Dakota Access Pipeline: The Ethics
Dakota Access Pipeline: The Ethics Taylar CianfaranoProfessor AndrianoSB 609: EthicsSeptember 25th, 2018Introduction The Dakota Access Pipeline is a good way to discuss a debate on issues regarding ethical dilemmas. A few reasons an ethical dilemma occurs is when the pipeline is transporting oil from the Bakken Oil fields in North Dakota, Montana and as well as across the plains of Illinois. More so, the Native American Tribes led by the Standing Rock Sioux decided to protest against the project due to the pipeline intruding on the Native Americans Land and threatening their only sources of water. The pipeline would unfairly hurt the tribe due to unlikely benefiting from the economic developments associated within the project. The company behind the pipeline, Energy Transfer Partners presented that the pipeline would lead to increase safety and economic development compared to the trains that were currently in use to transport crude oil. The pipeline project focused on reducing the dangers associated with the transportation of crude oil using trains. The native American tribe was then concerned with environmental issues as blocking the pipeline would preserve the water of the River Missouri that is used downstream. This issue can be ethically resolved in many ways by determining what’s morally right in a given situation.
Ethical Responses The land belonging to the Standing Rock Sioux tribe is located in North Dakota, south of the city of Bismarck. Looking back at the case, initially the pipeline was supposed to pass across the Missouri River but due to threats to the local water supply and avoidance in the crossing of local homes, the route was then changed to go through the Sioux Tribe. This is a result of an ethical violation due to the tribe rightfully owning the land through the Treaty of Fort Laramie. In the case, the supreme court in 1980 had ruled that the land would be returned to the community but the Sioux Tribe refused the payment but continued to retain the land. So in general, the Sioux Tribe has the legal claim over the land and where the pipeline is supposed to pass. The Sioux tribe has faced lack of fairness due to the Oahe dam. When it was built it had suffered damaging floods as a result. The Sioux tribe insisted the pipeline had damaged their sacred sites. As a result, the Sioux tribe stood by their statement that they were not involved when the construction was started. The tribe only received notifications and plans at the end of the process. The Sioux tribe begun to seek help by having a legal team represent them. The legal team began collecting evidence that the Dakota Access Pipeline had constructed on the land the tribe has owned. Due to this the Obama Administration immediately halted the project. An environmental impact assessment study was conducted and in January 2017, the federal court ruled in favor of the wishes of the project stakeholders. Due to this study, the ethical dilemma of this ruling was that the people of Missouri would be affected because millions of individuals rely on it for drinking water daily. So, in conclusion the protesters of the Sioux people will not only benefit them alone but the protection of the Missouri people who rely solely on the Missouri River.