But even then , a 0 . 001 % chance is still too risky for me . Because in the off chance that it does occur , pipeline typically leak a lot . And I don ' t want 55 , 000 barrels of crude in my drinking water . Probably 99 . 999 % of the pipeline is NOT overunder the river . If a leak happens , it ' ll probably to near certainty not be in the river . But I believe direct action is also a viable option . It is an option . I don ' t think direct action or civil disobedience count as riotingDepends on your definitions , I suppose . But trespassing , throwing rocks and sticks , starting fires , and possibly attempting to make IEDs to use on the cops . I don ' t think those things meet any reasonable definition of ' direct action ' or ' civil disobedience '. They are simply violence . Rioting . In the case of this pipeline , the people there believe it threatens their lives . The women with the arm she was from New York . This pipeline doesn ' t threaten her life . And it doesn ' t threaten anyone else ' s lives , either . There are plenty of pipelines in the USA One of which is already buried right where this one is planned to go ! !, and no one has died due to one that I know of . Yes , I ' m sure you could come up with an accident or two during construction but you know what I mean . The risks are greatly exaggerated .