Legislative Issues

Fire Sale of Federal Lands?

November 9, 2005
 
Dear Representative,
 
The United States Congress is poised for a fire sale of federal lands to domestic and international corporate interests that could affect Indigenous lands, cultural, and natural resources if an amendment introduced in the House Resources Budget Package is approved. House Representative Richard Pombo (R-CA), chair of the House Resources Committee, has submitted an amendment that would eviscerate existing U.S. mining laws so that multinational mining corporations can buy our public lands -- whether they contain minerals or not. This does not include lands withdrawn for other purposes, such as National Parks.  
 
The legislation affects approximately 270 million acres of land across the U.S. It includes many areas where there are unresolved Indigenous land claims as well as the need for protection of sacred sites and other culturally sensitive areas. In areas where there are already questions about land title and concerns about off reservation hunting, fishing and gathering rights, and access to sacred sites, privatization could be the final blow to Indigenous nations and communities attempting to re-establish title or use of what is rightfully theirs.
 
Examples of Indigenous land claims that could be affected are: the Black Hills of South Dakota, the Western Shoshone lands of Idaho, Nevada, Utah and California, the San Francisco Peaks of Arizona, and lands in the headwaters region of rivers flowing into Bristol Bay, Alaska. These are just a few areas where Indigenous tribal nations and Native American communities may have to take action to protect what rightfully is theirs if this fire sale of federal lands is allowed to proceed.  Additionally, mining and other forms of development that come with privatization could impact the ecological and human health of Indigenous communities living downstream or downwind from the operations. Mineral extraction impacts ecosystems that sustain Indigenous tribal nations and communities.
 
We are concerned that Representative Pombo drafted this legislation with no consideration or consultation with Indigenous tribal nations and communities. This legislation is a continuation of U.S. policy to exterminate or extirpate Indigenous Peoples from their lands. Numerous treaties with Indigenous nations have been violated in the pursuit of gold and other natural resources. The 1872 Mining Law signed into law by President Ulysses S Grant to induce people to settle the West by allowing citizens to buy mineral bearing public lands for $5/acre, or less is an example of this 133 years later. Indigenous tribal nations and communities are still here and fighting to protect our ancestral lands and spiritual areas.  Rather than reform existing discriminatory laws, Representative Pombo is proposing to change the mining law to allow corporations to take over huge areas of federal and Indian lands – without Indigenous tribal governmental and traditional council consent and further eliminating indigenous peoples’ ability to use these lands. The United States has a trust responsibility to consult with Indigenous tribes on proposed actions or development activities in through government-to-government negotiations and the National Environmental Policy Act. This has not occurred.

The Pombo amendment is attempting to sell what may not be theirs. This legislative maneuver is an outrage to Indian Country and should be addressed as such.  It not only underscores the fundamental human rights violations continuing against Indigenous Peoples. It also draws directly into scrutiny the multinational and foreign corporate involvement in the theft and destruction of Indigenous lands and resources. Please remove the Pombo amendment from the House Resources Budget Package (House version of the Budget Reconciliation Bill). We, the Indigenous Peoples living in the U.S., have had to give way more than our fair share of land and resources to ensure the success of the U.S. and the corporations that do business here. There are more effective ways to raise money for the budget. Stop this effort before more harm is brought upon our Indigenous tribal nations and communities.

The undersigned Tribal Nations, Traditional Councils, Native Organizations and individuals respectfully request your prompt attention and action on this important matter.

(Information on sign on's can be obtained from Robert Shimek, IEN mining organizer, ienmining@igc.org)

More information on the Pombo Amendment:

Good Fact Sheet on this Land Grab! : http://www.bettermines.org/pombo.cfm

TAKE ACTION ON THIS AMENDMENT - THURSDAY ACTION - Westerners for Responsible Mining
http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/pombo_vote


Alex - Put this under 2nd page for "Pombo Amendment"


Feinstein Calls on Pombo to Withdraw Provision Allowing
Close to 40,000 acres with active mining claims in the Tahoe National Forest at risk
By: Howard Gantman
Published: November 9, 2005 at 08:26
 Email this article

 Printer friendly page
Comment on this article


U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today urged the Chairman of the House Resources Committee, Richard Pombo, to withdraw a provision that would open up millions of acres of public lands - including areas in National Parks - for sale to mining interests.

Chairman Pombo inserted the provision into the Budget Reconciliation bill, which will be considered by the House of Representatives tomorrow.

The provision would lift the Congressional moratorium on the sale of mining claims, imposed since 1994, and allow claimants to purchase the underlying public lands for $1,000 per acre, or "fair market value" for the surface estate, whichever is greater. Claimants would not have to pay for the far more valuable minerals underlying the lands. Nor would they have to prove that their claims contain mineral deposits before they can purchase the rights to the land.

This could mean that as much as 4,500,000 aces of public lands, National Forests, and National Parks could be sold nationwide.

Following is the text of Senator Feinstein's letter to Chairman Pombo:

"I am deeply concerned that you propose to sell off significant parts of America's treasured public lands, including areas in National Parks, Wilderness areas, and National Forests, as part of the House budget reconciliation bill.

I understand that the bill would in essence lift the Congressional moratorium on the 'patenting' of mining claims, imposed since 1994, and allow claimants to purchase the underlying public lands for $1,000 per acre, or 'fair market value' for the surface estate, whichever is greater. Claimants need not pay for the far more valuable minerals underlying the lands. Critically, while the 1872 Mining Law requires patent applicants to prove that their claims contain valuable mineral deposits before they are entitled to patents, your proposal appears to effectively repeal this requirement.

This provision could allow claimants to carve out numerous private enclaves within our public lands, without even proving that mining deposits lie beneath them. According to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), in FY 2004 there were 228,638 active mining claims nationwide. If these mining claims are each 20 acres in size, which is typical, it appears that as much as 4,500,000 acres of our public lands, National Forests, and National Parks containing existing mining claims are subject to privatization under your language. And the language allows the purchase of potentially huge blocks of contiguous BLM and National Forest lands as well -- stating that 'blocks' of mining claims or millsites may be purchased if contiguous to claims on public lands where the applicant presents evidence that mineral development work including such activities as remote aerial surveys has been performed.

The effects could be particularly severe on the National Parks protected under the California Desert Protection Act of 1994, which I sponsored. There are 432 unpatented mining claims in the Mojave National Preserve and 286 such claims in Death Valley. The sale of these lands could fragment the desert parks. Equally at risk are close to 40,000 acres with active mining claims in the Tahoe National Forest north and west of Lake Tahoe.

Moreover, your bill also appears to require the Secretary of the Interior to sell 'mineral deposits' or lands containing 'depleted' mineral deposits to anyone desiring them, 'Notwithstanding any other provision of law.' Although certain conservation lands are exempted from this sweeping provision (National Parks, Wilderness areas, National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, National Wildlife Refuges, National Recreation Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Trails), it appears that potentially millions of acres of National Forests and BLM lands would now be required to be put up for sale by the Interior Secretary merely because they contained 'mineral deposits' - a term undefined in your bill – or even 'depleted' mineral deposits.

Such significant legislation for our public lands needs to be fully debated on the merits, not forced through Congress in a reconciliation bill. I urge you to withdraw these land sale provisions from the reconciliation package."


See also : Pombo Amendment and Pombo's proposal is stuck in 1872

Kill the Bill

By Kelpie Wilson
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Thursday 28 July 2005

If anything merits drawing the filibuster sword out of its sheath, it is the energy bill that came out of a House/Senate conference this week.

True, a Supreme Court appointment, especially of a young Federalist Society judge like Roberts who has the potential to occupy the bench for forty years, is a decision with far-reaching implications. By comparison, a ten-year energy policy bill may seem less important and less deserving of the fragile power of the filibuster. But on the other hand, the world and America are at a critical juncture with regard to energy, and there is very little time left to change course.

We are about to reach the global peak of oil production. After it peaks, the flow of oil will be less and less every year. Once the oil is gone, it's gone, and there is no direct substitute for it. We have known this day was coming for at least thirty years, but the US has done little to prepare, other than to wage military campaigns in the Persian Gulf with the intent of controlling the world's largest remaining oil fields. We reached our own peak oil production back in the early 1970s.

We now import 60 percent of the 21 million barrels of oil we use each day, but the revised energy bill would do nothing to decrease America's dangerous dependence on foreign oil.

The Senate version of the bill, while still chock full of pork for the oil and nuclear industries, did have some modest provisions to promote renewable energy and conservation. Most of these are now gone, including:

A directive to the President to find a way to reduce oil consumption by 1 million barrels a day by 2015. Though non-enforceable, opponents said it was a back door to higher fuel efficiency standards and that (horrors!) it would force Americans into carpools.

A renewable portfolio standard (RPS) requiring that at least 10 percent of the nation's electricity come from renewable sources like wind and solar power by 2020. Gee, just about every country with a decent-sized economy already has an RPS in place, except for us. China passed the exact same RPS - 10 percent by 2020 - back in February.

A non-binding resolution recognizing that global warming is a real problem. Global warming remains unmentionable except as an excuse to pour money into so-called "clean" coal and nuclear power. A ban on the groundwater-polluting gasoline additive MTBE. The Senate version would have phased out its use over four years. The final version has no ban.

About $5 billion in subsidies and tax incentives to encourage renewable energy and energy efficiency. The Senate version supplied about $10 billion. The conference committee slashed the renewables and efficiency subsidies in half, and increased fossil fuel and nuclear subsidies.

There were many regressive provisions in either or both versions of the bill that remain in the final. Some of the worst are:

Massive cradle-to-grave subsidies for the nuclear industry. Conferees even piled on extra sweetener: $2 billion in risk insurance for the first six nuclear plants to get built and an expanded production tax credit.

Stripping states of the authority to approve LNG (liquefied natural gas) import terminals and handing sole authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

Repeal of PUHCA (Public Utilities Holding Company Act) - the New Deal regulation that has kept our electricity cheap and our utilities solvent for 70 years. Without it, every utility in the country is vulnerable to Enron-style financial manipulation.

Energy industry exemptions to the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act were all in the House but not the Senate version. Now they are in the final bill.

A mandated off-shore oil survey that will use seismic methods (setting off underwater blasts) that are known to harm dolphins, whales and other sea life.

Tons of taxpayer money for the filthy rich oil, coal and gas industries, including an extra $1.5 billion snuck into the bill late Monday night AFTER the conference meeting had been gaveled to a close! The money would go to a special oil industry slush fund administered by an industry consortium based in Sugar Land, Texas - part of Tom DeLay's district.

A few nasties from the House version were dropped, and they are getting a lot of press, but it is not really such great news. Tom DeLay badly wanted a liability shield for MTBE manufacturers, and he didn't get it. But he did get a provision that allows manufacturers to move cases from state courts to federal. According to Christy Leavitt of PIRG (Public Interest Research Group), that will only benefit the manufacturers, as many MTBE lawsuits are based on state product liability laws. MTBE manufacturers knew for years that their product was polluting ground water and said nothing while continuing to make and sell it.

The other deal-killer dropped from the energy bill was authorization to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). But the Alaska delegation and Big Oil have already figured out the work-around for this one. They added hypothetical oil leasing revenue from ANWR into the federal budget back in March. This fall, there will be a filibuster-proof budget reconciliation process where they can thread in the authorizing language to open the reserve. Voila! ANWR is toast.

The danger from this energy bill is huge and unprecedented. Oil we buy after the peak of production is going to get increasingly more expensive. We need to invest the remaining oil and gas in building a new energy infrastructure of renewable technologies like wind and solar power combined with an efficiency makeover for buildings, appliances and the transportation sector. We don't have any time, money, or energy to waste. Every wrong move we make now is going to cost us in the future, leaving us less prepared to live in a post-petroleum world.

Americans, despite how little the media tells us about Peak Oil and our energy situation, are aware that we must make a real change. In June, Yale University conducted a national survey that showed that even though Americans are deeply divided on many issues, more than 90 percent agree we are too dependent on foreign oil and we should mandate higher auto fuel efficiency standards. More than 86 percent want increased funding for solar, wind and other renewable energy technologies.

This is phenomenal. In a red-blue polarized nation, it shows that there is a strong purple constituency for a new energy future. It shows that, except in the few special interest states like Alaska, there is little risk to senators who vote against this energy bill.

The House will pass the bill. It is up to the Senate to stop it. President Bush wants a vote before the congressional recess starts next Monday, and the Senate is scheduled to vote on it either Friday or Saturday. The new bill is now 1700 pages long. Nobody has had time to read it all yet, and it must be read in order to determine if any other oil industry goodies have been illegally buried in it, so what is the rush?

Are there 41 senators, from any party, who will listen to their constituents, who will stand up for America and filibuster this energy bill? Are there 41 men and women in the Senate who will put America's national security, economic competitiveness, quality of life, well-being, and long-term survival ahead of the dim-sighted, Gollum-like greed of their corporate campaign contributors?

And even more important, are there 51 senators who will kill this bill?

Kelpie Wilson is the t r u t h o u t environment editor. A veteran forest protection activist and mechanical engineer, she writes from her solar-powered cabin in the Siskiyou Mountains of southwest Oregon. Her first novel, Primal Tears, is forthcoming from North Atlantic Books in Fall 2005.

printable .DOC or .PDF format

U.S. Energy Bill Title V Harms Tribes

U.S. Energy Bill 2005
(Indian) Energy Title V

The Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) has a U.S. campaign to educate Native grassroots and concerned Tribal Nations on the US energy bill of 2005. Both the House and Senate versions of this piece of legislation are loaded with giveaways to the fossil fuel industry, nuclear and the energy industry. IEN has stood in alliance with local and national organizations and has managed to effectively kill the passing of this bill in Congress for the last four years. Resurrected again this year 2005, the bill is virtually the same legislation, still loaded with harmful subsidies (corporate welfare) to the fossil fuel, nuclear and coal industries. This bill if passed, would be the most pork-barreled bill ever to come out in the history of the US congress.

IEN has focused our resistance to the Title V Section of the energy bill, which deals directly with energy development on Indian lands, including Alaska. IEN had previously sent a Native delegations to Washington D.C. representing the many faces of Native resistance to these harmful proposals. This energy bill poses threats to our lands, people and culture. Mineral extraction for energy production is not economic development.

Congress is now considering legislation that would dramatically change how energy development decisions are made in “Indian Country”. Language contained in Title V Section of the House version of the Energy bill (H.R. 6) would eliminate the federal guarantees of public participation and environmental review from energy development decisions in Indian Country. The language also undercuts the federal trust responsibility to tribes by providing a waiver for the federal government of all liability from energy development. This is the same language that was considered by Congress last year.

What the House Bill Does (Title V Section): Currently, the Department of the Interior approves leases, rights-of-way, and agreements relating to energy development projects in Indian Country. Under the language being considered, once a tribal energy resource agreement (describing how the tribes would implement specific projects) is approved by the Secretary of Interior, no further federal action is involved. As a result, federal laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) would no longer apply to project decisions such as the decision to issue a lease for oil and gas development.

Key elements of what occurs now under federal law that could be lost under the proposed language include: (1) an obligation to identify cultural and historic resources affected by a proposed project; (2) an obligation to address all potential impacts to both natural and cultural resources; (3) an obligation to respond to comments received; (4) an obligation to address alternatives to a proposed project (alternatives should include different levels of development, as well as a no action alternative); (5) an enforcement mechanism to ensure that mitigation proposed to limit adverse impacts of a project are implemented; and (6) meaningful recourse to the judicial system to ensure compliance with law. The proposed legislation provides for “environmental review” and “public participation,” but lacks standards to ensure that they are comparable to what is provided now under federal law.

As the U.S. Supreme Court has recently made clear, removing the Secretary of the Interior from management decisions also undermines the federal government’s accountability for those decisions. See United States v. Navajo Nation, 123 S. Ct. 1079, 1091 (2003). The federal government can, and should, take action necessary to ensure that the negotiation table between tribes and energy companies is level. The federal government also has an essential role in enforcing agreements that tribes enter into with energy companies.

What the Senate Bill Does Title V Section):
While the Senate bill preserves some trust responsibility and makes some improvements to the environmental review process, it still removes the guarantees of public participation now available under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under Title V of the Senate bill, tribes would have to develop their own environmental review process. Tribal governments would have to respond to comments received. The scope of what would be reviewed could be much narrower than what is reviewed under NEPA now. The review is limited to “significant” effects, while now under NEPA, agencies must analyze effects that may be significant. No explicit obligation exists to consider a full range of reasonable alternatives or to consider cumulative impacts. In addition, the federal courts would be unavailable to ensure compliance with the review and participation requirements.

While tribal governments deserve more control over the activities that occur on our lands, it is important to ensure that development decisions adequately address the impacts on cultural and natural resources and that those affected by the decisions have a say in making them.

Overall Concerns

The bill will release the federal government of its traditional “trust responsibility” to Tribes. The federal government has long played an essential role in the negotiation and enforcement of energy development agreements made between Tribes and energy companies. Acting within its traditional “trust responsibility”, the federal government monitors any transactions, which occur between Tribes and energy companies to ensure that the negotiation table is level. The Indian Energy Title V departs from this by setting precedent by providing an explicit waiver on the part of the federal government which serves to exonerate them of all liability associated with energy development in Indian Country. This is not good for our Tribes.

(Waives existing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental review and public participation process for all types of energy development projects on Indian lands in favor of an unspecified new process. Title V, Sec. 501-505)

Focus of Non-Renewable Energy

Within Title V Section, there remains a focus on the depletion of non-renewable resources highlighted by several extremely dangerous provisions within the Indian Title, that could potentially negatively impacts American Indian and Alaskan Native communities on a massive scale. Most notable is the section pertaining to sitting of energy facilities, including leases and rights-of-ways for oil and gas and other energy development that modifies the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

There remains the provision within the energy bill for the promotion of exploitation for nuclear energy, the waste from which will be stored on Indian lands at either Skull Valley Band of Goshute in Utah or at Yucca Mountain on the traditional lands of the Western Shoshone. In either case, these Tribes and other Tribes along the proposed transportation routes for transporting highly radioactive waste could put Native peoples as the first point of impact in case of any accident.

Tribal lands have also been targeted for the construction of oil refinery’s, which would put at health risk the people who live within the vicinity of such development. The air quality would be compromised, which would generate compounded health illnesses. For the communities that would be put at risk this should is not be an option. Tribes should not be forced to accept economic development projects that would harm their tribal communities’ quality of life, culture and health.

Also included in the energy bill are the provisions that would allow funds of 30 million dollars to the uranium mining industries for the research and development of proposed uranium mining. Even though these funds would not be earmarked directly to one of the proposed uranium developments at Crownpoint, New Mexico on the Navajo reservation, the funds could indirectly end up supporting the development.

Water is used in massive quantities in energy developments. From coal mining and processing, coal bed methane and other fossil fuel and nuclear power production, millions of acres of water are used and wasted per day. Water is sacred and an essential gift of Life. Water would be contaminated that would complicate the lives of all people in these communities along with the extensive devastation of health and environmental impacts. Tribes and tribal grassroots members are concerned with implications within the energy bill and the Indian Title V that would further perpetuate abuses and violate the integrity of our Tribal lands. The energy bill would furthermore perpetuate the notion that our lands are national energy sacrifice areas.

Uncertainties in the legislation will lead to lengthy and costly litigation. Implementing the legislation could become contentious legal activity. A great deal is at stake for Tribes, affected non-Indian communities, energy developers, States, and others. Unlike NEPA where most issues are now settled and agencies are capable of administering the law efficiently, numerous aspects of the energy bill will have to be interpreted and could take many years of litigation. Apart from the risks to Tribes of unfavorable outcomes, all parties risk delay, expense, and unknown results.

Electrical generating plants (such as coal-fired power plants and nuclear power plants), waste-to-burn incinerators and oil development including seismic testing, oil exploration, extraction, production and offshore oil development are the most controversial industrial activities in the country because of the problems they cause including – toxic pollution, nuclear waste, noise, health, safety and transportation concerns, habitat destruction, water depletion, unsightliness, and cultural and community impacts. Energy development such as waste-to-energy incinerators and oil refineries emit dioxin and mercury, the effects of which not only contaminate the local area but also travel far from their source and contribute to toxic releases of persistent organic pollutants, and overall climate change and global warming.

Energy development will cause on and off reservation pollution, creating concerns not only amongst our Tribal members who have a spiritual and cultural connection to the land and whom may practice traditional harvesting and gathering of food but non-Native communities and non-Tribal members may also want meaningful participation in the review process, which is limited by the legislation, thus creating court challenges to tribal sovereignty. Questions over the extent of tribal regulation, due process, provisions for administrative procedures and dispute resolution on the reservation are already issues of serious concern.

Corporate Welfare at the expense of our Tribes:

The Indian Title V of the energy bill promotes corporate access to Tribal lands for corporate exploitation. and The energy bill in general, promotes “corporate welfare” for the multi-national corporations that obtain their wealth from the ultimate exploitation and degradation of not only Tribal lands in the US, but Indigenous peoples worldwide. Indian Title V specifically addresses energy development in Indian Country. The Indian Title as such is cloaked in sovereignty but in actuality it is detrimental to Tribes and Tribal lands.

Multi-national and corporate interests lack respect for our traditions and would destroy or endanger our cultures in pursuit of multi-national economic or political objectives. This poses a threat to our inherent sovereign rights to maintain our cultures, and spirituality, which are interdependent with our environment. Indigenous peoples reject the concept that lands we rely upon to meet our physical, cultural, spiritual, or economic means should be viewed as a short term solution to offset the US Energy dilemma. US energy policy should be addressed by diversifying our economy instead of relying on fossil fuels to meet our energy needs. Our cultures should not be sacrificed for the high-energy consumption needs of America.

The bill defines Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Native Corporations as Tribes. The bill defines ANCSA Regional Corporation lands as Indian lands.

Title V has the provisions make substantial changes that affect the sovereignty of Alaska Native tribes and villages. Title V defines ANCSA corporations as tribes. Many Alaska Natives say that ANCSA Corporations should not be defined as tribes, nor should Native Corporation lands be classified as Indian lands, tribal lands or Indian reservations. (While the bill rightfully excludes Native Corporations from the definitions of Tribes for section 2604 [leasing, rights-of-ways, and other development], it does define them as Tribes for most purposes. This proposed bill defines Native Corporation lands as Indian lands.)

Among the many dangers associated with conferring the status of Indian tribe upon ANCSA Regional Corporations, is the issue of funding. The Indian Title V Section of the energy bill would authorize the Departments of Interior and Department of Energy to provide Tribes with grants and loans to build their capacity to manage energy development projects on Indian lands.

CONCLUSIONS.
It appears unwise to proceed with the enactment of the provisions of the energy bill that place responsibility on Tribes for energy development without further study. Any legislation that potentially affects tribal resources and jurisdiction to the extent of the energy bill deserves careful study and deliberation. Tribal natural resources, the health and welfare of tribal peoples and lands, and the jurisdiction of tribal governments and courts are all at stake. The energy bill accomplishes this purpose by abdicating existing federal responsibilities under environmental laws and the historic trust responsibility, effecting a rearrangement of the federal-tribal relationship. If the termination era taught anything it is that haste in such matters can have tragic consequences.

No energy bill is better than a bad energy bill; we need a comprehensive energy bill that will serve to empower tribes to develop energy resources with a primary focus on safe, clean renewables, while at the same time ensuring that the impacts of development are accounted for. As tribal leaders and community members, we must take these necessary steps to promote energy legislation that aspires toward a more sustainable future. We all have a sacred responsibility as the Tribal leaders of Indian country to appeal to the leaders of this nation, at all levels of governments, to accept responsibility for the welfare of our future generations and our Mother Earth.

Some of our tribes and Indian organizations have been working on addressing this important issue. We need tribal leadership to speak out against the Energy Bill at the national level in order to defeat this harmful Bill which compromises our Tribal Sovereignty, Tribal lands and our sacred responsibility as stewards of the land. We strongly urge Tribes to focus attention and policy efforts on this critical issue. There will be a vote in the senate this week!!!

A Comprehensive Energy Bill should:

Help empower Tribes to develop clean renewable energy. There are some tribes that have an abundance of solar and wind resources.

Eliminate the federal government’s waiver of liability for energy development in Indian Country and ensure that the federal government’s “trust responsibility” continues.

Ensure that existing federal environmental laws such as NEPA and NHPA would still apply to energy projects on Indian lands.

Not subsidize ANCSA Corporations to engage in oil and gas development, but instead focus on alternatives and clean renewable energy for Alaska’s tribes.

Honor the established distinction between Alaskan tribes and ANCSA Regional Corporations thereby making certain that each entity continue to perform the functions they were intended to. ANCSA Regional and Village Corporations should not be defined as tribes. ANCSA Corporation lands should not be defined to be Indian lands, reservations, or tribal lands.

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee at:
http://energy.senate.gov/
We need to flood Senate offices, both Republican and Democrat, with phone calls and faxes to not support this bill. Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121
or toll free at 1-800-839-5276.

Title V, Indian Energy of the Energy Bill could be found at:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/pubs/TribalEnergy.pdf

Indigenous Environmental Network, PO Box 485, Bemidji, MN 56619
– Tel: 218.751.4967 – E-mail: ienoil@igc.org or ien@igc.org Web: www.ienearth.org

** PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY **

ENERGY BILL NATIVE ACTION ALERT!
7/27/05

Dear American Indians, Alaska Natives, and allies,

American Indian and Alaska Native sovereignty is under attack! As the Bush administration moves America down a backwards path of fossil fuel and nuclear energy dependency, they are planning yet again to sacrifice our homelands and way of life to provide a short term solution to this nations energy dilemma.

Late Monday night, the House-Senate conference committee approved a final version of the energy bill. We expect the bill to cruise through the House very soon, and to come to a vote in the Senate possibly by the end of this week. Within this conference bill is section Title V, otherwise know as the Indian Energy Title. If this legislation is adopted in Congress it promises to eliminate the federal guarantees of public participation and environmental review from energy development decisions in Indian Country. The language also undercuts the federal trust responsibility to Tribes by providing a waiver for the federal government of all liability from energy development.

There are other significant sections in Title V that pertain to Alaska Natives. Title V redefines Alaska Native Corporations as “Tribes” as well as defining Alaska Native Corporate Land as “Indian or Tribal Lands”. There has been no adequate consultation with all the Alaska Natives that would be impacted by this proposed section.

PLEASE CALL YOUR U.S. SENATOR'S OFFICE IN DC THIS WEEK!!

ASK THEM TO OPPOSE TITLE V AND THE ENERGY BILL!

FIND YOUR SENATOR'S DC PHONE NUMBER HERE:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
(PICK YOUR STATE AND CALL BOTH OF YOUR U.S. SENATORS)
(Capitol switchboard number below!!!!!)

The Senate should delay their vote until after the August recess, so they Have time to learn what is actually in the bill.

Your message to your Senators is simple: No to Indian Energy Title V, and NO to the overall Energy Bill.

The Energy Bill would:

Title V specifically addresses energy development in Indian Country. Within this section, there are several provisions that would negatively impact American Indian and Alaskan Native Tribes and villages. The energy bill shifts full responsibility to Tribes for exercising regulatory and judicial jurisdiction over major energy-related developments.

• This legislation potentially affects tribal resources, sovereignty and jurisdiction.
• The bill could release the federal government of its traditional “trust responsibility” to ensure the protection of the health, environment and resources of Tribes. The bill undermines federal environmental laws such as National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for energy development projects on Indian lands, resulting in a rearrangement of the federal-tribal relationship.
• This would be problematic enabling tribes to enter into resource agreements with less scrutiny that existing environmental laws would guarantee. This modification would grant tribes the unchecked authority to proceed into sensitive areas without full public environmental review or assessment.
• Many tribes have no solid mechanism for accountability to tribal members or adequate structures for environmental impact assessment and protection. This could open up conflicts at the tribal level with questions of capacity, providing administrative procedures and due process to tribal members and non-tribal members living within tribal jurisdictions to be part of the decision-making processes.
• The Indian Energy Title V, would amend section 2604 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and set precedent by providing an explicit waiver that exonerates the federal government of all liability associated with energy development in Indian Country.
• While it is true that some tribes already possess the much necessary experience in managing energy development projects on their lands, there are many other energy and natural resource-rich tribes that remain administratively disadvantaged who may be less than optimally positioned to negotiate fair and equitable energy development agreements.

The bill defines Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Native Corporations as Tribes. The bill defines ANCSA Regional Corporation lands as Indian lands. Several provisions in Indian Energy Title V (Section 503 that amends sections 2601, 2602, and 2603 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992) continue to be of concern to Alaska tribal governments and its people.

• The provisions make substantial changes that affect the sovereignty of Alaska Native tribes and villages.
• ANCSA Corporations should not be defined as tribes, nor should Native Corporation lands be defined to be Indian lands, tribal lands or Indian reservations.
• (While the bill rightfully excludes Native Corporations from the definitions of tribes for section 2604 (leasing, rights-of-ways, and other development), it does define them as tribes for most purposes. This proposed bill defines Native Corporation lands as Indian lands.)
• Among the many dangers associated with conferring the status of Indian tribe upon ANCSA Regional Corporations, is the issue of funding. The Indian Energy bill will authorize the Departments of Interior and Energy to provide tribes with grants and loans to build their capacity to manage energy development projects on Indian lands.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

The simple message is: call your Senators and tell them:
“No to Indian energy title V, and NO to the Energy Bill!

202-224-3121. Two working toll-free numbers are:
1-888-355-3588 or 1-877-762-8762.

For more information on the title V of the energy bill, contact:
Energy organizer Email: ienoil@igc.org Phone: (218) 760-1370

Indigenous Environmental Network, PO Box 485, Bemidji, MN 56619
Tel: 218.751.4967 – E-mail: ien@igc.org
Web: www.ienearth.org

printable .DOC or .PDF format

fact sheet: NATIVE opposition to u.s. senate
bill (s. 2095) - National energy legislation

“Indigenous peoples reject the concept that lands we rely upon to meet our physical, cultural, spiritual and economic means should be viewed as a short term solution to offset the U.S Energy dilemma. Our cultures should not be sacrificed for the high-energy consumption needs of America.”

National energy policy being considered in Senate, (S. 2095) seek passage of national energy legislation that is filled with giveaways to the polluting fossil fuel and nuclear energy industry. At a time when tribes and the United States need safe, clean, affordable energy, S. 2095 provides huge subsidies for more development of unsustainable nuclear, coal and oil industries.

• Tribes and tribal members in Nevada and Utah are opposed to the expansion of nuclear power plants for reasons that the nuclear waste of nuclear power plants (radioactive spent fuel rods) is destined for storage in the homelands of Shoshone tribal communities and sacred site areas.
• Expansion of coal mining, coal fired power plants and oil and gas development combine to become major contributors to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases. The earth is an accelerating spiral of climate change. Since 1992 the ecosystems of the earth have been compounding in change. Indigenous peoples from North America and especially the arctic regions bare disproportionate impacts from climate and weather changes.

The national energy policy being considered in Senate (S. 2095) includes an Indian energy section (Title V) that specifically addresses energy development in Indian Country. Within this section, there are several provisions that would negatively impact American Indian and Alaskan Native communities. The energy bill shifts full responsibility to tribes for exercising regulatory and judicial jurisdiction over major energy-related developments.

• This legislation potentially affects tribal resources, sovereignty and jurisdiction.
• The bill could release the federal government of its traditional “trust responsibility” to ensure the protection of the health, environment and resources of Tribes. The bill undermines federal environmental laws such as National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for energy development projects on Indian lands, resulting in a rearrangement of the federal-tribal relationship.
• This would be problematic enabling tribes to enter into resource agreements with less scrutiny that existing environmental laws would guarantee. This modification would grant tribes the unchecked authority to proceed into sensitive areas without full public environmental review or assessment.
• Many tribes have no solid mechanism for accountability to tribal members or adequate structures for environmental impact assessment and protection. This could open up conflicts at the tribal level with questions of capacity, providing administrative procedures and due process to tribal members and non-tribal members living within tribal jurisdictions to be part of the decision-making processes and to voice objections.
• The Indian Energy Title V, would amend section 2604 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and set precedent by providing an explicit waiver that exonerates the federal government of all liability associated with energy development in Indian Country.
• While it is true that some tribes already possess the much necessary experience in managing energy development projects on their lands, there are many other energy and natural resource-rich tribes that remain administratively disadvantaged who may be less than optimally positioned to negotiate fair and equitable energy development agreements.

The bill defines Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Native Corporations as Tribes. The bill defines ANCSA Regional Corporation lands as Indian lands. Several provisions in S. 2095’s Indian Energy Title V (Section 503 that amends sections 2601, 2602, and 2603 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992) continue to be of concern to Alaska tribal governments and its people.

• The provisions make substantial changes that affect the sovereignty of Alaska Native tribes and villages.
• ANCSA Corporations should not be defined as tribes, nor should Native Corporation lands be defined to be Indian lands, tribal lands or Indian reservations.
• (While the bill rightfully excludes Native Corporations from the definitions of tribes for section 2604 (leasing, rights-of-ways, and other development), it does define them as tribes for most purposes. This proposed bill defines Native Corporation lands as Indian lands.)
• Among the many dangers associated with conferring the status of Indian tribe upon ANCSA Regional Corporations, is the issue of funding. The Indian Energy bill will authorize the Departments of Interior and Energy to provide tribes with grants and loans to build their capacity to manage energy development projects on Indian lands.

Fortunately, S2095 does not contain a provision that would open the ‘sacred place where life begins’ to oil drilling. The threat remains that amendments may be added in the process of this energy bill, or as “riders” to other bills that would open the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Allowing oil development to the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife R Saraefuge is a direct threat to the health and well-being of the Gwich’in Nation, their culture and way of life would be irreversibly destroyed.

Subject: ACTION ALERT -- SENATE TO VOTE ON ENERGY BILL SOON, IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED TO FIGHT THE INDIAN ENERGY TITLE V!

ACTION ALERT!
WEDNESDAY, June 15, 2005

Immediate action required!!

Dear Tribal Leader and Tribal Members

We are writing to alert you take additional and immediate action on the upcoming Senate National Energy Strategy debate. The US Senate is debating the Bush Cheney Energy plan. This bill is loaded with giveaways to the Coal, Oil and Gas and Nuclear industries, it also does nothing to deal with the looming threat of Climate Change. In addition the Energy bill included a section that deals directly with energy development in our Native homelands, the Title V or Indian Energy Title. The bill in its original form has already been passed by the house and now must go through senate. This is our time to get involved!!!!! Once the bill goes through the Senate it will go to conference committee for both the senate and the house to pass. President Bush has said that he wants the Energy Bill approved by both the house and senate by August 2005, so we must provide our opinions!!!!!

The Indian Energy title or Title V will impact tribes on a number of levels highlighted here:

Trust Responsibility: The bill will release the federal government of its traditional “trust responsibility” to Tribes. The federal government has long played an essential role in the negotiation and enforcement of energy development agreements made between Tribes and energy companies. Acting within its traditional “trust responsibility”, the federal government monitors any transactions, which occur between Tribes and energy companies to ensure that the negotiation table is level. The Indian Energy Title departs from this set precedent by providing an explicit waiver on the part of the federal government which serves to exonerate them of all liability associated with energy development in Indian Country.

Implementation of Enforcement, Regulations etc…

National Environmental Protection Act and National Historic Preservation Act: The bill undermines federal environmental laws such as NEPA and NHPA for energy development projects, which occur on Indian lands. Existing law requires that the Department of the Interior approve all leases and agreements relating to energy development projects on Indian lands. The purpose of this set procedure is to ensure that energy companies engaged in development projects yield to such crucial federal laws as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The Indian Energy Title would serve to uproot this time-honored system by problematically enabling Tribes to enter into resource agreements not withstanding prior federal environmental laws.

Corporate Welfare at the expense of our Tribes: The Indian Title of the Energy Bill promotes access to Tribal Lands for corporate exploitation and the Energy Bill in general promotes “corporate welfare” for the multi-national corporations that obtain their wealth from the ultimate exploitation and degradation of our Indigenous lands. The Indian Title of the National Energy Bill specifically addresses energy development in Indian Country. The Indian Title as such is cloaked in sovereignty but in actuality it is detrimental to Tribes and Tribal lands.

Multi-national and corporate interests lack respect for our traditions and would destroy or endanger our cultures in pursuit of multi-national economic or political objectives. This poses a threat to our inherent sovereign rights to maintain our cultures, and spirituality, which are interdependent with our environment. Indigenous peoples reject the concept that lands we rely upon to meet our physical, cultural, spiritual, or economic means should be viewed as a short term solution to offset the U.S Energy dilemma, which should be addressed by diversifying our economy instead of relying on fossil fuels to meet our energy needs. Our cultures should not be sacrificed for the high-energy consumption needs of America.

Focus of Non-renewable energy: Within the National Energy Bill and the Indian Energy Title, there remains a focus on the depletion of non-renewable resources highlighted by several extremely dangerous provisions within the Indian Title, which carry the promise of negatively impacting American Indian and Alaskan Native communities on a massive scale. Most notable is the section pertaining to sitting of energy facilities, including leases and rights-of-ways for oil and gas and other energy development that modifies the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

Alaska Tribes: The bill defines Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Native Corporations as Tribes. The bill defines ANCSA Regional Corporation lands as Indian lands. Several provisions in S. 2095’s Indian Energy Title V (Section 503 that amends sections 2601, 2602, and 2603 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992) continue to be of concern to Alaska tribal governments and its people. The provisions make substantial changes that affect the sovereignty of Alaska Native tribes and villages. ANCSA Corporations should not be defined as tribes, nor should Native Corporation lands be defined to be Indian lands, tribal lands or Indian reservations. While the bill rightfully excludes Native Corporations from the definitions of tribes for section 2604 (leasing, rights-of-ways, and other development), it does define them as tribes for most purposes. This proposed bill defines Native Corporation lands as Indian lands.) Among the many dangers associated with conferring the status of Indian tribe upon ANCSA Regional Corporations, is the issue of funding. The Indian Energy bill will authorize the Departments of Interior and Energy to provide tribes with grants and loans to build their capacity to manage energy development projects on Indian lands.

Protection of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: There is provisions in the Energy Bill that would open the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Allowing oil development to the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a direct threat to the health and well being of the Gwich’in Nation, their culture and way of life would be irreversibly destroyed. This must not be allowed!

A Comprehensive Energy Bill should:

• Help empower Tribes to develop clean renewable energy. There are some tribes that have an abundance of solar and wind resources.
• Eliminate the federal government’s waiver of liability for energy development in Indian Country and ensure that the federal government’s “trust responsibility” continues.
• Ensure that existing federal environmental laws such as NEPA and NHPA would still apply to energy projects on Indian lands.
• Not subsidize ANCSA Corporations to engage in oil and gas development, but instead focus on alternatives and clean renewable energy for Alaska’s tribes.
• Honor the established distinction between Alaskan tribes and ANCSA Regional Corporations thereby making certain that each entity continue to perform the functions they were intended to. ANCSA Regional and Village Corporations should not be defined as tribes. ANCSA Corporation lands should not be defined to be Indian lands, reservations, or tribal lands.

____

Sen. Bingaman, D-NM, (Ranking Member, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee)
Sen. McCain, R-AZ, (Chairman, Senate Indian Affairs Committee)
Sen. Johnson, D-SD, (Member, Senate Indian Affairs and Energy Committees)
Sen. Dorgan, D- ND, (Member, Senate Indian Affairs and Energy Committees)
Sen. Conrad, D-ND,(Member, Senate Indian Affairs Committee)
Sen. Akaka, D-HI, (Member, Senate Indian Affairs and Energy Committees)

Indigenous Environmental Network, PO Box 485, Bemidji, MN 56619
Tel: 218.751.4967 – E-mail: ien@igc.org
Web: www.ienearth.org

printable .DOC or .PDF format

Talking Points - Energy Bill

Trust Responsibility:
The bill will release the federal government of its traditional “trust responsibility” to Tribes. The federal government has long played an essential role in the negotiation and enforcement of energy development agreements made between Tribes and energy companies. Acting within its traditional “trust responsibility”, the federal government monitors any transactions, which occur between Tribes and energy companies to ensure that the negotiation table is level. The Indian Energy Title departs from this set precedent by providing an explicit waiver on the part of the federal government which serves to exonerate them of all liability associated with energy development in Indian Country.

Implementation of Enforcement, Regulations etc…

National Environmental Protection Act and National Historic Preservation Act:
The bill undermines federal environmental laws such as NEPA and NHPA for energy development projects, which occur on Indian lands. Existing law requires that the Department of the Interior approve all leases and agreements relating to energy development projects on Indian lands. The purpose of this set procedure is to ensure that energy companies engaged in development projects yield to such crucial federal laws as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The Indian Energy Title would serve to uproot this time-honored system by problematically enabling Tribes to enter into resource agreements not withstanding prior federal environmental laws.

Corporate Welfare at the expense of our Tribes:
The Indian Title of the Energy Bill promotes access to Tribal Lands for corporate exploitation and the Energy Bill in general promotes “corporate welfare” for the multi-national corporations that obtain their wealth from the ultimate exploitation and degradation of our Indigenous lands. The Indian Title of the National Energy Bill specifically addresses energy development in Indian Country. The Indian Title as such is cloaked in sovereignty but in actuality it is detrimental to Tribes and Tribal lands.

Multi-national and corporate interests lack respect for our traditions and would destroy or endanger our cultures in pursuit of multi-national economic or political objectives. This poses a threat to our inherent sovereign rights to maintain our cultures, and spirituality, which are interdependent with our environment. Indigenous peoples reject the concept that lands we rely upon to meet our physical, cultural, spiritual, or economic means should be viewed as a short term solution to offset the U.S Energy dilemma, which should be addressed by diversifying our economy instead of relying on fossil fuels to meet our energy needs. Our cultures should not be sacrificed for the high-energy consumption needs of America.

Focus of Non-renewable energy:
Within the National Energy Bill and the Indian Energy Title, there remains a focus on the depletion of non-renewable resources highlighted by several extremely dangerous provisions within the Indian Title, which carry the promise of negatively impacting American Indian and Alaskan Native communities on a massive scale. Most notable is the section pertaining to sitting of energy facilities, including leases and rights-of-ways for oil and gas and other energy development that modifies the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

The consumption of fossil fuels, which contributes and has been identified as the leading factor to climate change is a focus within the Energy Bill.

• There remains the provision within the Energy Bill for the promotion of exploitation for nuclear energy, the waste from which will be stored on Indian lands at Skull Valley or Yucca Mountain. The Indigenous Peoples who would be at the first point of impact have strongly opposed the dumping of toxic waste on their homelands. This is a violation of the

• Allowing Multi-national oil conglomerates and corporations that value lands only as a means of economic prestige access to the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a direct threat to the health and well-being of the Gwich’in Nation, their culture and way of life would be irreversibly destroyed. The Gwich’in have the inherent right to continue their own way of life; and this right is recognized and affirmed by civilized nations in the international covenants on human rights. Article 1 of both the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights read in part:

 

“…In no case may a people be deprived of his or her own means of subsistence.”

• Tribal lands have also been targeted for the construction of oil refinery’s, which would put at risk the people who live within the vicinity of such development. The air quality would be compromised, which would generate health illnesses, which are unknown now. For the communities that would be put at risk this is not an option. Tribes should not be forced to accept economic development projects that would harm their tribal community member’s quality of life and health.

• Also included in the Energy Bill are the provisions that would allow funds of 30 million dollars to the Uranium mining industries for the research and development of proposed Uranium Mining sites which is targeted to Indian Lands. Water is an essential gift that would be contaminated with any further studies that would complicate the lives of all people in these communities along with the extensive devastation of health and environmental impacts.

Tribes are concerned with implications within the Energy Bill and the Indian Title that would further perpetuate abuses and violate the integrity of our Tribal lands. The Energy Bill would furthermore perpetuate the notion that our lands are National Energy Sacrifice Areas, this is unacceptable.

The United States energy policy should emphasize decreasing the demand rather than increasing the supply of fossil fuels. There are reliable means of achieving these ends – such as energy conservation, alternative energies and improved energy efficiency - which can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and result in National Security for the long term. Logic dictates that we must begin to promote clean, renewable energy with a full phase out of fossil fuels and a just transition toward renewable energy.

The House and Senate energy bills include a number of provisions that will affect Native American tribes, including language on electricity generation, tax credits and hydropower relicensing. And while most of the proposals are found in the Senate language, a lawyer representing Native Americans on Capitol Hill said she is also targeting the House to clarify regulatory and taxing authority over existing projects on tribal land. Senate Title IV of the Senate bill (S. 1766/S. 517) is titled Indian Energy and includes a section to streamline the federal approval process for siting energy projects on Indian lands, specifically for electric generation, transmission and distribution facilities. The bill would also allow an Indian tribe to grant a right-of-way for pipelines, transmission lines and distribution lines without independent approval of the executive branch, assuming certain criteria are met.

Analysis: As the siting procedures for power plants and transmission infrastructure have become extremely complex and time-consuming in more urbanized regions, many energy companies The Senate is debating the rather broad energy bill this week, and the issues related to power projects on Indian land is only one component of the larger legislation. Other, potentially larger issues that also are being addressed include drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and competition issues related to the Enron collapse. However, from a production and capacity standpoint, the language in the proposed bill that relates to development on Indian lands could also have a large potential impact on the industry, as it might open up new avenues for generation development. Specifically regarding the issue of tax breaks within the Senate bill, the word circulating is that the Democratic version would give more federal funding to conservation efforts, while the Republican proposals tend to favor additional funding for power producers. Key to the struggle in the emerging energy bill are the different approaches toward policy between the Democratic-controlled Senate and Republican-controlled House of Representatives, and the energy plan that was issued by the Bush administration in the spring of 2001.

Based on current information, the tax provision in the proposed Senate bill could encourage Indian ownership of federal energy projects on their land by allowing tribes to use their exemption to offset federal debt, or give it to a taxable entity like an investment partner (often the energy company that is building the power plant or transmission line). The benefit of such a provision in the bill would be that Indian tribes would be allowed to give the full credit of the tax break to the investor assisting with the power project. Presently under existing law, the tax credit is split between tribes, which are non-taxable, and the company investing, which is taxable. Due to the existing split, some energy companies may be dissuaded from building infrastructure on tribal lands from an economic perspective.

Nevertheless, as noted, after facing community resistance from more urbanized and rural areas that often block the development of power lines or plants in their areas, energy companies may believe that energy-infrastructure assets (especially power plants) can be built more quickly on Indian land without the oversight of state regulatory commissions. In addition, the appeal of untapped natural resources on reservation land is strong, considering that the Bureau of Indian Affairs estimates that about 90 Indian reservations have energy-resource potential, including oil and gas, coal, coal-bed methane, wind, and geothermal. Only about one-quarter of those resources have been tapped, according to the federal agency. In addition, another advantage that energy companies may seek is the tax break provided for projects that take place on tribal land. Businesses on Indian land get accelerated depreciation on their assets, meaning they can write off the plant from their taxes in the early years and see more cash flow sooner.

In May 2001, Calpine Corp. (NYSE: CPN) built the first independent power plant on an Indian reservation when it completed construction on the South Point Energy Center on the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation, located on the border between Arizona and Nevada. Calpine has said that the location of the facility, near the Colorado River that serves as a water source, made the location ideal. Apparently Calpine also found the siting process on the reservation, at least in this particular case, to be easier than other siting attempts in more urbanized areas. Calpine sells power from the plant back to the reservation, with surplus energy being sold into the wholesale markets of Arizona, California and Nevada. In return for use of the land, along with lease payments to the tribe, Calpine is reportedly offering scholarships and job training to tribal members. Moving forward, the latest word was that Calpine was working on additional development plans for power plants on Indian reservations in California, Arizona and Nevada, where Calpine can secure freshwater rights from the tribes.

Consider these other examples, gleaned from national headlines, but particularly evident in the Western United States:

[July 2001] In addition to the Fort Mojave plant, Calpine has two major projects in the works: one on the Moapa Paiute Reservation near Las Vegas and another on the Torres-Martinez Reservation in southeastern California. The latest word on the projects was that proposals are still in the permitting process with federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency. [August 2001] A proposed natural-gas pipeline that would deliver fuel to Bay Area power plants could have a noteworthy co-owner: the Navajo Nation, the sovereign government of 180,000 residents on the largest Indian reservation in the United States. Kinder Morgan, Inc., which is spearheading the pipeline, has signed an agreement in principle to give the Navajos an ownership interest in the $1.7-billion, 1,200-mile Sonoran pipeline that crosses the Navajo reservation. Calpine Corp. is also involved in the development of the pipeline. ? [November 2001] The Umpqua tribe in Oregon recently became the first tribal electric utility in the Pacific Northwest, a move enabled by a policy set by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) that defined tribes as public bodies eligible to buy electricity directly from the federal agency. The Umpqua tribe has signed a power contract with the BPA and now delivers power to the casino and hotel on their reservation.

In addition, on the federal level, a bill sponsored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, would establish a "Comprehensive Indian Energy Program" at the Department of Energy to help tribes develop energy resources through grants and loans. The benefit of the proposed bill is that it could potentially cut the red tape imposed by the federal government on Indian tribes that seek to lease land and rights-of-way to energy companies that want to develop power plants or transmission lines on reservation land.

However, despite these development advancements, there are also recent examples of existing conflicts between energy companies and Native American tribes. For example, San Diego Gas Electric (SDG) is attempting to proceed with a 500,000-volt, 31-mile transmission line that would connect SCE's Valley Substation near Romoland, Calif., with a future substation to be located in the Rainbow, Calif. area, just south of the Riverside-San Diego county line. In addition to community resistance that SDG received from residents in the southwest Riverside County area, Native Americans in the region that would be impacted by construction of the line have also mobilized to block the development. SDG is reportedly exploring seven options for the route of the pending transmission line. Out of the seven options, six would run through land owned by the Pechanga tribe, some currently protected from condemnation under eminent domain authority and some that is not. It is important to note that the Pechanga tribe considers the Great Oak Ranch to be a sacred burial area.

The use of Indian land for infrastructure expansion is a huge undertaking, and the California case on the SDG transmission line illustrates some inherent conflicts that might arise. As in the California case, the conflict often relates to Indian tribes wanting to protect land, either for religious or environmental purposes. Here is another example that speaks to this particular conflict. Members of the Hopi Reservation in northeast Arizona protested Peabody Coal's use of Indian groundwater in August 2001. Peabody Energy, a large private coal company based in St. Louis, purchases about 3,800-acre feet of water from the Hopi tribe and the Navajo Nation each year for about $3.5 million to move coal from two strip mines that company owns in Laughlin, Nev. Mobilization between the Hopi and Navajo tribes appears to be growing against Peabody, which they claim has severely diminished water resources on the reservation.

Moreover, as the need for expanded energy infrastructure in the United States increases, energy companies may continue to turn to reservation land as a desirable location for infrastructure development. For those Indian tribes that seek a new source of revenue, partnering with an energy company to own a power plant or transmission line, or at least share in some of the asset's profits, can represent a positive proposition. However, the issues surrounding the sanctity of land can be a major impediment to an energy company's negotiations with an Indian tribe. As the SDG case in California illustrates, siting a transmission line tends to be more difficult than siting a power plant because multiple jurisdictions are involved. This general rule also applies when an energy company is dealing with reservation territory, as most likely the proposed transmission line will extend beyond a reservation and into other territory, meaning that the energy company will need to obtain approval from the Indian tribes and other community groups. SDG's argument may be that the company is left with little choice but to develop the Valley Rainbow Interconnect through the land of the Pechanga tribe. However, from a broad perspective, moving forward we may see more occurrences of energy companies developing power plants on Indian reservations rather than transmission lines.