NoNukes writes:
There was no vote. The pipeline was re-routed away from Bismarck without any input from the city or its officials. If somebody decided that the pipeline was NSFW, the blame lies elsewhere.
I would be okay with agreeing that there was no "official" vote.
And that the point is that the idea for moving the pipeline came from the pipeline-people... not the neighbourhood people.
From the article Dr Adequate presented:
quote:
The decision appeared to have been unrelated to objections from residents of Bismarck, and no plan was ever solidified to route the pipeline north of the city before its residents shut it down.
I took this to mean that the residents of Bismarck did, indeed, object... it just was not a factor in the decision to move the pipeline.
Whether or not their "objection" took the form of an actual vote... I don't really care, I don't think it's really part of the point.
Also, I don't think the native neighbourhood had an "official" vote either...
It's just a way to express the idea that the residents (of both neighbourhoods) did not want the pipeline in their respective areas.
NoNukes writes:
The federal government denied easements without which the pipeline cannot take the current route. There is no new planned route for the pipeline and no indication that the DAPL wanted to change the route.
Right. And then my question still stands.
Did the federal government deny easements because of the protest?
Or for some other reason?
Assuming it was because of the people is why I required correction from Dr Adequate in my original thoughts.
Has the government stated that denying the easements was because of the people protesting the pipeline?
I think it's likely that the answer is "yes," but again, I'm trying to learn my lesson about making assumptions...
™ Version 4.2