Editor's note: This story has been updated with more details about the deployment.
National Park Service law enforcement rangers are being called to the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota, where protesters of the Dakota Access Pipeline have been given until February 22 to leave the area. After that deadline, police are expected to forcibly remove them.
Park Service officials in Washington, D.C., would not confirm the call-up, with chief spokesman Thomas Crosson telling the Traveler on Wednesday afternoon that, "I have nothing to provide at this time."
Three different sources within the agency, speaking on the condition that they not be identified as they were not authorized to discuss the call-up, confirmed the deployment to the Traveler. A deployment order obtained by the Traveler notes that the rangers are set to arrive in North Dakota on Sunday, February 19, and depart on March 6. They will assist the Department of the Interior "in a humanitarian effort to maintain public safety, protection of property, peace and order as it relates to encampments located on Reservation land," the order states. It says personnel should bring available riot gear, including gas masks, as well as "night vision, thermal scopes, and any other useful items."
One source, however, said the rangers were to help clear the protesters out of camps along the Missouri River.
Chase Ironeyes of the Lakota People's Law Project could not immediately be reached for comment, though his staff said Traveler's request had been forwarded to him.
Exactly how many protesters remain at Standing Rock is hard to say, though it's thought to be considerably less than the thousands that once headed there to protest the pipeline.
President Trump earlier this year signed an executive order to restart construction of the pipeline, which tribes oppose.
Comments
Indeed, permanent and very unfortunate. So how permanent and unfortunate are the 30+ thousand vehicle deaths each year? Do we shut down the highways? How about the hundreds of industrial accident fatalities that happen each year. Do we shut down all production? Of course not.
And ;no permanant is "relative" and more than pregnant is.
From an academic standpoint (I'm a PhD Environmental Chemist) every groundwater aquifer that has been contaminated by an oil pipeline (or other pervasive contaminant) leak has been permanently impaired - the aquifers flush very slowly, sometimes as long as 10,000 years. Old gas stations are notable small scale culprits, and this is why many are concerned about fracking - oil companies won't divulge what "proprietary" chemicals they put into their fracking liquids. A couple of examples of pipeline spills with unduring contamination are a spill in Bemidji, MN in 1979 and another in the Hiawatha NF in Michigan's Upper Peninsula in 1980.
Amarillobymorning, Except none of this is happening or being proposed. Nothing is crossing or being built on reservation land. If on the other hand I purchased property fully understanding the building codes and followed all the laws but then had my neighbors illegally camp out on my land to prevent me from building on it yes, I would have a big problem with that.
For EC, while not a municipal water system there was a leak of a gasoline pipeline that rendered private wells unusable which I am sure was not fun for those residents. The siting below actually is a reference to the repair of another pipeline but references the outcome of the one effecting the private wells.
http://archive.jsonline.com/news/ozwash/crews-repairing-troubled-washing...
Pipeline are not Infallible but I do think they are better and safer than the alternative transportation methods.
Absolute BS
http://www.denverpost.com/2011/12/13/colorado-approval-of-fracking-fluid...
Resist!
On the other hand, it didn't take much effort to learn that oil company appeals of disclosure rules didn't fare well in courts:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/22/483061014/federal-judg...
And now with Drumpf in the White House, we can probably pretty well kiss our environmental prgress good-bye.
Read the article Lee. The ruling had nothing to do with disclosure rules. It had to do with jurisdiction. But then I guess you are merely helping the anti-oil folks distract gullible Americans from what's really going on.