Reclaimed: The Lifeblood of Navajo Nation

Episode 3: The People vs. Navajo Nation
Release Date: December 2, 2024
Host: Charlie Edcity, ABC News

Introduction

In Episode 3 of Reclaimed: The Lifeblood of Navajo Nation, journalist Charlie Edcity delves deep into the Navajo Nation's ongoing struggle to secure water rights—a vital resource essential for their sovereignty and survival. Titled "The People vs. Navajo Nation," this episode explores the historical and contemporary challenges faced by the Navajo people in reclaiming their water, highlighting the tension between tribal leadership and grassroots activism.

Background on Navajo Water Rights

Historically, the Navajo Nation has been excluded from guaranteed water rights, leaving them vulnerable as surrounding states and external entities utilize water resources to their advantage. The tribe has pursued two primary avenues to secure water rights:

1. Litigation: Beginning in the 1970s, the Navajo Nation filed lawsuits to assert and have their water rights recognized by the states.
2. Settlement: Engaging in negotiations with the federal government and other parties to mutually agree on water allocations, aiming to avoid prolonged court battles and secure funding for necessary infrastructure.

Settlement Attempts

Settlement Attempt 1 (2005)

In 2005, the Navajo Nation offered a settlement with the state of New Mexico, granting them rights to 600,000 acre-feet of water. This agreement allowed the development of farms on the reservation but came with stringent conditions:

• Andrew Curley, a social studies professor at the University of Arizona, remarked at [06:42], "We will waive certain kinds of claims. We will not use water in certain kinds of activities. We will have a limit on municipal and industrial usage."

Despite the settlement providing some relief, it was insufficient in meeting the tribe's comprehensive water needs and did not include Arizona, where the majority of Navajo land lies.

Settlement Attempt 2 (2010)

In 2010, negotiations expanded to include Arizona, addressing both the Little Colorado River and the Colorado River. The proposed deal encompassed:

• Water from the Little Colorado River and Colorado River
• Access to significant aquifers

John Kyle, Arizona's former Republican senator, played a key role in these negotiations. He introduced the proposed settlement in Congress as [09:58] described, "$800 million." However, due to the high cost and perceived inefficacy, the settlement stalled and was never brought to a congressional vote.

Settlement Attempt 3 (2012)

Settlement Attempt 3 emerged with revised terms and a reduced price tag of $300 million, reflecting Senator Kyle's reluctant concession after facing opposition. Miller Yazi, an assistant professor of Indian studies, expressed concerns about the settlement's long-term implications at [15:28]:

"Once you make that decision in 2012, let's say 2020, you know, 2052 comes along and there's no water left... there's no recourse for that because that's how water settlement works."

Despite the reduced cost, the settlement required the renewal of coal mine leases, sparking widespread dissent within the Navajo community.

Community Response and Activism

Melanie Yazi’s Perspective

Melanie Yazi, a PhD student at the University of New Mexico, became deeply involved after attending public information meetings in 2012. At [15:03], she stated:

"The dispossession of land and water helps to facilitate this larger project of colonialism... to drive native people off of their lands... to dissolve and assimilate their people."

Her activism underscored the existential threat posed by water settlements, framing them as extensions of colonial dispossession.

Nicole Horseherder’s Activism

Nicole Horseherder, a prominent water activist from Black Mesa, highlighted the detrimental impact of coal mining on local water sources. At [18:48], she shared:

"We realized, we found out that the coal mining was depressurizing... also drawing down the water from the aquifers."

Nicole’s firsthand experiences with the environmental degradation caused by resource extraction fueled her opposition to Settlement Attempt 3, emphasizing the community's loss of natural springs and clean water.

Earl Tooley’s Experience

Earl Tooley, a member of the Water Rights Commission, offers a pragmatic viewpoint. Despite personal losses due to uranium mining—leading to higher cancer rates among the Navajo—Earl supports settlement as a means to secure essential infrastructure. At [26:45], he expressed:

"We as natanis or leaders, decide what's best for us. Not outsiders, not our attorneys, not corporations."

His stance reflects a desire for self-determination while recognizing the practical benefits a settlement could provide.

Legal and Political Challenges

The Navajo Nation's negotiations are hampered by several factors:

• Fragmented Negotiations: The reservation spans four states, requiring individual agreements with each, prolonging the settlement process.
• Power Imbalance: The state of Arizona holds significant leverage, often leaving the Navajo Nation with limited bargaining power.
• Historical Mistrust: Previous failed settlements have fostered skepticism towards tribal leadership and legal representatives, complicating new negotiations.

Andrew Curley notes at [29:51]:

"We're never negotiating from a status of advantage or even parity... it's always, we're under duress when we're negotiating."

This entrenched disadvantage underscores the complexity of achieving equitable water rights for the Navajo Nation.

The Role of Crystal Tulley Cordova

Crystal Tulley Cordova, the Navajo Nation Chief Hydrologist, serves as a vital bridge between the tribal leadership and grassroots movements. Speaking at [34:24], she emphasized the blending of traditional values with necessary negotiations:

"We're here. Yes, we receive our decrees, but we come from the Navajo Nation and all that we do is in the best interest of our people."

Her presence in traditional attire symbolizes the importance of cultural heritage in the pursuit of water rights, fostering unity between modern legal strategies and ancestral practices.

Latest Developments (2023-2024 Negotiations)

Following a landmark 2023 Supreme Court case that challenged the federal government's failure to represent Navajo interests adequately, negotiations with Arizona intensified. By early 2024, a significant settlement proposal was nearing finalization, promising the largest and most comprehensive agreement in the tribe's history. However, this deal necessitated:

• Acceptance of Finite Terms: Binding agreements that prevent future renegotiations, potentially limiting the tribe's flexibility.
• Compromises on Environmental and Economic Terms: Balancing immediate infrastructure benefits against long-term environmental stewardship and sovereignty.

As negotiations culminated on February 28, 2024, the Navajo Nation faces a pivotal decision: embrace a compromised settlement to secure essential resources or continue striving for a more favorable agreement, risking prolonged uncertainty.

Crystal Tulley Cordova reflects the uncertainty at [51:17]:

"Like, how are people going to vote? You just never know."

This moment encapsulates the tribe's dilemma—choosing between immediate gains and enduring principles.

Conclusion

Episode 3 of Reclaimed: The Lifeblood of Navajo Nation paints a comprehensive picture of the Navajo Nation's arduous journey toward reclaiming their water rights. Through personal narratives, expert insights, and community activism, the episode underscores the intricate interplay between legal negotiations and cultural integrity. As the Navajo Nation stands on the brink of a potentially transformative settlement, the episode leaves listeners contemplating the broader implications of water rights, sovereignty, and the enduring resilience of the Navajo people.

Notable Quotes

• Andrew Curley at [06:42]:
  "We will waive certain kinds of claims. We will not use water in certain kinds of activities. We will have a limit on municipal and industrial usage."

• Melanie Yazi at [15:28]:
  "Once you make that decision in 2012... there's no recourse for that because that's how water settlement works."

• Nicole Horseherder at [18:48]:
  "We realized, we found out that the coal mining was depressurizing... also drawing down the water from the aquifers."

• Earl Tooley at [26:45]:
  "We as natanis or leaders, decide what's best for us. Not outsiders, not our attorneys, not corporations."

• Crystal Tulley Cordova at [34:26]:
  "Yes, we're here. Yes, we receive our decrees, but we come from the Navajo Nation and all that we do is in the best interest of our people."

• Andrew Curley at [29:51]:
  "We're never negotiating from a status of advantage or even parity... it's always, we're under duress when we're negotiating."

• Ben Shelley at [27:25]:
  "I'm not kidding that it'll go to the Navajo Nation Council and army business need to approve it. If they approve it or it won't."

• Melanie Yazi at [51:20]:
  "Tears were definitely shed. I cannot accept it. I do not accept the best of a bad deal. Indigenous people should never have to accept the best of a bad deal."

Reclaimed: The Lifeblood of Navajo Nation continues to shed light on the critical issues surrounding indigenous water rights, offering listeners an in-depth understanding of the Navajo Nation's quest for autonomy and justice.