Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps
N/A (no reporter information provided in the text) (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a federal agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) when a project's environmental effects are deemed 'highly controversial.' A project's effects are 'highly controversial' when sovereign Indian tribes or other expert entities raise substantial, unresolved scientific disputes regarding the project's environmental risks, and the agency fails to provide a convincing case that an EIS is unnecessary.
Facts:
- Dakota Access LLC sought to construct the 1,200-mile Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) to transport crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois.
- A portion of the pipeline's proposed route was designed to pass under Lake Oahe, a reservoir on the Missouri River.
- Lake Oahe is a critical source of water for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe for drinking, agriculture, industry, and sacred cultural practices.
- The pipeline crossing at Lake Oahe was planned for a location just half a mile north of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.
- To cross the federally owned land beneath Lake Oahe, Dakota Access required a real-estate easement from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
- During the Corps's environmental review, the Tribes, their hired experts, the Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency submitted comments voicing significant concerns.
- These comments identified specific alleged deficiencies in the Corps's Environmental Assessment regarding oil spill risks, including the effectiveness of DAPL's leak-detection system, the operator's poor safety record, the failure to account for harsh winter conditions, and an unrealistic worst-case discharge calculation.
- After a change in presidential administrations, the new administration directed the Corps to expedite approvals, and the Corps subsequently granted the easement to Dakota Access.
Procedural Posture:
- The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe intervened as a plaintiff, and Dakota Access LLC intervened on behalf of the Corps.
- The district court first denied the Tribes' motion for a preliminary injunction to halt construction.
- After a remand to the agency and subsequent motions, the district court granted summary judgment to the Tribes, finding the Corps violated NEPA by failing to prepare an EIS.
- The district court remanded the case to the Corps with an order to prepare a full EIS.
- In a separate remedial order, the district court vacated the pipeline's easement and ordered that the pipeline be shut down and emptied of oil.
- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Dakota Access LLC, as appellant and intervenor-appellant, appealed the district court's summary judgment ruling and remedial orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by issuing an easement for an oil pipeline based on a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) when sovereign tribes and their experts raised substantial, unresolved scientific and technical disputes about the project's environmental risks, thereby making its effects 'highly controversial'?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Tatel
Yes, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers violated NEPA by forgoing an EIS because the project's effects were 'highly controversial' due to substantial, unresolved disputes raised by the Tribes and their experts. An agency's mere attempt to address expert criticism is insufficient; it must succeed in resolving the controversy to avoid the EIS requirement. The court held that criticisms from sovereign tribes, who have stewardship responsibilities over the affected natural resources, must be treated with solicitude similar to that given to other government agencies. The Corps failed to resolve substantial disputes in four key areas: 1) the effectiveness of the pipeline's leak detection system, in light of data showing similar systems often fail to be the first to detect a leak; 2) the pipeline operator's specific, poor safety record, which the Corps improperly disregarded in favor of general industry-wide data; 3) the failure to adequately model the impacts of severe North Dakota winter conditions on spill response efforts; and 4) the use of an overly optimistic worst-case spill scenario that did not account for potential human or technical failures. Because these serious scientific controversies remained unresolved, the Corps's finding of no significant impact was unlawful, and a full EIS was required.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'highly controversial' trigger for an Environmental Impact Statement under NEPA, establishing that substantive, unresolved criticism from sovereign Indian tribes can be sufficient to mandate an EIS. The ruling elevates the role of tribes in the NEPA process, treating their expert input on par with that of specialized government agencies. It serves as a strong precedent against agencies cursorily dismissing expert critiques, requiring them to substantively resolve disputes rather than simply acknowledging them. The case reinforces that NEPA's 'hard look' doctrine applies forcefully to low-probability, high-consequence risks, preventing agencies from sidestepping rigorous analysis by claiming a catastrophe is unlikely.
