Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law. I'm June Grasso. The U. S.
Speaker 1: Army Corps of Engineers will be preparing a full environmental
Speaker 1: impact study of the Dakota Access Pipelines disputed crossing. The
Speaker 1: last big chunk of construction for the three point eight
Speaker 1: billion dollar pipeline is under a lake that is the
Speaker 1: war water source for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Yesterday
Speaker 1: in North Dakota, federal judge rule the Corps could proceed
Speaker 1: with the study despite a request by energy transfer partners
Speaker 1: to stop the study. My guests are Pat Parento, professor
Speaker 1: at Vermont Law School, and Charles Warren, head of the
Speaker 1: environmental practice at Kramer Levin, nef Talas and Frankel Chuck.
Speaker 1: There has been a lot of litigation in this case.
Speaker 1: What is the legal question in this last motion? Well,
Speaker 1: I think the legal question here is whether the Army
Speaker 1: can basically now require an environmental impact statement, you know,
Speaker 1: after it had already been reviewed by the Corps of
Speaker 1: Engineers and they indicate there were not adverse environmental impacts,
Speaker 1: and then it was reversed essentially at the Assistant Secretary
Speaker 1: of the Army level for Civil Works, and and they
Speaker 1: asked for this environmental study, and I think that's going
Speaker 1: to be that's going to be one of the issues
Speaker 1: that they raise here, whether or not, you know, it's
Speaker 1: necessary to do that, and the delays that entailed. Chuck
Speaker 1: the pipeline was rerouted from Bismarck because of concerns about
Speaker 1: potential impacts to its water supply. So wouldn't there be
Speaker 1: concerns about this water supply as well? Yes, I agree,
Speaker 1: I think there are concerns about the water supply, and
Speaker 1: and I think thats pat was saying that there's always
Speaker 1: the potential for these pipelines to leak in being that
Speaker 1: close to a water supply where it could be contaminated.
Speaker 1: That I think that is a serious issue. And there
Speaker 1: have been demonstrations going on for quite some time about this.
Speaker 1: As far as the Native Americans, Yeah, this has been
Speaker 1: one of the biggest demonstrations that Native Americans have you know,
Speaker 1: put on in many years, and people came from all
Speaker 1: over the country to support them, and I think it
Speaker 1: was all of that that really caused the Army to
Speaker 1: take another look at this. Um Trump, who's transition team,
Speaker 1: has said in memos that he supports the pipeline's completion. Uh,
Speaker 1: could he seek to reverse the Army's decision last month
Speaker 1: to continue to um to continue to do the study. Yes,
Speaker 1: he could do that. It's I mean, it's it's not
Speaker 1: It's not that easy. One safe now said all right,
Speaker 1: we think that it's warranted that we do this study.
Speaker 1: And I think that would bring a lawsuit if they
Speaker 1: didn suddenly say no, it isn't. And uh so, but
Speaker 1: that conceivably could happen because I think that the new
Speaker 1: administration is going to going to want to proceed with
Speaker 1: this pipeline and this is just sort of the last
Speaker 1: link of it, and the issue will be, uh, it
Speaker 1: could be delayed for a long time from their standpoint
Speaker 1: if you go through with this environmental impact from the
Speaker 1: Trump administration side, would it just take the Trump administration
Speaker 1: telling the Army Corps of Engineers stopped the study or
Speaker 1: would they have to go to court to stop it. No,
Speaker 1: they could tell the Army Corps of Engineers. I mean
Speaker 1: the Army was it really wasn't. The core was actually
Speaker 1: the Army was the assistant secretary because the Corps had
Speaker 1: originally looked at this and said, we don't think there's
Speaker 1: a serious environmental impact here and but it went up
Speaker 1: to the Assistant Secretary of the Army, and it is
Speaker 1: the decision that ultimately rest with the Secretary of the Army,
Speaker 1: and they could then say we've changed our mind. We're
Speaker 1: going along with the corps original recommendation. So they could
Speaker 1: just do that at an administrative level, then we wouldn't
Speaker 1: have to go for it. Ultimately, Will the pipeline be
Speaker 1: completed in your opinion? I think it will be. Yes.
Speaker 1: I mean it may they may have to move. They
Speaker 1: may have to move this last segment, but I think, uh,
Speaker 1: there's places that they can move it. But but it's
Speaker 1: they've built so much of it. I think it'd be
Speaker 1: unlikely that it's not completed. And if the Trump administration
Speaker 1: tries to move forward with it in this particular place, Um,
Speaker 1: what who can sue? Is it the Indian tribes that
Speaker 1: can sue? Are there other people that can sue? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I think the Indian tribes, and then there are others
Speaker 1: probably who have joined with them to the extent that
Speaker 1: they have standing to sue. They probably could, but I
Speaker 1: think there'll be a number of lawsuits to say, hey,
Speaker 1: the judgment was made that we hadn't taken a complete
Speaker 1: look at this and we need to do more. And
Speaker 1: now you just can't turn around on a dime with
Speaker 1: no basis, and you know, change your change your position.
Speaker 1: North Dakota as U S. Senators Democrat Heidi height Camp
Speaker 1: and Republican John Hoven said they think the federal government
Speaker 1: is changing the rules in the middle of the process
Speaker 1: and that the studies shouldn't be approved. So it seems like,
Speaker 1: you know, both sides have representatives in in their in
Speaker 1: their corner. And how long could this legal battle go on? Well,
Speaker 1: I think he could go on for a while. And
Speaker 1: I mean the court has basically said at one level
Speaker 1: already that they think the the Army is justified in
Speaker 1: doing this study. So you have one judge on the
Speaker 1: record saying that that could be appealed certainly, and the
Speaker 1: Palate Court could change its mind. But let's assume that
Speaker 1: the Trump administration comes in and they decide to change
Speaker 1: then I think that will be subject to suit, and
Speaker 1: the issue will be whether a court will hold up
Speaker 1: the completion of the pipeline while these suits are going forward.
Speaker 1: That that will be the main the issue at that point, Chuck,
Speaker 1: there are lots of suits around this pipeline, aren't there
Speaker 1: from people who are claiming that they they weren't paid
Speaker 1: the right amount for easements. And there's a lot of
Speaker 1: court activity over this. Yeah, but that's the you know
Speaker 1: that that's the general. Those kinds of condemnation lawsuits and
Speaker 1: those can those don't really slow anything up. I mean
Speaker 1: that happens all the time when government's UH sees UH
Speaker 1: property and they have to pay fair compensation, and there's
Speaker 1: always suits about what fair compensation. But that doesn't necessarily
Speaker 1: hold up any projects. Is there um a lot of
Speaker 1: a lot of political tension on this issue? Still? Yes, Yes,
Speaker 1: I think you I think you have as you said,
Speaker 1: I mean you have the United States senators from the state,
Speaker 1: you have state officials, you have the company obviously, and
Speaker 1: uh you know are at the last phase of this pipeline.
Speaker 1: I mean, they've built many miles of this pipeline and
Speaker 1: that's and that's the one side. And on the other
Speaker 1: side there's the Indians and all the people that support
Speaker 1: them and all the environmental groups and say, listen, you
Speaker 1: can't put a water source in danger. By the possibilities
Speaker 1: you could have a break here when there's easy alternatives,
Speaker 1: what are the easy alternatives? Just another route. Yeah, just
Speaker 1: for this leg, just to move this leg. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't think I'm actually surprised frankly that they haven't
Speaker 1: come up with a solution like that. I would have
Speaker 1: thought that the company, because it's not that hard to
Speaker 1: move it. There are places not that close by that
Speaker 1: don't impact the water source, and I think they could
Speaker 1: have moved it, but they felt I think that they
Speaker 1: were so far along they want to just push it
Speaker 1: through and work. No, not much pushing it through. And
Speaker 1: it's it's certainly you know, the visuals and um, the
Speaker 1: audio from this is really something when you see all
Speaker 1: the protests that have been happening and continue to happen.
Speaker 1: Coming up, we're going to be talking about another environmental issue.
Speaker 1: States argue to a federal appeals court for more say
Speaker 1: over the release of endangered species in their borders as
Speaker 1: Republicans target the landmark Endangered Species Act for rollbacks. We're
Speaker 1: talking to Chuck Warren, who is the head of the
Speaker 1: environmental practice at Kramer Levin. I'm June Grosso. This is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg