A Difficult Choice on Water
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/a-difficult-choice-on-water/
The senators of Arizona have proposed a bill that would require two Native American tribes to negotiate their claims to a part of the Colorado River. The bill calls for the two tribes to cease using the river, and instead, they would be provided with groundwater that would be pumped to their communities. One thing that I find striking about this bill is that it requires the heads of both tribes to sign off on it. This is a noble attribute of the bill, however, neither tribe feels confident enough to sign off on the bill, and they want more public hearings for it. By giving up the claims to the river, several businesses would come in and use the river for their operations; most notably, the Peabody Coal corporation. The reason these tribes use the Colorado River so heavily is that ground water is so scarce on their reservations. Taking away this crucial resource could be detrimental to their lives. Yes, they will have groundwater pumped to their reservations, but what happens when something malfunctions? The tribes cannot just go to the river and use it as they please anymore. The tribes want to meet with the politicians to discuss this bill more thoroughly, but the senators want the bill pushed through before congress lets out.
This article sounds like every other reading we had about a large political organization or corporation coming in to use a resource from a local community. The local community feels underrepresented, and the party with the most power wants to speed up the process. This is a chance for the Arizona senators to set a precedent of really talking with the local community to understand their needs and fears of the bill. They could come to a better compromise than just outright banning the tribes from using the river ever again. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I have a feeling that since the politicians have the goal to push this bill through quickly, and the power to do so, it will be done without much input from the tribes.
Thank goodness that the tribes are advocating more public hearings! Finally, here is an example of a group that is putting up resistance against the government before the negative impacts set in. While the claim that the new groundwater supply will improve the lives of the Native Americans, I think it is particularly telling that the government is the entity that is pushing this bill - not the Native Americans. This appears to be another scenario very much like Hyde Park, where big industries with the political and economic power seek to achieve their agendas (coal production, control of water sources) without facing opposition.
ReplyDeleteThe Native Americans are at a significant disadvantage to fight this bill because the government wants to expedite its passage, and the limited time frame will hamper their ability to hold additional hearings about the bill. The government's lack of transparency and questionable motives are particularly concerning. Hopefully, public hearings will be held and the tribes have adequate time and information to determine if this new bill will either protect their interests or hurt their livelihoods.
I certainly hope that the public hearings and output of more information will come before the decisions is made! Unfortunately, I, too, feel like this may just become another instance of where someone with more funds and more power is willing to speed up or slow down a process to suit their agenda. It's very possible for them to not only expedite the process, but also copy a number of trends we saw in Hyde Park. For one, they could end up scheduling these public hearings for during the day. They could also schedule them in locations that are not on the reservations, which could make transportation to these information sessions and dialogues virtually impossible.
ReplyDeleteIf the public hearings go through, that is awesome! But we need to make sure they go through fairly. I think we can expect the government to try and expedite the process, but it is a sad expectation that they are likely to meet, and we'll probably see some sort of news story in the future about the struggles of the reservation or about problems with the Colorado River and local coal mining problems. Hopefully those stories will not need to be published with increased dialogue and compromise, but realistically this is a slim shot.
I would like to know a little more about the motivations behind this bill and the intentions that these companies have for the river. The article states that the river is desired for farming, ranching and mining and it seems that if they are negotiating to waive the rights of the tribes to the river, there is a strong possibility that the corporate runoff will pollute the river, making it unacceptable as drinking water. One could argue that if, instead, no pollution is intended, the tribes should retain access to the river, even if they are no longer responsible for it. Don’t the companies need to address this, so that pollution is avoided? As the river is so integral to their livelihood, it cannot be polluted, even if they have access to alternative clean water.
ReplyDeleteA main issue that is raised here is lack of trust. The communities are faced with a proposition that will be a great benefit, yet information and details are being withheld, creating an environment of distrust and disrespect. I commend the communities for taking a stand to demand answers to ensure a fair settlement, and hope that they remain strong as officials try to pressure them into a quick agreement.
I agree with Acid Rain that I would like to know a little more about the motivations of the bill and the companies who want access to the river. This would provide insight on other potential forms of environmental injustice on these communities. I do think credit should be given to the politicians in their request to have both tribe leaders give consent on the bill, since this shows a desire to incorporate these communities that would be most affected by it (or they could just be trying to create a good image for future campaigns and avoiding a potential scandal). I think more information needs to be given to the tribes as to what exactly would happen if this bill were passed, and I am also glad that the tribe leaders are not giving in to pressure to pass the bill quickly and are considering the needs of their communities. My biggest concern with this regards regulation. Who is going to make sure the bill is carried out correctly, and that the companies will not overstep their impact on the area? How are we going to prevent the companies from taking advantage of already disadvantaged communities? Native Americans do not have much legal representation, and their current lack of access to water (which is known to the government) reflects apprehension on behalf of officials to protect their rights.
ReplyDelete