North Dakota takes federal government to trial over costs to police Dakota Access Pipeline protests
BISMARCK, N.D. — North Dakota will sue the federal government Thursday for the costs of responding to protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, the culmination of an unusual and lengthy court battle.
The state filed the lawsuit in 2019, seeking $38 million from the federal government to monitor the protests. Years of legal wrangling followed before the trial was scheduled to take place in December. The trial before U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Traynor is expected to last 12 to 13 days.
In an interview, North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley said the lawsuit will show examples of numerous requests to the federal government for help and the “complete refusal” to offer resources and financial support in response.
“It should not be one of the federal government’s options to just throw up its hands and say to the states, ‘You’re on your own’ in a case like this where the illegalities are what they are, ” said Wrigley.
North Dakota relied on agreements to ask law enforcement officials from across the region and the country for help, he said.
Thousands of people camped and demonstrated near the oil pipeline’s controversial Missouri River, which crossed upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. The tribe has long opposed the pipeline because of the threat of an oil spill that would contaminate the tribe’s water supply.
The protests lasted for months. On some days there were clashes between protesters and officers, including at a blocked highway bridge where officers used tear gas, rubber bullets and sprayed water in subzero temperatures as demonstrators tried to pass and reportedly threw rocks and burning logs.
The state’s complaint alleges that many trespassers in these unlawful encampments engage in disruptive, illegal, and sometimes violent conduct on federal, state, and private lands, including blocking public highways, threatening individuals participating in DAPL pipeline works and local populations (such as farmers), and directly initiating violence against law enforcement personnel and first responders.”
The protests, which lasted from approximately August 2016 to February 2017, resulted in hundreds of arrests and subsequent criminal cases. Some lawsuits over the use of force by officers are still pending in court.
Protest activities didn’t necessarily happen every day, said Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier, a law enforcement leader. But some incidents slowed traffic, caused road closures and raised concerns among local residents, farmers and ranchers, he said. The safety of everyone was the main concern, he said.
“It was very taxing on the sheriff’s office and the resources to make sure that this remained as safe as possible throughout the entire protest period,” said Kirchmeier, who added that he will testify at trial.
The federal government tried unsuccessfully to dismiss the case. It argued in a 2020 lawsuit that “the United States denies liability to North Dakota” and said the state is not entitled to its request or any other relief.
A phone message left for attorneys representing the U.S. was not returned. The Water Protector Legal Collective, a group that has represented protesters in criminal cases, did not respond to a message seeking comment on the lawsuit.
The pipeline has been transporting oil since June 2017. Many government officials and industry leaders support the pipeline as critical infrastructure in the top oil-producing state.
In 2017, the pipeline company donated $15 million to help cover response costs. That same year, the U.S. Department of Justice gave the state a $10 million grant to reimburse the response. Wrigley declined to say how these funds would impact the amount the state is seeking.
Former President Donald Trump in 2017 rejected a state request for the federal government to cover the costs through a disaster declaration.
In December, a public comment period ended on the draft of a court-ordered environmental study of the pipeline’s river crossing. The process is critical to the pipeline’s future, with a decision expected by the end of 2024. The document outlines the options of denying the easement and removing or abandoning the river segment of the line, granting the easement without changes or with additional safety measures, or rerouting the pipeline north of Bismarck.