Upcoming talk at the Louis Tewanima Footrace Pre-Race Dinner

On August 28, 2012 By Matthew Sakiestewa GilbertIn Hopi Runners, Louis Tewanima, Louis Tewanima Footrace1 Comment

On Sunday September 2, the Louis Tewanima Footrace Committee will host the annual Footrace at the village of Shungopavi on Second Mesa. This year is a particularly special one as the Committee is organizing the event to commemorate the 100 year anniversary of Louis Tewanima’s silver medal performance in the 10,000 meter Olympic race in Stockholm, Sweden.

In addition to running in the 10K, I have been asked by race officials to speak on Tewanima at the pre-race dinner the night before on September 1. I am scheduled to speak at 7:00PM (MST) at the Shungopavi Community Center. The pre-race dinner is free and open to the public. For more information on the Footrace, and to obtain registration materials, please visit the following website: http://tewanimafootrace.org/

THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC: “Hopi Tribe unfairly blamed in water-settlement collapse” by LeRoy N. Shingoitewa

On August 27, 2012August 27, 2012 By Matthew Sakiestewa GilbertIn Hopi and S.B. 2109, Hopi water rights, LeRoy Shingoitewa1 Comment

The following letter is an opinion piece that Hopi Tribe Chairman LeRoy Shingoitewa published in The Arizona Republic on August 27, 2012. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/20120823hopi-tribe-water-settlement-collapse.html

Hopi Tribe unfairly blamed in water-settlement collapse

by LeRoy N. Shingoitewa

I was disappointed to see the Hopi Tribe’s position on the Little Colorado River water settlement so badly mischaracterized in a Viewpoints column written by U.S. Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain (“An endless water fight,” Aug. 12).

The settlement would resolve the rights of many parties to water in the Little Colorado’s basin and was reached after 13 years of negotiations between the Hopi Tribe, the Navajo Nation, and numerous federal and state parties.

I am acutely aware of the need for water for our people. More than 40 percent of the homes on the Hopi Reservation have no running water or indoor plumbing. Many Hopi villages receive water with more than four times the allowable levels of arsenic. Water for another village is threatened by uranium pollution. We participated in the settlement negotiations to resolve these problems. There are no Hopi Tribal Council representatives who prefer litigation over settlement.

Despite our support for the settlement, the Hopi Tribal Council also voted to oppose certain provisions in Kyl’s implementing legislation that are extraneous to the water-rights settlement. Specifically, the Council objected to provisions requiring the Navajo Nation to provide water for the Navajo Generating Station or to renew coal-mining leases. Hopi negotiators did not participate in “crafting” these sections.

While these issues are very important, they are not related to ensuring an adequate, sustainable supply of water for our people. Combining these two issues was both unwise and unnecessary.

We informed Kyl of our objections when he joined these two issues. We also communicated the reasons for our position on the proposed legislation. Prior to his column, we submitted suggestions to make the legislation consistent with the settlement agreement. We asked him to remove provisions from the legislation that have nothing to do with the water settlement and to clarify ambiguities in the legislation to comport with assurances we received during the negotiating process. Unfortunately, we have yet to receive a response.

Kyl and McCain unfairly blame the tribes for rejecting the settlement, even though on July 5 the Hopi Tribal Council voted to approve the settlement. All the parties to the settlement negotiations are responsible for the outcome, not just the Hopi Tribe. The state and private parties, who spent millions of dollars on legal fees for the negotiations, will have to answer to their ratepayers and customers for what is now a failed settlement.

Unfortunately, it appears Kyl and McCain have given up hope of enacting legislation to implement the settlement. We are disappointed.

I suspect many of the private parties in northeastern Arizona — who negotiated long and hard for the certainty they desire — are equally disappointed that their interests were overwhelmed by the generating station. After all, none of the power produced by the generating station is consumed in our region. It all subsidizes the pumping of Central Arizona Project water to Phoenix and Tucson.

With all due respect to Kyl, if he had not insisted on including the generating-station issue, the water settlement would be final and on its way to enactment.

I thank Arizona’s senators for their efforts to promote the settlement. In recognition of his impending retirement, I’d also like to thank Kyl for his service to the people of Arizona and wish him well in future endeavors.

The Hopi Tribe stands ready to work with his successor and Arizona’s congressional delegation to solve our water concerns, as well as those of our neighbors. The generating station should be dealt with separately, however, in recognition of the fact that it is a separate issue.

LeRoy N. Shingoitewa is chairman of the Hopi Tribe.

THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC: “An endless tribal water fight” by Jon Kyl and John McCain

On August 14, 2012August 28, 2012 By Matthew Sakiestewa GilbertIn Hopi and Navajo SB 2109, Hopi water rights, Navajo water rightsLeave a comment

The following editorial by Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain appeared in The Arizona Republic on August 13, 2012. The article provides a brief history of Southwest Indian water rights. It also explains their reasons why the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe rejected the Navajo-Hopi Little Colorado River Water Rights Settlement Act, and expresses hope that the “Indian parties” will one day agree to a resolution that will provide the people with “wet” water instead of “paper” water.

———–

An endless tribal water fight

Navajos, Hopis opted to let a long-sought settlement slip away

by Jon Kyl and John McCain

“Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting.”
That aphorism, long popular among Western water folks, was the prevailing sentiment in the Southwest for the past century. From the riverbank to Congress to the courts, water users fought for water rights.

But victories were not always satisfying. The best one could hope for was a paper decree quantifying water rights. Especially for Indian tribes, what they really needed was not “paper” water but actual “wet” water.

As a result, parties began to negotiate settlements that not only resolved water claims but also included congressionally authorized funding for Indian water projects, upheld federal trust responsibilities and created certainty for non-Indian communities. Even when all the parties are working together, actually achieving a water settlement — particularly coming up with the funding — is usually very hard to do. We saw that recently with the failure of the settlement that included the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe.

We’ve been asked to provide some history, briefly describe the settlement provisions, and discuss the prospect of a congressional resolution to the decades-long dispute.

The U.S. Supreme Court laid the foundation for Indian water-rights claims in 1908, when it ruled that the United States reserved water for Indian reservations. The nature and extent of those water rights, however, remained unclear. Decades of litigation ensued, with tribes, the federal government, states and numerous other claimants fighting it out at the state courthouse. In Arizona, for example, Indian and non-Indian water users have spent more than 30 years trying to resolve claims to the Gila and Little Colorado rivers — expending millions of dollars in the process. Ongoing litigation has also stifled economic growth and development for communities throughout Arizona.

In recent years, those claimants have found a better way to resolve their competing claims. The negotiated water-settlement framework allows the parties to avoid the high costs and uncertainty associated with protracted litigation, while enabling them to define the extent of their water rights and, with legislation, secure funding to put that water to productive use.

Moreover, settlement affords parties the opportunity to proactively address complex and interrelated water issues in a mutually beneficial manner. They can tailor solutions to their specific circumstances by, for example, developing plans to prevent aquifer depletions or to protect sacred springs (two concerns of the Navajos and Hopis). This is why more than two dozen tribes have opted to settle their claims rather than cede that determination to state courts.

The most recent example of such a settlement involves the White Mountain Apache Tribe, which worked with stakeholders to craft an agreement that will provide its Fort Apache Reservation with a reservoir and drinking-water infrastructure while enabling non-Indian parties to better plan for their water future without the high cost of continued litigation against the tribe. The legislation implementing that settlement was enacted into law in 2010.

Likewise, the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe opted to negotiate with the federal government, Arizona and numerous state parties to resolve their water claims. The initial effort centered on both the Colorado River and the Little Colorado River. While we all would have preferred a settlement for both rivers, the Colorado portion ultimately proved too costly in this fiscal climate, so the settlement focused on the Little Colorado only.

The parties’ representatives negotiated both a settlement agreement and legislation that would have recognized and satisfied the tribes’ claims to the Little Colorado River, placed limits on non-Indian water uses, reserved 27,089 acre-feet of water for a future Colorado River settlement and provided more than $350million in funding for three drinking-water projects to serve the Navajo and Hopi people.

Unfortunately, both tribes voted not to proceed with the legislation. There seemed to be three reasons. First, some objected to the fact that we introduced the legislation before formal approval by the parties — but that is standard practice and was agreed to by the parties’ representatives. The object was to protect our place in the legislative queue pending formal approval of the agreement by each party. Given the limited time available this year to request hearings and move the bill, we believed this was prudent, and we assured the parties that formal approval by all parties — including the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe — had to occur before we would move forward in Congress.

A second concern centered on the inclusion of a provision involving Navajo Generating Station in order to provide the Navajo Nation the option of securing Central Arizona Project water for the significant population in and around Window Rock. Without that option, the additional water would not be available until the Navajo Nation resolved its claim to the Colorado River. We believed it was important to find a way to get water to Window Rock, and after a lot of work, the parties, including Navajo and Hopi representatives, crafted that provision. But their tribal councils identified it as one of the reasons they opposed the settlement legislation.

Finally, it appears that some believed the tribes would be better off litigating their claims in state court, notwithstanding the financial drain of protracted litigation and the fact that litigation produces no funding for projects to put the water to use.

While we respect the Navajo and Hopi councils’ decisions, we regret that they have closed the already narrow window of opportunity to pass legislation this year. With tight fiscal constraints in Washington, we see little prospect for settling their claims with supporting legislation in the foreseeable future. We will, of course, continue to work with all the parties. We particularly hope the Indian parties choose to pursue a resolution that will allow them to achieve not just water rights on paper, but to actually secure “wet” water for their people.

Jon Kyl and John McCain represent Arizona in the U.S. Senate.

Indian Country Today: The Summer Games Are the Native Games

On July 31, 2012July 31, 2012 By Matthew Sakiestewa GilbertIn Hopi Runners, Louis TewanimaLeave a comment

On July 31, Indian Country Today published a nice write-up on past Native athletes and the Olympic Games. Scroll down on the article to read about Hopi runner Louis Tewanima.

“Navajo-Hopi water deal collapses” by Shaun McKinnon

On July 25, 2012 By Matthew Sakiestewa GilbertIn Hopi and Navajo SB 2109, Hopi and Peabody Coal, Hopi water rightsLeave a comment

Navajo-Hopi water deal collapses

Kyl unable to close deal before retiring

by Shaun McKinnon – Jul. 23, 2012 11:30 PM The Republic | azcentral.com

The collapse of a long-sought Navajo-Hopi water settlement this month represents a lost opportunity for the tribes to secure reliable water supplies and for Sen. Jon Kyl to close one last tribal deal before he leaves office in January.

Native American water controversy

Navajo lawmakers voted July 5 to reject the agreement and Kyl’s enabling legislation, which would have authorized funding for water-delivery projects. The Hopi Tribal Council on June 21 narrowly approved the settlement but voted down Kyl’s bill, a necessary component of the deal. The settlement required the approval of both tribes to move forward.

Support for the agreement eroded after Kyl introduced the bill in February. Opponents framed the deal as unfair to the tribes, claiming its central component awarded groundwater that already belonged to the reservation communities.

They also seized on a provision that offered the Navajos extra water if tribal leaders agreed to extend the land lease for a power plant near Page.

The tribes could still try to salvage pieces of the settlement, but time has nearly run out to reintroduce it in Congress, where attention is focused almost exclusively on the election.

Once Kyl retires, the tribes will lose their strongest and most knowledgeable advocate and the driving force behind many of the state’s key water deals. Without a settlement, the tribes’ claims to water would be decided in court, an option that would offer no guarantee of water and no promise of federal assistance to build pipelines, leaving thousands of people with a future of hauling water across the sprawling reservations.

“It’s very disappointing,” said Kyl, R-Ariz. “They have a water right, and they should get it. We have a responsibility to try to get it to them. I would have liked to be able to do that for the people I represent. I’m afraid this might have been their last chance.”

The Navajos and Hopis represent the largest unsettled tribal water- rights case in Arizona . The failed agreement would have satisfied claims on the Little Colorado River and resolved disputes over groundwater aquifers beneath the two reservations. Claims on the mainstem Colorado remain mired in negotiations over funding and the availability of water.

Kyl, a water attorney before being elected to the Senate, has helped broker deals with other tribes, including an agreement with the Gila River Indian Community in 2004, the largest tribal settlement in U.S. history. The Navajo-Hopi deal would have been his last as a senator.

“He was always finding a way to break the logjam,” said Dave Roberts, water-rights manager for Salt River Project, whose rights on the Salt and Verde rivers make it a player in many tribal cases, including the Navajo and Hopi deal.

“We can work on the agreements here,” Roberts said, “but if we don’t have a strong advocate, someone with the knowledge to work on it in D.C., to educate others in Congress about how things work and what the long-term benefit is, we’d be stuck.”

Like most of the tribal agreements, the Navajo and Hopi settlement included a multitude of non-Indian interests. Among them were SRP, Flagstaff , water users on the upper stretches of the Little Colorado and the Central Arizona Project, which oversees some of the water available for tribal claims.

Although the Navajo and Hopi claims focused on the Little Colorado River, the CAP brought to the table 6,411 acre-feet of mainstem Colorado water if the Navajo Nation would work to extend land and coal leases for the Navajo Generating Station.

An acre-foot is 325,851 gallons, enough to serve two families for a year in urban settings but enough to serve significantly more people on the Navajo Reservation, where water hauling keeps use low.

Power-plant provisions

The power plant, on the Navajo Reservation outside Page, provides almost all the power to move water through the CAP Canal from the Colorado River at Parker to Phoenix and Tucson . The CAP buys the power at reduced rates and would be forced to charge more for water without the plant. Its leases expire in 2019.

Kyl said there would have been no agreement without the power-plant leases. But critics of the plant, who targeted the pollution and the coal mining, used the issue to undermine the agreement, filling the audiences at public hearings leading up to the votes.

Elsa Johnson, a Navajo activist who led some of the opposition efforts, said the Tribal Council’s vote showed that ordinary people could wield as much influence as the companies that own the power plant and the coal mine near Kayenta.

“We’ve been treated like an unwanted stepchild by these corporations and other entities for far too long,” she said. “They have profited in the hundreds of millions and billions off our resources while we endure health and environmental impacts.”

Supporters of a water settlement say they’re not sure what would happen if they tried to propose a deal without the power-plant provisions.

The extra water would be off the table, but tribal leaders might be willing to advance a measure based solely on the groundwater projects and Little Colorado River claims.

An earlier settlement proposal did not include the power plant. That version addressed claims on the mainstem Colorado and called for construction of a pipeline to deliver water from the river to the reservations. When the pipeline plan was dropped because of its high cost, the Colorado River deal also fell apart. The power plant incentives were then added to bring the extra water to the table and retain support from all the parties.

“It seemed like a good majority of the ‘no’ votes on the council were because of the power-plant provision,” said Leo Manheimer, a member of the Navajo Nation Water Rights Commission, which endorsed the Little Colorado settlement.

“I think if there’s ever an opportunity to go back and see what the council would do without these provisions, that would be something we would be willing to try to work on,” he said. “But our window of opportunity is small.”

When that window closes, so will many of the advantages of settling claims out of court, Manheimer said. The rejected deal would have secured water from the Little Colorado and protected the river from further development upstream. It would have placed limits on groundwater use by cities and other non-Indian entities near the borders of the two reservations, slowing the depletion of aquifers.

Congress also could have authorized money to build delivery pipelines to Hopi villages and Navajo communities where existing wells often fail to meet demand. In some areas on the southern Navajo Reservation, shallow alluvial wells dry up during a drought, Manheimer said.

Navajo President Ben Shelly said he was disappointed by the council’s votes to reject the agreement and the legislation. He said he would have preferred to see lawmakers amend the proposal to eliminate provisions they didn’t like, but he accepted the outcome.

“The people had the opportunity to learn the details about this complex issue from the day it was brought into public,” he said in a written statement. “We didn’t hide anything. I also stood by my promise to get water infrastructure to the people. We need to get them running water, and this settlement was a good way to do so.”

Although the Hopi Tribal Council rejected Kyl’s legislation, it endorsed the settlement, and tribal officials said they were willing to work on amendments to the bill, mostly to remove the power-plant provisions.

“Those provisions have nothing to do with our settlement,” Hopi Chairman LeRoy Shingoitewa said.

Kyl seemed especially disappointed that the Navajo council didn’t leave that same door open. He said he invited the tribe to help craft amendments, but the council simply voted to reject the bill, an approach that hurt any chance to reopen negotiations with the other state interests. Pursuing the claims in court, he said, “will cost a lot of people a lot of money.”

“There will be a court decree, the tribes will ‘win’ money, but then what will they have? They will have a piece of paper that says they’re entitled to so much water. They have that now,” Kyl said. “With a settlement, they actually get the money to build projects to get water to people. That’s not going to happen if it just goes to court.”

Applications sought for 2012-2013 Hopi Leadership Program

On July 18, 2012 By Matthew Sakiestewa GilbertIn Announcements, The Hopi Foundation, The Hopi Leadership ProgramLeave a comment

Please click here for the 2012-2013 Hopi Leadership Program application form (12 pages).

Criticism over distribution of Hopi Tribe LCR Settlement Agreement “Fact Sheet”

On July 14, 2012July 17, 2012 By Matthew Sakiestewa GilbertIn Benjamin H. Nuvamsa, Hopi activism, Hopi and S.B. 2109, Hopi Government, Rosanda Suetopka ThayerLeave a comment

UPDATE July 15, 2012: On Saturday I noted that the following responses from Benjamin H. Nuvamsa and Rosanda Suetopka Thayer focused on Micah Loma’omvaya’s (Hopi Chief of Staff) role in distributing last week’s Hopi Tribe LCR Settlement Agreement “Fact Sheet“. I now realize that their comments refer to a Press Release that the Hopi Tribe issued on July 12 surrounding Rosanda Suetopka Thayer’s efforts to remove Chairman Leroy Shingoitewa from office. Click here for a copy of the Press Release. I apologize for the confusion.

—————————————————

Benjamin H. Nuvamsa, July 13, 2012

There seems to be certain amount of credence placed recently by the local news media on comments, quotes, etc. from staff (political appointees) other than directly from the Hopi tribal chairman Leroy Shingoitewa, particularly concerning the current water rights debate. Be advised that we do not place any credence or credibility on comments made by Shingoitewa’s staff, like comments by Micah Lomaomvaya. Micah is not tribal chairman, vice chairman; and therefore has no authority to speak on behalf of the Hopi Tribe. He has no authority to be issuing press releases, or making comments on any matter in the papers. Those authorities are vested in the tribal chairman. Those authorities and protocols are similar to the Office of the President of the United States. We do not see any press releases, nor comments coming out of Vice Chairman Honanie’s office, because he understands and respects the proper delegations of authority. He understands the protocols and when it is an appropriate time to issue statements on behalf of his office, or on behalf of the tribe. Thank you.

———————————————–

Rosanda Suetopka Thayer, July 13, 2012

“Its truly unfortunate and completely unprofessional that Micah Loma’omvaya, chief of staff for Mr. Shingoitewa, without formal Hopi Council authorization to release such a ill-informed press statement regarding the Hopi and Tewa grassroots movement to remove Shingoitewa for serious neglect of duty.

Only the Hopi Tribal Council through formal action or the Hopi chairman with council authorization can speak on behalf of the tribe, not a politically appointed staff member like Loma’omvaya.

For me personally, Loma’omvaya’s release shows the level of paranoia, intimidation and lack of signature accountability, that Shingoitewa has created and fosters at the Hopi Tribe against anyone who opposes him, including all members of the media, tribal or non-tribal.

This has been evidenced by Shingoitewa’s refusal to allow reporters into local publicly posted Hopi council meetings over his past two years in office including the Hopi Tribes’ own newspaper, the Hopi Tutuveni, which is the only local and free news medium available to Hopi community members for public information.

No community member, enrolled or un-enrolled is safe from Shingoitewa and his supporters, especially after such a heated public battle where clearly the Hopi and Tewa people did not support Shingoitewa’s LCR settlement proposal and in which Shingoitewa continues to try and re-visit an already dead tribal water issue.

The “Shingoitewa Removal” public meeting slated for Saturday, July 14th at the First Mesa Consolidated villages community will still move forward with the full open support of Hopis and Tewas who want Shingoitewa removed from office for serious neglect of duty.”

The Indian School on Magnolia Avenue – Now Available for Pre-Order

On July 12, 2012 By Matthew Sakiestewa GilbertIn Indian boarding schools, Sherman Institute, The Indian School on Magnolia Avenue1 Comment

The Indian School on Magnolia Avenue: Voices and Images from Sherman Institute, is now available for pre-order. You can pre-order the book from several venues, including Oregon State University Press ($24.95) and Amazon ($22.52). Royalties from the book will go to support educational programs at the Sherman Indian Museum in Riverside, California. The Indian School on Magnolia Avenue is scheduled to appear this December.

The Hopi Tribe Fact Sheet and FAQ on Navajo-Hopi Little Colorado River Water Rights Settlement Agreement

On July 11, 2012July 11, 2012 By Matthew Sakiestewa GilbertIn Hopi and Navajo SB 2109, Hopi and S.B. 2109, Hopi Government, Hopi water rights2 Comments

Thanks to Micah Loma’omvaya, Chief of Staff for the Hopi Tribe, for sending me the following documents to post on BEYOND THE MESAS. Click images to download.