Amy Dalrymple, North Dakota Monitor
An Indigenous environmental activist who testified Tuesday in a trial over Dakota Access Pipeline protest costs criticized the court case and said the state of North Dakota should pay the expenses.
“I think it’s ridiculous,” Winona LaDuke, former executive director of Honor the Earth, said in an interview after her testimony. “No one told them to spend $38 million. I think they should pay.”
LaDuke was called as a witness by the United States in a lawsuit with North Dakota over costs incurred in 2016 and 2017 during the Dakota Access protests. A bench trial in U.S. District Court in Bismarck began in February and is expected to finish this week.
LaDuke, a tribal leader from Minnesota’s White Earth Reservation and enrolled member of the Mississippi band of Ashinaabeg, testified that she was invited in April 2016 to the Standing Rock Reservation by Dakota Access opponents because of her previous activism against another oil pipeline.
Honor the Earth, an organization she founded and led for 30 years, was among the opponents of Enbridge’s Sandpiper Pipeline, a project that proposed to carry oil from North Dakota through northern Minnesota. The proposal met significant opposition in Minnesota and was never constructed, with Enbridge later buying a stake in Dakota Access.
“I became very alarmed at the lack of tribal participation and informed decision-making on that pipeline,” LaDuke said of Dakota Access.
LaDuke, who asked attorneys to call her a water protector rather than a protester, said she began camping along the Cannonball River on the Standing Rock Reservation in August 2016 with members of her family. She said she was there off and on during the demonstrations for a total of a month.
A key issue during the trial is how actions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers impacted the protests. The Corps issued a press release on Sept. 16, 2016, indicating it had granted a special use permit for protesters to occupy Corps-managed land, but the agency had not actually issued a permit.
North Dakota alleges the press release encouraged protesters to remain there, increasing costs to state law enforcement.
LaDuke testified that the press release and the actions of the Corps made no difference to her.
“I was there at the request of the Lakota people,” she said, referring to Standing Rock tribal members.
She added the Corps lacked credibility with her for not conducting an environmental impact statement on Dakota Access.
LaDuke criticized what she called “excessive use of force by North Dakota,” including military equipment used by law enforcement, police checkpoints, constant aerial surveillance and infiltrators in the camps. She said a Sept. 3, 2016, incident with a private security company that used dogs on protesters “set a bad tone.”
“I think that strengthened my resilience to stand for justice and stand for the water,” she said.
Previously, witnesses for the state testified about 9 million pounds of garbage removed from the camp by the state after protesters were ordered to leave in February 2017. The state sought to clean the area ahead of anticipated spring flooding.
LaDuke blamed the state for the high costs, saying the demonstrators could have cleared the camp sites if the state allowed more time.
“The state of North Dakota did a good job of making a big mess,” she testified.
Edward Maguire, a law enforcement consultant, was hired by the United States to review the conduct of law enforcement during the DAPL protests and testify before the court on his findings. He testified earlier in the trial that while he found some instances of officers acting admirably during the protests, he also saw law enforcement using tactics that were flawed and inconsistent with established policing practices, including the excessive use of force.
Another law enforcement consultant — Robert Handy, who was hired to testify for the state of North Dakota — told the court that in his opinion, state and local law enforcement acted reasonably given the circumstances of the protests.
Also Tuesday, Emily Greenwald, a historian and expert witness on Sioux history, testified about the impact of history on the Dakota Access opposition and how protesters connected themselves to past events.
Greenwald and the firm she works for, Historical Research Associates, produced a report that highlights examples over 170 years of Sioux response when there were encroachments on their territory or tribal sovereignty. Examples she cited included treaties of 1851 and 1868, the taking of the Black Hills in South Dakota and the damming of the Missouri River to create Lake Oahe.
Indigenous activism since the 1960s, such as the occupation of Alcatraz Island, showed how direct action such as land occupation could be successful in gaining attention from the public, the media and celebrities, she testified.
She also highlighted that the main protest camp, known as Oceti Sakowin, was on land that is considered unceded treaty land.
“It’s still part of their territory as defined by the 1851 treaty,” Greenwald testified.