. Also if you don't like the logging of trees try using plastic toilet paper....
TXSurveyor, post: 397321, member: 6719 wrote: There is indeed a fine line. sometimes it is misused, sometimes most especially in the northeast where the terrain is tough tens of millions can be spent on finding a route that is not only buildable but buyable and permitable. I sometimes wonder if the folks who pushed back so much had their way how much the price of natural gas would be let alone the increased workload across other regions of the country with not so many crazies.
Well, generally speaking, corporations don't care where their money comes from as long as it appears on the quarterly statement. The pipeline misadventure in Texas at the moment is a pipeline that runs through the Big Bend. the Trans-Pecos pipeline that will ship natural gas to ... Mexico, while using powers of eminent domain to condemn rights-of-way across 143 miles of private lands between Fort Stockton and the Rio Grande.
Why exactly should a pipeline company have the ability to take private rights solely to benefit the profits of the company?
http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/a-pipeline-in-the-sand/
