This house supports the Dakota Access Pipeline.

I am debating for the opposition side of this debate, proving my case AGAINST the assertion: This house supports the Dakota Access Pipeline. My road map is as follows:1st- I will be refuting the proponent's points2nd- I will put forth my argumentsREFUTATIONS:1) My opponent has stated that: "Unfortunately the land has already been destroyed. As such it should be put to good use."Let me tell you something: if anything, this DAPL is only going to destroy it furthermore. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has reported more than 3,300 incidents of leaks and ruptures at oil and gas pipelines since 2010. And even the smallest spill could damage the tribe’s water supply. So if my opponent is saying that the land should be put to better use by building the pipeline, is he refusing the fact that an oil burst is very likely, hence it will actually be of BAD use? It will contaminate the Standing Rock Sioux's water supply. Imagine having oil-contaminated water for drinking, bathing, and so many more everyday activities. How is that GOOD use?2) My opponent has also stated that: "!st I bring to you the simple economic benefit. It is very costly to transport oil by rail and diesel as we do know. Building the pipeline will drastically decrease the cost of domestic oil production."According to http://priceofoil.org..., the cost of this 1,170 mile pipeline is estimated to be $3.8 billion!!! Not only that, but if you consider our rising debt of almost $19 trillion, you should probably have understood by now that this is not a project we need to do now. In fact, since 1995, more than 2,000 significant accidents involving oil and petroleum pipelines have occurred, adding up to roughly $3 billion in property damage, according to data obtained by the Associated Press from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Is $3 billion what you call an "economic benefit"? You have to realize: cost is not first. Life is. Money should never be the reason to put lives at stake, yet that is exactly what the DAPL will do.3) My opponent has also stated that: "This in turn reduces our foreign oil dependence and keeps more money in the US economy." I'd like to say that depending on forign oil is not necessarily a bad thing. Yes, you might think that if we build this DAPL, then we won't need to depend on foreign oil but that's not the only dimension you should look at it from. Oil is not a local commodity, rather it is a commodity in the global marketplace. Currently, the US relies on Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria (according to NPR) for oil and petroleum. This is a good thing, and if we want to lose reliance of oil on them, then that literally means that we are breaking the idea of 'globalism' and maybe even breaking allies! In fact, when we were in times of need, foreign oil dependence was what helped us through it, NOT a pipeline! In 2005, after hurricanes ravaged the Gulf Coast, chewing up refineries as they went, several cities in the southeastern United States were hit with gasoline shortages. Thankfully, they were short-lived. The reason? Imported gasoline, from refineries in Venezuela, the Netherlands and elsewhere, according to http://www.washingtonpost.com...;MY ARGUEMENTS:1) In the name of building an oil access pipeline, we might as well be putting the access to freshwater in a dilemma for many.The 1,170-mile pipeline would cross under Lake Oahe, a dammed section of the Missouri River that provides the tribe’s water supply. If we are going to build an oil access pipeline, we should have first thought of the issue of depriving people of drinkable water. Who knows, being citizens with a freedom to speech, North Dakota could sue the company: Dakota Access LLC for contaminating their water! After all, an in-depth 2010 report from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, which looked at the effects of three major oil spills, found increased incidences of cancer and digestive problems in people who had ingested the oil directly (in drinking water) or indirectly (through eating the meat of livestock exposed to the oil). What good is it going to do for you to support and/ build the DAPL after you’ve been diagnosed with some kind of disease?!!2) There is no guarantee that the pipeline won’t burst. As aforementioned, since 1995, more than 2,000 significant accidents involving oil and petroleum pipelines have occurred, according to the Associated Press from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Also, from 2013 to 2015, an average of 121 accidents happened every year! If the pipeline were to leak or burst, it would send oil deep into the Missouri River, the Standing Rock Sioux's single source of water — water the group relies on for everything from bathing to drinking. Just put yourself in a Standing Rock Sioux person's shoes and imagine how you would feel if your water was contaminated and you had no clean drinking water. From drinking water, bathing, to that one major source of being able to live--water would be put under stake if this House supports the DAPL. This itself proves that my opponent's arguements about the land being put into good use has been knocked down. 3) Protesters are waging a number of campaigns against the Dakota access pipeline. Thousands of protesters have been camping out for months in Cannon Ball, North Dakota, to protest the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Morton County Sheriff's Department reported 26 arrests in Cannon Ball, North Dakota near the path of the pipeline, and said demonstrators attempted to block a railroad with a pickup truck then tried to set the vehicle on fire. Between 650 and 700 people gathered in Chicago at the Army Corps offices. Over 250 people were at a Houston protest outside ETP's offices where police handcuffed two demonstrators and put them in a police car, according to a Reuters witness. The protesters, which include representatives from more than 100 Native American tribes, have camped out on the Standing Rock Sioux reservation nestled along the border between North Dakota and South Dakota along the Missouri River. If this hasn't convinced you enough about the fact that the PEOPLE don't want it, then what are we doing here thinking about whether the HOUSE should support the DAPL or not? After all, we are called "We the people" as the Fathers labeled us, not "We the House"! So we should support what the people want, which is obviously NOT the Dakota Access Pipeline!4) The Dakota Access company is overlooking many many environmental and governmental laws.Law is what governs us in this country, a democracy. If we don't abide by the law, we have consequences. The Dakota Access company fails to abide both governmental and environmental laws. Just take a look at this: To build the pipeline, the Army Corps of Engineers, the group in charge of the project, must comply with several environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act. Passed in 1970, NEPA's basic policy is to ensure that the government considers the potential environmental impacts of any federal project, like a new highway or airport, before building it. The Standing Rock Sioux claim this review process, in the case of the Dakota Access Pipeline, was not done properly. In a lawsuit it filed in July against the Army Corps of Engineers, the group claims the permitting process was rushed and undertaken largely without its input. (according to http://www.businessinsider.com...) Is it really worth supporting a pipeline project that is against the law? Besides, they claim that this pipeline will deprive them of their only source of water, the Missouri River as well as dig up their sacred archaeological and burial sites. Come to think about it from the beginning of American history, we’ve driven out Native Americans from their very own homes. Are we really going to repeat this?