Naabik’iyati Committee having very heated debate on Delegate Edmund Yazzie’s Legislation 0091-14 to nullify Resources and Development Committee legislation that created RDC Subcommittee to draft agreement with URI for in-situ uranium mining demonstration project near Church Rock, NM.
DELEGATE LEONARD TSOSIE
not all talk as claimed by Delegate Apachito. i gave proposal to NDOJ Deputy Attorney General Bobroff and asked to assess. I’m really worried about losing jurisdiction.
DELEGATE LORENZO CURLEY
i represent two communities impacted by uranium spill in Church Rock and they have told to never allow uranium on Navajo land and that is where I am coming from. Question i have, Delegate Tsosie speaks about losing jurisdiction. what i’m confused about is do we have jurisdiction? i don’t understand is is we jurisdiction then why are we recognizing that URI has property interests. confused over double talk so ask clarification of Navajo department of justice attorney Taylor.
there are two pieces of property for potential uranium mining, section 8 and 17. section 8, 160 acres is privately owned land and result of federeal court deciosn 2010, 160 acres we have no regulatory jurisdiction. but section 17 is trust land and by same federal court we have regulatory authority and covered by Navajo law and there cannot be uranium mining on section 17. is there anything that we are doing threat to jurisdiction? no.
one thing that RDC action has done is impacted agreement with HRI/URI on temporary acess…by acceptance of temporary access, URI submits to full territorial jurisdiction of Navajo in Navajo Indian Country, included jurisdicton to have be fined in connection with all activities. URI has entered into full consent so means to me that there is no issue or question of us losing jurisdiction and there is evern Supreme Court decision, US versus Montana, which says Indian Nations can obtain jurisdiction when consented to and so that is done deal.
Section 8 where no regulatory jurisdiction, what URI does not have is they have no access and yes it’s small strip of land but as Delegate Apachito says, it’s Navajo land that they have to cross and what Council did in 2012, yhou pased radioactive material transportation act 2012 set reasonable restrictions. we not taking URI land but reasonable restrictions and we asked for cleanup of section 17. focus is get section 17 cleaned up first before talk access and that is reasonable and entirely consistent with Dine’ Resources Protection Act 2055.
NRPA, the purpose of DRPA 2005 is to ensure that no further damage ot cutlure society and economy of navajo nation occurs cuz of uraim miing and processing until all adverse economic and health effects have been eliminated and substainbly reduced.
as dealing with for nine years, sadly not close to clean up but we are somewhat doing job and off to get clean up with $50 billion. but all we are doing is consistent with DRPA and Transportation ACt and whole goal is clean up and that is our focue and should be.
share transportation act, it allows access cuz BIA sent letter to URI recognizing right of way. Taylor did not guarantee federal court win. He didn’t tell you everything. You’re being ill advised.
and agreement is temporary and you can’t take that to court. federal court will find reason for URI to get into section 8. with all this bruhahhah, no one will chain themselves to fence and corporations will do what they want and have regular uranium mining. they have come to table because of uncertainty, not because of temporary access. read papers and Polizza said that this was first time at table.
so ask vote down or table.
by august 27 we will debate merits.
Tsosie reminds me of warnings, when peasants revolting against Rome and aristocrats said don’t do cuz Rome will crush us.
We’ve already been crushed.
Tsosie claims that deed allows URI acess so we don’t have jurisdiction and so why afraid of losing jurisdiction and URI cud be like Romans and march in and crush rebellion.
no we don’t expect them to crush us. we have examined every document from Tsosie and some docuement have expired, 1959 surface agreement expired, so the answer is we have looked at document and that is five and ten attorneys from tribe and outside.
shoud we discuss in executive session
NDOJ deputy attorney general DANA bobroff
question shud have been come earlier and so ask if left anything out for URI.
DELEGATE WALTER PHELPS
this is language in legislation, page 3 talks about demonstration project and that project basically authorized in permit from NRC so what are terms of project and for how long? what is demonstration project? what is objectives and outcomes. includes extraction beyond rez boundaries.
the demonstration project has been discussed and recall two proposals and one constitutents uranium mining and that is getting cart before horse. if you going to do that and as they agreed is to clean up section 17 before gets done. that is our position consistent with Dine’ Resource Protection Act for cleanup of sites.
since lot of questions, have work session before council summer session, so table but still moves forward to Council but don’t take long debate at Council. and if strategies in closed door then do.
SECOND BY DELEGATE JONATHAN HALE
TABLING 7 IN FAVOR, 6 OPPOSED