Bronson, I don't think compounding a potential risk with another risk is a good justification - that's like saying, "hey, some edible food contains trace amounts of carcinogens anyway, so let's just pile more on there - it can't get any worse!"  

My analogy highlights the basic issue, which is some people just don't want an added risk/hazard in their life, so, they'll protest it.  I believe they have every right to do so.  

I believe you are wrong in your assertion that the Sioux want DAPL money and that's why they are protesting - that's been the far-right's disinformation in order to undermine the legitimate claims that the Sioux have.  

If the Sioux wanted money, they would have taken the hundreds of billions in compensation for the Black Hills, which they did not do.  For the Sioux, their stewardship of the land was more important than money.