What if the Sioux Falls City Council denies the Dakota Access Pipeline easement?

Back in October of 2015, former mayor of Sioux Falls and current PUC member was the lone member to vote against Dakota Access pipeline, citing the proximity to Sioux Falls neighbors;

Hanson said he isn’t worried about Sioux Falls. The line would run along the Sioux Falls regional landfill about five miles from Sioux Falls.

Hanson identified Tea and Harrisburg and Humboldt and their growth areas as the concern and described himself as “gun-shy.”

Should the City Council approve this easement through our landfill? And if they don’t, what are the options for Dakota Access? I would urge the council to kill it tonight at first reading (Item #33).

Section 1. That it approves a document titled “Grant of Permanent Easement for Pipeline,” being

an easement granted to Dakota Access, L.L.C., for installation, repair, maintenance, alterations,

and operation of an oil pipeline on City landfill property. The easement is attached to and hereby

made a part of this Ordinance.



5 comments ↓

#1 LJL on 03.01.16 at 7:41 pm

Based on your rotundness, it’s clear you don’t walk everywhere. You burn the gas but your against the delivery method. Your quite ok for the toxic waste to be railed through our city above ground, where any drunken doufass can plow into it but not underground.

Fuckin hypocrite liberal.

#2 scott on 03.01.16 at 9:55 pm

great comment trump.

#3 LJL on 03.02.16 at 9:48 pm

Still having a problem forming an original thought Scott. Keep trying.

#4 The D@ily Spin on 03.03.16 at 12:50 pm

I doubt the city has any say in this matter. It’s an interstate project. They’re being nice notifying the city it’s on public land. Huether will try to get some kind of kickback. The city has no power through the courts. Cases are dismissed because judicial procedure is (case history) unconstitutional.

Build it and let them find out later.

#5 teatime on 03.05.16 at 9:49 pm

Dakota Access Pipeline is a bad idea, so any vote against them is just fine with me. (And no, I don’t have any personal property affected, but it’s close enough.)