NM Water Committees: Navajo water settlement & Rez drought

PLEASE COME TO LEGISLATIVE MEETINGS NEXT WEEK IN FARMINGTON | San Juan Agricultural Water Users Association.

When Drones Guard the Pipeline: Militarizing Fossil Fuels in the East | Honor the Earth

Greetings Relatives & Frens!
I received an email from one of loyal readers, Rudy Preson, who pointed out to me that my link to this story wasn’t working. Rudy, bless his heart & social media brain, provided a good solid link to the story, which was written by nationally respected Indigenous environmentalist Winona LaDuke. Enjoy!

http://indigenouspeoplesissues.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18105

Is President Shelly acting in best interest of NGS, instead of ALL Navajo pple?

Since March 2013, Navajo Nation President Ben Shelly has known about the alternative proposal to the US Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Best Available Retrofit Technology/BART for Navajo Generating Station.

On Thursday/7-25-13, the Interior announced that a “historic” agreement supporting the alternative proposal was signed by the NGS stakeholders – Interior, Central Az Water Conservation District, Navajo Nation, Gila River Indian Community, Salt River Project, Environmental Defense Fund and Western Resource Advocates.

On Friday/7-26-13, Shelly announced that the “Navajo Nation “ signed the agreement, which was created by a “diverse group of stakeholders” that included the “Navajo Nation, who formed a Technical Workgroup (TWG) actively engaged since March 2013.”

It’s interesting that Shelly stated that the Navajo Nation, not him, formed the TWG. 

“Historic” agreement?! The rest of the story…

JUST GOT THIS WHITE HOUSE PRESS RELEASE ANNOUNCING “HISTORIC AGREEMENT” TO REDUCE POLLUTION AT NAVAJO GENERATING STATION. ME THINKS THAT THIS WAS THE BUY-OFF FOR NAVAJO COUNCIL TO APPROVE NGS LEASE EXTENSION WITHHOUT PROVISION TO PROTECT NAVAJO WATER RIGHTS AND TO CONTINUE HUGE GIVE-AWAY OF NAVAJO SURFACE & UNDERGROUND WATER FOR USE BY NGS, PEABODY COAL, CENTRAL AZ PROTECT, TUCSON, PHOENIX, SOUTHERN AZ, AND SOUTHERN AZ TRIBES. IT’S ALL CLEAR NOW HOW MUCH PRESSURE THE COUNCIL WAS UNDER AND HOW VERY MUCH ALONE THE NAVAJO PPLE WERE STANDING TO PROTECT OUR HOMELAND. BUT ONCE AGAIN, THE NAVAJO PPLE AND ALL OF LIFE ON OUR HOMELAND WERE SACRIFICED FOR LOW COST ELECTRICITY & WATER FOR CORPORATE AMERICA, SOUTHERN AZ, AND OUR SO-CALLED TRIBAL NEIGHBORS.

BUT WE ENDURED A LONG WALK, FORCED FEDERAL RELOCATION, TERMINATION OF OUR GOVERNMENT/LEADERSHIP/VISION, FEDERALLY FUNDED CHILD ABUSE, STERILIZATION, THEFT OF OUR CHILDREN, LAND, WATER, LANDGUAGE/CULTURE AND EXPLOITATION OF OUR NATURAL RESOURCES…SO WE WILL CONTINUE TO ENDURE/EXIST AS DINE’! AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO STAND UP & SPEAK FOR LIFE, NOT DOLLARS!

I’M NOT HEADED TO NAVAJO CUONCIL ENERGY TASK FORCE MEETING AT NAVAJO MUSEUM, WINDOW ROCK, WHERE I HOPE TO CONNECT TO MUSEUM WIFE.

MAY PEACE PREVAIL ON MOTHER EARTH!
=====================================================================

Date: July 26, 2013
Contact: Jessica Kershaw (DOI) 202-208-6416

Historic Agreement Reached for Navajo Generating Station
Plan Proposes Collaborative Path Forward for Reduced Emissions, Continued Power Generation, and Clean Energy Development

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Department of the Interior today announced it is part of an agreement reached that will allow for the continued delivery of electricity from the Navajo Generating Station (NGS) in Arizona while achieving significant air pollution reductions.

Will Navajo Council’s Naabi Committee support reduction of federal regs?

Navajo Nation government remains in Corporate America mode – On today’s Council Naabi agenda is Speaker Naze’s legislation “Supporting the “Native American Energy Act” H.R. 3973 A U.S. Congressional Bill to Facilitate the Development of Energy on Indian Lands by Reducing Federal Regulations that Impede Tribal Development of
Indian Lands”

If the Navajo Council chamber wifi is on, I’ll be blogging today on Naabi Committee debate & actions.

I was at Navajo Council Resources & Development Committee on tuesday, 7-23-13, which was meeting in Council chamber, but couldn’t blog cuz wife was not on… If anyone has any ideas on how to inexpensively connet to wife, plez share! Thx.

PROPOSED NAVAJO COUNCIL NAA’BIKI’YATI’ COMMITTEE AGENDA
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1Y7qe0jCtDduDOBY0FDaijiTg_IvLRnCo0Vg9-MNAmgTICx61PemPVbsLcNeb/edit?usp=sharing

Water still key issue in NGS debate

DELEGATE LORENZO BATES
Remember that when vote on NGS lease extension, that this involves electricity that is provided to most powerful and most wealthy.

DELEGATE LEONARD TSOSIE
No allowance of interBasin water transfer.

NAVAJO NATION WATER RIGHTS ATTORNEY STANLEY POLLACK
Bates saying same thing as Tsosie. Transfer frm lower basin to upper basin and takes act of congress. Bates said Congress authorized and did 1969 Colorado River Project:thermal generating statoin and located outside Page. Regardless of where diverting and above Lee Ferry and if move south then very difficult.
It is true that in NM settlement that Congress allowed Upper Basin for Lower Basin and based on CR Project language.
If not taking direct diversion and take out of Central Az Project, it wud take Act of Congress. And remember when water not used then others wud try to use.
Bates said water runs uphill to those with most power.
Assure you of wat do here, if NGS continues we will claim as Navajo, water used on rez and create for permanent homeland.
If closes, still claim but find new use for about 34,000 acre feet of water.

Debate – Amendment to remove water claim language

DELEGATE RUSSEL BEGAYE
The majority of nation will challenge on any water rights issue and they want to participate in any water rights that nation pursues.
Any business needs water and so does nation to grow economically.
We support operation of NGS which supports electricity. If they really support NN, they shud help us get water. They shud say they wud use their money and lawyers to lobby for us instead of opposing us.
We will return to table and fight for 167,000 acre feet of water from Little Colorado. they shud be at table with us for the 50,000 acre feet of water instead
they have made billions with Navajo resources.
We’re just asking them, please do this for us. This is about business on reservation, our livelihood.

DELEGATE DWIGHT WITHERSPOON
we get $3 million. 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2019, 2020 and then Reclamation for employees to work and allows time for Navajo Nation to adapt.
Arizona also needs NGS, not just us. We get little bnefit. Yes there are provisions for a little better provisions.
In speaking with Chairman Peter MacDonald there were plans for three canals like Central Az Project. One to Window Rock and other to was western pipeline. Glad Councol apporve regional water plans.
hOW much is water worth? 47,000 acre feet times $1 m a year then $47 million a year and more in Nevada. Water is critical. This doesn’t cost them any more money. It only indicatres taht they need to recognize and assist us by not opposing our claim, assertion.
they already hve in 1969 lease that we can’t charge them for water even if we have rights to water. Why is this so hard to stand up for what’s right? it’s not. so what lose couple of million if go past Jan. 32. Water is a big deal.
the southwest is not providng water for all seven states and Mexico.
Up at Chuska and no water at lakes there.
Water is going to be gold and wars will be fought over it. We need to fight for our rights.

DELEGATE KATHERINE BENALLY
motioning party amended. your statement regarding NGS does not provide is untrue. need to consider money to employees.

DELEGATE LEONARD TSOSIE
amendments are to improve legislation but if don’t reach then we vote the other way.
By taking amendment off, world see wishy washy about claiming water. We made decision. WE had long debate and now being put in predictament to change vote.
We shud stand strong on votes.
We have plans for water in western agency.
At federal level, coal going away. NGS might close cuz of stringent federal environmental rules. But if do this, send signal love the coal more than water. And do this when kow coal under fire. But water here forever.
it’s for survival of pple. Pple depended on natural resources and there was no NGS. Today still feeds us and waters us.
By removing this amendment is the heck with water claims.
Vote no on amendment.

Info For TODAY’s Navajo Council debate over NGS

Please Read! This information is from a very knowledgeable and intensely concerned individual who is committed to preserving our Homeland. His comments regard the Navajo Nation Council legislation to renew lease of Navajo Generating Station which has a huge impact on the reservation’s underground water and future water rights to the Little Colorado River.

Prez Shelly FINALLY declared that the Navajo Reservation is experiencing Emergency Drought. The Navajo Nation Council recognized the emergency drought last month.

Thanks for your words, research and constant communications to the Council, Vincenzo!

From: Vincent Yazzie
To: “comments@navajo-nsn.gov”
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 10:48 PM
Subject: comment 0177-13

June 26, 2013

Vincent H. Yazzie
10080 Palomino Road
Flagstaff, Arizona 86004

(928) 380-3198

e-mail: vinceyazzie@yahoo.com

Executive Director
Office of Legislative Services
P.O. Box 3390
Window Rock, Arizona 86515
(928) 871-7590

Subject: Comments 0177-13

Dear Executive Director,

Do not pass 0177-13.

“The Navajo Nation and SRP have negotiated Amendment No.1 to the Indenture of Lease, (Amendment No. I), attached hereto as Exhibit A, that, among other things, extends the term of the Lease and provides the Navajo Nation’s consent to the issuance, renewal and/or extension of the 323 Grants of Rights-of-Way and Easement listed in Exhibits I and 2 of Amendment No. I through December 22,2044; and”

The 323 grant removes the jurisdiction of the Navajo Nation until 2044. Navajo Nation will have no say so till 12/22/2044.

It would be nice to know what Amendment No. I and 2 is. This must be disclosed to the public. I cannot comment on something which is not available to me.

“The Navajo Generating Station and Kayenta Mine: An Economic Impact Study, is attached as Exhibit C; and”

Where is Exhibit C? Public cannot comment on something that is not there. If this is that Arizona State University Study that says billions of dollars generated inside the Navajo Nation. Most of the money is spent off the Navajo Nation.
•Study assumes NGS and Kayenta Mine is recycled inside the Navajo Nation. False. Many workers shop off-reservation.
•Study uses zip codes instead of chapter house subdivisions.
•Study is projected to the year 2020 to 2044 by assuming certain things will not change.
•GNNP aka Navajo GDP of $12.94 billion (2020-2044).
•“The period of study has been suggested by the client, consistent with contractual intentions.”p.14
•A fixed study.
•Navajo Generating Station KayentaMine, An Economic Impact Analysis for the Navajo Nation, Evans, James, Gamez, Madly, L. William SeidmanResearch Institute, W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, April 9, 2013

•Money flows off the reservation contrary to new ASU study.
•Navajo Economic Data Bulletin 002-0512, Damon, Nopah, Tsosie

“Amendment No.1 will provide the Navajo Nation up to approximately forty-three million dollars ($43,000,000.00) per year (annually adjusted) through 2044, as set forth in Exhibits A and B; and”

Actually the Navajo Nation will only get $23,000,000 for a few years then $50,000,000 later. SRP continues to hide their financial data from the public and accuses anybody that takes an educated guess as not credible.

“NGS Profit
Hide Details
From
• Drost Barry D
•
To
• Vincent Yazzie
CC
• NGSKAY – DEPT ID
Vincent,
I notice you are still making statements on FB that the NGS owners are making a net profit of $1.5 Billion a year which I’ve already tried to correct you on. If you are interested in knowing more accurate information that will add to your credibility, let me know.

Sent from my iPad”

Why does SRP not tell the public about how much they make? Why should I be given preference to what the real numbers are? I do not need to be given preferential treatment by SRP. I have given warning to Barry Drost that if he contacts me again, I will file a restraining order. Barry and SRP have the correct answers. Should be public information and not be given to certain people.

“The continued operation of the NGS will allow for employment at the Peabody Kayenta Mine and the NGS to be continued and retained. The Navajo Nation will also continue to receive current revenues that are generated from the Peabody Kayenta Coal Mine and additional revenues as provided for in Amendment No. I; and”

There are market forces that will make coal cost prohibitive especially President Obama’s Climate Change Campaign.
‘We Need to Act’: Transcript of Obama’s Climate Change Speech
From Bloomber.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-25/-we-need-to-act-transcript-of-obama-s-climate-change-speech.html

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks as he unveils his plan on climate change, June 25, 2013 at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. Photographer: Alex Wong/Getty Images
ByTom RandallJun 25, 2013 2:40 PM MT

Transcript of President Barack Obama’s speech at Georgetown University announcing his new climate-change policy:
On Christmas Eve, 1968, the astronauts of Apollo 8 did a live broadcast from lunar orbit. So Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, William Anders — the first humans to orbit the moon — described what they saw, and they read Scripture from the Book of Genesis to the rest of us back here. And later that night, they took a photo that would change the way we see and think about our world.
It was an image of Earth — beautiful; breathtaking; a glowing marble of blue oceans, and green forests, and brown mountains brushed with white clouds, rising over the surface of the moon.
And while the sight of our planet from space might seem routine today, imagine what it looked like to those of us seeing our home, our planet, for the first time. Imagine what it looked like to children like me. Even the astronauts were amazed. “It makes you realize,” Lovell would say, “just what you have back there on Earth.”
And around the same time we began exploring space, scientists were studying changes taking place in the Earth’s atmosphere. Now, scientists had known since the 1800s that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide trap heat, and that burning fossil fuels release those gases into the air. That wasn’t news. But in the late 1950s, the National Weather Service began measuring the levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, with the worry that rising levels might someday disrupt the fragile balance that makes our planet so hospitable. And what they’ve found, year after year, is that the levels of carbon pollution in our atmosphere have increased dramatically.
That science, accumulated and reviewed over decades, tells us that our planet is changing in ways that will have profound impacts on all of humankind.
The 12 warmest years in recorded history have all come in the last 15 years. Last year, temperatures in some areas of the ocean reached record highs, and ice in the Arctic shrank to its smallest size on record — faster than most models had predicted it would. These are facts.
Now, we know that no single weather event is caused solely by climate change. Droughts and fires and floods, they go back to ancient times. But we also know that in a world that’s warmer than it used to be, all weather events are affected by a warming planet. The fact that sea level in New York, in New York Harbor, are now a foot higher than a century ago — that didn’t cause Hurricane Sandy, but it certainly contributed to the destruction that left large parts of our mightiest city dark and underwater.
The potential impacts go beyond rising sea levels. Here at home, 2012 was the warmest year in our history. Midwest farms were parched by the worst drought since the Dust Bowl, and then drenched by the wettest spring on record. Western wildfires scorched an area larger than the state of Maryland. Just last week, a heat wave in Alaska shot temperatures into the 90s.
And we know that the costs of these events can be measured in lost lives and lost livelihoods, lost homes, lost businesses, hundreds of billions of dollars in emergency services and disaster relief. In fact, those who are already feeling the effects of climate change don’t have time to deny it — they’re busy dealing with it. Firefighters are braving longer wildfire seasons, and states and federal governments have to figure out how to budget for that. I had to sit on a meeting with the Department of Interior and Agriculture and some of the rest of my team just to figure out how we’re going to pay for more and more expensive fire seasons.
Farmers see crops wilted one year, washed away the next; and the higher food prices get passed on to you, the American consumer. Mountain communities worry about what smaller snowpacks will mean for tourism — and then, families at the bottom of the mountains wonder what it will mean for their drinking water. Americans across the country are already paying the price of inaction in insurance premiums, state and local taxes, and the costs of rebuilding and disaster relief.
So the question is not whether we need to act. The overwhelming judgment of science — of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements — has put all that to rest. Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest. They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.
So the question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it’s too late. And how we answer will have a profound impact on the world that we leave behind not just to you, but to your children and to your grandchildren.
As a President, as a father, and as an American, I’m here to say we need to act.
I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing. And that’s why, today, I’m announcing a new national climate action plan, and I’m here to enlist your generation’s help in keeping the United States of America a leader — a global leader — in the fight against climate change.
This plan builds on progress that we’ve already made. Last year, I took office — the year that I took office, my administration pledged to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions by about 17 percent from their 2005 levels by the end of this decade. And we rolled up our sleeves and we got to work. We doubled the electricity we generated from wind and the sun. We doubled the mileage our cars will get on a gallon of gas by the middle of the next decade.
Here at Georgetown, I unveiled my strategy for a secure energy future. And thanks to the ingenuity of our businesses, we’re starting to produce much more of our own energy. We’re building the first nuclear power plants in more than three decades — in Georgia and South Carolina. For the first time in 18 years, America is poised to produce more of our own oil than we buy from other nations. And today, we produce more natural gas than anybody else. So we’re producing energy. And these advances have grown our economy, they’ve created new jobs, they can’t be shipped overseas — and, by the way, they’ve also helped drive our carbon pollution to its lowest levels in nearly 20 years. Since 2006, no country on Earth has reduced its total carbon pollution by as much as the United States of America.
So it’s a good start. But the reason we’re all here in the heat today is because we know we’ve got more to do.
In my State of the Union address, I urged Congress to come up with a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one that Republican and Democratic senators worked on together a few years ago. And I still want to see that happen. I’m willing to work with anyone to make that happen.
But this is a challenge that does not pause for partisan gridlock. It demands our attention now. And this is my plan to meet it — a plan to cut carbon pollution; a plan to protect our country from the impacts of climate change; and a plan to lead the world in a coordinated assault on a changing climate.
This plan begins with cutting carbon pollution by changing the way we use energy — using less dirty energy, using more clean energy, wasting less energy throughout our economy.
Forty-three years ago, Congress passed a law called the Clean Air Act of 1970. It was a good law. The reasoning behind it was simple: New technology can protect our health by protecting the air we breathe from harmful pollution. And that law passed the Senate unanimously. Think about that — it passed the Senate unanimously. It passed the House of Representatives 375 to 1. I don’t know who the one guy was — I haven’t looked that up. You can barely get that many votes to name a post office these days.
It was signed into law by a Republican President. It was later strengthened by another Republican President. This used to be a bipartisan issue.
Six years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are pollutants covered by that same Clean Air Act. And they required the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, to determine whether they’re a threat to our health and welfare. In 2009, the EPA determined that they are a threat to both our health and our welfare in many different ways — from dirtier air to more common heat waves — and, therefore, subject to regulation.
Today, about 40 percent of America’s carbon pollution comes from our power plants. But here’s the thing: Right now, there are no federal limits to the amount of carbon pollution that those plants can pump into our air. None. Zero. We limit the amount of toxic chemicals like mercury and sulfur and arsenic in our air or our water, but power plants can still dump unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the air for free. That’s not right, that’s not safe, and it needs to stop.
So today, for the sake of our children, and the health and safety of all Americans, I’m directing the Environmental Protection Agency to put an end to the limitless dumping of carbon pollution from our power plants, and complete new pollution standards for both new and existing power plants.
I’m also directing the EPA to develop these standards in an open and transparent way, to provide flexibility to different states with different needs, and build on the leadership that many states, and cities, and companies have already shown. In fact, many power companies have already begun modernizing their plants, and creating new jobs in the process. Others have shifted to burning cleaner natural gas instead of dirtier fuel sources.
Nearly a dozen states have already implemented or are implementing their own market-based programs to reduce carbon pollution. More than 25 have set energy efficiency targets. More than 35 have set renewable energy targets. Over 1,000 mayors have signed agreements to cut carbon pollution. So the idea of setting higher pollution standards for our power plants is not new. It’s just time for Washington to catch up with the rest of the country. And that’s what we intend to do.
Now, what you’ll hear from the special interests and their allies in Congress is that this will kill jobs and crush the economy, and basically end American free enterprise as we know it. And the reason I know you’ll hear those things is because that’s what they said every time America sets clear rules and better standards for our air and our water and our children’s health. And every time, they’ve been wrong.
For example, in 1970, when we decided through the Clean Air Act to do something about the smog that was choking our cities — and, by the way, most young people here aren’t old enough to remember what it was like, but when I was going to school in 1979-1980 in Los Angeles, there were days where folks couldn’t go outside. And the sunsets were spectacular because of all the pollution in the air.
But at the time when we passed the Clean Air Act to try to get rid of some of this smog, some of the same doomsayers were saying new pollution standards will decimate the auto industry. Guess what — it didn’t happen. Our air got cleaner.
In 1990, when we decided to do something about acid rain, they said our electricity bills would go up, the lights would go off, businesses around the country would suffer — I quote — “a quiet death.” None of it happened, except we cut acid rain dramatically.
See, the problem with all these tired excuses for inaction is that it suggests a fundamental lack of faith in American business and American ingenuity. These critics seem to think that when we ask our businesses to innovate and reduce pollution and lead, they can’t or they won’t do it. They’ll just kind of give up and quit. But in America, we know that’s not true. Look at our history.
When we restricted cancer-causing chemicals in plastics and leaded fuel in our cars, it didn’t end the plastics industry or the oil industry. American chemists came up with better substitutes. When we phased out CFCs — the gases that were depleting the ozone layer — it didn’t kill off refrigerators or air-conditioners or deodorant. American workers and businesses figured out how to do it better without harming the environment as much.
The fuel standards that we put in place just a few years ago didn’t cripple automakers. The American auto industry retooled, and today, our automakers are selling the best cars in the world at a faster rate than they have in five years — with more hybrid, more plug-in, more fuel-efficient cars for everybody to choose from.
So the point is, if you look at our history, don’t bet against American industry. Don’t bet against American workers. Don’t tell folks that we have to choose between the health of our children or the health of our economy.
The old rules may say we can’t protect our environment and promote economic growth at the same time, but in America, we’ve always used new technologies — we’ve used science; we’ve used research and development and discovery to make the old rules obsolete.
Today, we use more clean energy — more renewables and natural gas — which is supporting hundreds of thousands of good jobs. We waste less energy, which saves you money at the pump and in your pocketbooks. And guess what — our economy is 60 percent bigger than it was 20 years ago, while our carbon emissions are roughly back to where they were 20 years ago.
So, obviously, we can figure this out. It’s not an either/or; it’s a both/and. We’ve got to look after our children; we have to look after our future; and we have to grow the economy and create jobs. We can do all of that as long as we don’t fear the future; instead we seize it.
And, by the way, don’t take my word for it — recently, more than 500 businesses, including giants like GM and Nike, issued a Climate Declaration, calling action on climate change “one of the great economic opportunities of the 21st century.” Walmart is working to cut its carbon pollution by 20 percent and transition completely to renewable energy. Walmart deserves a cheer for that. But think about it. Would the biggest company, the biggest retailer in America — would they really do that if it weren’t good for business, if it weren’t good for their shareholders?
A low-carbon, clean energy economy can be an engine of growth for decades to come. And I want America to build that engine. I want America to build that future — right here in the United States of America. That’s our task.
Now, one thing I want to make sure everybody understands — this does not mean that we’re going to suddenly stop producing fossil fuels. Our economy wouldn’t run very well if it did. And transitioning to a clean energy economy takes time. But when the doomsayers trot out the old warnings that these ambitions will somehow hurt our energy supply, just remind them that America produced more oil than we have in 15 years. What is true is that we can’t just drill our way out of the energy and climate challenge that we face. That’s not possible.
I put forward in the past an all-of-the-above energy strategy, but our energy strategy must be about more than just producing more oil. And, by the way, it’s certainly got to be about more than just building one pipeline.
Now, I know there’s been, for example, a lot of controversy surrounding the proposal to build a pipeline, the Keystone pipeline, that would carry oil from Canadian tar sands down to refineries in the Gulf. And the State Department is going through the final stages of evaluating the proposal. That’s how it’s always been done. But I do want to be clear: Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation’s interest. And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. The net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward. It’s relevant.
Now, even as we’re producing more domestic oil, we’re also producing more cleaner-burning natural gas than any other country on Earth. And, again, sometimes there are disputes about natural gas, but let me say this: We should strengthen our position as the top natural gas producer because, in the medium term at least, it not only can provide safe, cheap power, but it can also help reduce our carbon emissions.
Federally supported technology has helped our businesses drill more effectively and extract more gas. And now, we’ll keep working with the industry to make drilling safer and cleaner, to make sure that we’re not seeing methane emissions, and to put people to work modernizing our natural gas infrastructure so that we can power more homes and businesses with cleaner energy.
The bottom line is natural gas is creating jobs. It’s lowering many families’ heat and power bills. And it’s the transition fuel that can power our economy with less carbon pollution even as our businesses work to develop and then deploy more of the technology required for the even cleaner energy economy of the future.
And that brings me to the second way that we’re going to reduce carbon pollution — by using more clean energy. Over the past four years, we’ve doubled the electricity that we generate from zero-carbon wind and solar power. And that means jobs — jobs manufacturing the wind turbines that now generate enough electricity to power nearly 15 million homes; jobs installing the solar panels that now generate more than four times the power at less cost than just a few years ago.
I know some Republicans in Washington dismiss these jobs, but those who do need to call home — because 75 percent of all wind energy in this country is generated in Republican districts. And that may explain why last year, Republican governors in Kansas and Oklahoma and Iowa — Iowa, by the way, a state that harnesses almost 25 percent of its electricity from the wind — helped us in the fight to extend tax credits for wind energy manufacturers and producers. Tens of thousands good jobs were on the line, and those jobs were worth the fight.
And countries like China and Germany are going all in in the race for clean energy. I believe Americans build things better than anybody else. I want America to win that race, but we can’t win it if we’re not in it.
So the plan I’m announcing today will help us double again our energy from wind and sun. Today, I’m directing the Interior Department to green light enough private, renewable energy capacity on public lands to power more than 6 million homes by 2020.
The Department of Defense — the biggest energy consumer in America — will install 3 gigawatts of renewable power on its bases, generating about the same amount of electricity each year as you’d get from burning 3 million tons of coal.
And because billions of your tax dollars continue to still subsidize some of the most profitable corporations in the history of the world, my budget once again calls for Congress to end the tax breaks for big oil companies, and invest in the clean-energy companies that will fuel our future.
Now, the third way to reduce carbon pollution is to waste less energy — in our cars, our homes, our businesses. The fuel standards we set over the past few years mean that by the middle of the next decade, the cars and trucks we buy will go twice as far on a gallon of gas. That means you’ll have to fill up half as often; we’ll all reduce carbon pollution. And we built on that success by setting the first-ever standards for heavy-duty trucks and buses and vans. And in the coming months, we’ll partner with truck makers to do it again for the next generation of vehicles.
Meanwhile, the energy we use in our homes and our businesses and our factories, our schools, our hospitals — that’s responsible for about one-third of our greenhouse gases. The good news is simple upgrades don’t just cut that pollution; they put people to work — manufacturing and installing smarter lights and windows and sensors and appliances. And the savings show up in our electricity bills every month — forever. That’s why we’ve set new energy standards for appliances like refrigerators and dishwashers. And today, our businesses are building better ones that will also cut carbon pollution and cut consumers’ electricity bills by hundreds of billions of dollars.
That means, by the way, that our federal government also has to lead by example. I’m proud that federal agencies have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by more than 15 percent since I took office. But we can do even better than that. So today, I’m setting a new goal: Your federal government will consume 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources within the next seven years. We are going to set that goal.
We’ll also encourage private capital to get off the sidelines and get into these energy-saving investments. And by the end of the next decade, these combined efficiency standards for appliances and federal buildings will reduce carbon pollution by at least three billion tons. That’s an amount equal to what our entire energy sector emits in nearly half a year.
So I know these standards don’t sound all that sexy, but think of it this way: That’s the equivalent of planting 7.6 billion trees and letting them grow for 10 years — all while doing the dishes. It is a great deal and we need to be doing it.
So using less dirty energy, transitioning to cleaner sources of energy, wasting less energy through our economy is where we need to go. And this plan will get us there faster. But I want to be honest — this will not get us there overnight. The hard truth is carbon pollution has built up in our atmosphere for decades now. And even if we Americans do our part, the planet will slowly keep warming for some time to come. The seas will slowly keep rising and storms will get more severe, based on the science. It’s like tapping the brakes of a car before you come to a complete stop and then can shift into reverse. It’s going to take time for carbon emissions to stabilize.
So in the meantime, we’re going to need to get prepared. And that’s why this plan will also protect critical sectors of our economy and prepare the United States for the impacts of climate change that we cannot avoid. States and cities across the country are already taking it upon themselves to get ready. Miami Beach is hardening its water supply against seeping saltwater. We’re partnering with the state of Florida to restore Florida’s natural clean water delivery system — the Everglades.
The overwhelmingly Republican legislature in Texas voted to spend money on a new water development bank as a long-running drought cost jobs and forced a town to truck in water from the outside.
New York City is fortifying its 520 miles of coastline as an insurance policy against more frequent and costly storms. And what we’ve learned from Hurricane Sandy and other disasters is that we’ve got to build smarter, more resilient infrastructure that can protect our homes and businesses, and withstand more powerful storms. That means stronger seawalls, natural barriers, hardened power grids, hardened water systems, hardened fuel supplies.
So the budget I sent Congress includes funding to support communities that build these projects, and this plan directs federal agencies to make sure that any new project funded with taxpayer dollars is built to withstand increased flood risks.
And we’ll partner with communities seeking help to prepare for droughts and floods, reduce the risk of wildfires, protect the dunes and wetlands that pull double duty as green space and as natural storm barriers. And we’ll also open our climate data and NASA climate imagery to the public, to make sure that cities and states assess risk under different climate scenarios, so that we don’t waste money building structures that don’t withstand the next storm.
So that’s what my administration will do to support the work already underway across America, not only to cut carbon pollution, but also to protect ourselves from climate change. But as I think everybody here understands, no nation can solve this challenge alone — not even one as powerful as ours. And that’s why the final part of our plan calls on America to lead — lead international efforts to combat a changing climate.
And make no mistake — the world still looks to America to lead. When I spoke to young people in Turkey a few years ago, the first question I got wasn’t about the challenges that part of the world faces. It was about the climate challenge that we all face, and America’s role in addressing it. And it was a fair question, because as the world’s largest economy and second-largest carbon emitter, as a country with unsurpassed ability to drive innovation and scientific breakthroughs, as the country that people around the world continue to look to in times of crisis, we’ve got a vital role to play. We can’t stand on the sidelines. We’ve got a unique responsibility. And the steps that I’ve outlined today prove that we’re willing to meet that responsibility.
Though all America’s carbon pollution fell last year, global carbon pollution rose to a record high. That’s a problem. Developing countries are using more and more energy, and tens of millions of people entering a global middle class naturally want to buy cars and air-conditioners of their own, just like us. Can’t blame them for that. And when you have conversations with poor countries, they’ll say, well, you went through these stages of development — why can’t we?
But what we also have to recognize is these same countries are also more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than we are. They don’t just have as much to lose, they probably have more to lose.
Developing nations with some of the fastest-rising levels of carbon pollution are going to have to take action to meet this challenge alongside us. They’re watching what we do, but we’ve got to make sure that they’re stepping up to the plate as well. We compete for business with them, but we also share a planet. And we have to all shoulder the responsibility for keeping the planet habitable, or we’re going to suffer the consequences — together.
So to help more countries transitioning to cleaner sources of energy and to help them do it faster, we’re going to partner with our private sector to apply private sector technological know-how in countries that transition to natural gas. We’ve mobilized billions of dollars in private capital for clean energy projects around the world.
Today, I’m calling for an end of public financing for new coal plants overseas — unless they deploy carbon-capture technologies, or there’s no other viable way for the poorest countries to generate electricity. And I urge other countries to join this effort.
And I’m directing my administration to launch negotiations toward global free trade in environmental goods and services, including clean energy technology, to help more countries skip past the dirty phase of development and join a global low-carbon economy. They don’t have to repeat all the same mistakes that we made.
We’ve also intensified our climate cooperation with major emerging economies like India and Brazil, and China — the world’s largest emitter. So, for example, earlier this month, President Xi of China and I reached an important agreement to jointly phase down our production and consumption of dangerous hydrofluorocarbons, and we intend to take more steps together in the months to come. It will make a difference. It’s a significant step in the reduction of carbon emissions.
And finally, my administration will redouble our efforts to engage our international partners in reaching a new global agreement to reduce carbon pollution through concrete action.
Four years ago, in Copenhagen, every major country agreed, for the first time, to limit carbon pollution by 2020. Two years ago, we decided to forge a new agreement beyond 2020 that would apply to all countries, not just developed countries.
What we need is an agreement that’s ambitious — because that’s what the scale of the challenge demands. We need an inclusive agreement — because every country has to play its part. And we need an agreement that’s flexible — because different nations have different needs. And if we can come together and get this right, we can define a sustainable future for your generation.
So that’s my plan. The actions I’ve announced today should send a strong signal to the world that America intends to take bold action to reduce carbon pollution. We will continue to lead by the power of our example, because that’s what the United States of America has always done.
I am convinced this is the fight America can, and will, lead in the 21st century. And I’m convinced this is a fight that America must lead. But it will require all of us to do our part. We’ll need scientists to design new fuels, and we’ll need farmers to grow new fuels. We’ll need engineers to devise new technologies, and we’ll need businesses to make and sell those technologies. We’ll need workers to operate assembly lines that hum with high-tech, zero-carbon components, but we’ll also need builders to hammer into place the foundations for a new clean energy era.
We’re going to need to give special care to people and communities that are unsettled by this transition — not just here in the United States but around the world. And those of us in positions of responsibility, we’ll need to be less concerned with the judgment of special interests and well-connected donors, and more concerned with the judgment of posterity. Because you and your children, and your children’s children, will have to live with the consequences of our decisions.
As I said before, climate change has become a partisan issue, but it hasn’t always been. It wasn’t that long ago that Republicans led the way on new and innovative policies to tackle these issues. Richard Nixon opened the EPA. George H.W. Bush declared — first U.S. President to declare — “human activities are changing the atmosphere in unexpected and unprecedented ways.” Someone who never shies away from a challenge, John McCain, introduced a market-based cap-and-trade bill to slow carbon pollution.
The woman that I’ve chosen to head up the EPA, Gina McCarthy, she’s worked — she’s terrific. Gina has worked for the EPA in my administration, but she’s also worked for five Republican governors. She’s got a long track record of working with industry and business leaders to forge common-sense solutions. Unfortunately, she’s being held up in the Senate. She’s been held up for months, forced to jump through hoops no Cabinet nominee should ever have to — not because she lacks qualifications, but because there are too many in the Republican Party right now who think that the Environmental Protection Agency has no business protecting our environment from carbon pollution. The Senate should confirm her without any further obstruction or delay.
But more broadly, we’ve got to move beyond partisan politics on this issue. I want to be clear — I am willing to work with anybody — Republicans, Democrats, independents, libertarians, greens — anybody — to combat this threat on behalf of our kids. I am open to all sorts of new ideas, maybe better ideas, to make sure that we deal with climate change in a way that promotes jobs and growth.
Nobody has a monopoly on what is a very hard problem, but I don’t have much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is real. We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society. Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm. And ultimately, we will be judged as a people, and as a society, and as a country on where we go from here.
Our founders believed that those of us in positions of power are elected not just to serve as custodians of the present, but as caretakers of the future. And they charged us to make decisions with an eye on a longer horizon than the arc of our own political careers. That’s what the American people expect. That’s what they deserve.
And someday, our children, and our children’s children, will look at us in the eye and they’ll ask us, did we do all that we could when we had the chance to deal with this problem and leave them a cleaner, safer, more stable world? And I want to be able to say, yes, we did. Don’t you want that?
Americans are not a people who look backwards; we’re a people who look forward. We’re not a people who fear what the future holds; we shape it. What we need in this fight are citizens who will stand up, and speak up, and compel us to do what this moment demands.
Understand this is not just a job for politicians. So I’m going to need all of you to educate your classmates, your colleagues, your parents, your friends. Tell them what’s at stake. Speak up at town halls, church groups, PTA meetings. Push back on misinformation. Speak up for the facts. Broaden the circle of those who are willing to stand up for our future.
Convince those in power to reduce our carbon pollution. Push your own communities to adopt smarter practices. Invest. Divest. Remind folks there’s no contradiction between a sound environment and strong economic growth. And remind everyone who represents you at every level of government that sheltering future generations against the ravages of climate change is a prerequisite for your vote. Make yourself heard on this issue.
I understand the politics will be tough. The challenge we must accept will not reward us with a clear moment of victory. There’s no gathering army to defeat. There’s no peace treaty to sign. When President Kennedy said we’d go to the moon within the decade, we knew we’d build a spaceship and we’d meet the goal. Our progress here will be measured differently — in crises averted, in a planet preserved. But can we imagine a more worthy goal? For while we may not live to see the full realization of our ambition, we will have the satisfaction of knowing that the world we leave to our children will be better off for what we did.
“It makes you realize,” that astronaut said all those years ago, “just what you have back there on Earth.” And that image in the photograph, that bright blue ball rising over the moon’s surface, containing everything we hold dear — the laughter of children, a quiet sunset, all the hopes and dreams of posterity — that’s what’s at stake. That’s what we’re fighting for. And if we remember that, I’m absolutely sure we’ll succeed.
Thank you. God bless you. God bless the United States of America.

Climate extremes are creating problems for the United States of America (USA) and the people of the US are tired of global warming and coal fired power plants that emit pollution.

The power plant workers and miners will soon be out of a job.

Out of work power plant workers and miners have to be retrained to operate a renewable energy project such as solar or wind. There are now solar plants that operate after dark now using salt.
No to 0177-13. More comments later.

Sincerely,
/s/ Vincent H. Yazzie
Vincent H. Yazzie

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Vincent Yazzie
To: “comments@navajo-nsn.gov”
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:52 PM
Subject: comment 0177-13

June 26, 2013

Vincent H. Yazzie
10080 Palomino Road
Flagstaff, Arizona 86004

(928) 380-3198

e-mail: vinceyazzie@yahoo.com

Executive Director
Office of Legislative Services
P.O. Box 3390
Window Rock, Arizona 86515
(928) 871-7590

Subject: Comments 0177-13

Dear Executive Director,

Do not pass 0177-13.

Salt River Project and the State of Arizona have participated in fraud to steal Navajo water in 1952. Ripping off Navajo Water Rights 1.pdf gives a short history of the illegal attempts to steal Navajo water rights as orchestrated by the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ), State of Arizona, and Salt River Project(SRP). On page 13, of Ripping off Navajo Water Rights 1.pdf, USDOJ and State of Arizona made a pact where USDOJ would intervene in Arizona V. California and side with the State of Arizona. State of Arizona files Bill of Complaint in Arizona v. California August 13, 1952, On page 14, of Ripping off Navajo Water Rights 1.pdf. USDOJ files motion to intervene on November 2, 1953, On page 15 and 16, of Ripping off Navajo Water Rights 1.pdf, which stated the following for the Indians:

“The United States of America asserts that the rights to the use of water claimed on behalf of the Indian tribes as set forth in this petition are prior and superior to the rights to the use of water claimed
by the parties to this cause in the Colorado River and its tributaries in the lower basin of that stream.”

USDOJ was asserting Winters Rights for the Indians. State of Arizona and other states had USDOJ remove the language, page 16, of Ripping off Navajo Water Rights 1.pdf

The governors of the lower basin states had USDOJ remove the petition from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), page 17, of Ripping off Navajo Water Rights 1.pdf The petition was illegally changed. Petitions at SCOTUS are published like books and do not accept 8.5×11 only under certain conditions.

window_rock_hearings_part_3_01031972.pdf pages 65 and 66 of 137

USDOJ changed the petition to say the following, page 18, of Ripping off Navajo Water Rights 1.pdf:

The United States of America, as trustee for the Indians and Indian tribes, claims in the aggregate on their behalf rights to the use of water from the Colorado River and its tributaries in the lower basin of that stream in the states of Arizona & California as set forth in Appendix IIA of this petition.

USDOJ also switched out attorneys in Arizona v. California before the trial getting rid of an experienced Indian water attorney and replacing him with an inexperienced Indian water attorney, page 19, of Ripping off Navajo Water Rights 1.pdf. The new USDOJ attorney then proceeds to mess up Indian water rights.

USDOJ messed up Indian water rights which is page 22, of Ripping off Navajo Water Rights 1.pdf

On September 25, 1961, Navajo Nation tried to enter Arizona v. California, but were denied.

Other tribes were able to enter Arizona v California and succeeded even though USDOJ committed gross violations against the Indian people.

This document will be sent in the next e-mail.

The Petition to Intervention was filed April 7, 1978 by the Fort Mojave Tribe, Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, Colorado River Indian Tribes and Confederation of Indian Tribes of the Colorado River in Arizona v.California. Document is large. Link is

Click to access Colorado_River_Tribe_intervention1.pdf

In 0177-13, “Nothing in Amendment No. 1 or the Indenture of Lease hereto precludes the Navajo Nation from asserting a claim(s) for water rights to the Upper Colorado River Basin or settlement of such claims(s) or hinders the Navajo Nation from asserting (i) through December 22, 2019, a claim to the state of Arizona’s 50,000 acre foot allocation of Upper Colorado River Basin water or (ii) from and after December 23, 2019, a claim to any quantity of water from the Upper Colorado River Basin for its lands in Arizona; and”

water contract with Navajo Resolution CD 108-68 say “If, for any reason, this resolution is terminated or expires by reason of the terms and conditions contained in this resolution, the Secretary of the Interior shall take the necessary action to have the 34,100 acre-feet of water per year, allocated to the coal-fuel power plant on the Navajo Reservation near Page, Arizona, returned to the Navajo Tribe for their exclusive use and benefit.”

In CD 108-68

“Because the 34,100 acre-feet of water per year must come from the 50,000 acre-feet of water allocated to the State of Arizona by the terms of the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District must be assured that the Navajo Tribe will not assert, for the lifetime of the proposed coal-fuel power plant, or for the next 50 years, or whichever occurs first, claims for water in excess of 50,000 acre-feet per year and”

0177-13 actually diminishes Navajo water rights. CD 108-68, allows Navajo to file a claim for more than 50,000 afy. 0177-13 reduces the adjudicated 34,100 to a claim of 50,000 afy and no giant water claims.

No to 0177-13. More comments later.

Sincerely,
/s/ Vincent H. Yazzie
Vincent H. Yazzie

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Vincent Yazzie
To: “comments@navajo-nsn.gov”
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: comment 0177-13

July 17, 2013

Vincent H. Yazzie
10080 Palomino Road
Flagstaff, Arizona 86004

(928) 380-3198

e-mail: vinceyazzie@yahoo.com

Executive Director
Office of Legislative Services
P.O. Box 3390
Window Rock, Arizona 86515
(928) 871-7590

– Forwarded Message —–
From: Vincent Yazzie
To: “comments@navajo-nsn.gov”
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 11:46 PM
Subject: comment 0177-13

July 14, 2013

Vincent H. Yazzie
10080 Palomino Road
Flagstaff, Arizona 86004

(928) 380-3198

e-mail: vinceyazzie@yahoo.com

Executive Director
Office of Legislative Services
P.O. Box 3390
Window Rock, Arizona 86515
(928) 871-7590

Subject: Comments 0177-13

Dear Executive Director,

Do not pass 0177-13.

President Obama has called on millions of people to have congress implement Global Climate Change laws. If Navajo Nation has coal plants or natural gas plant, there will be a carbon tax or surcharge for the release of carbon. SRP is setting up the Navajo Nation for a trap. SRP and other public utilities continue to make solar plants, but will terminate NGS when coal is too expensive.

No to 0177-13. More comments later.

Council Debate & Vote on $3 m Emergency Drought assistance

DELEGATE JONATHAN NEZ
Table until get procedure for BIA and NN to ADDRESS emergency drought on NPL thru the development of a budget by BIA that also includes reimbursement to chapters for feral horse round ups.
Return to Council on Thursday, 7-15-13

SPONSOR – DELEGATE MEL BEGAY
If make these amendments, Prez Shelly cud veto.

DELEGATE LORENZO BATES
Now that prez has declared Emergency Drought, Council can approve $3 million be taken from Undesignated Reserves instead of Minimum Fund Balance in Reserves.with majority vote instead of 2/3 vote.

DELEGATE KATHERINE BENALLY
Nothing against NPL – BIA funding.

DELEGATE WALTER PHELPS
POINT OF ORDER: Thot Nez offered Tabling.

SPEAKER NAIZE
Delegate Nez withdrew Tabling motion so cud address amendment to change funding source then return to Tabling motion.

VOTE ON AMENDMENT 2:
Change funding source from Minimum Fund Balance to Reserves which is allowed because Prez Shelly declared Emergency Drought and by taking $3 m from Reserves wud only require majority vote of Council.
VOTE 15 in favor, 3 opposed

TARQUI
I did not mean to say that not address NPL. Only said BIA responsible and they have officer out there and talking with BIA about talking over office with funds.
I never meant to say that not help NPL. Up to Council. We go with NNC directive.
Also use funds for mileage for field offices.

VOTE ON TABLING MOTION BY DELEGATE JONATHAN NEZ AT 5:21 PM. Legislation regarding $3 million for Emergency Drought to have needed budgets on how $3 m will be used to be completed by Thursday, 7-18-13, for Council action.
13 in favor, 5 opposed.

DEBATE continues over $3 m Drought

DELEGATE LEONARD TSOSIE
How has Water Resources addressing drought, windmill and earthen dam repairs on Navajo Partition Land?
Also how does Water Resources pin point chapters in most need? Perhaps those chapters that have received rain or are near water, such as northern New Mexico chapters could be lower on priority list.

DELEGATE KATHERINE BENALLY
Speaker, have Division of Natural Resources Director Fred White be here and confirm his signature on documents otherwise Prez cud veto.

DELEGATE EDMUND YAZZIE
Hope prez doesn’t veto again. But ned to maintain communication. Speaker you have more than 20 staff and I know you have weekly Mlnday meetings so why not sit down with President’s Office. Remember Prez Shelly saying during campaign that he wud work with Council. Is that a dream?
Right now have 1.5 year to go and whoever run for prez standing behind statement and now know that talk is cheap.
Understand some communities received rain but it will be challenge to repair windmills. But out in Thoreau, no rain, few drops. It’s hard when pass legislation and tell pple we passed Bond, youth employment, drought assistance and then hear prez vetoed.
Challenge staff but go over and have a cup of coffee. Hope prez open door. It’s not too late.
Plead with RDC, letz bring Bond legislation back. We worked hard on that.

DELEGATE LORENZO CURLEY
Get resources out to chapter. Don’t’ spend money here at central government. Navajo Partition Land and Jeddito needs assistance and I directed chapter officials to identify wells/windmills.
I thot prior $3 million emergency drought legislation passed cuz right after acted on that, prez signed emergency drought executive order. But then heard Prez vetoed and I was really disappointed.

DELEGATE NELSON BEGAY
For Navajo Partition Land there shouldn’t be any livestock and feral horses.

TARQUI (answering question about NPL)
NPL taken care of by BIA, they have responsibility. They get funds. Four weeks ago talked with Navajo Area BIA Director Sharon Pinto. Asked for letter to find out cost to maintain windmills on NPL.

DELEGATE LEONARD TSOSIE
Normal rules of budgeting doesn’t exist for Emergencies so Prez Shelly incorrect in citing budgetary deficiencies. We saw emergencies. By going back to financial rules then reduce emergency to regular request.
We claim separation of powers. He does his thing on Executive side and we do over here on Legislative.
That’s why dealing with amendments.
As heard, BIA funding NPL. Yes, we are all Navajos but we have limited resources. Did we hear that NPL is getting $4 million?

DELEGATE WITHERSPOON
So guess NPL not included cuz of “cop out” cuz of federal responsibility. These are Navajo funds to be used across rez. And concern over no grazing permits cancelled in 1974 means are we going to act like Freeze. But cuz no grazing permit, pple can’t get funds for earthen dams, protect washes or go after farming funds cuz NO grazing permits.
Pple in area believe have grazing permits to sell livestock. It’s stil being used for retro probate for those that pass on for use in future.
If we think of constitution of US, n pursuit of happiness, if u are saying to my constituents, five chapters are NPL, u have no right to have horse, cow, sheep – I think breaking greater law which is pursuit of happiness.
Amendment – shall not exclude NPL.
According to Tarqui, he wud not use unless put words in to contract for windmill repair.

SPONSOR – DELEGATE MEL BEGAY
Need Ferdnand Notah address grazing permits in NPL.
NOTAH
True all permit cancelled in 70s. but reissue of permits going thru SAS process.
On horse round ups on NPL: we coordinate with BIA which provides trailers to haul horses off.
Sales of animals from NPL: although no permits, pple still own livestock and take animal to market. With rangers there is procedure to release livestock for sale.
In terms of grazing permits: yes there is a cancellation of permits but process to reissue is ongoing for NN to reissue permits.