DAPL

[cpete00]

Can somebody explain to me how this corporation is able to own land in ND? I don't remember any approval process being started. Or is that law just obsolete now and PF and DU can start buying all the land they want now.

 

[Marbleyes]

"The anti-corporate farming law allows corporations to own land necessary for residential, commercial or industrial development." I'm sure DAPL is saying the purchase falls under industrial development. No DU and PF can't because the anti corporation law doesn't allow corporate ownership for conservation. That's for the states attorney to figure out. That's my understanding anyway.

 

[Allen]

Marbleyes is correct. DAPL has already been called to justify their purchase. Their position is one of they bought it for providing safety and space during construction, after which the excess lands are to be sold.

 

[svnmag]

So we should organize a protest? This sucks.

 

[Mort]

What affect is this having on the casino??? I hope its losing its ass, those titty sprinkles injuns better wake up, cuz there rez checks are just about to get smaller....

 

[dean nelson]

It's cost the casino around a million so far according of the head guy there. DAPL listed reason for buying the land I'm betting is just enough for the AG to set the case in the corner to collect ust as he "works" on it similar to what obama has the Corp doing nothing on they're side of things. DAPL has stated they may donate the land but for what is the question. it would make a nice WMA or state Park and we could definitely use another camping spot on the lake.

 

[pluckem]

What affect is this having on the casino??? I hope its losing its ass, those titty sprinkles injuns better wake up, cuz there rez checks are just about to get smaller....

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/sta...cle_8a5b15c4-e8f8-572d-b3a7-661583027b51.html

I thought this was a decent article because it actually includes some facts and numbers and it mentions the lost revenue to the Casino.

It also shows some members of the tribe are thinking things through.

Between the reports of internal clashes, published quotes from the action yesterday, and the information mentioned in the article linked above, I think its more and more obvious to see there is a divide in the protestors between the ones that want to protest legally and the ones who just want an excuse to act dumb.

Many out of state people can come and go when they want and don't have any care about what happens when they decide they have had enough fun. They will leave and don't have to think about any bills that will have to be paid or worry about the lost revenue of the casino, or the burned bridges with the neighboring communities.

 

[eyexer]

The state won't pursue the corporate farming law against these guys. Pockets are too deep and they will get too much outside funding to fight it.

 

[cpete00]

Thanks for the answers guys. I figured somebody here would be in the know. I've been asking around for the last week or so with no success.

 

[gst]

For the record DU and other nonprofits CAN own lands for conservation purposes here in ND. There is simply a process they must follow and requirements of land usage that must be met. (some what like zoning laws within a city)

In the past, they and others have thumbed their nose at these stipulations and as such the governor has denied purchases and courts have ruled they must divest from their holdings.

Over the years the majority of conservation purchases by nonprofits going thru the Natural Areas Aquisition Committee process have been approved I believe.

 

[dean nelson]

The corporate farming law is likely going out the window soon enough. similar laws is other states have been challenged and brought down on a consistent basis over the last few years.

 

[Obi-Wan]

I hope I am wrong but I think they are going to donate it to the standing rock reservation as a piece offering

 

[gst]

The corporate farming law is likely going out the window soon enough. similar laws is other states have been challenged and brought down on a consistent basis over the last few years.

NDFB has challenged this law in court. It is not so cut and dried as that. The court can look at segments of the law and rule separately or it can rule on the entire law. Simply because this law or a portion of it may be over turned, does not mean a door will be n wide open, the likely hood of legislation following is pretty high.

 

[dean nelson]

It's pretty much the whole law being brought up in this one. the AG tried that trick of arguing the suit was too broad and needed to be made more precise but the judge shot him down. these laws are generally doomed when they get to court since tend to infringe on a number of constitutionally protected rights.

 

[gst]

Curious if you have some insight into the case brought forth by NDFB.

 

[Sum1]

I hope I am wrong but I think they are going to donate it to the standing rock reservation as a piece offering

Geez, I hope your wrong. Cause that would be awfully dumb on thier part after all this mess.

 

[shorthairsrus]

If donated the thing will be vandalized and oil will be in water. If I was an investor which I probably am wo knowing I say move north of Bismarck And fu to the protestors

- - - Updated - - -

So we should organize a protest? This sucks.

Svn. I am in this one is for law enforcement and the American worker and consumer. When

 

[dean nelson]

They can't move it there the Corp shot that down instantly. The Corp is all about risk management and placing the line just north of multiple water intakes that serve over a 100,000 people and thousands of businesses is to risky compared to where it's at 72 miles north of the nearest intake. The only spot where I'm truly opposed to it being would be between Bismarck and Fort rice due to the large marsh in the headwaters of oahe that has become hugely important to the status of the fishery during the smelt and shad die offs.

 

[KDM]

Not a big fan of this whole hullabaloo, but I have a question: If the pipeline is so safe and secure and bulletproof, why would the COE need to be concerned about RISK?? If all the claims about this pipeline being so environmentally sound are true, they should be able to put it anywhere, correct?? If there is a RISK, as the COE has indicated, by not wanting the line too close to water intakes, then maybe the folks doing all the hollering have a valid concern.

 

[Account Deleted]

They still have to minimize risk. Such as choosing a route that affects 100,000 people less. They cover this in the NEPA document. Not to mention if it were moved north of Bismarck, which was never viable, never truly considered and was never objected to by the citizens of Bismarck, they would still be downstream. Also, SRTs water intake is being shut down as scheduled and will now be pumped from FT Yates, 70 miles downstream. Their case is paper thin to nonexistent.