Chaco Canyon 10 Mile Buffer: The Navajo Side

I’ve been reading about the re=evaluation of the Chaco Canyon 10 mile buffer for oil and gas leasing, but the usual coverage by environmental groups doesn’t mention the complexities that there are Navajo families and their elected officials have economic reasons for wanting leasing to occur. I don’t think that that’s really fair coverage although technically true. My concern is that Indigenous people disagree about things, and a person might be left with the impression that groups supported by foundations and ENGOs (in this case, Dine C.A.R.E) somehow represent the overall Indigenous views more than, say, their elected officials. After all people vote for elected officials and they are more or less accountable.. not so much foundations and NGOs.

Back in 2022, though, Dine C.A.R.E. was concerned about off-site effects of the moratorium, according to this Grist article.

“There’s still going to be development going on in that 10-mile buffer, and there’s nothing to prohibit that,” said Carol Davis, director of Diné CARE, a Navajo-led environmental organization. Davis adds that the Interior’s moratorium could push drilling outside the buffer and into communities, “and that’s going to expose people to the adverse health impacts that are a result of oil and gas fracking.”

In fact, the Navajo Nation filed a lawsuit against the Biden Admin, arguing that it violated their mineral rights and that they were not appropriately consulted.

Last week, the Navajo Nation and the Federal government settled the suit, resulting in Tuesday’s dismissal of the case. The settlement directs the government to complete a public consultation and environmental review to decide whether to withdraw the protection within 90 days, which began on March 26.

The most thorough coverage of both sides of this controversy that I have seen was from a 2023 KUNM story. It raises questions about what does Tribal Sovereignty really mean? What Indigenous voices count more than others, and why?

From that story:

FORDHAM: The Department of the Interior says there was extensive consultation on the new rule, including with tribes. But Navajo President Nygren says he personally wasn’t consulted enough.

NYGREN: Tribal sovereignty should be honored, even though it’s tough.

FORDHAM: Plus, he says, fossil fuel has been integral to the history of the Navajo Nation.

NYGREN: So that was the initial development of our government, was based on oil and gas production.

FORDHAM: Oil companies were hugely influential, says University of Arizona historian Andrew Curley, who’s a member of the Navajo Nation.

ANDREW CURLEY: So often people date the origin of our tribal council to 1923. There are these banners hanging up on our solar-powered signposts that say, you know, 100 years of Navajo Nation Council. But the origin of that has to do with oil exploration.

FORDHAM: Oil companies wanted to drill on tribal land, and federal officials set up a Navajo Nation Business Council so there was a body to sign deals. More than 40% of Navajo government income comes from coal, oil and gas. And Curley notes well-paid jobs in mines and plants kept tribal people on their ancestral lands.

CURLEY: So those are some of the benefits, employment and revenues for the tribal government. The detriments are health and environment.

FORDHAM: While the Navajo Nation government opposes the new restrictions, it doesn’t speak for all Navajo people. Navajo activist Mario Atencio campaigned for years to end drilling around Chaco Canyon, worrying about things like contaminated wells.

MARIO ATENCIO: We’re actually protecting the people, but it is environmental and public health, environmental health, environmental justice.

FORDHAM: A lawyer representing some Navajo allotment holders says he plans to sue the federal government to overturn the new rule. Republican Congressmen Eli Crane and Paul Gosar of Arizona introduced legislation to do the same. Meantime, relationships between tribes have suffered. Here’s Gaylord Siow from Laguna Pueblo again.

SIOW: It’s really disheartening, again, that divisiveness that has been caused now between Navajo Nation and Pueblo tribes.

FORDHAM: When Secretary Haaland tried to hold a ceremony in Chaco this summer, she was turned back by angry Navajo protesters.

**************

Again, I’m just pointing this out to say I think it honors Indigenous people to fairly describe their different points of view.  If various Tribes want to contribute to resources the country uses, and have jobs, and not be poor… it seems just as legitimate to me as protecting cultural resources.  It should be their choice.  And when they disagree.. that’s a problem. But not reporting the complexities of these disagreements doesn’t help, in my opinion. So shout-out to Alice Fordham and KUNM for this reporting.

****************

Meanwhile, here’s the WEG take at the time (2022)..

There is absolutely zero restraint from the Bureau of Land Management and the Biden administration at this point,” said Jeremy Nichols, climate and energy program director with WildEarth Guardians. “The mineral withdrawal is good politics — it’s good optics — but it’s not going to turn the tide because there are existing leases within the buffer, and outside the buffer it’s business as usual.”