Tribal Lands and Energy
In 2009, the Director of National Intelligence conveyed the possibility of U.S. adversarial relationships with nations like China and India due to scarce resources and high energy demand. The report, however, did not recognize the dynamics between resource hungry United States and resource possessing sovereign tribal communities. With over 55 million acres of tribal trust land, the energy potential is real whether it be the prospect of oil, natural gas, water, or wind farms. The lands are ripe for exploitation and outside companies have begun their conquests.
In the recent case of Cobell V. Salazar the question of tribal rights to land and energy profits was at stake. Indian Country Today reports that while the compromise looked like a resolution, it may be unraveling. Meanwhile, the question of nuclear waste on tribal lands continues to pester. The issue poses a double edge with tribal sovereignty allowing tribes to host nuclear waste with different rules, but with questions about the integrity of their sovereignty treaty violations also arising. Regardless, the underlying concern should be that a group of people are being exposed to elements in an inhumane manner not consistent with the principles of the United States.
Tribal Energy Resource Agreements (TERA) should, in theory, protect tribal communities from energy exploitation; however, the U.S. has not had a strong track record with honoring treaties. Unfortunately, even though sovereign nations, tribes are still incumbent upon the Department of the Interior to gain a TERA. These agreements govern energy exploration and development on tribal land. Even crediting such a framework with the benefit of the doubt, philosophical questions of conservation also arise. Groups like the Trust for Public Land advocate conservation, but their interests may not always align with that of the tribes.
Tribal interests depend on an evaluation of human rights, sovereignty, conservation, and profit. At some point in time, the value of the tribal energy potential may be so high that conservation is not practical. If DNI predicts international altercations over energy resources, intranational disputes are likely to increase as well. It would clearly be less confrontational for the United States to look towards tribal lands for energy rather than towards nations with nuclear weapons. While tribal lands clearly do not possess the level of energy needed for a long-term solution, they may provide a temporary arrangement. The tribes need to determine now whether conservation is their ultimate goal or if energy collaboration is. If energy collaboration is the desirable path, then the tribes can plan accordingly to maintain control over their land and profits.
Questions of energy and sovereign nations relationships with each other and the United States may pose one of the greatest challenges, but also the greatest potential for American Indians. An energy revolution may do for the tribes what the Industrial Revolution did for the United States.
In the recent case of Cobell V. Salazar the question of tribal rights to land and energy profits was at stake. Indian Country Today reports that while the compromise looked like a resolution, it may be unraveling. Meanwhile, the question of nuclear waste on tribal lands continues to pester. The issue poses a double edge with tribal sovereignty allowing tribes to host nuclear waste with different rules, but with questions about the integrity of their sovereignty treaty violations also arising. Regardless, the underlying concern should be that a group of people are being exposed to elements in an inhumane manner not consistent with the principles of the United States.
Tribal Energy Resource Agreements (TERA) should, in theory, protect tribal communities from energy exploitation; however, the U.S. has not had a strong track record with honoring treaties. Unfortunately, even though sovereign nations, tribes are still incumbent upon the Department of the Interior to gain a TERA. These agreements govern energy exploration and development on tribal land. Even crediting such a framework with the benefit of the doubt, philosophical questions of conservation also arise. Groups like the Trust for Public Land advocate conservation, but their interests may not always align with that of the tribes.
Tribal interests depend on an evaluation of human rights, sovereignty, conservation, and profit. At some point in time, the value of the tribal energy potential may be so high that conservation is not practical. If DNI predicts international altercations over energy resources, intranational disputes are likely to increase as well. It would clearly be less confrontational for the United States to look towards tribal lands for energy rather than towards nations with nuclear weapons. While tribal lands clearly do not possess the level of energy needed for a long-term solution, they may provide a temporary arrangement. The tribes need to determine now whether conservation is their ultimate goal or if energy collaboration is. If energy collaboration is the desirable path, then the tribes can plan accordingly to maintain control over their land and profits.
Questions of energy and sovereign nations relationships with each other and the United States may pose one of the greatest challenges, but also the greatest potential for American Indians. An energy revolution may do for the tribes what the Industrial Revolution did for the United States.
Comments
Post a Comment