UPDATED: What’s Coming Down the Pipe? The Battle over the Dakota Access Pipeline and What It Means for America’s Future Energy Policy

With the third and final Presidential debate between Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump having just concluded, the subject of America’s energy policy has once again fallen by the wayside. Scant attention has been given over to the issue throughout this election, despite the fact that there is currently an ongoing struggle in the heartland of the country that could serve as the perfect measurement by which to gauge where things stand with regards to energy.

The struggle in question revolves around Energy Transfer Partners’ (ETP) construction of the Dakota Access crude-oil pipeline along the privately-owned lands of Lake Oahe, North Dakota. The pipeline has been the target of large-scale protests, led by the Sioux Tribe of the nearby Standing Rock Reservation and bolstered by environmentalists throughout the world. At their height this past summer, the protests brought some 5,000 occupying protesters to the area surrounding the pipeline’s construction. Today, that number is down to around 1,200, but the fight has only grown fiercer.

Those opposed to the 1,172-mile pipeline site fears that it will poison the drinking water supply used by millions of people throughout the Great Plains area. They also claim that it will add further to the world’s climate change emergency, by increasing emissions at a rate equivalent to 21.4 million more vehicles on the road per year, and desecrate lands held sacred by the Sioux community.

Needless to say, the protesters are fighting an uphill battle, not only against the energy conglomerate, but also the government and larger populace of what is an energy-first state. They see the project as an essential step in reducing America’s dependency on foreign oil, as well as a huge boost to their state’s economy. The Dakota Access pipeline will connect the state with major refining markets in a quicker and more cost effective manner, thus making North Dakota a leader in the domestic energy market.

ETP claims to have taken environmental concerns into account, while also attempting to convince the people of the state that the pipeline in no way threatens the safety of their drinking water or land. Whether or not they have succeeded here (and after taking into account still-fresh disasters such as the BP oil spill or the poisoning of Flint, Michigan’s drinking water, that is unlikely), the economic benefits may outweigh the environmental risks in many a North Dakotan’s consideration. The construction of the pipeline is a $3.7 billion investment that is projected to produce $55 million in property taxes and create between 8,000-1,200 new local jobs. Supporters have also cited the impact it will have throughout the entire Upper Midwest region by reducing the cost of gas, thus easing the financial burden of the agriculture transportation industry, which has seen shortages caused by high oil tariffs.

Neither side is likely to give in to the other, which is why it is imperative that the Federal government work to find some kind of acceptable compromise or resolution. The Obama administration handed the protestors a temporary victory this past September, by placing a pause on further underground construction pending an Army Corps of Engineers’ review of its National Environmental Policy Act. That win was short-lived, however, with a recent court decision that ruled in favor of ETP, and will allow for construction to resume. This decision supplemented the bad news for protesters earlier this month, when a judge rejected their filing of an injunction against ETP.

These decisions have raised tensions between activists and local law enforcement to a new height, resulting in the arrests of many high-profile protesters, as well as journalists covering the story. In many ways, this specific case is representative of the major concerns that have turned America into a divided country when it comes to how it views its energy policy.

On the one side, you have a rising populist movement that refuses to cede environmental responsibility to profit-driven corporations, and who will not accept any further large-scale projects which will add to climate change. On the other side are those who feel that energy independence is the only way to move forward, and who see jobs and economic growth as the most important consideration. They feel that attempts to halt production on pipeline projects such as this one (or the failed transnational Keystone Pipeline before it) set America back in terms of its potential leadership role throughout the world.

And yet, for as vital an issue as this is, you’d be hard-pressed to know it even exists if you relied solely on the coverage of the Presidential election. The Dakota Access pipeline has not been brought up once during any of the three debates. Nor, for that matter, has energy policy received hardly any focus outside of a few short reiterations of each candidate’s larger philosophy (Clinton wants to invest in green energy moving forward; whereas Trump is seeking to revitalize America’s domestic energy production, in particular natural gas and coal). When it comes to the specifics of the Dakota Access pipeline, neither candidate has taken a position.

At this point, with the election in its final stage, neither Mr. Trump nor Secretary Clinton are likely to change course and devote any time to this issue. That is too bad, because it would do us all well to at least have an idea of what their plan is going to be for the next 4-8 years. There is no better opportunity than now to make that case: whatever their stance, the Dakota Access pipeline is a real-world example that could serve as a perfect measuring stick for what America’s energy policy is going to look like moving into the future.

UPDATED 12/5/2016: The Army Corps of Engineers have handed down a decision to block the current route of the pipeline, effectively handing a win to protesters. Reports on the ground state ETP may still be moving forward in violation of this order, but as of now, the pipeline’s path through the Standing Rock community has been halted.

UPDATED 1/24/2016: The Trump administration announced its plans to scrap the previous administrations halt of the pipeline and go through with it (as well as the previously halted Keystone XL Pipeline), ensuring that the battle over the issue will continue into the foreseeable future.