The Long Resistance to the “Black Snake”: Dakota Access Pipeline Faces Ongoing Legal Challenges
The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), dubbed the “Black Snake” by activists from the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, remains a focal point of contention nearly eight years after it began operations. This 1,172-mile underground pipeline transports crude oil from the Bakken region of North Dakota to an oil terminal near Patoka, Illinois, crossing the Missouri and Mississippi rivers, and traversing land near the Standing Rock Reservation. The project sparked massive protests in 2016 and 2017, fueled by concerns over potential water contamination, the desecration of sacred sites, and a perceived lack of consultation with Indigenous communities. Whereas the pipeline continues to operate, legal battles persist, and the future of the DAPL remains uncertain as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) continues to evaluate its environmental impact.
The controversy surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline highlights a broader struggle over energy infrastructure, Indigenous rights, and environmental protection in the United States. The pipeline’s capacity to transport up to 750,000 barrels of light sweet crude oil per day makes it a significant component of the nation’s oil transportation network, carrying approximately 40 percent of the oil produced in the Bakken region. According to Wikipedia, the $3.78 billion project was initiated in June 2014, with construction commencing in June 2016. Yet, the route and the process by which it was approved became a source of intense opposition, particularly from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.
A History of Protest and Legal Challenges
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s opposition to the DAPL stemmed from the pipeline’s planned route, which crossed under the Missouri River, a vital source of drinking water for the reservation. The tribe argued that a leak could contaminate the water supply and that the pipeline would disturb sacred sites. In July 2016, the tribe, represented by Earthjustice, filed a lawsuit against the USACE, alleging violations of the Clean Water Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. The tribe sought to halt construction, but their initial efforts were unsuccessful.
As construction progressed, thousands of activists, representing over 300 tribal nations, converged on the Standing Rock Reservation to protest the pipeline. The demonstrations, which lasted for ten months between the summer of 2016 and 2017, were largely peaceful, though marked by clashes with private security and local law enforcement. Reports emerged of activists being subjected to violence, raising concerns about the treatment of protesters. The protests garnered international attention, drawing support from environmental groups like Greenpeace and organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Greenpeace actively supported the activists, even offering courses in nonviolent resistance.
During the Obama administration, the USACE temporarily halted construction in September 2016, pending further environmental assessments. However, the company, Energy Transfer Partners, continued function on sections of the pipeline. In November 2016, President Obama suggested the USACE explore alternative routes to respect Native American sacred lands. In December of the same year, the USACE denied Energy Transfer Partners a permit to cross the Missouri River (Lake Oahe) due to concerns about the impact on water rights guaranteed by treaties, announcing plans for a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and exploration of alternative routes.
The Trump Administration and Continued Operation
The situation dramatically shifted with the inauguration of Donald Trump in 2017. President Trump signed a presidential memorandum in February 2017, directing the USACE to expedite the approval of the easement for the pipeline. Within months, the DAPL became operational. Despite this, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe continued its legal battle, alleging a lack of transparency and inadequate environmental and safety controls.
In 2020, a district court ruled that the USACE had not provided adequate environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970. The court ordered the USACE to conduct a full EIS – a process typically undertaken *before* a project begins, not three years after its completion. The easement for crossing Lake Oahe, granted during the Trump administration, was revoked, but the USACE was left to decide whether to allow the pipeline to continue operating. The DAPL continued to transport oil – approximately 500,000 barrels per day – even while operating under a legally questionable status on federal lands.
Recent Developments and the Final Environmental Impact Statement
On December 19, 2025, the USACE published its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), recommending the continuation of pipeline operations with fresh safety conditions. As noted by Wikipedia, this decision followed years of legal challenges and environmental reviews. However, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe maintains that the pipeline illegally crosses Lake Oahe, their primary source of drinking water, without a valid permit and in violation of treaty rights. They also contend that the USACE is downplaying the risks of a potential spill.
The legal battle, *Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers*, remains ongoing. The tribe argues that the USACE’s assessment fails to adequately address the potential for environmental damage and the infringement of their treaty rights. The core of the dispute centers on the potential for a leak to contaminate the Missouri River, impacting the tribe’s access to clean water and threatening culturally significant sites.
Beyond the immediate concerns of water contamination, the DAPL controversy underscores the broader environmental implications of fossil fuel infrastructure. Greenpeace emphasizes that the protests at Standing Rock were fundamentally about defending the right to clean water and a healthy environment. The risk of rupture or leakage is a major concern, with the NRDC noting that the pipeline experienced at least five leaks in 2017, in addition to a small leak prior to its official operation. Energy Transfer Partners has faced criticism for its environmental record nationally.
The Pipeline and the Global Energy Landscape
The environmental impact of the DAPL extends beyond the immediate risk of spills. It is intrinsically linked to the larger issue of climate change and the global reliance on fossil fuels. Mads Christensen, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, recently commented on a decision by OPEC, stating, “As long as our world runs on fossil fuels, our security and our pockets will always be at the mercy of geopolitics.” He argued that increasing production may temporarily alleviate price pressures but does not address the underlying vulnerabilities of a fossil fuel-dependent system, calling for a shift towards renewable energy sources.
The Dakota Access Pipeline case serves as a stark reminder of the complex interplay between energy needs, environmental concerns, and Indigenous rights. The ongoing legal challenges and continued protests demonstrate the enduring resistance to projects that threaten communities and ecosystems. The future of the DAPL remains uncertain, but the case has undoubtedly raised awareness about the environmental and social costs of fossil fuel infrastructure and the importance of respecting Indigenous sovereignty.
The USACE’s decision to allow the pipeline to continue operating, even with new safety conditions, is likely to face further legal challenges. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has vowed to continue its fight, and environmental groups are expected to maintain pressure on the government to prioritize environmental protection and Indigenous rights. The next step in the legal process will likely involve further court hearings and potential appeals, as the tribe seeks to overturn the USACE’s decision and secure a permanent halt to the pipeline’s operations.
What are your thoughts on the Dakota Access Pipeline and the ongoing legal battles? Share your comments below and help us continue the conversation.
Related reading