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
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular