December, 15 2017, 11:00am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Cherri Foytlin, Bold Louisiana, 334-462-4484, Dallas Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental Network, 507-412-7609
Joint Statement on the US Army Corps of Engineers' Approval of the Bayou Bridge Pipeline
Stop Energy Transfer Partners’ Coalition vows to continue opposing ETP’s proposed crude oil pipeline through southern Louisiana.
WASHINGTON
Yesterday, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers granted permits to Bayou Bridge, LLC, a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners, to construct a 162.5-mile crude oil pipeline from Lake Charles to St. James, Louisiana. The Army Corps of Engineers refused to conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement for the project, despite pleas for such a study from communities directly impacted by the pipeline.
In response to the Bayou Bridge permit approvals, leaders of organizations in the Stop Energy Transfer Partners Coalition released the following statements:
Cherri Foytlin of Bold Louisiana said: "To be honest, my hopes were never with the state and federal agencies who have consistently proven their lack of vision and scarcity of protection for the people and waters of this great state. The idea that this company, Energy Transfer Partners, who has destroyed land and water all over the United States, who carry the designation of "worst spill record," who has created and maintained space for human rights abuses upon peaceful people - that they would be allowed to endanger over 700 of our waterways for their own profit is not only inconceivable, but proof of a moral bankruptcy within our systems of environmental protections. Yet, this is where we are. And while I am saddened by the news, I am equally sure that we will stand together as the mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers, to peacefully endeavor to right the wrong of these misguided and foolish permittings."
Monique Verdin, United Houma Nation Tribal Councilmember said: "It's heartbreaking, but not surprising, that the Army Corps of Engineers would approve ANOTHER pipeline to be rammed through our already over exploited and fragile south Louisiana land and waters. 80,000 plus miles of pipelines crisscross our state and all those promises of jobs and progress, over the decades, have created places we call Cancer Alley and a state with some of the highest poverty in the nation. The Houma Nation and all those south of the proposed Bayou Bridge pipeline route deserve the right to clean water for drinking, for bathing, for fishing, for life. We know the risks and Energy Transfer Partners has got the track record for us to know the gamble is not worth it."
Anne Rolfes of Louisiana Bucket Brigade said: "We've opposed this project because Energy Transfer Partners has a terrible track record. This company has already polluted drinking water around the country, and is now a threat to our drinking water and our Atchafalaya Basin. The pipeline will ram through St. James Parish, a place already burdened by too much pollution. Why would we allow a company like ETP to come to Louisiana? We can do better than this. Our resistance will be peaceful. We will meet this pipeline with prayer. We are nonviolent. We are mothers, grandmothers, teachers and artists. We should be treated as the peaceful people that we are as this goes forward. ETP also has a track record of violence, and we don't need it in Louisiana."
Alicia Cooke of 350 New Orleans said: "As a regulatory agency, if you look at ETP's safety record, you have absolutely no cover to assert that this pipeline does not pose a threat to environmental quality in Louisiana. The state has an obligation to explore better economic opportunities for Louisianans that don't put our drinking water at risk or destroy our wetlands. The regulators of the state of Louisiana had a chance here to make substantive change to "business as usual", to put citizens over corporations - instead, they failed us. But ETP has not yet won, nor will they win. Together we are powerful, and together we will continue our peaceful, prayerful resistance."
Dallas Goldtooth of Indigenous Environmental Network said: "If Energy Transfer Partners wants to provoke a giant, then that's what they will get. Landowners, impacted communities, indigenous peoples and environmental groups have made their stance clear; for the benefit of the water, the land and Gulf Coast communities this dirty Bayou Bridge pipeline cannot be built. As we stood against DAPL and demand to keep fossil fuels in the ground, we stand against Bayou Bridge."
Kelly Martin of Sierra Club said: "The Trump Administration is once again operating with reckless abandonment in its pursuit to put corporate polluters' profits above all else. In their attempt to force this pipeline on the people of Louisiana, communities and families will face further threats of polluted air and water, the threat of explosions, and spills. But the people are not finished fighting this project. We will continue to explore every avenue possible to stop this project from moving forward."
Ethan Buckner of Earthworks said: "From North Dakota to Pennsylvania, Texas to Louisiana, Energy Transfer Partners has remained steadfast in its commitment to steamroll communities living, working and praying along the path of their proposed pipelines. Yesterday's permit approval isn't a surprise, but it is a disappointment. ETP has failed to adequately address the concerns of those whose livelihoods it stands to destroy. The Army Corps may grant a permit, but our communities will not grant permission."
Brant Olson of Oil Change International said: "Plowing forward blindly to build this risky pipeline without even examining its environmental or climate impacts shows that this project isn't for Louisiana - it's for Wall Street. Unscrupulous investors and banks stand to make millions while our most under-resourced communities and the global climate pay the price. Responsible lenders should follow the lead of those already backing away from ETP and its reckless pipelines."
Karen Feridun of Berks Gas Truth said: "Energy Transfer Partners has laid waste to community after community in Pennsylvania and Ohio. A month ago, we learned that the company had violated its permit by using horizontal directional drilling in my county where it was not permitted. When the drilling caused yet another spill, the company didn't report it. How long are regulators going to enable bad actors? The Army Corps should reverse its decision. We will fight until they do."
Diana Best of Greenpeace USA said: "Greenpeace is proud to stand in solidarity with communities and local leadership opposing Energy Transfer Partners' proposed Bayou Bridge Pipeline. We collectively know that these pipelines leak, they spill, they explode, and they put drinking water, our climate, and the health and safety of communities at risk. They undermine Indigenous sovereignty and threaten human rights. This company has thrown everything they've got at trying to silence opposition to their controversial projects with intimidation tactics, including hiring unethical private security firms like TigerSwan, filing dubious lawsuits, and encouraging violent and dehumanizing treatment of indigenous communities and their allies. But we know that this movement will not be silenced. Our response: We will only grow louder!"
Kendall Mackey of 350.org said: "The Army Corps and Energy Transfer Partners should expect resistance. Bayou Bridge is another dangerous pipeline from a company that's shown complete disregard for Indigenous rights, the land and water, and our climate. Louisianans are already living on the frontlines of the climate crisis and the fence-lines of the fossil fuel industry's destruction. A thorough environmental impact statement would've proved what we already know -- that Bayou Bridge goes against everything we should be doing to protect our future."
Hugh MacMillan of Food & Water Watch said: "For ETP and Phillips 66 Partners, Bayou Bridge is the icing on the cake. By providing access to the sprawling St. James oil trading hub, the pipeline would allow these companies to cash in on exporting fracked oil from North Dakota, transported to the Gulf Coast via another joint venture of theirs, the Dakota Access pipeline. Louisiana water protectors are bold and right in standing against this shortsighted pipeline. The companies and their financiers will be held to account."
Notes to editors:
- The Bayou Bridge Pipeline is connected to the Dakota Access Pipeline system via the Phillips 66 Partners terminal in Beaumont: https://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-115/issue-3/transportation/us-gulf-coast-crude-terminals-expanding-to-meet-permian-growth.html
- Since 2006, Energy Transfer Partners' projects have experienced at least 329 dangerous incidents that resulted in a release, spill, injury or death to a person, emergency shutdown, explosion, fire, and/or property damage across the United States: https://stopetp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ETP-Violation-History-12-15-17.pdf
- In May 2017, U.S. Congressman Cedric Richmond (LA-02) wrote a letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requesting a full Environmental Impact Study for the Bayou Bridge Pipeline. Email ebuckner@earthworksaction.org for a copy of that letter.
- In November 2017, U.S. Congressman Raul Grijalva (AZ-03), Ranking Member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, wrote a letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requesting a full Environmental Impact Study for the Bayou Bridge Pipeline: https://democrats-naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2017-11-21%20RG%20to%20Army%20Corps%20on%20Bayou%20Bridge%20EIS.pdf
- In May 2017, several environmental groups and residents of St. James, Louisiana, filed a lawsuit alleging that the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources failed to adequately consider the impacts of accidents and spills associated with Bayou Bridge on St. James: https://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2017/06/st_james_residents_enviros_cha.html
- For several months, Louisiana communities have rallied at the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality to demand a full Environmental Impact Statement for Bayou Bridge, and protection of Louisiana's pristine ecology and communities. See here for info on one of the recent rallies: https://stopetp.org/2017/11/03/pr-ldeq-march/
- Earlier this year, Dutch bank ING and Norwegian bank DNB both announced that they would exit their financial relationships with ETP: https://af.reuters.com/article/africaTech/idAFL5N1H310T
Established in 1990 within the United States, IEN was formed by grassroots Indigenous peoples and individuals to address environmental and economic justice issues (EJ). IEN's activities include building the capacity of Indigenous communities and tribal governments to develop mechanisms to protect our sacred sites, land, water, air, natural resources, health of both our people and all living things, and to build economically sustainable communities.
LATEST NEWS
Roughly 900 US Troops Still in Syria as Rebels Close in on Damascus
"Whether the Pentagon wants to admit it or not," U.S. troops "are likely involved in the broader conflict unfolding there right now," warned one analyst.
Dec 07, 2024
Syrian rebel groups' rapid advance on the nation's capital city of Damascus and the possible collapse of President Bashar al-Assad's government after more than a decade of civil war has brought renewed attention to the continued presence of U.S. forces in the country, despite the absence of a clear legal authorization.
The U.S. is believed to have around 900 troops deployed to Syria, mostly in the northeast, as well as an unknown number of private contractors. Nick Turse, a contributing writer for The Intercept, observed Thursday that American forces in Syria "have, on average, come under fire multiple times each week since last October," according to internal Pentagon statistics.
"Keeping military personnel in harm's way for the sake of foreign policy credibility has become increasingly risky with the Gaza war and the flare-up of the Syrian civil war," Turse wrote.
Kelley Vlahos, senior adviser to the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote Saturday morning that "whether the Pentagon wants to admit it or not," U.S. troops "are likely involved in the broader conflict unfolding there right now."
Reutersreported Tuesday that as rebels advanced toward the city of Hama, "fighters from a U.S.-backed, Kurdish-led coalition battled government forces in the northeast, both sides said, opening a new front along a vital supply route" and "compounding Assad's problems."
As the coalition of groups led by the Islamist organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and factions of the Turkey-backed Syrian National Army has quickly seized control of large swaths of territory, the White House National Security Council (NSC) said in a statement last weekend that the U.S.—which has previously armed and trained Syrian rebels—"has nothing to do with this offensive."
"The United States, together with its partners and allies, urge de-escalation, protection of civilians and minority groups, and a serious and credible political process that can end this civil war once and for all with a political settlement consistent with UNSCR 2254," said NSC spokesperson Sean Savett. "We will also continue to fully defend and protect U.S. personnel and U.S. military positions, which remain essential to ensuring that ISIS can never again resurge in Syria."
On Friday, the White House said in a letter to Congress that "a small presence of United States Armed Forces remains in strategically significant locations in Syria to conduct operations, in partnership with local, vetted ground forces, to address continuing terrorist threats emanating from Syria."
President-elect Donald Trump, who during his first term opted to keep U.S. troops in Syria for the openly stated purpose of exploiting the country's oil fields, wrote in a social media post on Saturday that "the United States should have nothing to do with" the current conflict.
"This is not our fight," he wrote in all caps. "Let it play out. Do not get involved!"
Trump's post, as The Associated Pressreported, came as rebels' "stunning march across Syria gained speed... with news that they had reached the suburbs of the capital and with the government forced to deny rumors that President Bashar al-Assad had fled the country."
Hassan Abdul-Ghani, an insurgent commander, said in a Telegram post that rebels are entering the "final stage" of their offensive as they began to encircle Syria's capital. Citing unnamed local sources, Al Jazeerareported that "a state of panic has spread as army troops withdraw from their positions around Damascus."
"They also confirmed that opposition forces had advanced in the western Damascus countryside and the withdrawal of army forces from cities and towns in Eastern Ghouta," the outlet added. "There was a rush for food items in markets in the capital."
Government forces have been backed by Russian airstrikes, Hezbollah, and Iraqi militia fighters.
Reutersreported that "Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said in an Arabic-language interview that Tehran would consider sending troops to Syria if Damascus asked, and Russian President Vladimir Putin urged an end to 'terrorist aggression' in Syria."
In a video statement on Saturday, a Syrian military commander said that "our valiant army continues to carry out its operations against terrorist gatherings at high rates in the directions of the Hama and Homs countrysides and the northern Daraa countryside, inflicting hundreds of deaths and injuries on the terrorists."
Anti-war lawmakers in the U.S. have repeatedly questioned the role of American troops in Syria in recent years and launched efforts to force their withdrawal.
In March 2023, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the U.S. House put forth a resolution that would have required full withdrawal of American forces from Syria within 180 days of passage in the absence of congressional action authorizing their continued presence.
The resolution was voted down by 170 Republicans and 150 Democrats.
Months later, the U.S. Senate tanked a similar effort.
Erik Sperling, executive director of the advocacy group Just Foreign Policy, told The Intercept on Thursday that the Biden administration hasn't "put the war in Syria up for debate because they know the American people don't want another war in the Middle East."
"They know there is no popular support for putting U.S. troops at risk for this," said Sperling, who warned that "many of Trump's advisers will try to drag him deeper into this regional conflict in the Middle East."
The explosion of Syria's civil war in recent days has been disastrous for civilians in the crossfire.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) said Wednesday that "the outbreak of major hostilities... raises concerns that civilians face a real risk of serious abuses at the hands of opposition armed groups and the Syrian government."
"The bloody record of atrocities by all parties to the conflict in Syria is bound to persist until leaders go beyond words and support accountability efforts," said Adam Coogle, HRW's deputy Middle East director. "Without credible justice, there will be no end in sight to the suffering Syrians have endured, no matter who controls the land."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fury as South Korea's Conservative Party Thwarts Impeachment Vote
"Today, citizens witnessed democracy taking a step backward," said the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions.
Dec 07, 2024
A bid to impeach South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol over his short-lived imposition of martial law failed Saturday after lawmakers from his conservative party left the National Assembly chamber and refused to take part in the vote.
Supporters of impeachment needed at least eight members of Yoon's People Power Party (PPP) to support removing the president, who apologized to the nation in a one-minute-long address Saturday morning but refused to step down after he briefly instituted martial law in a stated attempt to "eradicate shameful pro-North Korea" forces, plunging the country into a political crisis.
Yoon's gambit sparked immediate and sustained protests and was widely seen as a coup attempt.
Saturday's impeachment effort drew a massive number of people into the streets outside the National Assembly building despite below-freezing temperatures, and demonstrators voiced outrage when they learned that Yoon's allies thwarted the initial attempt to oust him. Just two PPP members returned to the National Assembly chamber to cast a ballot Saturday.
"I am so angry. I can't find the words to describe my frustration," 23-year-old Kim Hyo-lim toldThe New York Times. "I am devastated, but I feel honored to be a part of this historic moment for my country."
Another demonstrator said they intend to protest "every weekend" until Yoon is removed.
(Photo: Daniel Ceng/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Organizers said roughly a million people took part in demonstrations Saturday in support of Yoon's impeachment. Many also demanded his arrest.
The Financial Timesreported following the failed impeachment effort that Yoon—whose term expires in 2027—and PPP leaders "appeared to have reached a deal whereby the president would hand over political direction of the country to his party and agree to stand down at a time of the party's choosing, in return for support in the impeachment vote."
The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), which has over 1.1 million members, called PPP lawmakers who boycotted Saturday's vote "accomplices in treason."
"The People Power Party has turned its back on the people's wishes, effectively admitting their complicity," KCTU said in a statement posted to social media. "More than one million citizens gathered in front of the National Assembly. They came together because they cannot forgive a president who declared martial law and aimed weapons at his own people. Despite the cold winter weather, they took to the streets hoping desperately for the impeachment to pass."
"Today, citizens witnessed democracy taking a step backward," KCTU added. "They saw clearly who stands with those who would harm our democracy. The People Power Party must be dissolved. Those who protect Yoon must face consequences. It would be a grave mistake to think this can be resolved through compromise or constitutional amendments for an early resignation. Through the people's judgment, Yoon, his associates, and the People Power Party will face severe consequences."
Opposition lawmakers are expected to file a fresh impeachment motion next week as pressure mounts for Yoon to step down.
Additionally, as The Washington Postreported, "the national police have opened an investigation into Yoon on treason accusations by opposition parties and activists."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Top Democrat Issues Warning Over Trump Plot to 'Steal' From Federal Programs
"The Constitution provides no impoundment power to the president to unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro.
Dec 07, 2024
The top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee warned Friday that President-elect Donald Trump is planning to "steal from the programs and services that affect middle-class, working, and vulnerable families" by refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said in a statement that Trump's strategy, known as "impoundment," is "uninformed and unconstitutional," adding that "the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, and the Government Accountability Office are all in agreement—the Constitution provides no impoundment power to the president to unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress."
"It is the sworn duty of the president of the United States to faithfully execute the law," DeLauro added, "and appropriations laws are no exception."
In a new fact sheet, Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee note that "the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, and nowhere does it give the president any unilateral power to either temporarily or permanently impound—steal, withhold, or prevent from being spent—funds appropriated by Congress."
"The Framers were right to give Congress the power of the purse," the fact sheet states. "If the president had the unilateral power to decline to spend resources as directed by Congress, then those who rely on Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Medical Care, and other federal spending programs would be subject to the whims of the executive branch. The American people would be unable to depend on promises made by Congress in appropriations laws."
Trump has explicitly vowed to use impoundment to "squeeze the bloated federal bureaucracy for massive savings," a plan endorsed by the billionaire pair tapped by the president-elect to run a new commission tasked with identifying spending and regulations to slash.
"With impoundment, we can simply choke off the money," Trump declared in a campaign ad.
"They have no authority. Does anybody get that?"
Following Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's visit to Capitol Hill on Thursday to discuss their plans for the "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) with GOP lawmakers, The Washington Postreported that Republicans are "keen on expanding the president's power to impound spending—or refuse to spend money Congress authorizes."
"Musk and Ramaswamy said they were eager to test the constitutional limits of Trump's ability to unilaterally control spending decisions," the Post reported, citing two unnamed lawmakers. "Republicans largely left the more than two-hour meeting giddy."
Analysts argue Trump's plan to withhold federal spending would run afoul of the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The law, as Propublica's Molly Redden explained, "forbids presidents from blocking spending over policy disagreements."
"A similar power grab led to his first impeachment," Redden wrote. "During his first term, Trump held up nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine while he pressured President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to open a corruption investigation into Joe Biden and his family. The U.S. Government Accountability Office later ruled his actions violated the Impoundment Control Act."
Democrats on the House Budget Committee recently pointed out that "although decided after the ICA passed, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Train v. City of New York that even without the ICA, the president does not have unilateral authority to impound funds."
That hasn't stopped Trump, Musk, and Ramaswamy from exploring ways to cut or block spending without congressional approval.
In a Wall Street Journalop-ed published last month, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that "even without relying on" the view that the ICA is unconstitutional, "DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion-plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood."
Housing assistance, childcare aid, student loan programs, and other spending would also be vulnerable under such an approach.
"They want [to cut] $2 trillion," DeLauro told reporters Thursday. "Think about the discretionary budget. It's $1.7 trillion. Where are they going for the money? Where are they going?"
"They have no authority," she added. "Does anybody get that?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular