North Dakota Pipeline Battles Put Local Control, Dakota Access Back in Court

BISMARCK, N.D.—Two major pipeline disputes moved forward in North Dakota this week, with a state judge ruling that local zoning rules are not automatically overridden by state pipeline-siting authority and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filing a new federal lawsuit seeking to halt the Dakota Access Pipeline.

In the first case, South Central District Court Judge Jackson Lofgren ruled Oct. 9 that state siting rules for pipelines do not automatically preempt local zoning ordinances.

The case was brought by landowners and officials in Emmons and Burleigh counties challenging the North Dakota Public Service Commission and Summit Carbon Solutions.

The ruling is being viewed as a victory for local governments seeking to enforce setback requirements and other zoning rules affecting pipeline routes.

The Public Service Commission’s 2024 route permit for Summit Carbon Solutions remains in place for now, but the agency must address several unresolved issues, including public welfare and safety concerns, analysis of an alternative route, disclosure of a carbon-dioxide plume model and whether local setback requirements are unreasonable.

The decision adds another complication for Summit’s broader carbon pipeline project, which has already faced legal and regulatory setbacks in the region.

Parts of North Dakota’s carbon-storage law have previously been ruled unconstitutional, and Summit has yet to secure a permit in South Dakota. The company has also explored possible carbon-storage alternatives in Wyoming.

In a separate case filed the same day, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe asked a federal court in Washington, D.C., to shut down the Dakota Access Pipeline.

The lawsuit challenges a May 2026 Record of Decision by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers granting an easement for the pipeline crossing beneath Lake Oahe.

That federal decision followed a final environmental impact statement issued in December 2025.

Standing Rock argues that continued operation of the pipeline poses risks to the tribe’s sole drinking-water source and raises concerns involving treaty rights, tribal sovereignty, spill response and potential increases in pipeline capacity.

The new lawsuit extends a legal and political fight over Dakota Access that has lasted nearly a decade.

Together, the two cases highlight continuing disputes in North Dakota over the balance between state authority, local control, tribal rights and major energy infrastructure projects.

By: Montana Newsroom wire