Dear U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

I write to you today in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to demand a new and valid Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Dakota Access pipeline (DAPL). The findings of the current EIS should be immediately invalidated, and DAPL — which currently operates illegally — without a valid federal easement, as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) — should be shut down.

The September 2023 draft EIS has several issues. Notably, it fails to adequately adhere to the USACE’s own scoping guidelines. It does not provide “a full and fair discussion of impacts.” That would necessarily include meaningful consultation with and permission from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, including the sharing with tribal leadership of unredacted emergency and facility response plans for the pipeline. That never happened prior to the pipeline’s buildout or the release of this draft EIS. Furthermore, there are a number of outdated and inaccurate statements in the draft.

DAPL jeopardizes Standing Rock’s rights to self-government and its hunting and fishing rights, as outlined in the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty. The tribe’s treaty rights include the permanent ability to divert as much water as needed for all beneficial uses on its reservation lands. Standing Rock’s water rights extend to the Missouri River, its tributaries and the basin’s groundwater. Any release of oil from DAPL will poison these waters, infringe on the property rights of the tribe, and jeopardize public health on the Standing Rock Reservation. The Corps of Engineers must account for this in DAPL’s EIS.

It’s unacceptable that the USACE tapped Energy Resources Management (ERM) — a member of the American Petroleum Institute, which filed a legal brief against the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and in support of DAPL in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — to produce the draft EIS. This is a clear conflict of interest. Unsurprisingly, the result presented by ERM prioritizes the interests of the fossil fuel industry over environmental ones. That runs counter to the intent of the process.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that DAPL should not be operational without an easement for federally-controlled land, a violation of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1918. DAPL also lacks a valid permit under section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, as required to operate the pipeline in a flood control project.

It is also notable that pipeline contractors excavated and destroyed 23 burial sites along the pipeline route, near the Lake Oahe crossing. Consequently, pipeline operator Energy Transfer is not eligible for a permit or easement for DAPL under section 110(k) of the National Historic Preservation Act. Energy Transfer is not eligible for a permit or easement to cross Lake Oahe, due to the anticipatory demolition of burial sites in violation of National Historic Preservation Act, section 110(k). In the EIS, the Corps must select the alternative requiring permanent shutdown of DAPL and removal of the pipeline from underneath the Tribe’s riverbed.

A new and valid EIS would adequately assess the pipeline’s compliance with NEPA and with each of these legal parameters — and provide alternative solutions. This draft EIS does not. Therefore, I demand the U.S. government follow the law by shutting down the Dakota Access pipeline, invalidate ERM’s EIS, reinitiate the EIS process with an impartial party to oversee it, and address all concerns put forward by Standing Rock and other tribal nations affected by the Lake Oahe crossing.