THE IMPACT of Technology on Therapy

The conflict over the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) and the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR) in Oregon is best explained by the interest group model. In the United States, development initiatives are not just a subject of governance but also a matter of public concern. The US has undertaken countless projects and infrastructural developments since the dawn of industrialization and civilization in an effort to flourish America and its people. However, every national scheme touches on the interests of several groups mainly politicians, legislatures, businesspeople, landowners, banks, investment companies and the citizens. DAPL is an example of the many projects that draw mixed reactions from various agencies and interest groups. Also, the seizure of MNWR brought about protests and opposing views from different sections. In both cases, multiple interests groups front a specific agenda through attempts to influence policies and processes surrounding the issue. This study analyzes how interest groups influenced the politics surrounding the construction of DAPL and the MNWR occupation. For DAPL, the paper will look at various arising issues such as the environmental problem, the political aspect, principal actors, the involved laws, processes, policies, and institutions as well as the results of the actions taken. Further, the paper will examine the interested parties and determined who lost and gained during the various deliberations. This study will also explain the protest surrounding MNWR using the interest group theory.

DAPL Environmental Issue

DAPL is 1,172 miles long and stretches from North Dakota at the Western Bakken/Three Forks production area to Patoka in Illinois. The pipeline was constructed to move domestically produced crude oil from North Dakota to major Eastern refining markets in an environmentally responsible way that also reduces cost and is safer than the traditional methods of rail or truck transportation. Introduction of DAPL was in December 2014 by Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners to the federal government. As commercial service began on June 1, 2017, the pipeline could move 470,000 barrels daily. Soon, DAPL will transport 570,000 barrels of crude oil every day ("Dakota Access Pipeline," 2017). The pipeline passes through North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois. Although there were regulatory agencies in each of the four states and over 1000 permits that approved construction, many believed that the authorities were not sufficient in analyzing the overall impact of the pipeline (Ratcliff, 2016). Opponents of the pipeline stated that there is significant historical evidence to believe that the pipeline could rupture and spill oil onto the land and within the water supply. Incidentally, in March 2017, the pipeline and a feeder line leaked more than 100 gallons of oil in North Dakota and approximately another 84 gallons of oil in South Dakota on April 4 (Bismarck, 2014). According to Dr. Hinzo of the University of Denver Interdisciplinary Research Institute, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) had a history of destroying native lands and water resources when pursuing big projects (Ratcliff, 2016). The following are aspects of DAPL project related to the environment.

Tribal Sovereignty

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe was the primary stumbling block against the progress of the project regarding environmental problems. The tribe resides within the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, which is the residence of indigenous Dakota and Lakota people in central North and South Dakota. Lake Oahe is the primary water source for the tribe (Bismarck, 2014). On July 25, 2016, USACE authorized the Dakota Access Pipeline to cross Lake Oahe in its 1,173-mile journey. As a federal agency, USACE, also known as Corps, has the statutory responsibility of analyzing the harm caused by DAPL to the environment. However, the tribe claimed that the Corps circumvented several statutory provisions which require the agency to stop the progress of DAPL due to the widespread pollution on natural and cultural sites. The tribe presented several environmental concerns on why the projects should be halted and the need for further deliberations. First, as Dr. Hinzo intimated, the tribe’s water reservoir and cultural land would be polluted by the passage of oil and more damage occur if a leakage prevailed (Ratcliff, 2016). Secondly, while the proponents of DAPL see the project as an initiative for creating jobs for most Americans, the Rock Sioux tribe were, and still are of the view that the preservation of natural resources should trump human pursuits of economic development at the expense of the environment. Thirdly, Dr. Hinzo confirmed the fears of the tribe that DAPL would erode hundreds of years of culture by destroying the tribe’s burial sites that should remain sacred. Even after protests and airing of the above concerns, the Corps still went ahead with preliminary preparations for the project without due regard for the various statutes of law on environmental preservation. Evidently, two interest groups, the Rock Sioux tribe and the Corps, were out to have their demands fulfilled. While the tribe sought to remain sovereign and protect cultural and natural sites, the Corps was keen on ensuring the contractors and all other stakeholders of DAPL project would have land to carry on with the project. Such is the essence of interest group conflicts.

Environmental Activism

The backlash on DAPL has resulted in numerous protests and demonstrations that brought together the largest group of Native Americans together in more than 100 years (Ratcliff, 2016). While the Rock Sioux tribe was the leading voice of anti-DAPL, environmental activists and water resource protectors like Dr. Hinzo were the support for the community whose views were fizzled out by the might and power of the state. The attempted silencing of the environmental activists further shows the power of interest groups. When one party to the issue at hand has more power than the other, they result in using force when deliberations do not work. For instance, after several relentless protests by United Native Americans against DAPL, police used tear gas, water cannons, and rubber bullets to diverge the crowds ("Conflict Dimensions," 2017). The intensity of environmental activism by the Rock Sioux tribe led to more interest groups who identified with the concerns of the native community. In fact, the protest became synonymous with global struggles such that activists used slogans like “the world is watching.” More groups including celebrities like Neil Young and Shailene Woodley lobbied behind the Native Americans in support of preserving the environment ("Conflict Dimensions," 2017).

Misinformation and Over Exaggeration

The media has for long being accused of deliberately misinforming the public or misrepresenting facts, which was no different in the DAPL fiasco. First, the mainstream media did not give much airtime to the issue since there were few reports about the protests and the litigations surrounding the permits. Secondly, even when reporting, the media misinterpreted facts. For instance, instead of seeing the Native American’s protests as championship towards environmental preservation, some media outlets reported that the Rock Sioux group carried out “anti-energy protests.” ("Conflict Dimensions", 2017). Thirdly, only the online platforms were reliable in relaying information as the media only focused on reports where protests turned chaotic and even failed to report the oil spillage in North Dakota. Interest group dynamics are responsible for the media’s bias. Most of the media owners of the leading media houses have interest in the energy sector. Therefore, corporate media houses such as MSNBC, Wall Street Journal, ABC, NBC and Fox News supported DAPL indirectly by creating a media black-out on the environmental concerns of the tribe ("Conflict Dimensions," 2017). The media defied journalism ethics to protect its financial interest, a popular aspect of interest group theory.

It is evident that every interest group seeks to branch out, expand and dig into the issues of concern to gain more traction. The DAPL conflict can also be explained via the conflict model of Sarah Pralle, where people build alliances based on similar interests to create a competitive advantage towards the achievement of a goal (Pralle, 2007).

Political Challenge Related to the Environmental Issue

The politics surrounding DAPL have two perspectives depending on whether one supports or opposes the project. For the supporters of DAPL such as North Dakota governor Doug Burgum, DAPL is a vital infrastructure that can ease transport of oil to the market, but selfish interests groups politically motivate the continued environmental challenges such as protests. The governor thinks there are extremist groups who continue to use the demonstrations to cause disruptions and curtail progress ("Dakota Access Pipeline Facts," 2017). The main challenge for those who oppose DAPL is the political mobilization of the entire working class to resist a capitalist system that disregards the will of the society. Furthermore, during construction, there were divisions among the Native Americans because some had secured business opportunities through tenders and contracts from the project (Martin, 2016). Economic development, energy infrastructure, and environmental concerns were the main political issues related to the ecological problem.

Economic Development

Economic development through faster transportation of oil from North Dakota and Montana to the Eastern market was one of the reasons for constructing DAPL (Hoeven, 2016). Thus, fostering economic development was the motivation of all the interests groups in support of DAPL. However, this study submits that it is possible that while economic growth would be the visible result of the success of the project, financial gains was the principal motivation of the various interested parties. One of the aspects of interest group theory is a lack of honesty for taking specific actions. Supporters of DAPL said the project would create jobs for many youths in all the areas the pipeline would pass and lead to economic development. However, the big challenge for the DAPL supporters was to explain how taking land and changing the natural landscape from the Rock Sioux tribe, and other regions was a way of developing them economically. The land is the primary factor of production, and the people would have little economic power even after compensation. On the other hand, supporters of DAPL saw opposition as a way of denying those willing to trade their land for the project their economic right to transact. Furthermore, DAPL supporters argued that the needs of the people who needed oil outweighed the concerns of one or few communities ("Dakota Access Pipeline Factsvital 2017).

Energy Infrastructure

As oil supplies increase in demand, the U.S. wants to expand its capabilities to reduce their foreign dependence on imports. Data from the US Energy Information Administration indicates that the US imported 10.1 million barrels of oil per day from 70 different countries in the OPEC region and the Persian Gulf countries in 2016. In comparison, the US only exported 5.2 million barrels to 101 nations ("How Much Petroleum does the US Import and Export?" 2017). Therefore, the net trade shows more imports than exports, and dependence on foreign oil for consumption. Further research indicates that the US can be independent since the Northern oil producing bloc can rival the OPEC countries and exceed production. However, the energy infrastructure in the US is behind and thus the need for DAPL that would abolish the use of rail to transport oil. For a long time, oil exportation in the US was illegal except for exports bound for Canada. The new infrastructure leads to more oil production that is more than enough for consumption in the US. Business people in the energy sector have to look for markets for the excess production. Evidence shows that as of 2017, the US encouraged more exports with China being the leading buyer of crude oil from the US at 300000 barrels every day (Tolan, 2017). The following graph from the US Department of Energy shows the gradual decrease of the country’s dependence on foreign oil since 2005 and the rapid decline since the Obama administration. New infrastructure such as DAPL will reduce the imports further (Tolan, 2017).



Figure 1: The decline of US Dependence on Foreign Oil





Environmental Concerns

The environmental concerns surrounding DAPL are emblematic of the more significant problem of climate change. Scientists have voiced concerns over the feasibility of DAPL given it is a cause of global warming and harm to the environment. However, people with vested interests in DAPL are skeptical of climate change with some like President Trump insisting that climate change is a “Chinese hoax” ("Conflict Dimensions," 2017). After disagreements on various issues of environmental concern, the Rock Sioux tribe sought judicial redress where the balance between economic progress and the interests of the people would be decided. For instance, the Corps agreed to have representatives from the tribe during the survey processes (Hoeven, 2016). Also, during the deliberations, Army Corps Colonel Henderson agreed to a double-walled piping to ensure environmental safety. After corps conducted consultations with the tribe in good faith, the company building DAPL addressed most of the concerns related to oil spillage. The Corps then took an action plan that employed technology such as monitoring systems, shutoff valves to avoid rapture and other safety features to prevent damages (Hoeven, 2016). The safety procedures assured the tribe of immediate response to any cases of pipe bursting. For instance, the pipeline is 100 feet underneath the river. If the pipeline leaked, and it did, it would have to travel upwards, through bedrock, to be able to infiltrate and contaminate the water supply (Hoeven, 2016).

Key Actors Opposing DAPL

The rise of anti-DAPL voices and campaigns led to the merger of many groups, organizations, networks, celebrities, and leaders. The most vocal actors for preserving the environment formed an archive called NoDAPL that sought to protect water and other resources in Rock Sioux. The most dedicated environmental activists were Amnesty International, Earth Guardians, Indigenous Environmental Network, International Rivers and Indigenous Rising. While the mentioned groups primarily focused on protecting the water resources and the land, other organizations such as Native Renewables, Our Children’s Trust and Honor the Earth carried out awareness campaigns to mobilize and educate the public about the effects of DAPL ("NoDAPL Archive," 2017). Still, residents in Iowa, Illinois, South and North Dakota joined the protests through demonstration and civil protests. Community leaders sought media attention from the few corporate media houses such as Democracy Now and The Bismarck Tribune that supported anti-DAPL demonstration and were willing to air the grievances of the protestors ("Conflict Dimensions," 2017).

Key Actors Supporting DAPL

Energy Transfer Partners (ETP) is one of the most vocal supporters of the DAPL project since inception. ETP collaborated with other companies like MarEn Bakken Company LLC and Phillips 66 Partners who had 36.75 % and 25 % interest in DAPL. ETP was the most dedicated interested party with a 38.25 % stake in the project ("Bakken," 2017). This study submits that the main investment of ETP into DAPL was political. For instance, CEO Kelcy Warren was a staunch supporter of President Trump in the run-up to the 2016 elections and also donated to the GOP, Trump’s campaign, inauguration and Trump's Victory Fund. Interestingly, even as President Trump denied having personal interests in DAPL, he supported ETP by pushing for the completion of the project by deliberately ignoring protests against DAPL ("Conflict Dimensions," 2017). ETP was so invested in the project financially and strategically that they sought legal redress for any developments that seemed to delay the project. For example, after Corps launched a 2-year study for the environmental concerns of the tribe, ETP went to court to block the study (Bismarck, 2014). Furthermore, ETP carried out strategic management of the project to smoothen the process of implementation. For example, the company hired TigerSwan, a security group, to use military tactics to quell aggression from protestors (Scott, 2017). The security group considered protestors to be insurgents as a way to justify the use of force in quelling the protests. ETP his most of its financial investments through mergers. For instance, in collaboration with three other companies, ETP invested £393,000 on behalf of the London Pension Fund Authority ("Conflict Dimensions," 2017).

The collaboration of numerous banks provided the financial power for the implementation of DAPL project. ETP received $800 million from Barclays, HSBC and the Royal Bank of Scotland to boost their investment. Individually, Barclays channeled $151.6 million into the project while HSBC invested $229.9 million. The International Commercial Bank of China lent a $120 million loan for the DAPL project ("Conflict Dimensions," 2017). Energy Transmission Allies pledged money from 26 banks because the company wanted to increase its oil and gas infrastructure assets. Sunoco Logistics had commitments from 24 banks amounting to $2.5 billion while the Energy Transfer Equity pledged $1.5 billion in credit from international banks.

The US government, especially under President Trump, invested heavily in DAPL. The government provided more than just financial backing for the project by swiftly resolving cases seeking to stop the project. For example, President Trump dismantled laws relating to environmental protection and regulations and cut the funding of the Environmental Protection Agency. Still, the president had been vocal when expressing doubt for scientific studies on climate change and the effects of DAPL on the environment ("Conflict Dimensions," 2017).

The figure below is from Rainforest Action Network, and it shows the banks that invested in DAPL and continue to support the project as of March 24, 2017. Some banks have since divested their investments, recalled their pledges and sold their assets.

Bank

   Country

   Amount

   Bank of America

   United States

   $67,470,600

   Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ

   Japan

   $67,470,600

  Bank of Nova Scotia

   Canada

   $67,470,600

   Barclays

   United Kingdom

   $67,470,600

   BNP Paribas

   France

   $40,000,000

   Calyon Securities (Crédit Agricole)

   France

   $65,500,000

  CIBC

   Canada

   $40,000,000

   Citibank

   United States

   $67,470,600

   Compass Bank (BBVA)

   Spain

   $65,500,000

   Credit Suisse

   Switzerland

   $67,470,600

   Deutsche Bank

   Germany

   $67,470,600

   Fifth Third Bank

   United States

   $67,470,600

   Goldman Sachs

   United States

   $67,470,600

   HSBC

   United Kingdom

   $30,000,000

   JPMorgan Chase

   United States

   $67,470,600

   Mizuho

   Japan

   $67,470,600

   Morgan Stanley

   United States

   $67,470,600

   Natixis

   France

   $67,470,600

   PNC

   United States

   $40,000,000

   Royal Bank of Canada

   Canada

   $67,470,600

   SMBC

   Japan

   $67,470,600

   Suntrust

   United States

   $40,000,000

   Toronto Dominion (TD) Bank

   Canada

   $67,470,600

   UBS

   Switzerland

   $67,470,600

   Wells Fargo

   United States

   $32,000,000



Figure 2: List of Banks Supporting DAPL as of March 2017.

Key Policies, Laws, Institutions or Processes Involved

Various legal and ethical issues subjected the preliminary plans of DAPL to the justice system as involved parties sought judicial interpretation concerning controversial issues. This section discusses the public hearings and the various policies, statutes of law, institutions, and processes involved.

Public Hearings

The tribe registered a lawsuit against the Corps in the District of Columbia asking the court to withdraw the pipeline approval and enforce the rights and interest of the affected communities. The tribe argued that Corps contravened several statutory provisions discussed below when awarding permits and approving the project. Ultimately, the court did not grant the prayers of the tribe because according to presiding Judge Boasberg, “The tribe largely refused to engage in consultations, and chose to hold out for more, namely the chance to conduct its cultural surveys over the entire length of the pipeline” (Hoeven, 2016). The other minor public hearings occurred in consultative meetings between the tribe and representatives from the government and company in charge. The trials focused on issues that did not require litigation in Iowa, Illinois and other states where the pipeline passes.

Clean Water Act

DAPL route was half a mile upstream of the tribe’s reservation and passed under the Missouri River. Thus, according to the Clean Water Act, ETP and allied contractors of the project required a federal permit for any construction project of DAPL’s magnitude that impacts rivers regulated by federal agencies (Ratcliff, 2016).

National Historic Preservation Act

This act protects areas of great cultural significance, which include ancestral burial sites. It is also under this law that reserved ancient land and monuments must be revered and respected. For example, the Yankton Sioux tribe filed a lawsuit in the US District of Columbia seeking to stop the construction of DAPL because it affected the tribe’s reserve just North of Missouri River (Ratcliff, 2016).

National Environmental Policy Act

This act protects and enhances the environment. Under this provision, Corps should have assessed the environmental impact of DAPL before issuing permits and allowing construction to begin (Ratcliff, 2016).

USACE Responsibilities

USACE is a federal agency that evaluates and issues permits for pipelines that cross water reservoirs under Sections 10 and 14 of Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ("Dakota Access Pipeline," 2017). USACE had jurisdiction over only 37 miles of the 1168 miles of the entire length of the pipeline. However, USACE needed to review 202 water crossings contained in the 37 miles stretch of the pipeline, and each review was a single project. During the entire process of reviewing, approving and issuing permits, USACE followed Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act discussed above to meet its obligations diligently. Essentially, USACE facilitated individual Tribal site surveys; conducted surveys in cultural areas under USACE jurisdictional and regularly held consultations with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). Furthermore, USACE collaborated with offices of historic tribal preservation and state historic preservation as well as other selected tribal spokespeople. Currently, USACE supports economic development by putting in place measures that minimize adverse effects of DAPL on the environment. The agency also authorizes objectives for which the Missouri River Reservoirs operates. USACE seeks to continue applying the EO 13604 to support energy development in an environmentally sound manner ("Dakota Access Pipeline," 2017).

Ultimately all the litigation, protests, demonstrations and environmental activism did not stop the construction of DAPL. The rulings of the hearings of the tribe versus the Army Corps in the federal court were a big blow to protestors and a benefit to ETP, investment banks, the government and the nation. APL was inevitably built, fulfilling the desires of the company and banks invested in the project. The state also won, due to decreased dependency on foreign oil. Standing Rock and environmentalists have to sit idly by as the extraction of natural resources to further economic growth is the central focus of the country. The interest group model is evident in the outcome of the entire fiasco. The parties that have the power, the government, banks, investors, merged to crash the competition by all means possible.



Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

The occupation of MNWR by armed residents was triggered by the setting up of fire by two ranchers on federal land in 2016 (Pearce & Anderson, 2016). For several years, residents have complained of the government’s occupation and control of public land across the west. To protest, brothers Ryan and Ammon Bundy together with five other counterparts led a 41-day standoff when they occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and prevented the federal employees from doing their job (Pearce & Anderson, 2016). As was the case for DAPL, protests broke out when Ammon and Ryan Bundy were arrested and charged with illegal occupation of public land. However, a jury found them not guilty, and celebrations broke out. Interestingly, the granting of freedom for the brothers was interpreted as support for their course. Other interest groups such as the Western Watersheds Project termed the verdict as disappointing and encouragement for citizens to misuse public resources (Pearce & Anderson, 2016). The MNWR occupation is crucial to this study to confirm the use of interest group theory to air views and attempt to meet objectives. The protagonists, in this case, were the federal government and the residents. Pralle’s model of branching out and digging in is also applicable in the case of MNWR. The residents marshaled support to evict the federal employees from MNWR. Still, the residents were divided over the legality of the occupation, but the voices of those who supported the invasion drowned those who opposed the occupation. As is the case for DAPL, the party with the power wins. The difference between DAPL and MNWR case is that while the government seemed to degrade the environment in North Dakota, the citizens are the perpetrators of environmental pollution in Oregon.



Conclusion

The interest group model best explains the issue surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) and the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR) in Oregon. DAPL is 1,172 miles long and stretches from North Dakota at the Western Bakken/Three Forks production area to Patoka in Illinois. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe was the primary stumbling block against the progress of the project regarding environmental problems. ETP is one of the most vocal supporters of the DAPL project since inception. Various legal and ethical issues subjected the preliminary plans of DAPL to the justice system as involved parties sought judicial interpretation concerning controversial issues. Ultimately all the litigation, protest, demonstration and environmental activism did not stop the construction of DAPL. The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation is crucial to this study to confirm the use of interest group theory to air views and attempt to meet objectives. As was the case for DAPL, the party with the power in the MNWR stand-off won.

















References

Bakken. (2017). Energy Transfer. Retrieved from [www.energytransfer.com/ops_bakken.aspx].

Bismarck, N. (2014). Notable Events in the Dispute over the Dakota Access Oil Pipeline.Yahoo Finance. Retrieved from [finance.yahoo.com/news/timeline-dakota-access-oil-pipeline 172448608.html].

Conflict Dimensions. (2017). Dakota Access Pipeline. Retrieved from [dakotaaccesspipelinesite.wordpress.com/enjeux-des-controverses-environnementales/].

Dakota Access Pipeline. (2017). US Army Corps of Engineers. Retrieved from [www.usace.army.mil/Dakota-Access-Pipeline/].

Dakota Access Pipeline Facts. (2017). Dakota Access Pipeline Facts. Retrieved from [daplpipelinefacts.com/].

Hoeven, J. (2016). Dakota Access Pipeline. Vote Smart. Retrieved from [votesmart.org/public statement/1144746/dakota-access-pipeline#.WiwT01WnHIV].

How Much Petroleum does the United States Import and Export? (2017). US Energy Information Administration. Retrieved from [www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6].

Martin, P. (2016). The Political Issues in the Standing Rock protests. World Socialist Web Site. Retrieved from [www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/12/08/pers-d08.html].

NoDAPL Archive. (2017). NoDAPL Archive. Retrieved 9 December 2017, from [www.nodaplarchive.com/organizations.html].

Pearce, M., & Anderson, R. (2016). Leaders of Oregon wildlife refuge standoff are acquitted of federal charges. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from [www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-oregon-standoff-jury-acquits-20161027 story.html].

Pralle, S. (2007). Branching Out, Digging In: Environmental Advocacy and Agenda Setting. Georgetown University Press. Retrieved from [press.georgetown.edu/book/georgetown/branching-out-digging].

Ratcliff, L. (2016). Water, Oil, and Tribal Sovereignty: The Fight for the Dakota Access Pipeline. University of Denver Water Law Review. Retrieved from [duwaterlawreview.com/tag/dapl/].

Scott, G. (2017). Who is TigerSwan?: The DAPL Security Firm That Spied on Protestors. Inverse. Retrieved from [www.inverse.com/article/32226tigerswan security-firm-the-intercept].

Tolan, S. (2017). US Oil Producers Race to Build Infrastructure while Nationwide Protests Mount. Public Radio International. Retrieved from [www.pri.org/stories/2017-06-03/us oil-producers-race-build-infrastructure-while-nationwide-protests-mount].





Deadline is approaching?

Wait no more. Let us write you an essay from scratch

Receive Paper In 3 Hours
Calculate the Price
275 words
First order 15%
Total Price:
$38.07 $38.07
Calculating ellipsis
Hire an expert
This discount is valid only for orders of new customer and with the total more than 25$
This sample could have been used by your fellow student... Get your own unique essay on any topic and submit it by the deadline.

Find Out the Cost of Your Paper

Get Price