Here at Navajo Council 7:30 am meeting at Quality Inn in Window Rock, Ariz.
DELEGATE LEONARD TSOSIE
i’ve lost frens but that doesn’t matter. i support tribal jurisdiction. And URI cud file lawsuit against tribe. i also plead for open minds. and there are some potential serious information and so i’ll ask to go into exeucutive session. Mr. Jones is here, regarding letter. Delegate Edmund Yazzie, the sponsor of legislation 0091-14, is not here and he’s like that.
DELEGATE DANNY SIMPSON
this legislation is not about subcommitte. it’s about acknowledgement. how can we allow something with two navajo laws in place – ban on uranium and transportation of hazardous. bascially we are telling Delegate Tsosie that yes there was a lot of work done but the right-of-way has to be approved by Council. I asked Tsosie to rewrite his legislation for approval by the Council. But he talks about lawsuits. All i am asking is that by tribal justice department opinion which our council attorney supports be honored.
the acknowledgement of what the Bureau of Indian Affairs did for URI requires Council approval. And if the Council approves then continue working with URI. but if disapprove, then everything ceases.
“that’s all we are asking and that is based on what justice department advised. and this is not about our position on uranium. it’s about taking this back to council.”
acknowledge our rights to minerals and access to minerals and that right of access was acknoledged. the work we’ve done with subcommittee has put land trade 500 acres of mineral rights, 140 acres of surface, $5 million and in exchange, half of section 17 and half of sectoin 9. we outline proposal for BIA and takes three to five years for land exchange but we think important to both parties. but important for land development and allows us access.
this offer expires on Dec. 31, 2014, and if RDC legislation altered. futher subcommittee thru hard work of leadership asked some of 200,000 acres put on table for discussion. we have surface an dminerals rights. and all those acres we can get are on table if continue disuss sensible reclmmation standards – what level reclaim and what level leave it. and also do IS demonstraton project. open disucssion of urnaium mining of rez. upside is more acres.
downside the downside for us is if the legislation taken away is we decide to litigate breach of the deed. we understand cost $3.5 m to buy back 4200 and estimate $5 m lawsuit. but like u and ur constituents, you owe duty and we owe duty to investors to get back investment. so downside is cost, uranium
42,000 acres deeded to HRI will be lost. deeded by santa fe railroad but we own minerals.
the losses to the navajo nation cud be 42,000 acres of ground where Fire Rock and other homes are. we have no way to estimate loss to tribe.
i ask you to access the potential loss. i think our attorneys wud counsel us that we have a strong case. but we think of in terms of loss and that involves money and time. tribe needs to access cost. in the end, the navajo nation may not need to do anything at all today, next month or until end of year.
i understand navajo nation urgency to settle issue but we have no urgency. we are fine to end of year. we want this to be thoughtful for us and you. so if you don’t need to do anything this council session or next then keeps legislation intact and subcommittee negotiations in tact. best for us and possibly for tribe for land trade.
DELEGATE LEONARD PETE
wat spooks me is if we lose 432,000 acres of land which is 65,000 square miles. i’d like to see that on map and wat under it. without exploring wat is down stream is not good. have we explored all of this? have we sat down and had decent discussion. i;m also concerned about losing lawsuit. and how much loss will we have to pay down the road. all we are saying is no, no, no, no without going down the road. it’s like pus building up, building up. what wasn’t it broken six years ago if it was a big issue.