U.N. Delays Vote On Native Self Determination

(From Forum-Asia and CORE)
From: Roy.Laifungbam@gmail
November 29, 2006
First Peoples Human Rights Coalition
jivika@yahoogroups.com; forestrights@yahoogroups.com
Joint Press Release from Forum-Asia and CORE
Importance: High

JOINT PRESS RELEASE
29 NOVEMBER 2006
BANGKOK

UN Non-Action Decision on the Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a Deplorable Setback
to the Global Struggle for Human Rights for All

The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) and the Centre for Organisation Research and Education receive with great disappointment the news that the 61st Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voted for a non-action motion on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

A resolution put forward by the Namibian delegation to the UNGA which called for the deferment of action on the Declaration was supported by a majority of 82 nation states in favour, 67 governments not in favor and 25 abstained.

We view this latest development as a deplorable setback to the struggle for the rights of the Indigenous Peoples and other marginalized groups in particular and to the struggle for the realization of human rights for all worldwide.

We reiterate that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a landmark document in the history of human rights and global quest for social justice. It is the result of more than 20 years of hard work by various indigenous and human rights movements and a significant step towards achieving and reclaiming the fundamental rights and entitlements for about 370 million indigenous peoples around the world.

The Declaration affirms the right of self-determination of indigenous peoples and other rights fundamental to their existence. The Declaration also draws its inspiration and substance from the distilled experiences and advances in other international human rights instruments as well as other international conventions, including certain regional and national standards and protection mechanisms, such as those in place in certain Asian countries. It therefore represents an important achievement in developing a truly universal human rights protection system that specifically addresses the indigenous peoples and their issues.

We are therefore saddened that the non-action motion by the UNGA on the Declaration and certain issues repeatedly raised against it such as the right to self-determination and to free prior and informed consent- severely undermine the rights of the indigenous peoples and perpetuate a climate of injustice, historical inequities and the increasingly precarious human rights situation of the indigenous peoples in Asia and worldwide.

Our common vision for "all human rights for all" will never be achieved for as long as there are sections of the world's humanity such as the Indigenous peoples, minorities and other disempowered and excluded groups and persons-who remain discriminated and have the least in rights and basic entitlements.

This latest developments also call upon all human rights defenders and the Asian and global human rights movements to strengthen their solidarity and continue to find common cause with the struggle for human rights of the Indigenous Peoples.

November 29, 2006

Mr Subodh Raj Pyakurel
Chairperson
FORUM-ASIA

D Roy Laifungbam
General Secretary
CORE

International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA)

UN General Assembly fails to bring hope to world's indigenous peoples

More than two decades of efforts to promote international human rights standards for the safety and well-being of Indigenous Peoples appear to have failed following the adoption of a motion by the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on 28th November to defer the historic adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The motion, promoted by few Western countries and put forward by the Namibian delegation on behalf of the African Group
of States, was put to the vote with a majority of 82 nation states in favour, 67 against and 25 abstentions.

As a non-governmental organization devoted to promoting the rights of indigenous peoples worldwide and which has, from the very beginning, been directly involved in the discussions regarding the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, IWGIA wishes to make known its immeasurable dismay and concern at the decision taken yesterday by the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly. We fear this may mean that the United Nations will never adopt a strong international human rights standard that promotes and respects the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples. 

We also believe that the General Assembly's failure in this regard is a serious setback for the integrity of the newly-established Human Rights Council. The Council, mandated by the General Assembly itself to promote universal respect for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, had urged the General Assembly to formally adopt the Declaration without delay.

By not adopting the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the UN General Assembly has undoubtedly not only deafeningly failed to enhance the capacity of the international human rights system to address some of the most pervasive and reprehensible human rights violations in the world today but has also missed an historic opportunity to advance the rights and aspirations of the world's indigenous peoples.

The ambiguity of the resolution adopted by the Third Committee makes it very difficult to predict the future that lies ahead for the Declaration. The current text is the result of more than 22 years of arduous dialogue between indigenous peoples and governments and is now widely accepted among those who have been involved in this process. We therefore believe that yet more months of undefined government consultations will in no way improve its chances of being adopted but can rather be seen as an attempt by governments such as Australia, New Zealand, the USA and Canada - who have stubbornly opposed the Declaration's text as adopted by the Human Rights Council - to butcher it or to block its final adoption all together. We are sure that the current disappointment and dismay that indigenous peoples, human rights NGOs and international institutions are feeling today is also shared by those governments who are strongly committed to advocating for adoption of the Declaration. 

Given that it is difficult to envisage, at this moment in time, what the full significance and implications of the passing of Namibia's resolution will be, it is essential that all those governments who have been thus far committed to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples redouble their efforts and work, together with indigenous peoples, to promote the General Assembly's adoption of the text approved by the Human Rights Council in June 2006.

International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA)
Classensgade 11 E    DK 2100 Copenhagen   Denmark  Phone no. (+45) 35 27 05 00
E-mail: iwgia@iwgia.org

Links:
Indigenous Peoples Caucus http://www.ipcaucus.net/

United States opposes declaration on Native rights
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096414049

The Geography of Self Determination
http://www.tonatierra.org/nauacalli-022706.html

http://www.servindi.org
http://www.tonatierra.org/

IPS-Inter Press Service
Inter Press Service News Agency
Thursday, November 30, 2006
http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=35638

RIGHTS:

U.N. Delays Vote on Native Self-Determination
Haider Rizvi

UNITED NATIONS, Nov 28 (IPS) - Leaders of the world's 370 million indigenous peoples and their supporters expressed sadness and anger Tuesday as a subsidiary body of the U.N. General Assembly rejected a draft declaration calling for the international recognition of native
peoples' right to selfdetermination and control over their traditional lands.

The Third Committee of the General Assembly, which deals with social, humanitarian and cultural issues, decided to put aside the matter for further discussion, as a majority of member states approved a resolution in favour of deferment.

"It is shameful," said Arthur Manuel, chief of the Secwepeme Nation, about the outcome of the vote on the declaration. "This was an historic opportunity for the U.N. to at least recognise our inalienable rights."

Les Malezer, an Australian aboriginal leader who chairs the Indigenous Caucus at the U.N., added: "This is unjustifiable. This is an attempt to derail the whole process."

Both Manuel and Malezer said they had hoped that the General Assembly would approve the declaration since it was already adopted by the Geneva-based Human Rights Council during the summer. Though African nations had supported the declaration in Geneva, this time around they
changed their position, demanding that the wording on the "right to self-determination" be changed, a move that undermined the attempt to get the declaration adopted by the Assembly during its current session.

In interviews with IPS, some indigenous leaders said they were surprised at the new stance of the African bloc, but others suggested it was the U.S. and its allies which had lobbied behind the scenes.

"It's the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand who are responsible for this," an indigenous leader told IPS after Namibia sponsored a resolution in the committee seeking amendments to the declaration on the ground that the text "contradicts" its constitution.

In a run-up to the vote, a diplomat from an African nation told IPS that some governments on the continent feared that if they recognised the principle of self-determination, then they might find themselves with unwanted rebellions by certain tribes.

"Almost all of Africa is indigenous," he said. "So the concept of self-determination does not apply over there. It could create trouble."

Still, many indigenous leaders who work closely with the U.N. said they had no doubts that the change in the African bloc's position on the declaration was the outcome of external pressure.
"There are many countries in Africa which are economically vulnerable," said an indigenous representative before the vote.

Australia, Canada and New Zealand voted in support of the Namibian amendment, whereas most Latin American and European nations opposed the resolution. The U.S. abstained.

"It seems strange to ask for more time, as 24 years worth of negotiations have taken place," said a Mexican 11/30/2006. "What really has been delayed is the paying of attention to the rights of indigenous peoples."

The U.S. and its allies argue that the declaration is "inconsistent with international law". The U.S. has also repeatedly held that the indigenous land claim ignores current reality by "appearing to require the recognition to lands now lawfully owned by other citizens".

Indigenous leaders describe this argument as "racist" while a U.N. body that investigates discriminatory practices also views this line of reasoning as unacceptable.

The declaration was first put together by the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues last May, following more than 20 years of intense diplomacy involving governments, native representatives and numerous nongovernmental organisations (NGOs).

In addition to recognising the rights of indigenous peoples to their lands and resources, the declaration states that all indigenous people must be protected from forced assimilation and the destruction of their cultures.

Even though the resolution would not be legally binding, supporters said its approval would have increased pressure on governments to observe universal principles, such as democracy, justice and nondiscrimination.

Deploring the committee's decision, the London-based human rights watchdog Amnesty International said the declaration was an attempt to "fill an important gap in the protection of indigenous peoples' rights," and warned the governments against any move to "weaken" its text. "It was the best that could be achieved," the group said in a statement. "Any revision of the draft text must be transparent and allow full and effective participation by indigenous peoples and NGOs."

The resolution in support of amendments to the draft was endorsed by 82 countries while 67 voted against it, with 25 abstentions. (FIN/2006) Copyright C 2006 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved. 11/30/2006 http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=35638

Links:

Indigenous Peoples Caucus http://www.ipcaucus.net/

United States opposes declaration on Native rights
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096414049

The Geography of Self Determination  http://www.tonatierra.org/nauacalli-022706.html

http://www.servindi.org
www.tonatierra.org

U.N. Delays Vote on Native Self-Determination

Once again.on Western Shoshone lands.
Today: November 26, 2006 at 7:41:38 PST

Feds plan redo of weapon sites

Nevada Test Site being considered for new consolidated plutonium center

By Launce Rake
Las Vegas Sun

The federal government will head to Las Vegas this week to discuss its proposed top-to-bottom makeover of the nation's nuclear weapons system, an archipelago of research and production sites across two-thirds of the country.

One of the proposed changes could result in plutonium being manufactured at Nevada Test Site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The Test Site is one of the eight sites in the national research and production system. The 1,400-square-mile Test Site has been home to 40 years of above- and below-ground nuclear explosions and other nuclear weapons research. The Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration wants to modernize and ensure the reliability of the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons, consolidate operations and reduce the number of warheads in the national stockpile.

The proposal, which could cost billions of dollars, is intended to result in a safer and more reliable system that is cheaper to run. One element of the proposal calls for a new manufacturing site for plutonium, the explosive metal at the heart of nuclear weapons. Nevada Test Site is one of five sites considered for the new consolidated plutonium center. The department closed its former manufacturing site, the Rocky Flats Plant outside Denver, in 1989. Among the benefits of using the Test Site is its relative isolation and existing security systems.

Opposition is coming from former leaders of some of the affected sites and from public-policy advocacy groups. The Union of Concerned Scientists is urging people to raise concerns about the proposed changes to the nuclear weapons infrastructure at a government meeting on the environmental issues Tuesday at Cashman Center, 850 Las Vegas Blvd. North. Sessions are planned from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m.

Robert Nelson, a senior scientist with the group, said the nuclear weapons in the stockpile of about 10,000 warheads are already reliable, negating the need for much of the proposed effort.

"The core nuclear warhead components the Energy Department wants to redesign and replace are already determined by the nuclear weapons labs themselves to be essentially 100 percent reliable," Nelson said. "The misplaced obsession with warhead reliability and the rationale for continuing to maintain thousands of nuclear weapons on high alert are part of an outdated U.S. nuclear weapons policy."

In a statement released Friday, the group, which has opposed other weapons-related proposals from the Bush administration, quoted former administrators criticizing the proposed changes.

"What is the urgency for spending large amounts of money for a new production complex without evidence of degradation in the nuclear explosive package?" said Bob Peurifoy, former vice president and director of weapons development at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico.

John Duncan, retired Sandia senior manager, echoed the concerns. "My knowledge of science and over 40 years of experience tells me you can't do what the DOE says it is going to do," Duncan said. "The old DOE realized that quality, speed of manufacturing and cost were trade-offs. You can do two but the third will be sacrificed. The new DOE thinks better, faster, cheaper is possible. The labs know better, but no one has the courage to speak up."

Thomas D'Agostino, deputy administrator for defense programs for the National Nuclear Security Administration, said in April that the Test Site and its seven sister sites "routinely conduct operations with substantial quantities of plutonium, or highly enriched uranium, or both | As such these are some of the most sensitive facilities in the United States."

The other candidate sites are outside Amarillo, Texas; Los Alamos, N.M; Oak Ridge, Tenn.; and Aiken, S.C.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-other/2006/nov/26/566667976.html

From: Chris Peters cp7gen@pacbell.net

Declaration Update

Please find below the communique issued Monday [Nov. 13, 2006] by the Indigenous Peoples' Caucus.. This document should be widely distributed. Following the communiqué is a letter sent to each of the States' Missions to the United Nations, providing reasons why a delay to the adoption of the Declaration would be against the interests of the human rights standard. I attach the document that was transmitted, for your information and wider dissemination. I have also set out the document below in case the attached file does not open.

This communique has been prepared following a clear attempt by some States to mislead their intentions to prevent the adoption of the Declaration, by suggesting that a 'consensus' will be achieved through delaying adoption. While Indigenous Peoples' delegations had made it clear during previous meetings that no changes to text was to occur, that no alteration in the meaning or application of the declaration was allowed, and that immediate adoption was a requisite, we took the view, at a meeting of representatives of all regional caucuses of the Indigenous Peoples, that a re-issue of our position in a clear statement was needed. The following communique was issued.

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ CAUCUS
UNITED NATIONS
General Assembly
61st Session
NEW YORK
13 November 2006
COMMUNIQUE

The Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus held an emergency meeting this morning due to a report that a few States will take procedural actions to derail the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This report is evidenced by the Government of Botswana’s statement delivered to the Third Committee on 10 November, which contained a highly inaccurate and prejudicial interpretation of the Declaration provisions. Upon review of this written statement, we note that Botswana has adopted the words and views of the governments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. Their intent appears to threaten the adoption of the Declaration. In contrast, the Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus acknowledges the overwhelming state support for the Declaration. Though these many allies and co-sponsors of the Peruvian resolution recommending UNGA adoption of the Declaration (A/C.3/61/L.18) have made repeated, unsuccessful efforts for dialogue with all States, Botswana seems entrenched to do major violence to the text of the Declaration or to defeat its adoption by UNGA. In response to this development, we issue this statement.

The Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus hereby affirms their global and unanimous support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as adopted by the UN Human Rights Council on June 29, 2006.

The Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus hereby repeats its request that the UN General Assembly immediately adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which constitutes the minimum standards for the survival, well-being and dignity of Indigenous Peoples worldwide. Such action should take place before the end of 2006.

The Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus does not support any proposal for extensions of time, establishment of committees, working groups or any other forum for consideration of the illegitimate “concerns” of the governments of Botswana, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States, under any conditions.

The Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus hereby demands that the proponents (Botswana, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States) of any such proposals cease their self-serving politicization of the United Nations as well as their abuse of the rules of procedures and persistence of double standards in the context of the human rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus supports the United Nations objective to usher in a new era for human rights within the UN system, to strengthen human rights as one of the pillars of global order, and the Human Rights Council's role to establish a non-political approach to human rights for all peoples and individuals. In light of the appalling human rights records of Botswana, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States in the context of Indigenous Peoples, it is unconscionable that they have chosen to reject one of the first HRC recommendations for the approval of a UN human rights instrument specifically addressing the unique status and rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The world community must acknowledge that Indigenous Peoples worldwide have expended over 21 years and immeasurable resources to engage in good faith, transparent, intellectually honest debate and negotiation with States in order to achieve consensus on the Declaration provisions. The result has been a fair and balanced text, which takes into account the concerns of States as well as the rights of others and is consistent with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations.

This current State opposition to one of the first recommendations of the new Human Rights Council is immoral and without legitimate or substantive cause. If successful, such action will seriously undermine and potentially deem irrelevant the whole of the UN human rights regime for not only Indigenous Peoples but for all humanity.

Finally, the Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus notes the irony of State consensus and support for a legally binding Convention [for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance] while at the same time in the context of the world’s most vulnerable, poverty stricken, human rights victims, that Botswana, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States cannot support a non-binding, aspirational Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

General Assembly
61st session
United Nations, New York
12 November 2006

U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Human Rights Response:
Why a proposal to delay adoption should not be supported

1. Declaration based on core international principles and values. The Declaration is based on core international principles and values that embrace tolerance, peace and respect for the dignity of all cultures and peoples. In particular, the Declaration is described as a “standard of achievement to be pursued in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect”.

2. Human rights of all must be respected. Human rights are generally relative in nature and not absolute. Consistent with the U.N. Charter, the Declaration specifically requires that the “human rights and freedoms of all shall be respected”.

3. Provisions must be read in overall context. Each provision of the Declaration cannot be read in isolation, but rather interpreted in the context of the instrument as a whole. To do otherwise, would lead to extremist and absolute interpretations that could not be justified under the Declaration or international human rights law as a whole. Regretfully, the CANZUS group – Canada, Australia, New Zealand and United States – continues to interpret the Declaration in this fragmented and erroneous manner.

4. No new rights created. The Declaration does not create new rights. It elaborates upon existing international human rights standards as they apply to Indigenous peoples.

5. Rule of law and other core international principles always considered. Every provision of the Declaration must be “interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith.” This allows for both flexibility and balance. The reference to “good governance” ensures that the rule of law within States is fully considered in every instance without exception. As an aspirational instrument, the Declaration does not upend the rule of law domestically or internationally.

6. Broader agreement not possible. As the Chair of the intersessional Working Group on the Declaration has concluded, along with many States, additional time will not lead to any broader agreement. This is in large part because of the obstructionist role repeatedly played by United States, Australia and New Zealand during the Working Group.

7. Re-opening negotiations likely to kill the Declaration. Re-opening negotiations on the Declaration is certain to create serious new divisions and prevent its adoption by the General Assembly. Such an extreme step would be unconscionable.

8. Harmonious and cooperative relations encouraged. The Declaration explicitly encourages “harmonious and cooperative relations” between States and Indigenous peoples. Nine preambular paragraphs and 15 operative articles specify consultations, cooperation or partnership between Indigenous peoples and States.

9. Over 20 years of discussion. There have already been more than 20 years of discussions on the Declaration among States and Indigenous peoples in U.N. Working groups. This makes the Declaration one of the most discussed and studied declarations in U.N. history. All revisions by the Chair were based on prior discussions.

10. Any “procedural” resolution for delay would be highly detrimental. It is shocking and disturbing that there could be an amendment or resolution to re-open negotiations on the Declaration. Such a proposal is not procedural since it could destroy the Declaration.

11. Misleading strategy already attempted at Human Rights Council. Last June, Canada tried and failed with a similar strategy at the first meeting of the Council. In its Statement on June 27, 2006, Canada quoted its Minister of Indian Affairs as saying issues could be resolved by all parties “in a few more months”. This claim was knowingly false and misleading. Just the day before, Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper indicated in writing the need for a “two-year negotiation mandate”.

12. CANZUS group of States politicizing rights in the Declaration. Based on their own domestic agendas, a few Western States are actively encouraging other States to delay the adoption of the Declaration under the guise of seeking “improvements”. In so doing, the CANZUS group is continuing to politicize Indigenous peoples’ human rights. Such actions severely undermine the Council and current U.N. reforms.

13. For the past 8 months CANZUS group has avoided all consultations with Indigenous peoples. The CANZUS group already had the past eight months to consult with Indigenous peoples within their own respective countries on any State concerns with the Declaration. Yet none of these States engaged in any consultations with Indigenous peoples. None of these States genuinely seek to “improve” the Declaration.

14. Canada violating its constitutional and international obligations. Despite its constitutional obligations to consult Indigenous peoples, Canada has opted to vigorously and unilaterally oppose the Declaration through procedural and other strategies during the past eight months. As a Human Rights Council member, Canada is failing to “uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights … [and] fully cooperate with the Council”, as required by the General Assembly.

15. Essential for survival, dignity and well-being of Indigenous peoples. The Declaration promotes equality and non-discrimination for all. The Declaration is essential for the survival, dignity and well-being of the Indigenous peoples of the world.

16. Strengthens international human rights system. Adoption of the Declaration by the General Assembly supports the vital work of the Human Rights Council and strengthens the international human rights system as a whole.

Issued by the Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus – November 12, 2006

STOP THE INSANITY, STOP THE DISRESPECT, RESPECT INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, LEAVE INDIGENOUS CEMETERIES ALONE

No other people in America, save the American Indian, have to concern themselves with worry that their grandparents, great grandparents and those who have gone before will have their final resting place desecrated and their ancestor removed in the interest of science, in the interest of development, in the interest of curiosity, in the interest of making a buck by selling them on E-Bay.

No, 514 years after Columbus invaded the lands of the Arawak, Lubicyon, and Taino peoples committing genocide, Native peoples cemeteries are disrespected and desecrated by ghouls with and without degree's, grave robbers for profit, pot hunters for profit, developers on purpose and by accident, the State of Florida, professional and amateur grave robbers a/k/a anthropologists, and virtually anyone with a shovel who feels like it. While both federal and state laws prohibit the desecration of an Indigenous cemetery by those who don't have a degree in desecrating Indigenous cemeteries, the State of Florida has failed to prosecute anyone for such a crime in the twenty (20) years the Florida Unmarked Human Burial Act has been in force. In 1998 concerned citizens caught JOHN RAABE removing human remains from the Reedy Indigenous cemetery on videotape and the Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney refused to prosecute claiming the Florida Unmarked Human Burial law violated Mr. Raabe's constitutional rights. The United States Government prosecuted one man for plundering remains from the Cape Canaveral National Seashore and driving around with two peoples remains in the bed of his truck. The US fined the man $50 for the crime when the penalty by law called for up to a $100,000 fine.

In Saint Augustine, FL a site is being developed on Magnolia Street that contains at least three (3) Indigenous peoples final resting place. After finding the Indigenous cemetery instead of halting work and respecting the site, development plans continue and anthropologists have increased excavation efforts at the site.

The American Indian Movement of Florida (Florida AIM), in consultation with Independent Traditional Seminole Nation spiritual leader Bobby Billie, has called for an immediate halt to the excavation, for any development to occur in a manner that does not disturb or require the excavation of Indigenous peoples remains, and that any Indigenous peoples remains removed from the site be returned immediately.

Florida AIM is aware of, and supports the efforts of local residents and some municipal officials to seek a preservation program to acquire the lands and to maintain the land as a preserve. However Florida AIM cannot, and will not tolerate further desecration and disrespect to this Indigenous cemetery.

All human beings should be afforded basic respect and common decency. These people did not bury their relatives so that century's later people, who weren't even from here, could dig them up as a plaything to satisfy their curiosity, make a buck, or for development.

Florida AIM asks people with a conscience, people who understand respect to call the City of Saint Augustine and call for them to insure the excavations at the site are halted, that the human remains are respected, reburied if they have been unearthed, left alone if they have not; and finally that the burial sites are left alone in any future development plans for the affected parcels of land.

Note: Under the USA Patriot Act (anti-civil liberties act) ALL E-Mail transmissions may be viewed by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies without a warrant. Your email has no expectation of privacy and may be used against you in a court of law.

October 03, 2006

Feds failed to inform tribes before pulling water protest

By Launce Rake lrake@lasvegassun.com
Las Vegas Sun

An agreement that swept away federal protests to the Southern Nevada Water Authority's plans to take billions of gallons annually from a rural White Pine County valley is raising objections from American Indians.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs was among the Interior Department agencies that signed the stipulation withdrawing their protests to the plan to drill wells and pump water from Spring Valley. The Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, one of more than two dozen American Indian governments scattered throughout Nevada, said the bureau failed to advise the tribal government of the agreement before entering into the stipulation with the Las Vegas water agency Sept. 10.

"By supporting SNWA, the federal government is, as usual, completely ignoring the trust responsibility that it has to protect Indian tribes and tribal resources," said Ed Naranjo, vice chairman of the Goshute Reservation. "The federal government has also intentionally violated its legal responsibilities to consult with Indian tribes when taking any action that may affect Indian tribes."

The Goshute Reservation is about 70 miles north of Spring Valley, on the Utah-Nevada state line. The tribe has fewer than 500 members, according to Naranjo.

He said his concern is that natural resources, particularly water, are the tribe's most valuable resources.

The agreement between the Interior Department agencies, which included the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management, came a day before the start of a two-week hearing before the Nevada state engineer's office.

The Water Authority, arguing that the water is needed to supply continued growth and to blunt feared effects from Western drought, has asked to take 91,000 acre-feet a year - about 30 billion gallons - from Spring Valley. The authority now supplies Las Vegas and its suburbs primarily with 300,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water it takes every year from Lake Mead.

Catherine Wilson, acting regional Bureau of Indian Affairs director, predicted that the Water Authority pumping will have few effects on the Indian lands and that in any case, the federal government should go along with what looked to be inevitable.

" ¦ The state engineer will likely rule in favor of SNWA and grant all or part of its requested amount of water unless there is overwhelming evidence that impacts will occur to existing water users, the proposed use will be detrimental to the public interests or there is no unappropriated water available," Wilson said in a Sept. 8 letter to the Goshutes. "With limited available data it is difficult to make a convincing case opposing the applications based on the above considerations."

The authority argued in the state engineer's hearing that Spring Valley can support the ground water plan without significant environmental damage, but has agreed to a still-unspecified program of monitoring and, if needed, mitigation.

Opponents to the ground water plan, among them environmentalists and White Pine County ranchers, argued that there is not sufficient water to support the authority's request without causing environmental damage.

The state engineer has to weigh the technical arguments and make a decision on how much water to take. His ruling is likely to take several months.

When the federal agencies announced the agreement with the authority, Bureau of Indian Affairs Director Pat Ragsdale said the water resources of the Goshutes and Ely Shoshone, another White Pine County tribe, would be protected.

"The terms of the agreement and associated monitoring network will ensure that any potential impacts from ground water pumping will be detected and addressed well before the impacts reach either reservation," Ragsdale said.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs letter to Goshute Tribal Chairman Rupert Steele acknowledges the lack of consultation.

"BIA apologizes for not being able to consult with the tribe on the stipulated agreement and 3M (monitoring, mitigation and management) Plan before it was approved," the letter said. "The timing of the hearing and the negotiations on the stipulated agreement limited BIA's ability to do so."

Naranjo, who testified against the Water Authority plan during the state engineer's hearings, noted that the Interior Department and the Las Vegas agency conducted negotiations over a period of months - the Interior Department said six months in a Sept. 11 news release - and could have consulted with American Indians during that time. He said the federal agency was legally required to consult with the tribe.

"They had ample time to consult with us," Naranjo said. "None of the tribes, as far as we know, was consulted."

Representatives of the Ely Shoshone, about 30 miles northwest of Spring Valley, and the Duckwater Shoshone in northwest Nye County, about 75 miles west, did not return Sun phone calls seeking comment.

Wendell Peacock, Bureau of Indian Affairs regional spokesman, said his agency will have ample opportunity to consult and comment with the Water Authority's independent but parallel process to win federal approval for the larger network of pumps and pipelines. The environmental impact study on the project could take another two years, he said.

"The Southern Nevada Water Authority cannot convey any water until it receives a right-of-way from the BLM (Bureau of Land Management)," Peacock said. "This process is just beginning. Nothing is cut and dried."

Peacock said neither the Goshutes nor any other American Indian group asked to be included as signatories on the agreement, and that all are miles away from Spring Valley.

"For that reason alone, that could be the reason the BIA wasn't knocking on their door over these projects," he said. "The impact to the tribes doesn't look like it will be more than minimal."

Naranjo said the Goshute Reservation's business council will meet Friday to discuss the federal-Southern Nevada Water Authority agreement and how to respond.

He said the issue should have been avoided:

"In the past, water litigation with Indian tribes has cost the federal government, state governments, local governments and tribal governments billions upon billions of dollars, which could have been avoided with a simple phone call."

Launce Rake can be reached at 259-4127 or at lrake@lasvegassun.com.