You know what? This, and your subsequent apparent interest in defending the administration over this, is somewhat perplexing. I mean perplexing in the sense of someone on the Titanic complaining about having a glass of water spilled on him and an argument raging about whether it was a big glass of water or a small glass of water. It kind of misses the bigger picture.
The bigger picture in this case is that Flynn is someone who had already once been fired by the Obama administration as someone who they deemed a bad manager who was insubordinate and obsessive; Flynn became a zealous Trump supporter who shocked fellow military officers by leading the chant of “lock her up” at the Republican convention like some deranged lunatic. The real problem here does not consist in what precise words he said or didn’t say, but rather that he fits the pattern of the team of senior appointees consisting almost entirely of unethical reprobates, self-serving opportunists and alt-right extremists, making up an administration that is corrupt to the core and stinks to high heaven. It’s no surprise the wheels are already coming off.
The review process is not nearly as hierarchical as you seem to think. The point of the process is to get a bunch of people and government agencies who often have different goals together to work out a meaningful compromise. No one within that process has ultimate authority over anyone else. The lead agency, who in this case is the Army Corps but who can be any permitting, granting, or land managing agency, has a lot of power as the one with jurisdiction over the permits, the money, or the land. If they decide to do something that others disagree with, the only recourse anyone has is the courts, whether that’s the judiciary branch or the court of public opinion. The review process is not meant to stop anything; it’s there to make sure everyone’s voice is heard.
Again, the point of the process is communication between stakeholders. The stakeholders include the lead agency, the ACHP, the state’s SHPO, the landowners, and any public or private individuals or groups who feel they have an interest, which most emphatically includes the tribes. Indeed, tribal consultation is a very basic part of every project I’ve ever been on, whether it’s in North Dakota or New York. The National Historic Preservation Act requires that the federal agencies allow any interested parties to comment on a project and that they take these concerns into consideration. By shutting the tribes out of the process, the pipeline company and the Army Corps violated the law. They argue that they didn’t do that, but those arguments are pretty suspicious (“we totes sent you a letter, and you were all ‘whatever, do what you want’”).
You may not like the laws, and they can certainly be frustrating to deal with. But it’s way too simplistic to cast this issue as involving horrible, villainous liberals who are trying to stop poor, hapless oil companies for no good reason and with no legal standing.
At the risk of over simplifying things, you’re discussing the issue with someone who doesn’t care about drinking water or burial grounds, because his portfolio is looking * fine*.
