We need baseline and have very general language with 1980 document. And we had input several month back. I remember getting comments on it and there was significant interest in it.
For sake of clarity, there is draft policy that has pages 1 to 4 which I’m wondering is preamble but confusing. And then starts with policy.
AMENDMENT 1 – pages 3 to 5, lines 22 to 27, delete
VOTE 11 IN FAVOR, 1 OPPOSED
SPONSOR – DELEGATE ROSCOE SMITH
Navajo Nation supports moratorium on uranium.
Just vote for it or vote it down. Lot of work has been put into it. The opportunity to amend is before you and I appreciate what Delegate Phelps amended.
This is always significant to communities, especially those withdrawing land for energy project.
Having problem with coal mining development section, development of dirty coal energy and that is how language phrased. Policy future oriented. Doesn’t talk about dirty energy projects that occurred in the past. I think that is not right.
My community should be compensated by tribe for allowing uranium to be extracted at Church Rock and the uranium spill. I thik this is injustice for pple that live along Rio Puerco.
If there is going to be financial benefits, it shud also reach back to communities that witnessed adverse energy development impacts.
If leave policy way it is, the only person who woud benefit from this are Delegate Bates’ communities. Bates cud argue that NTEC involved in new development phase, along with Four Corner Power Plant and so he cud ask for 5 percent of tribal revenues generated by coal.
That portion of policy needs to be amended. Extend five percent to all communities.
Five percent where economic activity.
We debated that all resources belong to everyone and not one community. And that was discussed and agreed upon when we approved NGS.
Page 9, section 901: says not duke it out over federal environmental laws. I interpret it as giving up before take first step. Navajo Nation shud create own laws and enforce own laws.
Like NGS, they wud have had to live with giving up water rights. But we gave up water rights. And we decided not to hold federal govt responsible for NGS. Here’s another whimpy policy: We are going to subscribe to federal govt. What is wrong with protecting our pple. WE shud be getting after federal govt for what did in Church Rock. Pple living with homes in plastic, living in hotels for years.
They’ve given up on us. So wat are those pple doing? They are going to other communities cuz Navajo Nation doesn’t want to help them. So go out there and then do policy. Prez and Udall out there and saw what I see.
Every Energy Policy has adverse impact – uranium, coal, fossil fuel and how do we address. Rather than feel good language, put in laws on how we will deal with it. So wat is wrong with working with community and move nearby and pay for it, along with corporations.
Checkerboardness will never be cleaned up. Clean up and dust blows back. If that is not stupidity then I don’t kow what is.
And shouldn’t approve cuz President wants before signs $4.1 m. for NTEC.
(some delegate call out to vote as Tsosie speaking)
I know some impatient but this is important.
And what about pple that have developed illness from open pit mining.
How do we give balanced approach as make money off natural resources cuz we know our pple are getting sick.
DELEGATE LORENZO CURLEY
Delegate Leonard Tsosie says we shud relocate. I’ll do that just send relocation funds.
When I read that Prez giving up on NTEC, I was concerned cuz believe revenues belong to pple/grassroots communities but wat happens is revenues get soaked up by administration and pennies go back to pple.
We need policy in here that states the reverse that these revenues first go to communities then central government operations.
This benefit belongs to all Navajo pple. We shud be carving out benefits to communities that host these energy projects.
We need to give back to pple. Why I believe this needs to be revised.
My colleages urging me to table and I’m going to do that.