Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

AMICUS BRIEF by STATE OF INDIANA, STATE OF IOWA, STATE OF KANSAS, STATE OF KENTUCKY, STATE OF LOUISIANA, STATE OF MONTANA, STATE OF NEBRASKA, STATE OF OHIO, STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, STATE OF UTAH, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, STATE OF MISSOURI [AM], STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF WYOMING.

District of Columbia, dcd-1:2016-cv-01534

Current View

Full Text

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.)) Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-01534-JEB U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, et al.,)) Defendants.) AMICUS BRIEF FOR THE STATES OF INDIANA, MONTANA, AND 12 OTHER STATES IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND DAKOTA ACCESS, L.L.C. TIM FOX CURTIS T. HILL, Jr. Attorney General of Montana Attorney General of Indiana ROB CAMERON THOMAS M. FISHER Deputy Attorney General Solicitor General Office of the Attorney General JULIA C. PAYNE 215 North Sanders Deputy Attorney General P.O. Box 201401 Helena, MT 59620-1401 Office of the Attorney General Tel: (406) 444-2026 IGC South, Fifth Floor Email: Rob.Cameron@mt.gov Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Tel: (317) 232-6255 Fax: (317) 232-7979 Email: Tom.Fisher@atg.in.gov Julia.Payne@atg.in.gov 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICI AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ..............................................1 ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................2 I. The Interests of Parties Not Before the Court Are Critical to this Analysis ........................3 II. Shutting Down DAPL Would Both Disrupt the Flow of Oil and Tie Up Transportation for Other Commodities, Especially Grain ...........................................................................4 A. DAPL alleviated otherwise intractable logistical problems that arose for the nation's farmers and food supply when Bakken oil displaced grain commodities on critical railway corridors ..........................................................................................4 B. Shutting down the pipeline would return to pre-DAPL railroad congestion .................9 III. Shutting Down the Pipeline Will Increase the Threat of Safety and Environmental Hazards ..............................................................................................................................14 A. Enjoining the operation of DAPL will create potential for greater safety hazards ......14 B. An injunction would threaten negative environmental impact ....................................16 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................20 ADDITIONAL COUNSEL ...........................................................................................................21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......................................................................................................22 i 7 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES A.L. Pharma, Inc. v. Shalala, 62 F.3d 1484 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ...................................................................................................4 American Motorcyclist Ass'n v. Watt, 714 F.2d 962 (9th Cir. 1983) .....................................................................................................4 Ass'n of Am. R.R. v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 622 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................16 Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ...................................................................................................2 City of Seattle v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 41 P.3d 1169 (Wash. 2002)......................................................................................................16 CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993) .................................................................................................................16 Delaware v. Surface Transp. Bd., 859 F.3d 16 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................................................16 Elam v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 635 F.3d 796 (5th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................16 Maynard v. CSX Transp., Inc., 360 F. Supp. 2d 836 (E.D. Ky. 2004) ......................................................................................16 Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (2010) ...................................................................................................................2 Mont. Envtl. Info. Ctr. v. Dep't of Envtl. Quality, 988 P.2d 1236 (Mont. 1999) ..............................................................................................18, 19 Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 20-5197, 2020 WL 4548123 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 5, 2020) .......................................................2 State v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 107 N.E.3d 468 (Ind. 2018) .....................................................................................................16 Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) ...................................................................................................................3, 4 STATUTES 49 U.S.C. § 10501(b) .....................................................................................................................16 ii 7 OTHER AUTHORITIES Andrea Edwards, Mitigating the Risks of Crude Oil Transport by Rail, Zurich Services Corporation (2015), https://www.zurichna.com/- /media/project/zwp/zna/docs/kh/energy/mitigating-risks-oil-transport-by- rail.pdf ..........................................................................................................................15, 16, 17 Bob Costello & Alan Karickhoff, Truck Driver Shortage Analysis 2019, Am. Trucking Ass'n (July 2019), https://www.trucking.org/sites/default/files/2020- 01/ATAs%20Driver%20Shortage%20Report%202019%20with%20cover.pdf .....................10 COVID-19 Update—Tourism Industry for Montana, Voices of Mont. Tourism, http://www.voicesoftourism.com/............................................................................................17 Freight Commodity Statistics, Ass'n of Am. R.R. (2013) ...............................................................6 Freight Quick Facts Report, U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. High. Admin. (2016), https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16083/fhwahop16083.pdf..............................14 G20 Extraordinary Agriculture Ministers Meeting Ministerial Statement on COVID-19 Virtual Meeting, April 21, 2020, https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/G20_Agriculture%20Mi nisters%20Meeting_Statement_EN.pdf .............................................................................12, 13 Grain Transportation Report, U.S. Dep't of Agriculture (Apr. 23, 2020), https://apps.ams.usda.gov/SearchReports/Documents/stelprdc5109140.pdf ..........................11 Grain Transportation Report, U.S. Dep't of Agriculture (Oct. 2, 2014), https://apps.ams.usda.gov/SearchReports/Documents/stelprdc5109140.pdf ..................6, 7, 11 Ivan Atanassov & C. Tyler Dick, Capacity of Single-Track Railway Lines with Short Sidings to Support Operation of Long Freight Trains, 2475 Transp. Res. R. 95 (2015), https://railtec.illinois.edu/wp/wp- content/uploads/2019/01/Atanassov-et-al-2015-TRB-15-6026-TRR-final.pdf.........................5 Karen Clay et al., The External Costs of Transporting Petroleum Products by Pipelines and Rail: Evidence from Shipments of Crude Oil from North Dakota, National Bureau of Economic Research (Sept. 2017), https://www.nber.org/papers/w23852.pdf ...............................................................................15 Kenneth P. Green & Taylor Jackson, Safety in the Transportation of Oil and Gas: Pipelines or Rail?, Fraser Institute (Aug. 2015), at 5, https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/safety-in-the-transportation- of-oil-and-gas-pipelines-or-rail-rev2.pdf ...........................................................................14, 15 Megan E. Hansen & Ethan Dursteler, Pipelines, Rail & Trucks, Strata (2017), https://www.strata.org/pdf/2017/pipelines.pdf ....................................................................9, 14 iii 7 OTHER AUTHORITIES [CONT'D] Mont. Const. art. II, § 3 ..................................................................................................................18 Mont. Const. art. IX, § 1 ................................................................................................................18 Montana Constitutional Convention, Vol. V, March 7, 1972 ........................................................18 National Grain and Feed Association, Expanding Access to Rate Relief, STB Docket No. EP. 665 (Sub-No.2) (Nov. 14, 2016), https://www.ngfa.org/wp-content/uploads/NGFA-and-Other-Interested- Agricultural-Parties-Statement-to-STB-on-Rail-Rate-Proceeding-EP-665- 2Nov.-14-2016.pdf ...................................................................................................................10 The Positive Environmental Effects of Increased Freight by Rail Movements in America, Ass'n of Am. R.R. (2020), https://www.aar.org/wp- content/uploads/2020/06/AAR-Positive-Environmental-Effects-of-Freight- Rail-White-Paper-62020.pdf......................................................................................................5 iv 7 INTEREST OF AMICI AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The States of Indiana, Montana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming respectfully submit this brief as amici curiae in support of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Dakota Access, L.L.C. Amici States previously participated at the vacatur-stage, ECF No. 514, and in the D.C. Circuit appeal. On remand, this Court will once again consider whether to enjoin the flow of oil through the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). ECF No. 567. All Amici States—both States the Pipeline passes through and others—stand to suffer potentially disastrous consequences in the event of a DAPL shutdown. In its previous vacatur order, this Court largely dismissed these public-interest issues. Amici States participate again at this stage of the case to urge the Court to take a hard look at the public harms an injunction is likely to cause. First, many Amici States produce large amounts of grain currently shipped by rail—grain that will suffer displacement, owing to competition with higher-revenue oil for access rail transport, if the Dakota Access Pipeline is shut down. Such competition is likely to revisit the market conditions that obtained before the pipeline became operational in 2017, namely intractable railroad congestion, rotting grain, higher food prices and, ultimately, a potential for food shortages. Second, crude oil shipments by rail or truck pose greater safety hazards than shipments by pipeline. Despite extensive safety measures undertaken by railway and trucking companies, data show that pipeline transport of crude has yielded fewer accidents, injuries and deaths than rail and truck shipments, such that pipeline transport is both cheaper and less likely to cause widespread destruction. Moreover, shipment by rail or truck threatens greater environmental impact because such vehicles emit more greenhouse gases than pipelines. 1 7 Accordingly, Amici States have a strong interest in urging this Court to permit the Dakota Access Pipeline to remain operational pending remedy of any NEPA violations. ARGUMENT The D.C. Circuit's remand order asked parties to "clarify their positions before the district court as to whether the Corps intends to allow the continued operation of the pipeline notwith- standing vacatur of the easement and for the district court to consider additional relief if neces- sary." Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 20-5197, 2020 WL 4548123, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 5, 2020). Plaintiff now urges this Court