Rick Weiland makes clear he's my kind of Democrat. In a March 10 interview with Tasiyagnunpa Livermont on the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation, Weiland says that, polls be darned, he opposes the Keystone XL pipeline:
Weiland says proponents are exaggerating the domestic energy and jobs benefits:
The problem I've got with the Keystone piepline as its been proposed is that it's an export pipeline. Very little if any of the oil, tar sand oil, that's going to be coming through South Dakota is going to stay in the United States. Most of it's going overseas.
The other thing you hear about too is that it's supposed to create all these jobs, and... the last report I read, which was put out by the Government Accounting Office... basically says we're talking about 35 full-time jobs, permanent jobs, and we don't even know how many of those are going to be in South Dakota, and the 2,000 that its going to take to build the pipeline, those are temporary jobs.
The oil that's going to be shipped is really not going to contribute to our energy independence. And the jobs? It's not a jobs bill. Those are the two things that the proponents, the people that want to build Keystone are focused on, and... from the research I've done, that's just not the case.
So what you end up having... is an awful lot of risk associated with the construction of this and the potential for impacts on the environment and very little reward, and that's why I'm opposed to it [Rick Weiland, interview with Tasiyagnunpa Livermont, Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation, 2014.03.10].
With such illusory benefits, South Dakota and the United States wouldn't really receive compensation for the significant risks Keystone XL would bring to, for example, the Ogallala aquifer:
...You look at what it takes in terms of the extraction of the oil and the energy that is consumed to do that, the transportation... they have to heat the tar sand up so it becomes almost liquefied, through a pipeline that crosses over precious water resources like the Ogallala and the potential for the damage that could occur, and the fact that we're not really getting anything for taking on that risk. I think that in and of itself is reason not to build it [Weiland, 2014.03.10].
Only demerits here: Weiland skips the part of Livermont's question about Keystone XL's crossing of Indian treaty land. Our Lakota neighbors are ready to wage war on the pipeline, in part because they contend TransCanada and the federal government have not sufficiently consulted with them in the permitting process. The bogus claims of jobs and energy independence are headline issues, but Keystone XL opponents should never miss the chance to build allies on the reservation and to remind all of us that TransCanada is pushing Keystone XL in ways that perpetuate centuries of abuse and neglect of Native interests.
But Weiland's explicit opposition to Keystone XL at least makes clear the door is open to the conversation about treaty rights, not to mention the property rights that South Dakota courts have surrendered to the foreign pipeline profiteers at TransCanada. This opposition is also one more sign that Weiland is willing to challenge big money when it acts against the best interests of South Dakota.