This is Bloomberg Law. I'm June Grasso. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers will be preparing a full environmental impact study of the Dakota Access Pipelines disputed crossing. The last big chunk of construction for the three point eight billion dollar pipeline is under a lake that is the war water source for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Yesterday in North Dakota, federal judge rule the Corps could proceed with the study despite a request by energy transfer partners
to stop the study. My guests are Pat Parento, professor at Vermont Law School, and Charles Warren, head of the environmental practice at Kramer Levin, nef Talas and Frankel Chuck. There has been a lot of litigation in this case.
What is the legal question in this last motion? Well, I think the legal question here is whether the Army can basically now require an environmental impact statement, you know, after it had already been reviewed by the Corps of Engineers and they indicate there were not adverse environmental impacts, and then it was reversed essentially at the Assistant Secretary of the Army level for Civil Works, and and they asked for this environmental study, and I think that's going
to be that's going to be one of the issues that they raise here, whether or not, you know, it's necessary to do that, and the delays that entailed. Chuck the pipeline was rerouted from Bismarck because of concerns about potential impacts to its water supply. So wouldn't there be
concerns about this water supply as well? Yes, I agree, I think there are concerns about the water supply, and and I think thats pat was saying that there's always the potential for these pipelines to leak in being that close to a water supply where it could be contaminated. That I think that is a serious issue. And there have been demonstrations going on for quite some time about this.
As far as the Native Americans, Yeah, this has been one of the biggest demonstrations that Native Americans have you know, put on in many years, and people came from all over the country to support them, and I think it was all of that that really caused the Army to take another look at this. Um Trump, who's transition team, has said in memos that he supports the pipeline's completion. Uh, could he seek to reverse the Army's decision last month to continue to um to continue to do the study. Yes,
he could do that. It's I mean, it's it's not It's not that easy. One safe now said all right, we think that it's warranted that we do this study. And I think that would bring a lawsuit if they
didn suddenly say no, it isn't. And uh so, but that conceivably could happen because I think that the new administration is going to going to want to proceed with this pipeline and this is just sort of the last link of it, and the issue will be, uh, it could be delayed for a long time from their standpoint if you go through with this environmental impact from the Trump administration side, would it just take the Trump administration telling the Army Corps of Engineers stopped the study or
would they have to go to court to stop it. No, they could tell the Army Corps of Engineers. I mean the Army was it really wasn't. The core was actually the Army was the assistant secretary because the Corps had originally looked at this and said, we don't think there's a serious environmental impact here and but it went up to the Assistant Secretary of the Army, and it is the decision that ultimately rest with the Secretary of the Army, and they could then say we've changed our mind. We're
going along with the corps original recommendation. So they could just do that at an administrative level, then we wouldn't have to go for it. Ultimately, Will the pipeline be completed in your opinion? I think it will be. Yes. I mean it may they may have to move. They may have to move this last segment, but I think, uh, there's places that they can move it. But but it's they've built so much of it. I think it'd be
unlikely that it's not completed. And if the Trump administration tries to move forward with it in this particular place, Um, what who can sue? Is it the Indian tribes that can sue? Are there other people that can sue? Yeah? I think the Indian tribes, and then there are others probably who have joined with them to the extent that they have standing to sue. They probably could, but I think there'll be a number of lawsuits to say, hey, the judgment was made that we hadn't taken a complete
look at this and we need to do more. And now you just can't turn around on a dime with no basis, and you know, change your change your position. North Dakota as U S. Senators Democrat Heidi height Camp and Republican John Hoven said they think the federal government is changing the rules in the middle of the process and that the studies shouldn't be approved. So it seems like, you know, both sides have representatives in in their in their corner. And how long could this legal battle go on? Well,
I think he could go on for a while. And I mean the court has basically said at one level already that they think the the Army is justified in doing this study. So you have one judge on the record saying that that could be appealed certainly, and the
Palate Court could change its mind. But let's assume that the Trump administration comes in and they decide to change then I think that will be subject to suit, and the issue will be whether a court will hold up the completion of the pipeline while these suits are going forward. That that will be the main the issue at that point, Chuck, there are lots of suits around this pipeline, aren't there from people who are claiming that they they weren't paid
the right amount for easements. And there's a lot of court activity over this. Yeah, but that's the you know that that's the general. Those kinds of condemnation lawsuits and those can those don't really slow anything up. I mean that happens all the time when government's UH sees UH property and they have to pay fair compensation, and there's always suits about what fair compensation. But that doesn't necessarily hold up any projects. Is there um a lot of
a lot of political tension on this issue? Still? Yes, Yes, I think you I think you have as you said, I mean you have the United States senators from the state, you have state officials, you have the company obviously, and uh you know are at the last phase of this pipeline. I mean, they've built many miles of this pipeline and that's and that's the one side. And on the other side there's the Indians and all the people that support them and all the environmental groups and say, listen, you
can't put a water source in danger. By the possibilities you could have a break here when there's easy alternatives, what are the easy alternatives? Just another route. Yeah, just for this leg, just to move this leg. I mean, I don't think I'm actually surprised frankly that they haven't come up with a solution like that. I would have thought that the company, because it's not that hard to
move it. There are places not that close by that don't impact the water source, and I think they could have moved it, but they felt I think that they were so far along they want to just push it through and work. No, not much pushing it through. And it's it's certainly you know, the visuals and um, the audio from this is really something when you see all the protests that have been happening and continue to happen. Coming up, we're going to be talking about another environmental issue.
States argue to a federal appeals court for more say over the release of endangered species in their borders as Republicans target the landmark Endangered Species Act for rollbacks. We're talking to Chuck Warren, who is the head of the environmental practice at Kramer Levin. I'm June Grosso. This is Bloomberg