They actually do have a lawyer out there helping. But as its been said, they don't want to listen. We can shout in their ear, but they're ears are full on gnomes they dont want to hear it.That's the part that makes Dakota Access look the worst, in my opinion. They knew that the Sioux were going to try and take legal action, and they decided to send the dozers in before any of that could be investigated.
Short of doing something illegal, and in contravention of any regulations or decisions set forth by the regulating authority, why do they have to do anything different? I know what you'll say - a football game is not a sacred 1000 year-old burial ground - but it's like the NFL; as a coach I have until the next snap to challenge a play, and the other coach can hustle his team to the line and snap as fast as is legal (they have to be set for a period of time, and in proper formation). I honestly don't know why we're assuming that Dakota Access has all the burden to be accommodating and diligent here, to make up for the Sioux' shortcomings.
The contractor is NOT obligated to do your due diligence for you. The contractor is NOT obligated to incur costs and delays (including, in some cases, liquidated damages) to cover someone else's inability to adequately articulate their position. The contractor knew full well the sensitivity of the issue and decided to plow on ahead. Setting aside what the legal "obligations" are for a moment (and, by the way, the Sioux seem to believe they have a case there as well). If, like Romney says, "corporations are people, my friend" Dakota Access just proved to the world that they're one bad hombre. The general public are well within their rights to protest, and call DA out on being bad corporate citizens. You seem to have a bone with people calling DA out as "greedy". If DA aren't greedy, they could prove it. Prove it with their response to this sensitive, controversial issue. Sorry to say their response says it all.
Your one phrase says all: "setting aside legal "obligations" for a moment". NO. When you have two parties at odds over an issue, that's the ONLY thing that matters. That's the ONLY objective thing by which you can measure both parties. The "corporations are people" comment is almost as hideously misconstrued as "separation of church and state". It ONLY means that a corporation can be sued in court. Under the Constitution, that is the way in which courts get jurisdiction over corporations; you wouldn't, I presume, want it that corporations are sovereign and therefore can't be sued, would you?
Again, provided that DA followed the dictates of the regulations and the statutes, THEY DON'T HAVE TO PROVE IT. If they dug without asking, if they dug after 24 hours and they law calls for a 48 hour moratorium, then they could be called "greedy". If the law - that EVERYONE presumably is held to, and EVERYONE knows about - is followed, there IS no "greedy". The Sioux should have had their ducks in a row, had their case ready, and had the request for injunction filed.
You seem to want to make this into some subjective, emotional case, and it's not. Those things DON'T MATTER in the context of figuring out what steps each party should take. I really have no dog in this hunt other than as a observer of process, and that's unfortunately how the system is set up, ON PURPOSE. EVERYONE has a bleeding heart story, and the context of the law is such that it provides a framework to ameliorate that aspect so that every case doesn't devolve into who can cry the biggest tears. We set parameters. We set time frames for comment and dissent and discussion. We set time frames for responses to same. Unless DA contravened those, there is no other argument, from a legal perspective. If that's not the perspective to be followed, how can we expect society to function?