The Navajo living on the East Rim of the
Grand Canyon have proposed a large development project that could cost up to 1
billion dollars but bring up to 70 million dollars of annual income to the
depressed community. The East Rim is currently the most pristine section of the
Grand Canyon—and many environmentalists oppose its development. However, the
Navajo leaders are stressing the positive influence the development could have
for their community. There are plans to build a resort and spa, commercial
area, river walk, RV park and tramway to transport visitors. The area doesn’t
have infrastructure, so many roads would have to be paved and water would have
to be piped in.
This project is promising in that it
will likely bring the Navajo income and up to 2,000 jobs, but it will also take
away some of the “authenticity” of the place. We have discussed in class the
differing ideas of what pristine is, and what makes a place authentic. It is
easy to see both sides of this debate. The East Rim is the Navajo’s land and,
thus, they should have the right to develop it as they see fit. Further, it is
hypocritical for the Parks Service to condemn them for developing just as the
Parks Service has done on the Southern Rim. On the other hand, this would not
be a gradual development and there have been few environmental considerations.
The Navajo’s land rights have been contested by the Hopi for years, but the
Navajo were granted rights and the construction ban was lifted in 2009.
In class, I think the sentiment has
largely favored local communities controlling the development of their own
land. I agree with this, but this project does strike me as excessive. As a
potential visitor, if I am going to visit a remote rim of the canyon with great
views, I wouldn’t want there to be a spa, RV park or commercial strip mall. I
would be deterred by the lack of “authenticity.” Does this make me
hypocritical? That I would advocate for locally controlled development, except
in the areas I want to protect? I do think the Navajo should be permitted to
develop the eastern rim, but it doesn’t sound like the current plan has taken
into account the enormous environmental implications. Still am I any better
than the Forest Guardians? What do you think of this debate?
I think that it is important to note that the East Rim is the only one that has been left undeveloped. If the other rims have been made less "authentic" and less "natural," then it not justified to prevent construction on the East Rim simply because it is the last one that is untouched. It is important to continue with the precedent set in this case. I say this only because of the nature of the proposed project. It is one that only effects the visual aesthetics of the area. It does not adversely effect ecosystems, nor does it put any plant or animal species at risk (as for as we can tell from the information provided in the article). If the Navajos have land rights over the area, then it would be a violation of these rights to prevent construction.
ReplyDeleteAnother key element to take into account is the potential for 2,000 (+) jobs to be created. if there are no detrimental side effects on the environment (aside from a diminished aestheticism), then I am in favor of its creation and of the socioeconomic benefits it will provide local population.
Perhaps a compromise can be made here. we have been studying the ins and outs of ecotourism and maybe it could be an applicable solution to this problem. Granted, providing profit bearing activities for tourists to participate in will not gross as much money as a spa and resort (and I am assuming that most possibilities have already been capitalized on by other organizations) but I think that there is potential for the Navajo's to increase their ecotourism in the area. This may include hiking tours, tours of the local area, river rafting, museums dedicated education of the plants and animal species in the area and of Navajo history.
I think this a really challenging article, because I agree that indigenous people should have control over their own land and their land rights should absolutely be respected, however there is a part of me that would like to see at least part of the Grand Canyon remain pristine. However, after a look at the article, it seems that this article villainizes the Navajo Nation for wanting to develop the only pristine area left, without questioning why their land is the only pristine area in the first place? The same people who developed the rest of the rim are now demanding that no one else do what they did? This doesn't seem like justice to me. As much as I'd like for pristine areas to remain, the rights of the Navajo people come first.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like the National Park Service is more worried about losing tourism dollars than actually preserving any wilderness because of the inherent value of the environments, which would be the only acceptable counterargument I could rationalize for wanting to interfere with Navajo plans. There is a sudden outrage about commercialization of the Grand Canyon rim, when our own National Parks have been making money off of it for years and years. If the federal government wants so much pristine land, they could tear down some of their own infrastructure from the National Park site and let the wilderness regrow. It seems unjust to put the entire burden on the Navajo Nation when these land rights are their biggest opportunity to better their community.
This article also brings up issues with oversimplifying indigenous groups. According to the article, the Navajo Nation is also divided on the issue. It is improper to assume that all members of the community are for the development and therefore we should feel guilty for having an inclination towards keeping the rim pristine. There are members of this Navajo community who are also conflicted and would like to keep the area undeveloped. In the end, I think it is a decision that the community must decide upon together and because of the variation within the community, a compromise may end up coming about anyways, without our interference.