Another Environmental Failure from an Environmentally Focused Agency

After reading the Law Review article, I found the various federal government agencies' mismanagement of land currently or previously subjected to hardrock mining to be absolutely shocking. It appears that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has severely fallen down on the job. The BLM is responsible for managing approximately 260 million acres of public land in the West, and about 90 percent of that land is open to hardrock mining (811). The Inspector General of the Interior had to essentially rebuke the BLM multiple times for failing to conduct an inventory of hardrock mining sites on public lands or establish a mechanism to establish risk-based priorities for the reclamation of these lands (812). Without an inventory report it is almost impossible for other organizations to develop policies and priorities for reducing potential environmental harm. It is necessary to cultivate a comprehensive hardrock mining site inventory report for anyone to address the issues associated with mining sites.

The EPA estimated that about 10 percent of sites actively mined on public and private lands would present significant health hazards (815). Hardrock mining releases larger amounts of toxic substances into the environment than any other industry, and even though the mining companies have taken pains to improve their policies and processes, the mining action still poses strong environmental risks (821). When mines are inactive on public lands, it is difficult to enforce the liability for environmental cleanup and to come up with federal funds. Oftentimes the mining companies have lost their permits and dissolved, so where does the money for cleanup come from if the federal government does not have sufficient funds available? Arizona has an estimated 80,000 inactive or abandoned mines within state boundaries that cover more than 130,000 acres and pollute 200 miles of state waters (809). This is especially upsetting when you consider the struggles of the Tohono O'odham people who are culturally and environmentally impacted by both active and inactive mining activities. The tribe often does not have the funds or political power to salvage their lands from the mining sites. There must be a solution to their mining-related problems, but I cannot think of a very feasible one.

A Less-Publicized Native American Controversy

Everyone has heard about the pipeline protests at Standing Rock that have been going on for months, but the seven-year controversy regarding the Rosemont Copper Mine in southern Arizona has failed to receive strong national attention. In this circumstance, the United States' inefficient legal processes, bureaucracies, and contesting federal agencies have worked in the favor of the Tohono O'odham--well, at least have worked in their favor to delay the various permit approvals for the mining project. There is an incredible amount of resistance to the Rosemont Mine.

Mining operations in the past (both in Arizona and nationally) do not have a spotless track record for avoiding negative environmental impact. The Santa Rita Mountains are ecologically crucial. The proposed mining site will also impact around 100 sacred or burial sites, and this is a large cultural blow to the Tohono O'odham. 6,177 acres of tribal resource collection areas will be impacted. The Rosemont Copper Mine is an unethical project.

I am outraged, but frankly not surprised, that the Rosemont Copper Mining project has not been completely denied. Is the amount of jobs that the mining production could generate worth it when you consider the number of negative environmental and cultural ramifications? Why have the Forest Service and Rosemont Copper not acted as transparently as possible? I would think that a lack or delay in transparency would be detrimental to the permit process. This is certainly a frustrating situation to learn about.  

Angelo Joaquin and a weird desert

The Desert Rain Cafe was warm and bordered a main thoroughfare through Sells, the largest population center in the Tohono O'odham nation. Angelo Joaquin was eating lunch with us here and discussing native american education and food culture. In between bites, he stated, "the desert is weird anyways, people don't want to know about it." I looked up from my meal and began to think.

I thought about assimilation programs enacted by the U.S. on the many native tribes, forcing young native americans into boarding schools away from their lands. I thought of the high prevalence of diabetes amongst the Tohono O'odham people. I thought young Tohono O'odham tribe members more focused on avoiding darker skin from prolonged exposure to the sun than on understanding their tribal heritage. Angelo Joaquin said this, somewhat sarcastically, referring to the desire among many tribe members to leave the desert and their culture. I understand the desire. Objectively, there is lower poverty, better infrastructure, and even more wealth in places off the reservation, away from the weird desert. But the Tohono O'odham are a desert people. They are hyper adapted to their ancestral environment, even to the point where their health fails upon adapting non-traditional diets. Individuals like Angelo Joaquin or Joe Joaquin understand this. They fully grasp the need for heritage and O'odham culture among the people. The desert is their home. It is the only home they have ever known. It is the home their cultural constellation, biological makeup, and outlook have been adapted for.

The people of Tohono O'odham nation are perfectly capable of operating within a western world. But they were born as something special, a people capable of thriving in an environment which few other people are capable of. The tribe members understand the importance of their culture and are working to preserve their way of life. For Angelo Joaquin this preservation is centered on food and art. It is people like him who will continue to keep people caring about the weird desert.

Who is Responsible for Water Settlements? An Ethical Approach

We have read many different sources and perspectives regarding water settlements and the implications of such settlements on Native populations, particularly regarding the experience of the Tohono O'odham people. I am currently taking my capstone course in poverty studies, which involves a study of ethical arguments and frameworks regarding poverty issues. Reflecting on our class readings and discussions, I have wondered about the ethics of water settlements and have found myself considering the ethical question of water settlements in the light of the social responsibility framework presented by Iris Marion Young. 

Iris Marion Young seeks to address the issue of how to allocate responsibility in various instances of structural social injustices. She argues that all agents and actors directly or indirectly involved in the process or structure connected to the social injustice bear responsibility because they are somehow participating in the system of injustice. She calls this political responsibility. Thus, any agent or actor who is directly or indirectly affected by, or is a party to, the water settlement, bears a degree of social responsibility for reducing the social injustice that some of the Indian populations experience. This does not mean that these agent or actors are inherently liable, but that they have a moral obligation to not exacerbate the system of injustice. 

Using Young's argument, it seems that there are many political and profit-driven actors/agents, who are sometimes parties to the water settlements, are likely acting unjustly and need to reform their actions regarding water settlements. We all have a moral obligation to reduce social injustice in the processes or systems to which we are connected.

International Water Day

Happy International Water Day! Our current focus of study is quite pertinent considering that today is International Water Day: a day highlighted in order to promote awareness of populations globally without reliable access to drinkable water. To be honest, I am not invigorated by reading about the criteria for evaluating interjurisdictional water settlements, but I do understand the importance of this criteria. The author sets out her points very clearly to show the economic, legal, environmental, and social benefits that should come out of a successful water settlement. I applaud her ability to write so that a layperson can easily understand her chapter.

I believe that tax incentives and cost-sharing between parties constitute some of the most blatantly influential criteria for water settlements. To get most parties invested in an agreement or outcome involves including elements that, after a cost-benefit analysis, result in a positive situation for such parties. As someone conscious of and passionate about social issues, I certainly see the importance of the environmental and social elements or implications of water settlements. However, if I played the part of a basic business interest concerned with my bottom line, I would want strong financial incentives and the guarantee of fair cost-sharing before I would agree to a settlement. Not everyone in this world is socially and environmentally conscious, but these issues are still inexplicably tied to the implications that arise from interjurisdictional water settlements.  

Flexibility and Adaptive Management

Out of the 13 important criteria outlined in our reading, I found the chapter on flexibility to be especially interesting. After doing some research, it seems that adaptive governance has become a new "trend." I feel like adaptive management, as seen in the assertion of Native American water rights on complex water systems, can be a great model for growing concerns surrounding climate change.

Flexibility accounts for significant, or unexpected, changes, such as drought, government alterations, or environmental phenomena, that have the potential to significantly alter the management needed for a particular system. Our reading outlines the need for flexibility in settlements for resource management, as unexpected changes can result in different resources needed by a particular society. Climate change requires equal flexible management as society is forced to act on its effects. Government innovations, and adaptive governance, can be modeled on the resource management involved in water settlements to serve growing environmental concerns. This seems to be a trend that has the potential to successfully seep into numerous aspects of our society.

Saguaro National Park

"Once graffiti is 150 years old its petroglyphs." A Saguaro National Park park ranger said this as we discussed the increasingly complicated relationship between national parks, the federal government, and native tribes. It was apparent from our visit at the Saguaro National Park that an effort was being made to co exist with the nearby native tribe. Items of historical and sacred importance, found on National Park lands, had been transferred to the Tohono O'odham for their safekeeping, and Angelo Jaoquin had been able to enter the nation park lands on his own volition to pick Cholla Buds with only some resistance. But, nevertheless, the Saguaro National Park lies on traditional Tohono O'odham lands. Sacred sites have been marked and altered, petroglyphs have been inscribed with the initials of park visitors, and it is all because the park, being public land, can not really be restricted.

The park ranger correctly identified the reality when he said that "everything in the desert is sacred to the O'odham." The Tohono O'odham are a tribe who have been hyper-adapted to their surrounding and have hyper-spiritualized their surroundings. It is nearly impossible for outsiders to occupy the desert without infringing upon some spiritual item to some degree. Even though the national park's mission is to preserve and protect, they will always fail to preserve and protect some of the spiritual importance of the land. The park works to maintain a close, face-to-face relationship with the Tohono O'odham, even keeping a tribe member on staff, and this may be the best the best they can do, and in times like these, a union between the national park and the Tohono O'odham could be the most effective safeguard of the land from shortsighted outside interests.