[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
JUSTICE, EQUITY, DIVERSITY, AND INCLU-
SION IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY-
MAKING: THE ROLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS AND GRANTMAKING
FOUNDATIONS
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Tuesday, February 8, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-13
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-811 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, IL, Vice Chair
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Ranking Member
Grace F. Napolitano, CA Don Young, AK
Jim Costa, CA Louie Gohmert, TX
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Doug Lamborn, CO
CNMI Robert J. Wittman, VA
Jared Huffman, CA Tom McClintock, CA
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA Garret Graves, LA
Ruben Gallego, AZ Jody B. Hice, GA
Joe Neguse, CO Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Mike Levin, CA Daniel Webster, FL
Katie Porter, CA Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM Russ Fulcher, ID
Melanie A. Stansbury, NM Pete Stauber, MN
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY Thomas P. Tiffany, WI
Diana DeGette, CO Jerry L. Carl, AL
Julia Brownley, CA Matthew M. Rosendale, Sr., MT
Debbie Dingell, MI Blake D. Moore, UT
A. Donald McEachin, VA Yvette Herrell, NM
Darren Soto, FL Lauren Boebert, CO
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU Jay Obernolte, CA
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, IL Cliff Bentz, OR
Ed Case, HI Vacancy
Betty McCollum, MN
Steve Cohen, TN
Paul Tonko, NY
Rashida Tlaib, MI
Lori Trahan, MA
David Watkins, Staff Director
Luis Urbina, Chief Counsel
Vivian Moeglein, Republican Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
----------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, February 8, 2022........................ 1
Statement of Members:
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arkansas.......................................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Chatterjee, Keya, Executive Director, U.S. Climate Action
Network, Washington, DC.................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Dosunmu, Abdul, Campaign Manager, Climate Funders Justice
Pledge, Donors of Color Network, Dallas, Texas............. 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Forbes, Peter, Co-Founder, First Light, Waitsfield, Vermont.. 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Freeland, Mark A., Navajo Nation Council Delegate,
Crownpoint/Tse'li'ahi/Nahodishgish/Becenti/Whiterock/Lake
Valley/Huerfano/Nageezi Chapters, Window Rock, Arizona..... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Questions submitted for the record....................... 20
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
All Pueblo Council of Governors, Statement for the Record,
Chairman Mark Mitchell..................................... 69
Pueblo of Acoma, Statement for the Record, Governor Randall
Vicente.................................................... 71
Santa Clara Pueblo, Statement for the Record, Governor J.
Michael Chavarria.......................................... 76
The Wilderness Society, Letter to Chair Grijalva and Ranking
Member Westerman, from Mo Dailey, Vice President of
Conservation Programs, dated February 7, 2022.............. 80
Submissions for the Record by Representative Grijalva
``Dear White Enviros: You can't fight climate change
without communities of color,'' by Rep. Raul M.
Grijalva and Andres Jimenez, The Hill, February 8, 2022 81
Submissions for the Record by Delegate Freeland
24th Navajo Nation Council, Proposed Navajo Nation
Committee Resolution 0189-19, dated July 2, 2019....... 83
24th Navajo Nation Council, Office of the Speaker, Letter
to Senators Cortez and Lee, dated May 20, 2021......... 114
24th Navajo Nation Council, Office of the Speaker, Letter
to House Speaker Pelosi and House Minority Leader
McCarthy, dated September 17, 2021..................... 115
Chaco Cultural Heritage Withdrawal Area Map dated April
2, 2019................................................ 117
Chaco Protected Sites Map................................ 118
Navajo Nation, Letter to President Biden from President
Nez and Vice President Lizer, dated November 24, 2021.. 119
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary,
Letter to President Jonathan Nez of Navajo Nation from
Tara Sweeney, Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, dated
September 24, 2020..................................... 120
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON JUSTICE, EQUITY, DIVERSITY, AND INCLUSION IN
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICYMAKING: THE ROLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AND
GRANTMAKING FOUNDATIONS
----------
Tuesday, February 8, 2022
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., via
Webex, Hon. Raul M. Grijalva [Chairman of the Committee]
presiding.
Present: Representatives Grijalva, Sablan, Huffman,
Lowenthal, Gallego, Neguse, Levin, Porter, Leger Fernandez,
Stansbury, Velazquez, Brownley, Dingell, McEachin, Soto,
Garcia, McCollum, Cohen, Tonko, Tlaib, Trahan; Westerman,
Gohmert, McClintock, Graves, Gonzalez-Colon, Stauber, Moore,
Herrell, Boebert, Obernolte, and Bentz.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. The Committee on Natural
Resources will now come to order.
The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on
Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Environmental
Policymaking: The Role of Environmental Organizations and
Grantmaking Foundations.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
the hearing are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Minority
Member or their designee. This will allow us to hear from our
witnesses sooner and help Members keep to their schedules.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other Members'
opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they
are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today, or at the close of
the hearing, whichever comes first.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Without objection, the Chair may also declare a recess,
subject to the call of the Chair.
As described in the notice, statements, documents, or
motions must be submitted to the electronic repository at
[email protected].
Additionally, please note that as with our in-person
meetings, Members are responsible for their own microphones and
can be muted by staff only to avoid inadvertent background
noise.
Finally, Members or witnesses experiencing technical
problems should inform the Committee immediately.
Thank you. I would now like to begin the opening
statements. Let me extend the opportunity to the Ranking
Member, if you would like any opening statement before our
witnesses begin.
Mr. Westerman, if you are here.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva.
I would like to start by recognizing our colleague from
Utah, Representative Blake Moore, who has agreed to serve as
the Ranking Republican on the Oversight and Investigation
Subcommittee for the rest of this Congress. Representative
Moore has been an active member of this Committee from day one
and is the current Vice Ranking Member of the O&I Subcommittee.
I know his experiences in the public and private sectors will
serve him well in this new role.
Now onto the business at hand.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Mr. Westerman. The Majority has convened this hearing to
discuss the nexus between the principles of justice, equity,
diversity, and inclusion in our nation's environmental
policymaking. I would argue that, rather than the abstract, our
focus should be on how environmental policies impact
communities across the nation.
Actions mean more than just words. And, I think, from our
witness testimony today and our Members' questions, we will see
that the actions of my colleagues across the aisle are actually
disenfranchising people rather than helping people.
According to the Interior Department's Environmental
Justice Vision Statement, the Department hopes to manage
natural resources, and I quote, ``in a manner that is
sustainable, equitable, accessible, and inclusive of all
populations.'' The communities the environmental justice
movement aims to include in the decision-making process,
however, are the very ones being harmed by the Biden
administration and its policies. And the echo chamber of
environmental groups often supports these bad policies.
Let's use the Biden administration's energy policies as an
example. At the end of 2021, inflation reached a 40-year high,
increasing costs for American families. In fact, the average
American family is estimated to have spent $1,200 more on
energy costs in 2021 than they did in 2020. Some estimate that
20 percent of Americans struggled to pay their energy bills in
full at least once last year.
Seeing such increases leaves Americans wondering, ``Why are
my energy costs getting more expensive?'' The answer, in part,
is that the Biden administration, with the support of
environmental groups, is so focused on environmental justice,
constantly attacking the oil and gas industry, threatening our
nation's domestic supply of energy, and ultimately driving up
energy costs.
This Committee has previously heard testimony from Derrick
Hollie, an advocate for energy affordability, who, for example,
explained how decreasing the availability of affordable
domestic energy most negatively impacts low-income, minority,
and rural communities. Yet, the Biden administration and
Democrats continue to advance policy positions that jeopardize
the availability of cheap and reliable domestic energy
supplies, curtailing affordable energy for these communities.
So, while we can spend time talking about the virtues of
including under-represented communities in policy discussions,
actions by the left have increased cost burdens for the very
same people they purport to help. Unfortunately, as
environmental groups push for more regulations and red tape, we
can only expect to see harsher financial burdens from these
misguided policies.
That is why it is so important for local communities and
the communities targeted by the environmental justice movement
to be given a real voice. Imposing a radical environmental
agenda has real consequences for our American families. We need
a wide variety of opinions and the presence of diversity of
thought.
What does this look like in practice? It means all sides of
an issue are heard. Environmental policy decisions should not
be made in an echo chamber, where everyone already agrees on an
outcome. Diversity of thought means that, although an
environmental group wages a national campaign to oppose energy
development, the voice of the local community members on all
sides of the issue are considered and respected. In practice,
it means the real-life economic and local benefits of energy
development have equal weight in the decision-making process.
But a commitment to diversity of thought requires follow-
through. That is what has been lacking in this Administration
and what is missing in this usual exercise of confirmation
bias. Our witness today, Mr. Freeland, will share firsthand
experience of how the Biden administration refused to include
the Navajo Nation in important policy discussions regarding
land use in the Chaco Canyon area of New Mexico, directly
impacting Navajo landowners.
The Biden administration has disregarded the personal
property rights of Navajo allottees. In fact, even though
Interior Secretary Haaland traveled all the way to New Mexico
to announce a mineral withdrawal, she never took the time to
meet with or consult the allottees whose mineral rights would
be impacted. That is not equity or inclusivity. And the Biden
administration's decision surely did not account for any
diversity of thought. The result simply does not seem just.
If we are serious about achieving more diverse and
inclusive environmental policies, we must ensure that the
communities impacted by those decisions are given a seat at the
table.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Westerman. Thank you
for your comments. Let me recognize myself for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
The Chairman. I want to thank all of you for being here
today. I want to thank the witnesses for contributing their
expertise and perspectives on this very important conversation
about the need to advance justice, equity, diversity, and
inclusion, or JEDI, into environmental policymaking.
Since the inception of America's mainstream environmental
movement, it has generally been dominated by male, White,
affluent leadership, and initially as the primary constituency.
So, early conservation efforts in this country were rooted in a
troubling ideology of racism and colonialism, a legacy that
weighs down efforts to address the most pressing environmental
issues we face as a country and as a world.
When I first got elected to Congress and I asked to be on
this Resources Committee--a Committee that not only do I enjoy
working on, but it is something that I have a passion for--
there were a lot of questions as to why I would want to be on a
Resources Committee, when I should be on a Committee that would
affect my community, or communities of color, having to do with
health care, civil rights, or education.
I have a strong interest in that. I have been involved at
all levels with the Education and Workforce Committee since my
tenure in Congress. Yet, the stereotype was that I should only
focus on that, because the other issue was the predominant
issue of someone else.
I mean, these preconceptions and stereotypes about people
of color, whether they are Members of Congress or not, have
prevented policymakers from achieving better environmental and
public health outcomes just because communities were not
present.
But on this Committee, there has been great progress, and
since becoming Chair, and formerly Ranking Member, this
Committee has held hearings to examine barriers and solutions
to advancing JEDI in Federal environmental agencies and agency
policymaking. The Committee also has intentionally solicited
and included more diverse perspectives on the legislative
process through either witnesses, or through expertise that we
have recruited to present to this Committee as we make our
environmental laws more equitable and more comprehensive.
But laws and policies are not created in a vacuum. Many
actors affect the outcomes. And non-governmental organizations
and the foundations that fund them often play a pivotal role in
policy development, as does the development community, the
extraction industry, the energy corporations, the gas and oil
companies, and the mining conglomerates that continue to have
an outsized influence on the policymaking, on the emphasis and
the priorities of policymaking, and who is at the table and who
is not at the table. Their influence cannot be underestimated.
And as we go forward, that influence requires oversight as
well as does past practices and the current snapshot of where
we are at with our primary agency of jurisdiction, which is the
Department of the Interior. Where are they at in this snapshot,
in terms of JEDI, in terms of inclusion, in terms of diversity?
And we will see that that pattern is also an internal
pattern. So, the oversight will be about that snapshot, but it
will also be about what are the plans, actions, timeline for
beginning to address the need to be more integrated, more
inclusive, and have diverse voices available to guide general
environmental policy.
The environmental policies that this Committee legislates
and the Federal agencies under that jurisdiction can only
benefit from having a deep understanding and a commitment to
JEDI.
Here in the Committee, we have also come to the principal
conclusion that we have significant benefits in our legislative
process. Yet, for decades, many mainstream organizations have
excluded the voices of those who are most impacted. And I agree
with the Ranking Member--the communities most impacted, those
that have disproportionately been put aside and not brought
into the process or been part of the process, those very same
communities are seeking our help.
This results in policy solutions that fail to meet or gain
the support of most of the marginalized communities across this
country, whether it is rural America, urban America, coastal
America, plains America, Southwest America, those communities,
Indigenous America, don't feel included and feel more
marginalized. So, a failure to advance JEDI into the mainstream
environmental movement, into the agency itself, has severely
limited Congress' ability to meet its goals in addressing this
environmental crisis before us, and we have lost time, money,
and, in some cases, lives.
It is clear that the mainstream environmental movement's
traditional strategy risks losing relevance and impact as our
nation becomes more diverse and our communities are
increasingly challenged and ravaged by climate change.
Many mainstream organizations have made significant strides
in the past decades in advancing JEDI in recent years. However,
work remains, and we have very little time to waste.
The moral case of pursuing this just, equitable, diverse,
and inclusive environmental policy should be obvious. But the
pragmatic case is new to many. It is seen as something foreign,
something attacking something. On the contrary, it is an
inclusive policy. Even the National Academy of Sciences has
said that we cannot decarbonize the economy without an
inclusive policy that reaches all.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Chair, Committee on
Natural Resources
Thank you all for being here today.
I want to thank today's witnesses for contributing their expertise
and perspectives to this important conversation about the need to
advance justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion--or JEDI--in
environmental policymaking.
Since its inception, America's mainstream environmental movement
has been dominated by the voices of wealthy, white men.
Early conservation efforts were frequently rooted in a troubling
ideology of racism and colonialism--a legacy that continues to weigh
down efforts to address the most pressing environmental issues of our
time.
When I was first elected to Congress, folks didn't understand why I
would care about conservation or environmental policy.
There's often a stereotype that Members of Congress that happen to
be people of color should only concentrate on issues like health care
or civil rights. In fact, polls consistently show that the strongest
interest in environmental issues comes from communities of color.
These preconceptions about what people of color are supposed to
care about have prevented us as policymakers from achieving better
environmental and public health outcomes for all.
Since I became Chair, this Committee has held hearings to examine
barriers and solutions to advancing JEDI in federal environmental
agencies and in agency policymaking. The Committee is also
intentionally soliciting and including more diverse perspectives in the
legislative process to make our environmental laws work more equitably.
But laws and policies are not created in a vacuum--many actors
affect the outcomes, and non-governmental organizations and the
foundations that fund them often play a pivotal role in policy
development.
Environmental policies that this Committee legislates and the
federal agencies under our jurisdiction stand to benefit from having a
deep understanding of JEDI.
Here on the Committee, we have also come to that principled
conclusion and have seen significant benefits in our legislative
process. Yet, for decades, mainstream environmental organizations have
excluded the voices of those who are the most impacted. The very same
communities they seek to help.
This results in policy solutions that fail to meet the needs of--or
gain the support of--the most marginalized among us.
This failure to advance JEDI in the mainstream environmental
movement has severely limited Congress' abilities to meet its
legislative goals in addressing environmental crises and has resulted
in lost time, money and, in some cases, the loss of lives.
It is clear that the mainstream environmental movement's
traditional strategy risks losing relevance and impact as our nation
becomes more diverse and our communities are increasingly ravaged by
climate change.
Many mainstream environmental organizations have made strides
toward advancing JEDI in recent years. However, much work remains--and
we do not have time to waste.
The moral case for pursuing just, equitable, diverse, and inclusive
environmental policy should be obvious. But the pragmatic case is new
to many. Even the National Academy of Sciences has said that we cannot
decarbonize the economy without a more inclusive policy approach.
Federal environmental policies should be developed in a way that
includes and values the input of those in impacted communities. It is
my hope that today's conversation will help us all to better understand
how policymaking on environmental concerns can be improved.
______
The Chairman. With that, before introducing today's
witnesses, I will remind----
Mr. Cohen. Would the Chairman yield?
The Chairman. Let me introduce the witnesses, and we will
go into that, Mr. Cohen. I don't think I have any time, but
please let me give you a few seconds, if you don't mind.
Sir, you are recognized.
[No response.]
The Chairman. OK, let me proceed. Before introducing
today's witnesses, I will remind non-administrative witnesses
that they are encouraged to participate in a survey that will
be provided by the staff.
Let me remind the witnesses that under our Committee Rules,
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their
entire written statement will appear in the hearing record.
When you begin, the timer will start. It will turn orange
when you have 1 minute remaining and red when your time has
expired. I recommend that Members and witnesses joining
remotely use stage view so that they may pin the timer on the
screen.
After your testimony is complete, please remember to mute
yourself to avoid any inadvertent background noise.
I will also allow the entire panel to testify before
turning to the Members for questions to the witnesses.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Keya Chatterjee, the Executive
Director of the U.S. Climate Action Network.
Ms. Chatterjee, you are recognized. The time is yours and
you have 5 minutes. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF KEYA CHATTERJEE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, U.S. CLIMATE
ACTION NETWORK, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you so much, Chair Grijalva. Good
morning. My name is Keya Chatterjee. I use she/her pronouns,
and I am located on unceded Piscataway and Nacotchtank land
known as Washington, DC. I am the Executive Director of the
U.S. Climate Action Network, USCAN. Thank you so much for this
opportunity.
Our position at USCAN is that the Federal Government, large
mainstream environmental organizations, and foundation grant-
making processes have been exclusionary to Black and Brown
communities. This exclusion has resulted in failed attempts to
pass durable climate policy because policymakers have ignored
the very people who have an organized community behind them.
For example, my own experience working at a large, White-
led NGO was that while there was a focus on diversity in the
workforce, there was a lack of retention because of a lack of
commitment to justice. A true focus on justice corrects past
harms and mitigates future harms. Our intent in providing this
testimony is to influence grant-giving and the Federal
policymaking process so that Black, Indigenous, and Brown
communities have full inclusion in decision-making processes.
It is only through agency being returned to Black and Brown
communities that people will have the access and power
necessary to implement climate solutions.
The barriers to participation in policy processes are
significant. One huge one is jargon. Sometimes the most harmful
policies are spoken about in the most opaque terms. Members of
USCAN, for example, have had to suffer pollution and enormous
costs of carbon capture and storage facility in Mississippi.
And there are threats of more of these facilities in
communities that do not want them in Louisiana and across the
Southeast surrounding Black and Brown communities. These
proposals would be paired with a massive network of compressed
CO2 pipelines in every community that has worked so
hard to fight back against pipelines scarring their lands.
The effort, however, is not called compressed
CO2 pipelines to keep coal pollution in Black and
Brown communities. What does the Federal Government call it
instead? It is called 45Q. What does 45Q mean, exactly? Well,
you are meant to feel dumb if you don't know, and the answer is
truly irrelevant for communities that are being poisoned.
This kind of meaningless jargon is no accident. It emerges
from a culture that does not value community organizers and the
language that we use within our own communities.
It doesn't have to be that way. Changes are needed for
Federal grantmaking and policymaking. The Federal grant process
is lengthy, time consuming, and onerous. Non-profits without
resources are at a significant disadvantage. Knowing this,
USCAN's own grant program process is intentionally set up to
take the applicant less than 3 hours, total. I will share a few
of our top recommendations for grant giving, based on our
experience in adaptively improving grants.
First, No jargon, of course.
Second, require 60 percent representation of women of
color, BIPOC and vulnerable communities in boards and staff of
grantor and grantee organizations.
Next, adopt and operationalize a JEDI checklist that is
used in all operations.
Another is to have a maximum annual operating budget cap.
We use $500,000 as an eligibility requirement for recipients.
Finally, identify grant and policy programs that result in
systemic remedies that don't just address an immediate issue.
For example, don't just address flooding, address the root
cause of why communities of color were pushed onto vulnerable
flooding lands and address how the climate crisis is playing
out in communities that are repeatedly flooding.
The climate crisis would not exist if not for a system of
White supremacy in which we operate, meaning a system designed
so that people of European descent have better outcomes. Where
would you place a poisonous coal-fired power plant, an
exploding pipeline, or a polluting biomass facility if
policymakers were not willing to sacrifice communities of
color?
These facilities are regularly rejected by wealthy, White
communities, so if not for White supremacy, we would have
transitioned to solar, wind, and batteries long ago and before
my time. The reality is that White supremacy and colonialism
began the process of attacking and dismantling Indigenous ways
of living that were connected to the land and that can sustain
a stable climate on Earth.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that having this
hearing is extremely important in the context we are as a
nation and a global community in reference to the climate
crisis. We are grappling with a history of systemic impact on
communities of color that has never been addressed, and the
perpetuation of injustice. There are significantly better
alternatives that have been tried and tested, and I hope the
examples and recommendations that I have shared illuminate that
and play a part in achieving a paradigm shift that is long
overdue.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Chatterjee follows:]
Prepared Statement of Keya Chatterjee, Executive Director, US Climate
Action Network
I. Introduction
Good morning, my name is Keya Chatterjee and I am the Executive
Director at US Climate Action Network (USCAN). Thank you for this
opportunity. I am here to share our membership's (190+ organizations)
insights on how Justice Equity Diversity and Inclusion (JEDI) is
operationalized at environmental non-profits and grantmaking
foundations.
Our position as a network is that the federal government, large
mainstream environmental organizations and foundation grant-making
processes have been exclusionary to black and brown communities. This
exclusion has resulted in failed attempts to pass durable climate
policy because policy makers have ignored the very people who have an
organized community behind them. Attempts at corrective measures have
been applied in response to this fact, but the interventions are
stopgaps, not the systemic change needed to ensure real equity. For
example, my own experience working at a large white-led NGO was that
while there was a focus on diversity in the workforce, there was a lack
of retention because after people of color were brought in, the work of
the organization did not change to reflect a commitment to justice and
equity. It is insufficient to address only diversity and inclusion and
not establish programming focused on justice and equity. Large NGOs and
foundations must commit to self transformation. A true focus on justice
corrects past harms and mitigates future harms.
Our intent by providing this testimony is to influence federal
grant giving and the federal policy making process so that Black,
Indigenous and Brown communities have full inclusion in decision making
processes. It is only through agency being returned to Black and brown
communities that people will have the access and power necessary to
implement climate solutions.
The climate crisis would not exist if not for a system of white
supremacy in which we operate, meaning a system designed so that people
of European descent have better outcomes compared to others. Where
would you place a poisonous coal-fired power plant, an exploding
pipeline, or a polluting biomass facility if policy makers were not
willing to sacrifice Indigenous, Black and brown communities? These
facilities are regularly rejected by wealthy white communities, so if
not for white supremacy, we would have transitioned to solar, wind, and
batteries long ago, before my time, when President Carter was trying to
get us to wear sweaters in winter and move us to energy independence.
Long before that, white supremacy and colonialism began the process of
attacking and dismantling indigenous ways of living that were connected
to the land and that could sustain a stable climate on Earth.
USCAN is on a journey of self transformation and is constantly
working to put justice and equity at the heart of our work. We are in
our seventh year of a member-led grant program. The purpose of this
program is to build grassroots power for climate action, while
increasing trust and alignment among our members. To ensure this
program is equitable, transparent, and embodies our JEDI values, grant
decisions are made by a review committee of USCAN members.
Traditionally, most that serve on the review committee are from
grassroots organizations; this past grant cycle everyone was from a
grassroots organization.
The Federal Grant Process is lengthy, time-consuming, and onerous.
It favors nonprofits that have been given grants consistently or with
dedicated staff: those that already have the infrastructure in place to
tackle it. Nonprofits without those resources are at a significant
disadvantage. Knowing this, we have removed anything that is truly not
informing the review team's decision. Our program allows grant
submissions in varying formats: handwritten, videos, powerpoint, etc.;
line-item budgets are not requested. We trust those that are receiving
the funds know the best way to spend the funds. The entire application
process is intentionally set up to take the applicant less than 3 hours
total, and the Review Team Rubric is openly shared with all applicants.
Our grants program is responsive to the organization's needs
throughout the grant period. We have multi-year grants for operating
support or capacity-building, and more flexible agreements regarding
modifications. In addition, we collaborate with our grantee to design
evaluation and reporting processes that support the work being done,
rather than create extra burdens.
Part of the transformation of USCAN has also been a commitment to
bringing Black and Indigenous leadership into positions of access and
power in international and federal policy making. Our members tell us
that while for the first time they are being consulted on policy more
frequently, they feel largely tokenized and do not yet feel influence
over policy. The barriers to participation are similar to the barriers
to federal grants. The language being used is not the language used to
organize in communities. Sometimes the most harmful policies are spoken
about in the most opaque terms. Members of USCAN, for example, have had
to suffer the pollution and the enormous costs of a carbon capture and
storage facility in Mississippi, and there are threats of more of these
facilities that communities do not want in Louisiana and across the
southeast, surrounding Black communities. This effort is an expansion
and extension of poisonous facilities in communities of color that will
be paired with a massive network of compressed CO2 pipelines in every
community that has worked so hard to fight back against pipelines
scarring their communities. That's not what it's called though, what it
is called is ``45Q''. This kind of meaningless jargon is no accident
and emerges from a culture that does not value community organizers and
the language that they use within their communities.
II. Content
USCAN is the US ``node'' of a global network, the Climate Action
Network, which makes formal interventions at the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change Conferences of Parties, or COPs.
Our experience in the UN process has been that in order for people of
color to gain access, we have had to proactively ensure that badges are
prioritized for people of color and that our members are able to vote
on who will represent them at international meetings. We have also
observed that the barriers to policy access can be ameliorated, but it
has to be through proactive work since there are often long standing
relationships between white-led organizations and policy makers.
Putting JEDI at the heart of our work means prioritizing establishing
new, authentic relationships with people of color. Based on our
experience moving toward better representation internationally, our top
three recommendations for federal policy makers are:
1. Ensure that the people most affected by the policy are included
in the decision making process by tracking and sharing who
is coming to meetings.
2. Keep a `progressive stack' in meetings, ensuring that the people
being called on for questions or put on the agenda to speak
are people reflecting the experiences of communities who
have been made vulnerable through policy.
3. Use language that could be understood in a community meeting and
avoid jargon and acronyms.
Similar interventions are needed for federal grant making. Several
of our members have had first hand experience applying for federal
grant programs. The experiences were demoralizing and characterized by
a lengthy application process (100 pages long in one instance); with
very technical jargon that is difficult to understand and contradictory
application instructions. Additionally, many of these application
processes and platforms are inaccessible to grassroots organizations
interested in applying because they require a proposal submission that
is tailored to the technical requirements of a specific federal policy
rather than based on the actual needs/reality of the grantee. This is
difficult to navigate for small organizations with limited staff
bandwidth, and little to no access to policy experts. Finally and most
importantly, many of our members are increasingly getting access to
funding tables and decision making spaces on policy, but that access
does not translate to influence. BIPOC voices and leadership are more
often than not tokenized and serve merely as window dressing to create
the impression of diverse representation.
USCAN as a network, has evolved and made improvements over several
years to ensure that our internal processes, including around grant
making, are transparent, democratic, and embody our JEDI values. Our
top ten recommendations, based upon our own experience in adaptively
improving are:
1. Require 60% representation of women of color, BIPOC and
vulnerable communities in boards and staff of grantor
organizations (both public and private)
2. Adopt and operationalize a JEDI checklist as a tool of
accountability to assess organizational equity, with the
power to make changes based upon checklist results
exercised at the director level that results in adaptive
improvements and systemic change
3. Have maximum annual operating budget caps e.g. $500,000 as an
eligibility requirement for recipients
4. Use application language that the community uses, not jargon
5. Reserve 40% of grant programs to groups who have never received
funding
6. Identify grant and policy programs that result in systemic
remedies, instead of just addressing the problem as it is
manifesting at the moment (e.g. don't just address
flooding, address the root cause of why people of color
were pushed to vulnerable lands and address how the climate
crisis is playing out in communities that are repeatedly
flooding )
7. Eliminate the current filter for eligibility as a grantee partner
that is based on a very narrow set of criteria that favors
large, established institutions
8. Make sure that peer review panels include community organizers
who organize in Black, Indigenous and brown communities
9. Lower barriers to applying for grants and increase the reach
(shorter proposals, more outreach)
10. Invest in collaborations where there are enough resources for
every partner
III. Closing
In closing, I would like to reiterate that having this hearing is
extremely important in the context of where we are as a nation and
global community in reference to the climate crisis. We are grappling
with a history of systemic impact on BIPOC communities that has never
been addressed and the perpetuation of injustice. There are
significantly better alternatives that have been tried and tested, and
I hope the example and recommendations I have shared illuminate that
and play a part in achieving the paradigm shift that is long overdue.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony. Let
me now turn to recognizing Mr. Abdul Dosunmu, Campaign Manager
for the Climate Funders Justice Pledge at the Donors of Color
Network.
Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ABDUL DOSUNMU, CAMPAIGN MANAGER, CLIMATE FUNDERS
JUSTICE PLEDGE, DONORS OF COLOR NETWORK, DALLAS, TEXAS
Mr. Dosunmu. Thank you so much, Chairman Grijalva and
Ranking Member Westerman, for this opportunity to address
Members of the House on this important topic. Addressing and
mitigating the impacts of climate change is the single most
important issue we face as humanity.
I have a deep background in racial justice, having served
in the Obama administration at the U.S. Department of
Transportation and having founded a voting rights organization
called the Young Black Lawyers' Organizing Coalition. And I
bring that same racial justice lens to the work I do now to
help shift the center of gravity in climate philanthropy. And I
am pleased to be here today to talk about the Donors of Color
Network and the Climate Funders Justice Pledge.
The Donors of Color Network is the first ever cross-racial
community of high net worth donors of color and movement
leaders committed to building the collective power of people of
color to achieve racial justice and shift the center of gravity
in both politics and philanthropy.
One year ago, we launched the Climate Funders Justice
Pledge to shift the center of gravity and philanthropy toward
racial and economic justice by challenging the nation's top
climate funders to commit publicly to greater transparency and
to giving at least 30 percent of their U.S. climate funding to
the BIPOC-led justice groups that have an outsized impact in
beating back the climate crisis.
To date, we have spoken to 36 of the top 40 climate funders
in the United States. So far, 26 funders have taken the pledge,
including 8 funders who are in the top 40 in terms of assets.
In just 1 year, we project that tens of millions of dollars in
new resources will have been shifted to BIPOC-led
organizations.
But there are still far too many funders sitting on the
sidelines, and that has to change. A New School Study, in
collaboration with Building Equity and Alignment, found that of
the $1.34 billion awarded to 12 national environmental funders,
only 1.3 percent of it goes to BIPOC-led justice groups. And
1.3 percent isn't just a moral failing--it is an ineffective
and losing strategy.
No winning social movement has succeeded without the
leadership and guidance of a multiracial coalition. BIPOC
leaders and organizations are the driving forces behind some of
the most expansive climate policy in the country, whether it is
Indigenous organizers disrupting billions of tons of greenhouse
gas emissions annually, or BIPOC organizations driving forward
the New Jersey and California environmental justice laws that
preceded President Biden's Justice40 Initiative. And that is
despite receiving a grossly inequitable share of funding.
Moreover, even though we know that the impacts of climate
change hit low-income communities and communities of color
first and worst, most climate efforts are primarily focused on
strategies that prioritize the wealthy. That is because
philanthropy is a space that largely lacks meaningful diversity
in its leadership ranks. As a result, the funder community has
inherent implicit biases in grantmaking that historically have
meant that communities of color are overlooked and under-
resourced.
We must push these foundations beyond their biases and
their excuses. Funders will say they don't know how to find
BIPOC-led organizations. Others will say they are not aware of
BIPOC-led academic policy perspectives and solutions. In
response, we have compiled an expansive list of BIPOC-led
organizations and movement networks and developed the most
comprehensive compilation of U.S.-based BIPOC PhDs.
Imagine if the BIPOC-led organizations that are leading the
fight against the climate crisis were actually funded at the
same level as their White counterparts. Imagine if they had the
resources to export their work at scale. Imagine if our climate
movement was actually holistic instead of grossly
disproportionate. With your help, we can shine a light on the
solutions, like getting the largest funders to be transparent
about how inclusive their grantmaking is by taking the Climate
Funders Justice Pledge.
In closing, we asked the leadership of the top foundations
one simple question: ``Do you think 1.3 percent is a winning
number?'' And no one says yes.
Change is possible. I and the Donors of Color Network would
love to be a resource for you as you work to build a winning
climate strategy that harnesses the power of BIPOC leaders and
tips the scale toward true justice and progress. Thank you so
much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dosunmu follows:]
Prepared Statement of Abdul Dosunmu, representing the Climate Funders
Justice Pledge of the Donors of Color Network
INTRODUCTION
Thank you Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Westerman for this
opportunity to address members of the House on this important topic.
Addressing and mitigating the impacts of climate change is the single
most important issue we face as humanity.
I have a deep background in racial justice work. Since my time
growing up in Dallas, Texas, I have long been invested in developing
solutions to the uneven opportunity landscape that hinders our society
from reaching its full potential. I served in the Obama administration
at the U.S. Department of Transportation supporting the Department's
work to promote equity in transportation. I am active in the voting
rights movement through an organization I founded called the Young
Black Lawyers' Organizing Coalition, or YBLOC. And I bring the same
lens to the work I do now to help shift the center of gravity in
climate philanthropy.
I am pleased to be here to talk about the Donors of Color Network
and their Climate Funders Justice Pledge. Time is running out, and we
need all hands on deck to win on climate. That means it's critical to
better and further resource BIPOC-led, justice-focused organizations
fighting on the frontlines--whether around President Biden's Justice40
Initiative or our own Climate Funders Justice Pledge. The private and
public sector must work together to build a winning climate movement
rooted in justice.
WHO IS THE DONORS OF COLOR NETWORK?
The Donors of Color Network (DOCN) is the first ever cross-racial
community of high net worth donors of color and movement leaders
committed to building the collective power of people of color to
achieve racial justice and shift the center of gravity in both politics
and philanthropy.
WHAT IS THE CLIMATE FUNDERS JUSTICE PLEDGE?
One year ago, we launched the Climate Funders Justice Pledge
(CFJP), a climate justice campaign, to shift the center of gravity in
philanthropy toward racial and economic justice, and challenge the
nation's top climate funders to commit publicly to greater transparency
and to give at least 30% of their U.S. climate funding to the BIPOC-led
justice groups who have an outsized impact in beating back the climate
crisis.
The CFJP doesn't ask for perfection. It asks for unflinching
accountability and resourcing to people of color doing winning climate
work. We aim to drive hundreds of millions of dollars to BIPOC-led
organizations over the course of the pledge.
WHAT IS CFJP'S IMPACT TO DATE?
To date, we have spoken to 36 of the top 40 climate funders in the
United States. Since our launch, some of the largest climate funders in
the country have stepped up to take the pledge--like inaugural pledgers
the Kresge Foundation and the Pisces Foundation. So far 26 funders have
taken the pledge, including 8 funders who are in the top 40 in terms of
assets. Every foundation that signs on chips away at the lack of
transparency that surrounds philanthropy and begins to shift climate
philanthropy toward greater racial and economic justice.
In just one year, we project that tens of millions in new resources
will have been shifted to BIPOC-led organizations. But there's far too
many funders still sitting on the sidelines--many of whom likely think
resourcing BIPOC-led organizations is a tangential concern rather than
an essential piece of their climate strategy. That has to change.
WHY IS IT CRITICAL TO MOVE RESOURCES TO BIPOC-LED ORGANIZATIONS IN
ORDER TO HAVE A WINNING CLIMATE STRATEGY?
A New School Study, in collaboration with Building Equity and
Alignment, found that of the $1.34 billion awarded to 12 national
environmental funders, only 1.3% goes to BIPOC-led, justice-focused
groups.
1.3% isn't just a moral failing--it's an ineffective and losing
strategy. Philanthropy funnels countless resources into the same big
organizations and strategies, but we haven't moved the needle far
enough. It's time to change.
We will not win on climate if we leave the power and expertise of
leaders and communities of color on the table.
No winning social movement has succeeded without the leadership and
guidance of a multiracial coalition. BIPOC leaders and organizations
have an outsized impact in advancing winning climate policies,
programs, and projects, at the local, state, and national level. They
are the driving force behind some of the most expansive climate policy
in the country--policy that's critical in tackling climate change--as
well as some of the biggest wins against Big Oil.
If you don't know the movement leaders of color in the climate
movement and the vital role they have played, it's because funding also
dictates which stories are heard. But the successes are there and they
are incredible.
Whether it's Indigenous organizers disrupting billions of tons of
greenhouse gas emissions annually or BIPOC organizations driving
forward the foremost environmental laws--the New Jersey and California
environmental justice laws that preceded President Biden's Justice40
Initiative--our most impactful climate wins are largely led by people
of color. And that's despite receiving a grossly inequitable share of
funding.
Moreover, even though we know that the impacts of climate change
hit low income communities and communities of color first and worst,
most climate efforts are primarily focused on strategies that
prioritize the wealthy.
The climate movement as it stands generally focuses on a top down
approach, but if the goal is to save lives and our planet--now and in
the future--then we need to center those on the frontlines of climate
disasters. BIPOC justice-focused organizations and leaders are the ones
doing that work at scale--and it will be desperately needed in the
years to come.
BARRIERS TO ADVANCING JEDI?
Philanthropy is a space that largely lacks meaningful diversity in
its leadership ranks. As a result, the funder community has inherent,
implicit biases in grant-making that, historically, have meant that
communities of color are overlooked and under-resourced.
We must push these foundations beyond their biases. Failing to fund
BIPOC-led organizations will leave us scrambling to address climate
change.
The CFJP is a hopeful campaign and we aim to support any pledger
who is looking to be a part of this change, whether that funder is far
below our 30% threshold or well above it.
By and large, the concerns we hear from apprehensive funders can be
directly tied to ``traditional'' or ``established'' funding practices
that limit the scope of their climate response.
Funders will say that they don't know how to find and connect with
BIPOC-led organizations or grantees that are outside of their typical
funding rotation. Some say they're not aware of BIPOC-led academic
perspectives and policy solutions. Others say they're not sure how to
collect the funding data we ask for in pursuit of transparency.
In response, we have compiled an expansive list of BIPOC-led
organizations and movement networks, both national and regional in
focus; developed the most comprehensive compilation of U.S.-based BIPOC
PhDs, who are some of the foremost guiding lights in our climate
crisis; and created easy to follow templates for funders to collect
their data that literally can be done in minutes.
These hesitations often stem from the belief that BIPOC-led groups
are not an essential part of our fight to combat climate change. That
is misguided and harmful.
Funneling the same hundreds of millions of dollars into the same
climate organizations every year is not producing results or building a
winning movement.
BIPOC-led organizations are the ones who are standing up to the
fossil fuel industry and shutting down dangerous power plants and
pipelines across the country. Imagine if they were actually spoken to,
engaged, funded and supported at the same level as their white
counterparts. Imagine if they had the resources to export their work at
scale. Imagine if our climate movement was actually holistic instead of
grossly disproportionate.
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
With your help in shining a light on the solutions--like getting
the largest funders to be transparent about how inclusive their
grantmaking is by taking the Climate Funders Justice Pledge--we can
ensure those with most at stake are able to scale the already excellent
work that they have been doing.
CONCLUSION
The Donors of Color Network realized that the public statements on
diversity, equity and inclusion of the largest funders did not match
their funding. We wrote to the leadership of all of the top foundations
and asked: do you think 1.3% is a winning number? No one says yes.
Again, we called on funders to do two things--be transparent, and
pledge to be part of the solution. This means honestly answering ``What
percentage of investments have gone to organizations where communities
of color decide the agenda and are focused on justice?'' and scaling US
grantmaking to BIPOC-led, justice focused organizations to 30%.
Change is possible. But we need speed and scale for that, and we
need public/private partnership. I and the Donors of Color Network
would love to be a resource for you to help expand knowledge of
solutions needed on the ground to complement your work building a
winning climate strategy. You have the privilege of sitting in
decision-making seats. You have the power to bring visibility and
resources to BIPOC leaders pioneering amazing solutions. Harnessing
that power, is how we tip the scale toward true justice and real
progress.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
testimony. Now let me turn to and recognize the Honorable Mark
A. Freeland, Delegate to the Navajo Nation Council.
Sir, welcome, and you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARK A. FREELAND, NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL DELEGATE,
CROWNPOINT / TSE'LI'AHI / NAHODISH-GISH / BECENTI / WHITEROCK /
LAKE VALLEY / HUERFANO / NAGEEZI CHAPTERS, WINDOW ROCK, ARIZONA
Mr. Freeland. Thank you, House Committee on Natural
Resources Chairman Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member Bruce
Westerman, and the Subcommittee members of the Natural
Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation. My name
is Mark Freeland, and I am a Council Delegate on the 24th
Navajo Nation Council, which is the legislative body of the
Navajo Nation Government. As a formal introduction, by our
Navajo custom, my maternal clan is Totsohnii. My paternal clan
is the Kinyaa'aanii. My maternal grandfather clan is
Tsenjikini, and my paternal grandfather clan is Tsenabahilnii.
My clans define me as a Navajo and identify me to the ties of
my people and to our great Navajo Nation.
As a member of the 24th Navajo Nation Council, the
governing body of the Navajo Nation, I am honored and
privileged to be a Member of the Council's Natural Resources
and Development Committee, which regulates oversight authority
over all of the Navajo Nation's water, land, environmental
protection, cultural resources, minerals, and economic
development, among other areas.
The Navajo Nation is comprised of approximately 399,594
Navajo citizens and covers 27,000 square miles of land in Utah,
New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado. This area is subdivided into
110 chapters, local governments that represent local voices of
our people, and work on the local level to see to the needs of
our people, as well.
I am here today to testify on behalf of the Navajo people
who have lived and still do live in and around the greater
Chaco area since time immemorial. Their voices have been lost
in the public discussions about oil and gas development
activities and the discussions regarding a buffer zone around
Chaco Canyon National Historic Park.
The White House has stated, as did Congress, that the rule
would not apply to individual Indian allotments, or to minerals
within the area owned by private, state, or tribal entities.
However, in reality, the rule would have a devastating impact,
because the indirect impacts would make the allottee land
worthless from the standpoint of energy extraction.
In attempts to negotiate with our congressional
representatives, the Navajo Nation Council passed legislation
that agreed to reduce the size of the 10-mile buffer zone to 5
miles as a compromise to reduce the impact toward our Navajo
allottees. We are willing to continue these discussions with
the Federal Government, but announcing this initiative at a
White House Tribal Nations Summit, knowing that the Navajo
Nation Council and local government entities have passed
resolutions in opposition, was an unwarranted affront to the
Navajo Nation.
Navajos have lived in the Southwest since time immemorial
and as Navajo people, our clans and our ceremonial history is
tied to Chaco Canyon and the landscape. Much of our life-ways
begin in the greater Chaco region, and our Navajo people are
concerned about their life-ways, ceremonial use areas, plant
and mineral gathering areas, offering places, historic burials,
as well as archeological sites throughout the region, which are
still in use today.
Recently, Secretary Haaland issued a proposed mineral
withdrawal on Federal lands from any development. The BLM, the
Bureau of Land Management, published in the Federal Register on
January 6, 2022, the proposed withdrawal of 351,479 acres of
Federal lands from development for a 20-year term. We have some
really strong concerns regarding that Secretary Haaland did not
consult with the Navajo Nation before making this decision on
Federal action.
In the announcement for the administrative decision, Ms.
Haaland was quoted as stating that the decision was based on
the cultural resources investigation studies that tribes were
awarded to conduct within the Chaco Canyon region. The Navajo
Nation has yet to complete these ethnographic studies to date.
The Navajo Nation sent a letter to her and to President
Biden in December 2021 detailing our concerns regarding these
activities in the Eastern Navajo Agency. As of today, we have
not gotten a response from President Biden or Secretary
Haaland.
Let me remind you, the greater Chacoan landscape is a part
of Navajo Nation lands and individual allotments. It is our
front yard. It is our home. Secretary Haaland has completely
ignored and disregarded the executive directives given by
President Biden regarding tribal consultation on Federal
actions and decisions.
Withdrawal may affect development on Navajo trust lands and
individual allotments, in particular, improving infrastructure
to access minerals in these lands. The Department of the
Interior did not provide adequate notice nor offer consultation
with the Navajo Nation prior to making this administrative
decision.
Most importantly, we ask the Department of the Interior,
the BLM, the BIA, and the Biden-Harris administration to
respect Navajo cultural connections to this landscape. Navajo
people have lived in the Chaco region for innumerable
generations and must be consulted in the same regards, give
consent regarding development of mineral resources and the
impact to their quality of life, and engage in meaningful
government-to-government consultation with the Navajo Nation
and its people.
In closing, myself and the 24th Navajo Nation Council
respectfully and rightfully request with collaborative efforts
and extend an invitation to the House Natural Resources
Committee to participate in a field hearing on the Navajo
Nation, the Eastern Navajo Agency, and located in the Nageezi
Chapter. This hearing would assist in the ongoing
collaborations of the Navajo Nation and your leadership in
regards to hearing the Navajo Nation allottees and their voices
toward these matters.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, and God bless each and every one
of you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Freeland follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Freeland, Council Delegate to the 24th
Navajo Nation Council and Member of the Resources and Development
Committee
Thank you House Natural Resources Chairman Raul Grijalva and
Ranking Member Bruce Westerman, and Subcommittee Members of the Natural
Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation. My name is Mark
Freeland and I am a Council Delegate on the 24th Navajo Nation
Council--which is the legislative branch of the Navajo Nation
Government. As a formal introduction by our Navajo custom, my Maternal
Clan is Totsohnii, Paternal Clan is Kinyaa'aanii, my Maternal
Grandfather clan is Tsenjikini and my Paternal Grandfather clan is
Tsenabahilnii. My clans define me as a Navajo and identify me to my
ties to my people and to the Navajo Nation.
As a member of the 24th Navajo Nation Council, the governing body
of the Navajo Nation, I am honored and privileged to be a Member of the
Council's Resources and Development Committee, which regulates
oversight authority over all The Navajo Nation's water, land,
environmental protection, cultural resources, minerals, and economic
development, among many other areas. The Navajo Nation is comprised of
approximately 399,594 Navajo citizens on over 27,000 square miles of
land covering Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado. This area is
subdivided into 110 Chapter governments that represent the local voice
of our people and work on the local level to see to the needs of our
people.
As leaders of the Navajo Nation, we take great pride in our
cultural connections to our land and our people. I am here to testify
on behalf of the Navajo people who have lived and still do live in and
around the greater Chaco area since time immemorial. Their voices have
been lost in the public discussions about oil and gas development
activities, and the discussions regarding a buffer zone around Chaco
Culture National Historical Park. Collectively leadership from the
Navajo Nation is equally concerned that environmental organizations
have made a point to target Chaco Culture National Historical Park for
political or financial gain without listening and taking into account
the people that are from the region. Chaco Canyon is located on Navajo
Nation lands. As leaders of the Navajo Nation we have come to
understand that part of the impetus of Chaco Canyon protection came
from the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). They have been
one of the primary environmental advocacy group for National Parks and
for years have launched a campaign calling for buffers around parks
called ``Spoiled Parks: the 12 National Parks Most Threatened by Oil
and Gas Development'' (the ``oil'' is capitalized by them in the
title). NPCA's website features Chaco at the top of their list:
www.npca.org/spoiledparks.
Consequently, Congress for the past 6 years have considered
multiple proposals to create a buffer zone around the Chaco Culture
National Historical Park, at the additional request of the All-Pueblo
Council of Governors, but unfortunately, continue to ignore the desires
of the Navajo people whose lands would actually be impacted by such a
decision. This issue is important to the Navajo Nation; specifically,
to our Navajo allotment owners. Again, I want to point out that none of
these environmental organizations, tribes, State or Congressional
leaders have taken the time to meet with our people on the Navajo
Nation, despite repeated requests, letters, and teleconferences.
There are currently 53 Individual Indian Allotments (IIA
allotments) leased in the 10-mile buffer zone around Chaco based on the
latest map proposed in the legislation considered by Congress. These
allotments generate an average of $6.2 million a year in royalties for
approximately 5,462 allottees. Many allottees, including Navajo elders,
rely on this income to meet their daily needs. However, the gravity of
this decision is much larger as there are 418 unleased allotments
associated with approximately 16,615 allottees. So, this rule very well
could impact over 22,000 allottees.
The White House has stated, as did Congress, that the rule would
not apply to Individual Indian Allotments or to minerals within the
area owned by private, state, and Tribal entities. However, in reality,
the rule would have a devastating impact because the indirect effects
would make the allottee land worthless from the standpoint of energy
extraction. For example, the Mancos Shale reservoir lies south of
Counselor, Huerfano and Nageezi Chapters and north of the Chaco Park.
To maximize full extraction of the product, a horizontal lateral
crossing of two to four miles of subsurface may be required. Due to the
cross jurisdictional land status in Navajo Eastern Agency, a proposed
horizontal lateral may need to cross federal land. But the Department
of the Interior has already told us that any horizontal drilling that
requires access through federal lands would be prohibited under the
proposed rules.
In attempts to negotiate with our Congressional representatives,
the Navajo Nation Council passed legislation that agreed to reduce the
size of the 10-mile buffer zone to 5 miles to reduce the impact on
Navajo allottees. We are willing to continue discussions with the
federal government but announcing this initiative at the White House
Tribal Nations Summit, knowing that that Navajo Nation Council and
Local Navajo Government entities have passed resolutions in opposition,
was an unwarranted affront to the Navajo Nation.
We are also mystified by the fact that only one listening session
with 10 allottees was held in July with Assistant Secretary of Indian
Affairs Bryan Newland as a way to support ``tribal engagement'' in the
U.S. Department of the Interior's press release issued November 11,
202l. Even more disturbing is hearing the Department of the Interior
commit to ``early, robust, interactive, pre-decisional, informative,
and transparent'' tribal consultation when essentially no tribal
consultation has been held with critical stakeholders in this case. By
simply bypassing true and inclusive tribal consultation with the Navajo
Nation and our Individual Indian Allottees, the Biden-Harris
Administration is markedly undermining its trust responsibility they
owe to the Navajo Nation and the 22,000 Individual Indian Allottees
impacted by this decision.
To evince respect to us as a sovereign government and people we
insist Congressional leaders and the Administration not to move forward
on this initiative without first reaching an agreement with the duly
elected leaders of those affected by it. We ask that you engage in
proper tribal consultation before finalizing the proposed BLM land
withdrawal around Chaco Culture National Historical Park.
Navajo Cultural Ties to Chaco Culture National Historical Park
Let me tell you a little about the Navajo people. We have deep
connections, from pre-contact to the present, to the many places
throughout the Chacoan area. Navajos have lived in the Southwest since
time immemorial and as Navajo people, our clans, and oral ceremonial
history is tied directly to Chaco Canyon and the landscape. Much of our
life-ways begin in the greater Chaco Canyon region. Navajo people are
concerned about their life-ways, ceremonial use areas, plant and
mineral gathering areas, offering places, historic burials, as well as
the archaeological sites throughout the region in which are all still
in use today. Some of our Navajo Traditional Origins include the
following:
Navajo clans such as the Kinyaa'aanii (Towering House)
originated from the Chacoan Great House, Kinyaa'a, near the
present Navajo town of Crownpoint. Sub-clans include Tazhii
Dine'e (Turkey people), Dootl'izhi Dine'e (Turquoise
people), and Dzil T'anii Dine'e (Mountainside people).
These subclans were important in the overall functioning of
the ``Chacoan system''. This is just one example.
Many Navajo ceremonials reference or begin in the Chacoan
region. For instance, the Navajo ceremonials, the Yoo'ee
(Beadway) begins here. The ceremony is for healing both the
individual and the community of personal and social ills.
In addition, the eagle catching traditions of the Navajo
people are deeply embedded in the Chacoan landscape. Both
ceremonial traditions include the built environment
(archaeological sites), and natural features in the greater
Chacoan landscape.
Many songs, prayers and oral narratives begin at, or
incorporate Chacoan places. For instance, Tse diyilii
(Fajada Butte), is a prominent place in the Ajilee (Excess
Way), Tl'eeji (Nightway), Na'at'ooji (Shooting Way)
ceremonials.
Federal Jurisdictional Maze Around Chaco Culture National Historical
Park
The Eastern Agency of the Navajo Nation is a complicated mixture of
Federal, Navajo Nation, State, Individual Indian Allotments (IIA), and
private lands. Navajo people who live here are forced to negotiate the
complex web of jurisdictions in their daily lives, ceremonial practice,
and development activity related to oil and gas leasing. As stated
above, there are approximately 53 Individual Indian Allotments (IIA) in
the proposed 10-mile buffer zone. Many of them have oil & gas leases
that generate more than $6 million annually for the Navajo allottees.
Now, it is important to note that only Navajo people live in this area.
No other tribe have lands here. We have stewards of the natural and
cultural resources of the area for countless generations/time
immemorial.
As part due-diligence to protect this area, the Navajo Nation is a
participant in the EIS for the Farmington-Mancos-Gallup Resource
Management Plan Amendment (RMPA) for the past few years. The local
Navajo Chapters, particularly the Tri-Chapter Coalition (Naagizi, Ojo
Encino, and Counselor Chapters) is active in voicing their concerns
about the effect of the oil & gas development in their communities. The
Navajo Nation is also participating in the development of a
Programmatic Agreement (PA) for the Section 106 process of the NHPA for
the RMPA process. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the EIS will not be
signed until the PA is completed and signed. There are numerous
interested and concurring parties for the EIS, including 24 Indian
Tribes from across the Southwest.
Also, as a response to the activities of Congress for the last few
years regarding Chaco Canyon, the Navajo Nation has been allocated
funding to undertake an ethnographic project. The Navajo Ethnographic
Study for the Chaco Region:
In 2020, the BIA/DOI provided $1 million for tribes to
conduct ethnographic studies. The Navajo Nation received
$434,000 to conduct an ethnographic study to identify
cultural resources of importance to the Navajo People in
the Chaco area. The remaining funds went to other Tribes/
Pueblos.
o An additional $600,000 was added to this BIA
project. The additional funds went to other pueblo tribes
(total allocation to Puebloan tribes is $1,166,000)
o The Navajo Nation requests additional funding
to complete the study, which include popular publications for
the public, and development of curriculum materials for local
schools to teach Navajo youth about their heritage.
The project area spans much of the Eastern Navajo Agency
with particular emphasis on the planning area for the RMPA.
The Navajo Nation contracted a Navajo-woman owned firm in
Farmington, New Mexico to conduct the study-Dinetahdoo
Cultural Resources Management, Inc. (DCRM). The contract is
managed by the NNHHPD. DCRM has begun interviewing, and we
expect a final report to be delivered before the end of the
current federal fiscal year in September 2022.
o local people living in the area will be
interviewed, plus individuals whose families used to live in
the area, and knowledgeable ceremonial practitioners to provide
a more complete picture of the long and rich history of Navajos
in the Chaco area.
The report will be delivered to the BIA's national headquarters and
will also be shared with the BLM Farmington Field Office, and the BIA
Navajo Regional Office. Hopefully these agencies will use the
information for land management and resources management activities and
decisions.
No Federal Tribal Consultation with Navajo Nation
Recently, Secretary Haaland issued a proposed mineral withdrawal on
federal lands from any development. The Bureau of Land Management
published the Federal Register on January 6, 2022. The proposal will
withdraw 351,479.97 acres of federal lands from development for a 20-
year term. We have some very strong concerns:
Secretary Haaland did not consult with the Navajo Nation
before making the decision on this federal action. In the
announcement for the administrative decision, Haaland is
quoted stating that the decision was based on the cultural
resources investigation studies that tribes were awarded to
conduct within Chaco Canyon. The Navajo Nation has yet to
complete the ethnographic study to date. The Navajo Nation
sent a letter to her and President Joe Biden in December
2021 detailing our concerns regarding development
activities in the Eastern Navajo Agency. As of today we
have not gotten a response from President Biden or
Secretary Haaland. Let me remind you, the greater Chacoan
landscape is part of Navajo Nation lands, and Individual
Indian Allotments. It's our front yard, our home. Secretary
Haaland has completely ignored and disregarded the
Executive Directives given by the Biden Administration
requiring Tribal Consultations on Federal actions and
decisions.
Withdrawal may affect development on Navajo trust lands
and Individual Indian Allotments, in particular, improving
infrastructure to access minerals on these lands.
The Department of Interior did not provide adequate notice
or offer consultation with the Navajo Nation prior to make
this administrative decision.
Most importantly we ask the Department of Interior, the BLM, the
BIA, and the Biden-Harris administration RESPECT Navajo cultural
connections to the Chacoan landscape. Navajo people have lived in the
Chacoan region for innumerable generations, and must be consulted and
in some regards, give consent regarding development of mineral
resources, and the impact to their quality of life. Engage in
meaningful government-to-government consultation with the Navajo Nation
and also the Navajo people. Perhaps this committee could also ask
environmental organizations like National Parks Conservation
Association, what formal consultation and guidance they have received
from the Navajo Nation to allow them to use our landscape and people
for their financial and political gain.
In closing, myself and the 24th Navajo Nation Council respectfully
and rightfully request with collaborative efforts, and extend an
invitation to the House Natural Resources Committee to participate in a
field hearing in the Navajo Eastern Agency. This hearing would assist
in the ongoing collaborations of the Navajo Nation and your leadership
in regards to hearing to Navajo Allottees positions and voices on these
matters. In addition, the proposed cultural resource investigation
(``study'') that was commissioned by Congress and authorized
congressional appropriation to the Navajo Nation and to the All-Indian
Pueblo Council to be performed by cultural experts within the Chaco
Canyon and Chaco Culture National Historic Park, is still ongoing. The
cultural resources investigation being conducted by our own Navajo
Nation Heritage & Historic Preservation Department is allowing the
Navajo Nation to identify the culturally and historically significant
areas to the Navajo Nation and we urge Congressional leaders to wait
until study results are completed before requesting any administrative
withdrawals by the Secretary of Interior.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Hon. Mark A. Freeland, Navajo
Nation Council Delegate
The Honorable Mark A. Freeland did not submit responses to the
Committee by the appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed
record.
Questions Submitted by Representative Moore
Question 1. In your written testimony, you noted that leadership
from the Navajo Nation were concerned that environmental groups target
Chacon Canyon for political and financial gain. Can you elaborate on
these concerns?
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Freeland, Delegate Freeland,
and I appreciate your comments. Let me now recognize Mr. Peter
Forbes, Co-Founder of First Light.
Mr. Forbes, you are recognized, sir.
STATEMENT OF PETER FORBES, CO-FOUNDER, FIRST LIGHT, WAITSFIELD,
VERMONT
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member
Westerman, for your leadership in raising these issues. My name
is Peter Forbes.
I want you to know me as a farmer who works and earns a
livelihood from the land in Abenaki territory and as a White
man committed to changing conservation culture.
I believe in the promise of our public lands to tell a
story about this nation that brings us together, gives us
meaning, prepares us for the future. To care for the land isn't
Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. To care for
the land isn't even reserved for environmentalists. To care is
simply human.
These beliefs led me to a career in conservation where I
became an insider to national organizations. But my bedrock
belief in people often made me an outsider to those same
institutions where I mostly saw my own privileged, White world
celebrating the land while denying, through intention and blind
neglect, those same benefits to others and their very history
and experience of it.
[Slide.]
Mr. Forbes. I come to you to share my own experience and to
dialogue. My culture has always thought of itself as White
angels. This isn't my concept. John Gast painted it in 1872 and
named it American Progress. My culture has never reconciled
what Manifest Destiny created: the two American atrocities of
human enslavement and Indigenous genocide. Every acre taken by
Manifest Destiny was stolen from someone else, often violently.
We have an opportunity now to create healing and
reconciliation through an honest telling of history and its
impacts.
[Slide.]
Mr. Forbes. This is a map of Indigenous land loss on this
continent. Despite White settlers' best efforts over hundreds
of years, Indigenous people and their cultures were never
removed from this continent, though dispossessed of land and
life-ways and still oppressed today.
[Slide.]
Mr. Forbes. And here is a map of conservation land gained
during the same time period. Rarely does conservation talk
about its connection to the history of Black and Indigenous
land dispossession. Too much we persist in seeing ourselves as
White angels saving the land, having the right answers,
paternalistic, and reducing the agency of BIPOC communities,
even as we preside over existential challenges such as species
extinction, climate instability, social unrest, and a burning
continent. Our poets write their last love letters to last
places while environmental culture remains insulated from the
wisdom that has always been right here within other people.
National Parks Conservation Association is in that process
of changing themselves by elevating BIPOC leaders and
knowledge. They publicly challenge themselves to have at least
50 percent of their staff be people of color within 5 years.
All of these environmental groups need to re-examine their own
history and speak to their own past betrayals. Organizations
like NPCA addressing race and history isn't mission drift--it
is mission maturity. This is a genuine invitation to enter a
dialogue on more equitable terms about what other cultures need
from our public lands.
The role of White leadership is to create our own cultural
shifts and take direction from Black and Indigenous leaders.
For example, in Maine, with our country's Whitest population,
65 conservation groups there have organized themselves into a
collective called First Light to take direction from Wabanaki
leaders on what lands must be returned and how all lands must
be better cared for. Conservation groups there have returned
thousands of acres and granted access to 78,000 acres, with
more to come.
This repairing and returning must become our long work if
we are to mature beyond being White angels tossing bread crumbs
to seagulls. This is about finally learning from those who we
have ignored and dismissed the longest. Biodiversity, fire
management, climate adaptation, and basic land use are all done
better with traditional ecological knowledge.
[Slide.]
Mr. Forbes. The Nature Conservancy, who manages over 100
million acres worldwide, is partnering with the Klamath Tribe
in Oregon to bring their knowledge into fire management, the
benefits of which are vividly seen here in this photograph of
the different results in land health when done with and without
cultural burning by the Tribe.
Justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion between people
has always been essential to caring for the land, long before
this moment, but ever more important now. This is the time for
my culture to work harder, building a practice of listening and
moving at the speed of trust. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Forbes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter Forbes, Navajo Nation Council Delegate
I'm grateful to the committee and its staff for this opportunity to
address very important issues. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking
Member Westerman for your leadership.
I want you to know me as someone who works and earns a livelihood
from the land, who lives in a rural part of this country, is a weekly
ambulance driver on an all-volunteer squad, someone who has never
before given such testimony.
As a farmer, I can't join this conversation without honoring the
contributions to our country made by Black and Brown farmers, that
topic deserves its own hearing.
I believe in the relationship between land and people; I also
believe in the promise of our public lands to tell a story about this
nation that brings us together, gives us meaning, prepares us for the
future. My physical connection to the fields, forests and animals of
our farm creates caring. And to care isn't Republican or Democrat,
conservative or liberal. To care is not reserved, even, for
environmentalists. To care is simply human.
These beliefs led me to a career in conservation where I became an
insider to national and global organizations as an employee, leader,
organizer. But my bedrock belief in people often made me an outsider to
those same institutions where I mostly saw my own privileged, white
world celebrating the land while denying--through intention and blind
neglect-those same benefits to others as well as their very history and
experience with it.
I come to you to share my own experience and to dialogue.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsMy culture has always thought of itself as white angels. This
isn't my concept. It's been demonstrated over and over since John Gast
painted it in 1872. His American Progress became the symbol of the
doctrine of discovery and manifest destiny. My culture has never
reconciled what manifest destiny created: the two American atrocities
of human enslavement and genocide. Every acre taken by manifest destiny
was stolen from someone else, often violently. We have an opportunity
to create healing and reconciliation through an honest telling of
history and its impacts.
Indigenous Land Loss--Before
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsIndigenous Land Loss--After
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsThis is a map of Indigenous land loss on this continent.
Despite white settlers' best efforts over hundreds of years, Indigenous
people and their cultures were never removed from this continent.
Though powerfully dispossessed of land and lifeways and still oppressed
today, the people and their ecological wisdom are here.
Environmentalists must care about the people equal to the wisdom; the
two can't be separated.
Here's a map of land conservation gain during the same time period.
Conservation Land Gain--Before
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsConservation Land Gain--After
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsWhile conservationists inspire themselves at staff retreats
with stories of land conservation's growth, rarely does conservation
talk about the other history of Black and Indigenous land dispossession
that was unfolding at the exact same time. Doing so goes against our
perception of ourselves as good, but environmentalists can't actually
become ``good'' without engaging it.
Too much, we persist in seeing ourselves as white angels, saving
the day and the land, having all the right answers, paternalistic and
reducing the agency of BIPOC communities, even as we preside over
existential challenges such as species extinction, climate instability,
social unrest, and a burning continent. Our poets write their last love
letters to last places while environmental culture remains insulated
from other knowledge and wisdom that has always existed right here
within other people who have different answers.
We're great at raising money, but less good at changing practices
that open us to other worldviews. For example, Green 2.0 Transparency
Report Card found that while 99% of NGOs have resources set aside to
finance their JEDI efforts and 84% have written an explicit policy, the
majority of surveyed NGOs don't have concrete ways to elevate Black and
Indigenous voice in their organizations.
It's an obvious truth that not enough has been done, but genuine
progress is being made.
Some organizations are taking responsibility for their own change,
going beyond words into action. These groups aren't outsourcing their
own shifts by asking to Black, Brown and Indigenous people to educate
them, but beginning to create a different future by understanding and
speaking of the past betrayals. Addressing race and history may be for
some an attempt to prove wokeness, but for others it's a genuine
invitation to Americans to enter a dialogue on more equitable terms
about what the planet needs and what our relationships with one another
need.
Organizations are elevating BIPOC leadership and centering their
knowledge. National Parks Conservation Association is in that process:
they've publicly challenged themselves to have 50% of their staff be
people of color within 5 years. They've elevated staff of color into
senior program roles and their executive team. This changes the
conversations and actions that are possible. If you want to see where
this can go, look at Grand Canyon Trust whose years of consistent
Indigenous leadership on their board has led to innovative, successful
local and national programs that are strengthening Indigenous
communities, improving the health of the canyon itself, and changing
what conservation means.
The role of white leadership is to create our own culture shifts,
never to represent BIPOC voice. For example, in Maine, with our
country's whitest population, 65 conservation groups there have
organized themselves into a collective called First Light to take
direction from a Wabanaki Commission and to follow Wabanaki direction
on what lands must be returned, or opened to their uses, and how all
lands might better be cared for. These lands trust have granted rights
to 78,000 acres with much more to come. The shared goals are equity for
Wabanaki people, yes, and also better land management for everyone's
benefit. There's a similar collaboration among 22 conservation groups
in Oregon to develop sufficient relationship and trust to take
direction from Tribal leaders around returning rights, access and land.
This isn't conservation being white angels tossing breadcrumbs to
seagulls; this is about taking direction from Black, Brown and
Indigenous leadership to better care for the land and changing
conservation to be about everyone's wellbeing through learning from
those who we have ignored and dismissed the longest.
There's abundant evidence confirmed by my culture that
biodiversity, fire management, climate adaptation and basic land-use
all can be done better with traditional ecological wisdom. These
practices have had significantly longer success than ours. That
longevity in results may be the difference between knowledge and
wisdom.
The Nature Conservancy, who manages over 100 million acres
worldwide, has announced its own commitment to sharing power and
knowledge with Indigenous people, the benefits of which are seen
vividly here in this photograph of the different results in land health
around fire when done with and without the ancient knowledge of the
Klamath Tribe in Oregon. For almost 100 years, my culture thought it
was absolutely right about fire suppression and wouldn't hear anything
or anybody else.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
There are many Americans who love this landscape, care well for
it, but would never call themselves environmentalists. Conservation
needs to join them. Doing so requires fundamental change through
relearning, recentering, returning--if we are to join others in
protecting our planet. For organizations doing the relearning,
recentering and returning, this is not mission drift but mission
maturity. This is the work of bringing our country's best minds to
solve problems together.
These changes are real, and while heartening, this is certainly not
a time to be congratulated. It's a time to work harder to be
trustworthy to the many people who have been left out and denied. It's
time for white-led conservation groups to build a practice of
listening, to not take any bows but, instead, to bow our heads and to
keep working.
Problems persist. Many white-led environmental institutions still
put themselves first: being around for 100 years is more important than
creating the change that's needed in the next five years. This has led
to a hoarding of resources that can be seen in 10-figure endowments.
Who really benefits from these endowments and resources? What will we
do with that privilege? Will our actions be bold or soon enough?
Justice, equity, diversity, inclusion between people has always
been essential to caring for the land, long before this moment, but
ever more important right now. The path forward requires my culture
relearning history, recentering BIPOC leadership, returning resources;
the hope is better care for this land we share and to replace that
doctrine of discovery from 500 years ago with a new doctrine of
relationship.
Thank you, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Forbes, and I thank
all of you for your valuable testimony.
I remind the Members that Committee Rule 3(d) also imposes
a 5-minute limit on their questions.
The Chair will now recognize Members for any questions they
wish to ask. Let me begin by turning to the Ranking Member for
his questions or comments.
Mr. Westerman, sir.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, and thank you
to the witnesses.
I want to start with Delegate Freeland. Thank you so much
for sharing your story with the Committee today. It is actually
very disheartening to hear how the views of the Navajo Nation
were, quite frankly, just disregarded. As I said earlier, talk
is cheap, and the Biden administration, they have a Memorandum
on Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation
Relationships. And in part it reads, ``My Administration is
committed to honoring Tribal sovereignty and including Tribal
voices in policy deliberation that affects Tribal
communities.''
Delegate Freeland, in your opinion, did the Biden
administration follow through on this commitment?
Mr. Freeland. Mr. Chair, Ranking Member Westerman, thank
you for that question.
To date, we have not received a response, as I said in my
testimony. So, today would be no.
Mr. Westerman. Can you detail the efforts that the Navajo
Nation made to be included in the policy deliberation process?
It wasn't like you all weren't trying to be included in the
process, was it?
Mr. Freeland. Thank you for that question. Chairman
Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, we have made several
attempts to work through our Congressional Delegation, and we
have done this through the prior administration, as well as
this Administration, to have these voices heard. To date, we
have not had a response to a letter we did send out, like I
mentioned, in December to the White House and to the Department
of the Interior.
Mr. Westerman. But why do you think the Biden
administration refused to engage you in this decision-making
process?
I mean, we have read their memorandum. We see the focus of
this hearing today. Yet, you have experienced something
different. Do you have any idea why they would act different
than they speak?
Mr. Freeland. Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman,
it all stems from the withdrawal of the acreage of the BLM
lands, and that is going to make a severe impact on our Navajo
Nation allottees.
And I don't know if the Administration or the Department of
the Interior completely understood or understands the potential
impact this is going to cause to our Navajo people. And mind
you that we do have about 20,000 to 25,000 of our Navajo people
that will be impacted by this Federal withdrawal of BLM lands.
Mr. Westerman. Yes. Hopefully, it is a misunderstanding.
And I know you proposed having a field hearing. I don't think
anything tells the story any better than actually going to the
field and seeing and hearing from the people who are actually
being affected. Maybe the Administration can reverse course and
actually go out and talk to the people who this is affecting.
That would be great, I think, if we could do a field hearing.
It seems to me that the Biden administration has made just
a unilateral decision without your input. However, Navajo
families are the ones that are suffering from the consequences
of this decision. Can you describe in more detail the adverse
impacts of a ban on oil and gas development?
What will be the day-to-day, on-the-ground impacts to
Navajo families?
Mr. Freeland. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chair and
Ranking Member Westerman.
Right now, like I mentioned before, we have 53 individual
Indian allotments out there within that 10-mile buffer. To
date, that is going to impact about 20,000 to 25,000 of our
Navajo Nation allottees out there. Now, they have that
individual right to this process of energy and mineral
extraction because that is their land through inheritance.
Now, what is going to happen, of course, is that this
impact will severely--they rely on these royalties for everyday
needs, for food, for firewood, for propane, just for living.
And that is going to make about a $6 million impact to them
right now.
In Navajo, we believe in customs, but there are always two
sides to every story. And one side has been heard now, but our
side has yet to be heard. And the Secretary did make a trip out
there in November, and we were not consulted nor were we even
invited. And we felt that was an insult to the Nation and to
the Nation's leadership. So, that was hard to take.
And as a representative of that area, it falls to my
chapter boundaries. So, it is going to make a severe impact,
locally. These are people that rely heavily on this income, and
these royalties that they receive, and they do have good
relationships with the energy company. And I have seen this for
myself. The oil companies do work with them directly. And it is
going to make a severe impact on them.
So, we ask that the Committee please come out to Eastern
Navajo Agency and hear from the people directly. Thank you, Mr.
Ranking Member.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Delegate. I couldn't help but
think about--when we look around the world today, and we see
what Putin is doing in Ukraine, with amassing troops basically
on three sides of the country, and I am disheartened to know
that over $60 million a day of U.S. money is going to Russia to
buy energy. And it seems like if we produce that energy
domestically, maybe part of it off of the Navajo Nation, that
that would benefit families there on your reservation more than
it is benefiting a ruthless person who is trying to do harm in
the world. It just doesn't make sense to me why your voices
weren't heard.
And it is not just a temporary thing. My understanding is
the Biden administration is pursuing a 20-year ban on oil and
gas development around Chaco Canyon. I mean, that is part of
your resources. What will you do? How will you generate income
and jobs and allow communities to be built and families to grow
without extracting these resources?
Mr. Freeland. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Westerman, thank
you for that question.
Let me start by saying that the Navajo people have always
been very patriotic to this country, and we have always called
during the time of need, whether it is in the armed forces or
across this country. We are very patriotic, and we still are to
this day. Some of our young men and women were actually headed
toward Eastern Europe and had the call of duty. We are very
proud of them, and we are very acknowledgeable to our warriors
out there serving this country in the military. So, we are
thankful for them.
As far as the energy extraction situation is concerned,
right now this 20-year moratorium for a 10-mile buffer is going
to severely impact--I mentioned the individual allotments.
Energy companies are not going to want to go out there and just
do one or two. They are going to want to do multiple
allotments, or multiple areas--it is more cost effective that
way. And they don't want to go out there and just do one
allotment. They want to do three or four at one time. It is
going to make a severe impact, financially, on our Navajo
people.
And all we are saying is, hear our people out. Give them
some consideration. Give them some time to be heard. And I, as
a representative, I feel really----
The Chairman. Thank you very much, and I am sure the other
Members will, Mr. Freeland, be able to finish the thoughts. The
time has gone over by a minute. We will extend that courtesy to
other witnesses, as well, once.
Let me now turn to the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr.
Huffman, if you have any questions, sir, for the witness.
Mr. Huffman. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is good
to see that our colleagues across the aisle have suddenly found
interest in tribal consultation--certainly something that was
missing whenever we considered any number of fossil fuel and
mining projects in recent years: Keystone Pipeline, Dakota
Access Pipeline. I mean, tribal concerns were nowhere on the
map for our colleagues. But let us hope that this newfound
concern is sincere and not just a pretext to advance the usual
agenda of the fossil fuel and mining industries. I certainly
hope that it is sincere.
But Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing. Let
me also say how proud I am of the way that you and Mr.
McEachin, in particular, have worked so steadfastly to elevate
the consideration of under-served and disadvantaged groups and
communities of color in all of the work we do. This hearing is
important, and it has far-reaching implications.
I have the pleasure of representing California's 2nd
District. And, of course, it has many affluent, predominantly
White communities, but it is rapidly diversifying, and it is
rich with Indigenous culture. In fact, my district is home to
more federally recognized Tribal Nations than any other
congressional district in the Lower 48. It is also home, as
many of you know, to record-setting wildfires that are
increasing in frequency and severity because of the climate
crisis.
And last August, I had the honor of hosting Secretary Deb
Haaland on a tour of California's north coast. She did
something that no Secretary of the Interior has ever done for
the tribes in my district. She sat down with them. She listened
to their concerns and ideas, and she also toured some areas
where Federal investments in tribal communities are creating
and advancing both conservation and resiliency goals.
Not surprisingly, many of the tribal leaders that we spoke
with highlighted the importance of forming partnerships with
tribes and local stakeholders on environmental issues. I hear
this a lot in my district and beyond. And we are starting to
have some actual success stories on this front.
Mr. Forbes, you mentioned toward the end of your testimony
how the Nature Conservancy has partnered with the Klamath Tribe
in Oregon and helped improve forest health and fire resiliency.
I wonder if you could elaborate a bit on how incorporating
Indigenous leadership and traditional ecological knowledge in
mainstream environmental institutions actually leads to better
outcomes for everyone, and I am particularly interested in
hearing more about that wildfire example.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Congressman Huffman.
I mean, yes, despite our best intentions, there have been
harmful practices like fire suppression, right? The knowledge
that fire is essential to healthy land has always been there.
We have simply ignored it. Decades of Western science fire
suppression led to the build up of fuel. I think you know the
story.
Alternatively, there have been practices, from traditional
ecological knowledge around small-scale cultural burns done
annually, reducing fuel loads, releasing seeds. But there are
lots and lots of other examples of it. The U.N. came out with a
report last year that said there is more biodiversity on
Indigenous-managed land across the globe than on lands managed
by Western science. Indigenous-stewarded lands tend to produce
more pollinators, more birds, more mammals.
Those of us in agriculture, myself a farmer, there is so
much that we can learn from Pueblo dryland farmers about how to
produce healthy crops without diverting watersheds. There are
as many examples, I think, of traditional ecological knowledge
as there are diverse Tribal Nations themselves.
Mr. Huffman. I appreciate that. So, in your view, why is it
so important that White environmentalists and policymakers show
up on these issues?
And what role do you think mainstream environmental NGOs
should be playing in elevating and re-centering Indigenous
perspectives?
Mr. Forbes. Well, I guess I want to say the future doesn't
necessarily mean White-led, right?
I mean, White organization, White leaders who really care
most about protecting the land need to care about that, not
necessarily their role in it. I think White-led conservation
groups need to re-examine their own origin stories to better
understand what the myths are of those, what parts require
repair with other people. I think that is really a very, very
significant issue. Once you know the story of Indigenous land
loss, it is not hard to understand, for example, how the
concepts of wilderness, ``untrammeled by man,'' can come close
to being erasure of a people's experience.
When there have been betrayals, we need to speak openly of
them. We need to understand the treaties and really read them,
and understand what is still owed and never been fulfilled in
those agreements. We need to contemplate what we can do through
private ownership of land to restore what public treaties
haven't done. That is what is happening in Maine, and we hope
in Oregon, as well.
The Chairman. We are almost done.
Mr. Forbes. I think we need to vigorously support efforts
to move toward the co-management of land, those efforts
grounded in our Department of the Interior and in Indigenous
Nations.
Finally, I think we, in the conservation environmental
movement----
The Chairman. You reached that minute threshold extension
for your----
Mr. Forbes [continuing]. To build Indigenous capacity to
step into those roles.
The Chairman. Sir----
Mr. Forbes. And I am talking here about transferring some
of our endowments directly to tribes to enable them to step
into those roles.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
The Chairman. Thank you, and we have extended the 1-minute
courtesy, Mr. Forbes, that we extended to the other gentleman.
So, thank you. That will be the end of those.
Let me now recognize Mr. McClintock for 5 minutes, sir.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't do a mic
check. Can you hear me?
The Chairman. I can hear you well.
Mr. McClintock. Great, thank you very much. Well, I guess I
would begin by raising the question, while we are making any
grants to any groups, that these funds are often used as
gigantic slush funds. They have little oversight, little
followup, and little results, except enriching the groups that
receive them.
If the Federal Government needs a particular good or
service, it ought to send out a request for proposals, specify
what it needs, and then award a contract to the lowest
responsible bidder to provide that good or service, and then
hold them contractually accountable for delivering that good or
service, period.
This entire discussion reminds me of the scene in
Ghostbusters when a typical grant recipient says he might have
to go work for the private sector. ``The private sector,'' he
responds in horror, ``Oh no, no, no. I have worked with the
private sector. They expect results.''
The entire discussion today underscores the principal
purpose of these grants: to enrich the recipients. The Majority
doesn't argue this point. They just think it is enriching the
wrong recipients, based on their race. I think the American
people have had enough of this nonsense.
Let's stop throwing money at whatever group happens to be
in political favor and start being as frugal with it as the
families that actually earn that money are with what they have
left after they have paid their taxes.
Since the Biden administration took office and shut down
energy exploration on Federal lands, canceled the Keystone
Pipeline, and began a war on affordable energy, Americans'
energy costs have skyrocketed. Anybody who has visited a gas
station this year knows that. Anybody who has paid a utility
bill knows that.
The Democrats in Congress that they elected couldn't care
less. And you have just proven that, I think, remarkably in
this hearing. What they care about is that the taxes paid by
American workers go to people based on their race, ethnicity,
gender, political views, and sexual preferences. That is what
the Democrats care about. This is absolutely insane, and it is
going to continue as long as the people responsible for it
remain in office. It is that simple.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Lowenthal, you are recognized, sir.
[Pause.]
The Chairman. Let me now turn to, if he is available, Mr.
Gallego.
You are recognized, sir.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Chairman, I appreciate it, and I
apologize if I took Mr. Lowenthal's spot. I am sure I will make
it up to him later.
I want to thank all the witnesses for sharing your time and
perspectives with the Committee today.
As a Representative for the hottest district in the hottest
city in the country, where the population is 62 percent
Hispanic and 23 percent below the poverty line, the stakes of
this conversation are sky-high for the people I represent. The
effects of climate change and pollution are already being felt
disproportionately by communities like mine. That means, in
order to effectively fight climate change and prevent the worst
of its effects, we have to put these frontline communities
front and center.
That is why what we are doing here is very important. The
perspectives and experiences of the groups that have the most
to lose from climate change and environmental justice have been
left out of policymaking for too long. I am glad to work with
you and the Biden administration to change that. And I just
have a couple of questions.
Ms. Chatterjee, your testimony says that the mainstream
environmental movement's history of exclusion has resulted in
failed attempts at durable climate policy because policymakers
have ignored the very people that have an organized community
behind them. Why do you think it is critical for environmental
NGOs to include affected communities in the decision-making
process?
Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you so much for your question.
Back in 2009, the last time we had a large effort to pass
climate legislation, it failed. One of the critical lessons
that has been learned from many historians who have studied
that effort is that the conversation on equity was not
sufficient so that communities were bought into that effort.
So, from my perspective, it is imperative that we make sure
that communities are included in the conversation so that that
policy cannot only pass, but that it can be durable because it
has the backing of communities like the ones you represent.
Mr. Gallego. OK. And then in your testimony, you also
mention that complex jargon and terminology is often used to
hide real environmental dangers.
I see this all the time in my community, as well. Folks
just may not understand the effects of certain chemicals or
compounds, but they know dirty air leads to asthma in our kids,
even particulate--I think I remember seeing different permits
for different types of particulates, and the notification will
go out. And, of course, usually the hearings are during the
day, where many working-class people, especially people of
color, can't take time off of work.
Can you also give some examples of how we can use plain
language to combat this phenomenon?
Ms. Chatterjee. Sure, thank you. I think that the way that
we organize in our communities is with language that people
understand, language that you were just using.
We know that our kids have asthma. We know that kids are
missing school when they have asthma attacks. We know who is
causing this. We know who the culprits are. We know that it
comes from pollution. We know that that pollution has been
perpetuated by billionaires in the oil and gas industry,
insisting that their polluting profits be in our communities.
So, billionaires are making sure that our kids have asthma.
I think that making sure that people understand these very,
very simple real-life effects, like not only of the immediate
health effects, but also the effects of climate change. Why do
we have more large wildfires? We have more large wildfires
because of the same polluting billionaires who have kept this
country addicted to a fuel that is literally poisoning our
children.
And I think using that plain language of ``we are poisoning
our children,'' ``this is pollution,'' just helps people
understand what is going on a lot better than using number and
letter sequences.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you. A question for Mr. Forbes.
Mr. Forbes, you mentioned the Grand Canyon Trust as a
strong example of Indigenous leadership. Can you please expand
how you believe that Indigenous leadership has influenced and
improved the group's work, and why incorporating the advice of
affected communities is so important?
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Congressman. By having Indigenous
board members, it changes the conversations that happen in
those meetings. It brings the opportunity for new
conversations, new policies, new ways of thinking into the most
senior aspects of the organization, and that changes programs.
It changes everything. And it is going to ultimately lead to
decisions that are better for the Grand Canyon, better for that
organization. I think also better for the Navajo people.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Forbes.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Gallego, the gentleman, yields. Let me
now recognize and invite for his 5 minutes Mr. Graves.
Sir.
[No response.]
The Chairman. If not, let me turn to and recognize Mr.
Moore for his 5 minutes to question or comment with the
witnesses.
Sir, you are recognized.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Delegate Freeland, I appreciate your comments and do share
your frustration with the lack of consultation from this
Administration on management decisions. In Utah, we have
experienced this many times with Federal unilateral land grabs
and designations. It is frustrating to be in. It is frustrating
to be a part of this whole entire conversation.
I know my time in Congress has been short, but some of the
things that I have valued the most--like I said, I am from
Utah. The Ute Tribe is incredibly important to the entire
heritage of our state. As I have spent a year in Congress, a
little time leading up to my election in 2020, some of the
things I look back on is my time meeting with the Ute
Committee, their governing body of individuals. I ran against a
Chairman of the Shoshone Nation in my general election, and you
can go back and look at--I am sure you are not all following
Utah media, but the amount of collaboration and decency and
civility that exists in Utah, it is frustrating to see a
narrative get shifted into saying that my party doesn't care
about this.
These are very complex issues and we dig into it deeply.
And the time and the amount of effort that I have spent working
with the Ute Tribe are some of the biggest highlights that I
have had this year.
One of the most exciting infrastructure projects in recent
memory is currently actually unfolding in Utah. For the first
time in decades, a new private rail line is being constructed
to carry energy, agricultural, and manufacturing products
across my district and into the larger rail network. We have
spent countless hours on this, and it has been a huge success
for this area. This development, funded entirely by private
dollars, will create many high-paying jobs. It enjoys unanimous
support from leaders in Utah, the Federal Delegation, the
Legislature, the Governor's Office, county leaders, the Senate
Minority Leader and members of her leadership team, and more.
But most importantly and crucially, this project has the
full and strong support--and they are equity players--in the
Ute business, in the Ute Indian Tribe. They rely on this part
of the energy industry. And it is frustrating to watch
environmental groups that I feel are being--with a complete
tunnel vision, with an outsized influence on some of the policy
decisions that get made here, that don't take this reality into
consideration.
I am going to try to yield a little bit of time back here.
But Delegate Freeland, just a quick question I would love your
response to: Why is it so important to include local voices,
like those of the Navajo Nation, into decision making, and why
can't we rely on bureaucrats in Washington, DC, or those that
have outsized influence over policy to make decisions for us?
Mr. Freeland. Mr. Chair and Congressman, thank you for that
question.
Collectively, the Navajo Nation leadership is equally
concerned that environmental organizations have pointed a
target on Chaco Canyon, for instance, whether it is for
political or financial gain--without listening or taking into
account the people that are from that very region.
Now, the Chaco area is located on Navajo lands. And as
leaders, we have to come to an understanding that this is a
part of the discussion that came from the National Parks
Conservation Association. They have been one of the primary
environmental advocacy groups for national parks and for years
have launched campaigns calling for buffers around 12 national
parks that are most threatened by oil and gas, and Chaco was
one of them.
And the last 6 years have been considerably--there have
been multiple proposals and considerations. But that is a
concern, without taking any consideration of the potential
impacts to our people, as well. No consideration was given to
our people at any level. Thank you.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Delegate.
Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute of my time to
Ranking Member Westerman.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Representative Moore.
Mr. Forbes, you brought up a point that I think we have a
lot of agreement on when you talk about how tribes manage
forests. I had the great pleasure last summer to be out in
south central New Mexico and visit the Mescalero Apache Tribe.
I met Thora Padilla, who is a forester there. I studied
forestry myself. I am telling you they were managing this
Ponderosa pine forest textbook-style. It was almost perfect. We
went up to the Lincoln National Forest where the Little Bear
Fire burned 44,000 acres 12 years ago. It looked like a
moonscape.
I think that the tribes manage because they can. The Forest
Service doesn't manage because they are prevented. Do you have
an opinion on that?
The Chairman. If you could make your response pretty quick,
because the 5 minutes have already expired. Thank you.
Mr. Forbes. I would simply say I agree with you,
Congressman, and I think every opportunity we have to integrate
the Indigenous voice into management and follow that lead is
really important.
And to Delegate Freeland, I agree with much that you have
said, and all the environmental organizations I know and work
with have a great deal of respect for the Navajo Nation. And--
--
The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
And on that topic, if I may, Mr. Westerman and Mr. Freeland
and Mr. Forbes, I will just comment on that topic. This
Committee will have in the near future, in the very near
future, the opportunity to talk about codifying consultation as
a process for Indian Country. We will have an opportunity to do
that and to talk about this general consensus that we seem to
be arriving at.
And then the other thing we will have, we will also have an
opportunity to codify some of the protections for all
communities, particularly impacted and marginalized
communities, relative to the issue of environmental justice and
participation in that decision making under NEPA. So, we will
have an opportunity to deal with co-management initiatives
legislatively going forward with regard to Indigenous people
and tribes. We will have that opportunity to begin to look at
it legislatively and codify it. Those are being expedited now
and should be before us and for your input in the very, very
near future.
With that, let me now turn to the Chair of the
Subcommittee, Ms. Leger Fernandez.
Representative, you are recognized.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much, Chair Grijalva, and
thank you for leading the effort to have this conversation
about the importance of consultation that, together with
preservation and recognition of the many stories and ties to
the land that people have, the Indigenous wisdom that must be
brought to fore as we talk about all these issues, the voices
that must be heard, but also the voices from around the
country, from different people's ties, whether it is Latinos
who have also been living on the land for a long time, who must
also respect the Indigenous place, that is part and parcel of
who we are and the work that I am so glad we are able to do in
the Subcommittee on Indigenous Peoples. So, I really appreciate
all the witnesses' testimony adding to that narrative.
And thank you so much, Delegate Freeland, for your tireless
advocacy. I really appreciated the meeting that we had here in
my office last week. As you know, we spoke about it last week,
when we were planning the meeting that we had with the
allottees, where you brought allottees in, and the Navajo
Speaker's office, and you and other delegates together--I guess
last spring is when we did that, so last spring. I really
appreciated that.
And as you know and as we talked about last week, about the
importance of listening as an ongoing act, as an ongoing
process, and listening with both an open mind and an open
heart. So, I join you, the Navajo and the Pueblo leaders, in
striving to find the important balance, the important harmony
that we must always look for in protecting the priceless
cultural resources of Chaco Canyon, of the mineral rights of
the allottees, of so many of these other places.
I really enjoyed when I was able to work in New Mexico a
bit on that protection of Mt. Taylor, which is also one of
those places that is sacred and protected for so many different
tribes, the Navajo, the Pueblos, and the Zunis. And that
collaboration that existed there in that discussion, I think,
is really important.
But we also know that protecting cultural properties
requires significant investment of tribal resources, resources
that you don't always have. It takes money to hire the staff.
You have an amazing staff there, in your tribal--your THPO.
That is why I led the inclusion of additional funding in the
House-passed appropriations bill for cultural studies.
I also introduced a bill just last week that would dedicate
increased resources to the Historic Preservation Fund, which
will help fund your THPO office and all other THPO offices and
state offices.
So, a common theme that I think we have heard today that
Chair Grijalva recognized is the need for Latino, Native
American, and the under-represented voices to access funding
opportunities. I know what that is like because I have spent my
lifetime representing tribes, representing northern New Mexico,
and I know how hard it is to access that Federal funding, and
that there are these additional challenges that rural
communities face from the lack of broadband to be able to get
that funding. We are going to be trying to work on a lot of
that through the infrastructure bill.
But I want to take it down to sort of what could we do
better. Ms. Chatterjee, in your testimony, you discuss the need
to lower the barriers for under-represented organizations to
apply for grants. What are the changes you think could make it
easier for organizations and communities to apply and manage
those grants, while still maintaining--you know, people are
worried about maintaining oversight. What would you recommend
to us, both for foundations and for Federal Governments?
Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you so much, Congresswoman Fernandez.
I think that one of the big things is making the application
process less complex. We know that for small, grassroots
organizations, spending hours and hours and hours is impossible
to do and is really burdensome.
I also think that giving multi-year support becomes really
important so that groups have the flexibility to assess and
determine how to achieve justice within their own communities,
repair past harms, and prevent future harms. If you want to,
for example, hire somebody to do the work, you really have to
understand that you have resources for a few years.
And then, of course, just seeking out conversations to
understand what has happened in those grants, as opposed to
having, like, very, very onerous reporting requirements. I
think that changing these requirements will actually increase
the standard and the work that is getting done.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, and I see my time is
expired.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Let me return to Mr. Graves.
Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Graves. I hope you all are having a great day today. I
want to thank the witnesses for coming and testifying.
Ms. Chatterjee, I could certainly point out a number of
things in your testimony I don't agree with. But one thing I
perhaps want to highlight that I think I do agree with is that
you made comments about the lengthy process and bureaucracy
associated with grantmaking. And to some degree I think you
covered kind of the black box process, the lack of
transparency. And I do want to make note that I do think that
there are improvements that we can make there, in terms of
improving transparency and decisions in terms of ensuring that
the right criteria is being used to award grants for the best
outcomes.
And in many cases, from what we have seen, I think that the
grants are focused more so on, and Federal decision making is
based more so on, protecting themselves from litigation versus
doing what the actual grants or the regulatory decisions are
supposed to be achieving. Is that a fair assessment and maybe
an area where we can agree?
Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you so much for the question.
Absolutely. I think that the grant process is onerous. I think
there are examples, even within the Federal Government, of it
working well. I think there are examples within the Federal
Government of using peer review processes. And then there are
examples where--sometimes we have members who have told us that
they had to write a 100-page proposal, for example, for a body
of work that they were clearly very well suited to do. But
writing 100 pages is practically a novel.
That can't be the expectation. And if that is the
expectation, what will happen is that legacy recipients are the
only ones who will be able to receive the contracts and grants
from the Federal Government, because they have full-time staff
who are there to write those proposals. So, I think it is a
point of agreement, and hopefully we could find others, as
well.
Mr. Graves. Great, thank you.
Yes, I know the Chairman has told me that he used to just
copy CliffsNotes and encyclopedias in school, rather than
writing 100 pages worth of reports and documents, right, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Freeland, I want to flip over to you for just a minute.
I am a believer that all people, regardless of race, color, or
origin, should be treated fairly. And I think it is important.
I am concerned that some of the layering of decision making
and non-statutory criteria--meaning public policy that is
brought into decisions that may not be in the law or, in some
cases, I think are inconsistent with the law--can result in
distorting or manipulating outcomes that may not be in
taxpayers' interests. And I think that, in some cases, these
criteria are preventing the best decisions, are preventing
appropriate fairness or treatment of individuals that may be of
diverse backgrounds.
And I think, in many cases, the environmental review
process has been expanded beyond its intent of actually
focusing on the environment, environmental impacts, and
protecting the environment. And I think it has been weaponized
as a tool to, in some cases, justify policy outcomes. The
series of decisions for whether to designate a buffer zone
around Chaco Canyon National Park, I think, is a good example
of just that, and how the Administration, in my opinion,
fundamentally misunderstands, or maybe even disregards the
impact of resource development, particularly on economically
disadvantaged communities.
Although allottee lands are not officially prevented from
resource development, can you expand on how the buffer
designation impacts the interests for developers and hinders
economic operations, and how this is impacting tribal
allottees?
Mr. Freeland. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Congressman. Thank
you for that question.
First and foremost, this is an issue for our Navajo people.
This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. This is a Navajo
people allottee right issue, first and foremost. Let's make
that very clear.
We are here to ask for tribal consultation on our side.
Tribal consultation has been conducted to other tribes, yes. We
do have strong cultural ties to the area. A lot of our people
live in that area. And to create a 10-mile buffer zone would
severely impact financially the allottees that live within that
area, that have those mineral rights, that do have the
individual Indian allotment. Financially, they do rely on that.
Recently it was published in the Federal Register, the BLM
land to be withdrawn. There is going to be a public hearing
that is going to be held. It is not even going to be held on
the Navajo Nation. It is going to be held in Farmington. These
communities are going to be severely impacted by this
withdrawal. And it is so important that we just ask for a
consultation adequately to have our people be heard.
Our people cannot travel to Washington, DC to visit the
congressmen and the senators. They cannot. So, we are their
only voice. And like I told one of our Congresswomen, we are
here to share our stories. We are here to share their thoughts
and their concerns with you all. So, thank you.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Freeland, I appreciate it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
Let me now turn to Ms. Stansbury for your 5 minutes. You
are recognized, Representative.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, and I want to
take this opportunity to thank all of our witnesses this
morning for participating in this important hearing. I think it
is really crucial that we acknowledge the history of the United
States and its policies, and how that has disproportionately
impacted our communities of color and, in particular, our
Indigenous, Black, Brown, and other communities that have been
affected by the historical policies of this country, and
economic development and, in particular, our Indigenous
communities.
And the ways in which that history has impacted and led to
the loss of lands and waters has had disproportionate impacts,
from resource extraction and pollution in our Indigenous,
Hispanic, Black, and AAPI communities, and impacted the ability
of these communities to not only have their voices heard, but
to have a meaningful seat at the table in developing the
policies that affect our communities and their ability to
change the course of their own futures.
In New Mexico, our Indigenous communities have managed
lands and waters for generations since time immemorial. In
fact, the land, water, and agricultural stewardship practices
of our Tribes and Pueblos have been in existence for thousands
of years, and our Tribes and Pueblos continue to be at the
forefront of land and water stewardship. Pueblos in the middle
of Rio Grande, such as Sandia, Isleta, and Santa Ana are
working to restore the bosque and ensure water is available for
generations to come. Pueblos such as Kewa, Cochiti, Jemez, and
Santa Clara have been at the forefront of restoring our
forests, managing for fires, and working to improve the
hydrology and resilience of our lands and waters.
Our Tribes and Pueblos are working to address the impacts
of climate change, to maintain and revitalize our traditional
agricultural practices, to restore and to repatriate sacred
lands and traditional lands, and to continue those traditional
stewardship practices that are central to the cultures and
traditions and ways of life of our communities.
And New Mexico is also home to other models of land and
water stewardship that have sustained our communities for
generations. Our land grant and acequia communities have
sustainably managed land and water for generations. My hermana
from the north, Representative Leger Fernandez, knows the
importance of these land grants and acequias, which are steeped
in our Hispano-Latino heritage in New Mexico, and which carry
traditions that are key to the future resilience of our state
and our communities.
So, as the Federal Government is intersecting with and
working with our communities to promote conservation and
resource stewardship, we have to make sure that our communities
are centered in that work, and that there is adequate funding
and support for co-management--for working together and
ensuring that our communities' histories, cultures, and
languages are really centered in the work that we are trying to
advance.
So, that means providing funding, resources, supporting co-
management of lands and waters, meaningful consultation and, of
course, recognizing the tribal sovereignty of our Pueblos and
Tribes, and, most importantly, ensuring that the knowledge, the
wisdom, the governance, and the institutions of our communities
and communities of color are really at the center of our
conservation and environmental protection work.
I want to thank the Chair for convening today's hearing,
and I would like to ask a question of Ms. Chatterjee.
I think one of the reasons why we are having this hearing
is to really understand how our communities can meaningfully be
at the table in this work. So, I wonder if you could take a few
moments to talk about what you see as the primary barriers to
advancing true justice, equity, diversity, and belonging in our
mainstream environmental and conservation work. And how do we
bring all of these voices to the table in our work in a
meaningful way?
Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you so much, Congresswoman Stansbury.
I think I spoke about one of the barriers, which is jargon,
but I think that one thing I just want to make sure to be clear
here is that part of the issue here is that we don't have any
time on the climate crisis, and we have spent so much time
prioritizing voices of people who are not impacted, that the
core of this is that we are out of time to waste. So, we have
to fix that core problem, which is bringing in the voices of
the people who are most affected.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I see I am out of time here. So, with that, I
will yield back, and thank you so much for holding this
important hearing today.
The Chairman. Thank you for your comments. Let me recognize
Representative Stauber.
You are recognized, sir, 5 minutes.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Freeland, I agree with you that Interior Secretary
Haaland has been a disappointment, to say the least. The
Interior Secretary pulled two Federal leases from a mining
operation before it was even allowed to go through the review
process, the process that we have in place. It was purely
political. So, your disappointment in the Secretary is felt by
many, including those union miners in northern Minnesota.
Ms. Chatterjee, thank you for being here. The Climate
Action Network, that is a non-profit, is that correct?
Ms. Chatterjee. That is correct, Congressman.
Mr. Stauber. And what is your salary?
Ms. Chatterjee. I do not know my salary, off the top of my
head, but it is fully disclosed in our 990 tax forms.
Mr. Stauber. Would $164,000 be correct?
Ms. Chatterjee. That sounds approximately correct.
Mr. Stauber. And you are out of Washington, DC?
Ms. Chatterjee. That is correct.
Mr. Stauber. What is the median income in Washington, DC?
Ms. Chatterjee. I also do not know the median income in
Washington, DC off the top of my head.
Mr. Stauber. OK. It is $92,000. So, Ms. Chatterjee, I
noticed that the Climate Action Network has a Chinese branch
called the China Youth Climate Action Network. Does the China
Youth Climate Action Network support the justice of Uyghur
minorities that are tortured and killed by the Chinese
Communist Party?
Ms. Chatterjee. The U.S. Climate Action Network is a node
of an international network of climate activists called Climate
Action Network International. So, we are the U.S. node. We have
about 200 member organizations in the United States, and there
are----
Mr. Stauber. Are you doing anything about the Uyghurs being
tortured and killed by the Chinese Communist Party via your
Chinese Youth Climate Action Network?
Are you engaged with them at all?
Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you for the question. The U.S.
Climate Action Network is a node of the International Climate
Action Network, which has 20 nodes around the world. Each of
the nodes operates independently, and we are all committed to
justice at the core of our work, and equity----
Mr. Stauber. And have you done anything about the Uyghurs
being tortured and killed by the Chinese Communist Party, since
you have a connection with the Chinese Youth Climate Action
Network, have you done anything?
Ms. Chatterjee. Our work in the United States is focused
specifically on the U.S. Federal Government and the need to pay
attention to the climate crisis, and----
Mr. Stauber. OK, so what I am hearing you saying----
Ms. Chatterjee [continuing]. Took the nodes of Climate
Action Network----
Mr. Stauber. Ms. Chatterjee, what I am hearing you saying
is your Climate Action Network in the United States has not
done anything with the Youth Climate Action Network in China
reference the Uyghurs.
Ms. Chatterjee. Our work is focused on the U.S. Federal
Government and U.S. policies that are put forward by the U.S.
Federal Government, as well as organizing in our own
communities around the United States.
We do engage in ensuring that just policies are put
forward, both----
Mr. Stauber. Yes, I just want to make it clear you haven't
engaged in the Uyghur issue, being tortured and killed. Is that
correct? With the Climate Action Network, the Youth Climate
Action Network, you haven't done anything with that.
Is the Climate Action Network aware of child slave labor in
Chinese-owned cobalt mines in the Congo?
Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you for the question. Our work is
explicitly to make sure that we have a just transition off of
fossil fuels, so that we can address the climate crisis. As
part of that----
Mr. Stauber. OK, so what I am hearing you saying is that
your Climate----
Ms. Chatterjee [continuing]. We look at labor standards
and----
Mr. Stauber. Excuse me, it is my time. It is short time, so
I just want to be brief here. Your Climate Action Network has
done nothing about the Chinese cobalt mines in the Congo, where
they are forcing child slave labor to mine cobalt. Is that
correct?
Ms. Chatterjee. The work that we have done within the
United States, for example, is to put forward really strong
labor standards within Federal policy, which we think is
critically important for us to achieve a just transition off of
fossil fuels, but also secure thriving communities where people
have decent work.
Mr. Stauber. So, it doesn't appear that you are doing
anything for the justice of those children forced in the Congo
to mine cobalt for a green economy. Is that correct?
Ms. Chatterjee. Well, for example, there are pieces of
legislation like the Thrive Agreement that has in place labor
standards that we have fought very hard for. Labor bills such
as the PRO Act are core to what we put forward, as a climate
network, to make sure that we are promoting policies where
people can work with dignity, but we are also solving the
climate crisis.
Mr. Stauber. Time is brief. So, Ms. Chatterjee, you do not
support the United States of America purchasing cobalt that was
mined with child slave labor, do you?
Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you for the question. Our views
around labor are very clear, that we believe that everyone
should be paid for their work, that everybody should have a
decent living, and that everyone----
Mr. Stauber. What is your answer to my question?
Do you believe the United States should purchase copper
from foreign countries that use child slave labor to mine?
The Chairman. You are 1 minute over, and----
Ms. Herrell. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes
of my time to Congressman Stauber.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. When your time arrives, Ms. Herrell, you can
do exactly that. We are going back and forth, so I would be
sequencing Ms. Velazquez next. You will be after that, and I
will be glad to respect that yield.
With that, let me now ask Representative Velazquez--she is
recognized for 5 minutes for any comments and questions she may
have.
Ms. Velazquez.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this important
hearing. I would like to address my first question to Mr.
Forbes.
In your testimony, you cited a report card that found 99
percent of NGOs have resources set aside to finance JEDI
efforts. Yet, the majority do not have substantial ways of
elevating the voices of Black, Indigenous, and Brown
communities. Can you identify one strategy you believe, if
implemented, will help NGOs do a better job of ensuring
marginalized voices at all levels are heard?
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Congresswoman. It is a really,
really important question.
And while that report card is true, it doesn't speak to all
the other organizations that are trying really hard to make a
difference. I think the way to do that is to create space for
BIPOC leadership in senior staff and on boards, and that takes
nothing more than the commitment to do that.
And then, creating the pathways for those individuals to
succeed and to share their vision----
Ms. Velazquez. I think it is a very important issue,
because, after all, when it comes to Indigenous, Black, Brown
communities, they bear the brunt of environmental injustice in
this country. So, it is important that when we look at
solutions on how to address climate change, that they must be
at the table and in positions that will help shape public
policy.
Mr. Forbes, can you discuss the dangers of not having a
powerful voice from these communities in environmental
organization?
How would that affect conservation efforts and
sustainabilities of those communities?
Mr. Forbes. Thank you. The No. 1 answer is irrelevance.
Without bringing in BIPOC leadership and voice, environmental
conservation organizations risk becoming irrelevant. They are
not able to understand the issues that our country is
experiencing today and to move forward in a way that represents
those issues and connects people to the land in a much more
holistic way. So, this is really an existential question for
the environmental movement.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you.
Mr. Dosunmu, BIPOC-led groups are an essential part of the
fight to combat climate change because they disproportionately
bear the burden of environmental racism. Your organization's
Climate Funders Justice Pledge is a step in the right
direction.
Besides having climate funders take the pledge, are there
other ways the Donors of Color Network plans to hold funders
accountable, long-term?
Mr. Dosunmu. Absolutely. Thank you so much for the
question, Congresswoman.
We start from the proposition that the communities that are
closest to the crisis are closest to the solutions. That is
really the animating idea behind the work that we do at the
campaign.
As you have already mentioned, one of the core tenets of
the campaign is this commitment to get to 30 percent resourcing
of BIPOC-led organizations over the course of 2 years. So, the
funders that sign on to the campaign make that pledge and that
commitment. We are working to create a baseline, a floor of,
eventually, tens of millions of dollars going to BIPOC-led
organizations.
But the other way that we are contributing to the solution
here is really through transparency, on the idea that sunlight
is the best disinfectant, that if funders are publicly
accountable for where their dollars are going, that creates an
opportunity for communities to hold those funders accountable
to the pledges that many of them have already made.
One of the motivating ideas behind the campaign, which is
about a year old, is that the public statements around justice,
equity, diversity, and inclusion were not actually being
reflected in the funding.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you.
Mr. Dosunmu. So, it has really created transparency
opportunities----
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you.
Ms. Chatterjee, can you please discuss what success looks
like for your organization, and how you are internally
measuring the success of your grant program?
Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you so much. We are internally
measuring the success of our grant program by talking to our
grantees and our communities and understanding whether they are
able to use the resources in order to advance climate action
that puts racial justice and economic justice at the heart of
their work.
Ms. Velazquez. Do you, for example, request input from
those communities about how to improve your grant program?
Ms. Chatterjee. We do. Yes, we have an adaptive process,
and the people who are giving the grants out are the
recipients. So, if there is a recipient group that is not up
for renewal in 1 year, they become part of the decision-making
process on a regular basis. And this has been iterative over
the course of 7 years, and we have consistently adapted so that
we are making sure that we are having the most impact on the
communities in the ground, where people need immediate help.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Let me now turn to the
gentlelady from New Mexico, Ms. Herrell.
You are recognized for 5 minutes and thank you for your
patience.
Ms. Herrell. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you,
witnesses. Great, great information.
I want to be brief, because I would like to yield a couple
of minutes back over to my colleague, Congressman Stauber.
But Delegate Freeland, thank you so much for your time last
week when we met and had these discussions. And I just want
clarity on something.
In your opening statement, you mentioned--I thought you
said ethnic graphic studies. I might have gotten that just a
little bit wrong. But I also know there is a congressional
commission, a cultural resource investigation. Are those one
and the same, or is that two separate? I am just looking for
clarity.
Mr. Freeland. Those are the same idea, or the same
investigation. Thank you, Congresswoman, good morning.
Ms. Herrell. You are welcome. And I agree, until we have
all the information necessary to make these decisions, and
certainly input from everybody who is going to be impacted, I
think we are somewhat putting the cart before the horse with
making these decisions. And I absolutely support the idea of a
tribal consultation. And I really support the idea of having a
field hearing, where we can really sit down and discuss what is
happening with the allottees, and how this impacts development
in terms of economic development, personal prosperity, and
other things.
I do have a question, very quickly, for Mr.--and I hope I
say your name correctly--Mr. Dosunmu. Do I say it right?
Mr. Dosunmu. Yes, you do.
Ms. Herrell. Great. I am just curious. Before this 20-mile
barrier, buffer, was put into play, was there any conversation
between your organization and the Navajo Nation?
And if not, is that something that your organization would
be willing to do, facilitate a meeting so that we can ensure
that we are having the correct conversation with all of the
interested stakeholders?
Mr. Dosunmu. Well, I am actually not familiar with our
engagement on that particular issue, but I will say that
consultation is a core tenet of the work that we do. It is
essentially the animating idea, and we work very, very closely
with movement allies and movement partners across the country
to make sure their voices are amplified in the Federal
policymaking process.
So, I can't speak directly to the issue that you have
raised, but I can tell you that we are committed, in the main,
to consultation and engagement as a core tenet of our work.
Ms. Herrell. OK, thank you. And just a quick comment for
Mr. Forbes.
I appreciate your comment about forest management on tribal
lands and reservations, as opposed to some of our public
spaces, because there is a night and day difference.
And Mr. Chair, with that, I would like to yield the balance
of my time to Congressman Stauber and thank you so much.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Mr. Stauber, you are
recognized for about 2 minutes.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Back to Ms. Chatterjee.
Ms. Chatterjee, as the Executive Director of U.S. Climate
Action Network, and by your previous admission, why aren't you
supporting labor protections for the Uyghurs?
Ms. Chatterjee. We do support labor protections within U.S.
law. Our focus is on U.S. policy, as the U.S. Climate Action
Network. An example of that are labor provisions that we put
forward in the Thrive Act, which----
Mr. Stauber. OK, but I specifically asked about the
Uyghurs. Can you tell me something concrete with reference to
labor protections for the Uyghurs?
Ms. Chatterjee. Our work----
Mr. Stauber. Yes or no?
Ms. Chatterjee [continuing]. Is for the U.S. Federal
Government. And our work on making sure that there are strong
labor standards in place that protect the right of workers to
unionize and the rights of workers more broadly are within the
context of U.S. Federal Government----
Mr. Stauber. OK, so it sounds like you, as the Executive
Director----
Ms. Chatterjee [continuing]. And U.S. state government----
Mr. Stauber. Excuse me, this is my time. We have to be
brief here. It sounds like you have done no labor protections
for the Uyghurs.
And then my last question, should the U.S. Government
purchase cobalt and other critical minerals that have been
mined in foreign countries by child slave labor?
Ms. Chatterjee. It is horrific to enslave a human being,
and that is a completely unacceptable practice and, sadly, is
also the history of this very nation.
Mr. Stauber. Should we----
Ms. Chatterjee. The history here, we started enslaving
human beings----
Mr. Stauber. As a nation, Ms. Chatterjee, I have just a
brief amount of time. Yes or no, should the United States
purchase critical minerals or rare Earth minerals, cobalt, et
cetera, from Chinese-owned mines that are forcing children to
mine these using slave labor? That is a yes or a no. It is
not----
Ms. Chatterjee. No. There are no circumstances where
enslaving other human beings is at all acceptable.
Mr. Stauber. So, your answer is no, is that correct, that
we should not purchase these minerals?
Ms. Chatterjee. Well----
Mr. Stauber. OK, is that anywhere on your Climate Action
Network resume, that we should not be purchasing?
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired----
Mr. Stauber. Because we have the ability to mine these
minerals here----
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Stauber [continuing]. And best labor standards.
And I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired, despite the
yield. Let me now turn to Representative Levin for his 5
minutes.
You are recognized, sir.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's
hearing. I think it is an important one, as we evaluate ongoing
efforts to improve justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion
initiatives at NGOs and grant-making organizations.
Promoting JEDI is not only the right thing to do, but we
also know it leads to better outcomes. Last year, the National
Academies released a report arguing that advancing JEDI is
central to Federal efforts seeking to create better
environmental, economic, and public health outcomes for
everyone.
It is also clear we need to address JEDI priorities,
especially as we seek to meet the moment and rapidly
decarbonize our society.
So, as we make Federal investments to address climate
change, it is also clear we need to center our efforts in the
principles of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion if we
truly want to create durable policies that will lead to better
outcomes.
Ms. Chatterjee, I appreciated in your testimony the
discussion of how improving diversity within the workplace and
Federal policymaking isn't enough to build equity in furthering
environmentally just policies. Providing greater access to
members of historically marginalized communities doesn't
automatically lead to greater influence, or the advancement of
equitable and just environmental policies.
So, based on your personal experience working at a
mainstream environmental organization, and in aiding other
organizations in addressing JEDI, do you believe that efforts
to address JEDI at environmental NGOs result in better outcomes
in Federal policymaking?
Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you so much for your question. I do
believe it results in better outcomes. And we know that the
converse has resulted in incredibly harmful outcomes. So, if
you just look at the state of, where there are communities that
have more asthma, we know that Black people are three times
more likely to die from asthma. I could continue to give
examples about lead, about cancer, et cetera.
But the reality is that communities that are currently
vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and to the impacts
of pollution were made vulnerable through policy. It is not a
coincidence. So, it is only policy that can undo it.
We know what happens when we don't include people in
decisions. When we do include people in decisions, we can
actually repair those harms. It is an incredible opportunity at
a time when we are out of time to address the climate crisis.
We have to make these massive investments in our infrastructure
anyway, so we should do so in a way that repairs the harms that
have come from policy.
Mr. Levin. Following on what you just said, can you share
how Federal policy conversations can be structured to maximize
equity and inclusivity among all stakeholders and,
specifically, how we can ensure that those whose communities
are most impacted by policies aren't just offered a seat at the
table, but are able to actually have influence over that
policy?
Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you. I think that there are a number
of ways for this to happen. I think some of it starts with the
work that we have been talking about of making sure that
different groups are around the table. That, in and of itself,
isn't enough. I think we actually need to prioritize those
voices in a different way.
Some of the practices we do every day are--like, we use
something called progressive stack. So, you are in a room full
of stakeholders. Some of them come from large environmental
organizations. Some of them come from grassroots organizations
that are directly affected on the ground by a facility. In a
progressive stack, no matter who raises their hand first, you
would always go to the person who is directly affected at the
beginning.
And there are a few other practices like this, but these
practices we found, over time, we iterate them, we adapt them,
we find that they give voice to the people who are most
impacted over time, which is the ultimate goal.
So, it is not that we have the immediate solution, it is
that what we can tell you is that, if you continue to adapt and
then ask questions, find out--``Were you listened to in that
experience? Did the policy turn out in a way that improved your
community's outcomes?''
And if not, why not? Why were there still harmful polluting
facilities at the end, if you were truly listened to?
Continuing to adapt and making sure policy is responsive is
critically important.
Mr. Levin. Thank you.
With the time I have I will turn to you, Mr. Dosunmu. You
noted a New School study that found only 1.3 percent of the
$1.34 billion awarded by 12 national environmental funders goes
to people of color-led, justice-focused groups, and you called
it a moral failing and an ineffective and losing strategy.
Why do you think we need to improve--obviously, we need to
improve that number, but why do you think that is so important,
as we consider tackling climate change?
Mr. Dosunmu. Thank you so much, Congressman. And in the
time you have, I will just very quickly say that we are not
currently resourcing the best, most transformative solutions.
And we are losing the opportunity to put some of our most
thoughtful thinkers and advocates and players on the field.
So, if you look at what BIPOC-led organizations and BIPOC
leaders are doing, is they are radically imagining a new world,
they are radically imagining just transitions. They are
thinking about the intersection of the environment with other
policy issues, and they are bringing new solutions to the
table. Resourcing those groups will only further empower that
critical work.
Mr. Levin. I am over time, but I appreciate the thoughtful
discussion. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields, thank you very much.
And now, seeing that there are no Republican colleagues to
turn to, Mr. Ranking Member, I am going to proceed with the
Members that are on the list.
Representative Tonko, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
sir.
[No response.]
The Chairman. Let me now move to Representative Brownley.
The gentlelady is recognized for any questions she might have.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And really, thank
you for holding this hearing.
I wanted to ask a question of Ms. Chatterjee. And first, I
would just say that cultural change is really hard within an
organization. And I know you know this, but it must be
intentional, razor focused, and it must persist and build every
year, year after year. And cultural change in the Federal
Government, I think, is probably the hardest one of all.
I mean, just think about the simple example we have used
today about jargon. I mean, we are using it in this hearing. If
somebody just tuned in and we were talking about JEDI, are we
talking about Star Wars or are we talking about justice,
equity, diversity, or inclusion?
So, it is a simple example, but cultural change is really,
really hard, and you can't change culture without measuring
progress and where you are going to go. I think you have hit
upon this somewhat, but I wanted to ask the question: How do we
measure justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion when we are
talking about philanthropy, Federal Government, state
government?
I know we have mentioned sunshine and transparency. Are
there other variables for measurement?
Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you so much for the question. Of
these issues we are talking about, diversity is the relatively
easy one to measure, right? Like, either you have diversity, or
you don't have diversity, and I think that is important to
measure.
I think that then there are metrics you can start to look
at around inclusion, around justice, around equity. We
obviously ask those questions around race, gender, and ability,
to make sure we have people in the room. But then we are also
constantly asking questions about--Are we giving voice to the
right people? Is the outcome of our work viewed favorably by
those who have previously been excluded?
I think a lot of it, again, as I said earlier, is
iterative. But a lot of it is systematizing that learning. So,
making sure that in every meeting you have that checklist of
questions you are asking. In every meeting you are asking an
evaluative question at the end. Like, how did we do in this
meeting? And how did we do in this process? How did we do in
this project? And continuing to change over time.
I think, really, the beginning of it is making clear what
your goals are and then measuring yourself against it, and
making sure that it is really, as you say, incorporated into
the leadership and the culture of the organization.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you for that. And this question is
really to any of the witnesses.
We have briefly mentioned just transition, and just
transition certainly comes up in a lot of our conversations and
is a critically important piece of environmental policy. So, we
know we need to do it.
But so far, we are not able to cite that many examples of
just transition. And I am just curious, from any of the
witnesses, if you can point me to a couple of good examples
around just transition.
Mr. Dosunmu. Well, one thing I will say is that we work
very, very closely with a number of movement leaders and
movement allies across the country that are very active on that
very question.
In particular, the Gulf Coast Center for Law and Policy,
which has been doing a lot of really innovative thinking in the
Gulf South around a Green New Deal for the Gulf South, thinking
about how jobs and housing and transportation and health care
intersect with the environment and the climate crisis, and how
we can leverage kind of a movement around justice to address
all of those issues.
So, I think, again, it goes to this idea that those who are
closest to the challenges are closest to the solutions and
lifting up the folks who are doing the really innovative work
to light the path forward for us.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you. I see my time is up.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much and thank you for your
questions.
Mr. Westerman, is there a Member on your side of the aisle
that would keep this alternating rotation going? Is there a
Member that wishes to be recognized that has not been
recognized?
[No response.]
The Chairman. If not, let me now turn to Representative
Tonko.
Sir, you are recognized.
[No response.]
The Chairman. Mr. Tonko, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
I know you were having some difficulties with the connection.
[No response.]
The Chairman. Until we get that figured out, let me
recognize Representative Dingell for 5 minutes.
You are recognized, Representative.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
convening today's hearing. This is such an important topic
across our country.
The loss of nature and environmental destruction has
disproportionately affected low-income communities of color. In
fact, communities of color are three times more likely to live
in nature-deprived areas, and more than 76 percent of low-
income communities of color are located in nature-deprived
areas.
We also know that inequitable access to nature's benefits
has casual and correlated relationships to disparities in
public health, economic prosperity, and vulnerability to the
effects of climate change.
My colleague, Rashida Tlaib, and I--who is on this
Committee, as well--have some areas that abut each other that
we work very hard together on this issue.
Ms. Chatterjee and Mr. Forbes, I am going to ask you, what
advice do you have for environmental NGOs for accountability
measures to ensure that communities of color, Indigenous
peoples, and low-income communities are receiving an equitable
share of Federal and philanthropic conservation investments?
And how can NGOs use accountability to increase equitable
access to nature's benefits?
Whichever one of you wants to go first.
[Pause.]
Mrs. Dingell. Mr. Forbes?
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Congresswoman. Well said. I think
there are many steps to accountability, right?
One is stating publicly why these organizations are doing
the work, so that the rest of the community can hold them
accountable to that.
I think another measure of accountability is how they are
actually using their money. Is it going into under-served
communities? Who is actually benefiting from the work that they
are doing?
I think how they use their endowments matters at this
critical moment. Is it more important to be around for 100
years, or to use the next 5 years to move the needle?
Another critical part of accountability, I think, is
representation. Are sufficient people of color--50 percent, 60
percent--on staffs and boards?
Mrs. Dingell. Ms. Chatterjee?
Ms. Chatterjee. Yes, I will just add to that, agree with
all of that, and say that I think there has to be a genuine
willingness to share power and, therefore, to give up power and
make sure that other voices get to be heard within
conversations.
I think that Mr. Forbes raised previously that a lot of the
origin stories of large environmental organizations come from
royalty, colonialists, people who actually stole land. And I
think that there needs to be a willingness to address the
history of the organization, but also a willingness to give up
power, whether that comes in the form of time, money, or
access.
If we want to win, it is in service of justice--it is in
service of equity that we ask our fellow leaders to bring
others into the conversation and bring others into the room
where decisions are being made.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you for that. Over the past year, we
have seen an increase in financial and human resource
commitments toward justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion.
But there is a lack of data indicating progress.
For non-profit fundraisers, the lack of diversity in donor
bases, fundraising teams, and leadership at the top often
leaves organizations without a clear path to achieve equity. I
actually--this is a personal--before I came to the Congress, I
was president of a foundation and was on many boards. And this
accountability and this lack of data is a real issue as we
measure this, going forward.
And we are going to run out of time--and maybe you can do
this for the record--but what guidance do you have for
environmental non-profits and funders to better identify and
measure the kinds of investments that would improve the ability
of communities of color and historically marginalized
communities to advance public policy?
Mr. Chatterjee and Mr. Dosunmu, maybe quickly you both
could answer that. But you have 12 seconds, so maybe we have
Mr. Dosunmu do it, because he didn't speak before.
Mr. Dosunmu. I will do it very quickly and just say that
one of the ways that we do this is actually by prompting them
to do the data analysis.
One of the things that we found when we started our work is
that a number of funders really had not thought to do that kind
of analysis. So, we have actually been working in partnership
with funders and with the data community to innovate solutions
around the data capture, the data collection, and the data
analysis, so that funders can actually do it. But it started
with us actually asking them for the data and the information,
and that is something that you all can help with in a big way.
Mrs. Dingell. I want to continue to work with all of you. I
am out of time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back, but I would like to stay close
to this. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields.
Let me recognize Commissioner Gonzalez-Colon for 5 minutes.
Commissioner, you are recognized.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to say
thank you to the witnesses for joining us today. My question
will be to Delegate Freeland.
Can you elaborate on some of your concerns with the
Administration decision regarding the buffer zone around the
Chaco Canyon, particularly with respect to the formal tribal
consultation?
And my second question will be, do you understand how that
decision to withdraw these areas around the Canyon may impact
the Navajo Nation's economic well-being?
[No response.]
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. I don't know if the Delegate is
speaking.
Mr. Freeland. I am sorry, I muted myself. Good morning,
Congresswoman, thank you for the question. From New Mexico,
good morning.
Related to the impacts, or the potential impacts, that this
could cause related to the buffer zone, the proposed buffer
zone was started, I understand, at a 20-mile discussion. It was
later reduced down to 10. The Navajo Nation did seek a
compromise just to have our people to be heard. There was no
consultation at that time and continues to be no consultation
with the Navajo Nation related to the buffer zone.
Consultation did occur with other tribes, but the medium
was to meet the 10-mile buffer zone as a compromise to 5. That
is why we reduced it. We did pass a resolution through our
Council, our Navajo Nation Council, to make it a 5-mile buffer
zone.
So, that is the gist of where we sought to seek this
mediation, was to meet that halfway. And the Navajo Nation is--
just for the record--working on a lot of climate change
efforts, as well. We do have a climate change adaptation plan,
so we are working on several issues related to climate change
here on the Navajo Nation. Thank you.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. My question will be then how important
is it that we do have a formal process of tribal consultation
occur prior to making the decision, not after the fact?
And how would this have helped raise awareness about the
decision's potential adverse implications for your communities?
Mr. Freeland. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman.
This decision was put forth, I think, without any, really,
understanding to the severity of the impacts that this could
make to our people, who are those individual landowners. I
think they were overlooked.
And, with all due respect to the NGOs and other tribes, no
consideration was given to them at hand. So, this decision was
put forth at--whether it was influential or political, but this
decision was severe enough to make a huge impact to our Navajo
people there, at the local level.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Delegate.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Let me now turn to
Representative Tonko.
You are recognized, sir.
Mr. Tonko. Can you hear me, Mr. Chair?
The Chairman. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Tonko. OK, I apologize. We have had some problem with
our audio this morning. Thank you for your patience, and I
thank all of our witnesses for joining us and for the work that
you do.
Ms. Chatterjee, in your testimony you discuss the lengthy
and time-consuming nature of applying to many Federal grant
programs that are designed to increase access to critical
services such as clean energy, drinking water, workforce
training, and infrastructure. What are some of the greatest
challenges that small or new organizations face throughout this
process?
Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you so much. It is a capacity issue,
predominantly. Organizations that are set up to have full-time
staff to keep on top of where there are requests for proposals
are able to access these resources. But organizations that are
actually doing the work in their communities have many fewer
people who are spending their time looking through the Federal
Register for grant opportunities, probably zero people, and
many fewer people who are able to read through dozens of pages
of instructional text, much less the incredibly detailed
requirements.
So, I think, to open this up to our communities, we
actually have to change some of these requirements, which is
what we have learned to do iteratively through our own very
small grant-making process.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And you also mentioned the importance
of multi-year grants in your testimony. Last year,
environmental foundations awarded more than 99 percent more
funding to White-led organizations for multi-year grants, while
BIPOC-led organizations received less than 1 percent of multi-
year operational budget grants.
So, Ms. Chatterjee, why are multi-year and capacity-
building grants so important, particularly for BIPOC-led or
grassroots organizations?
Ms. Chatterjee. They are incredibly important for
stability. A lot of our organizations that are working on the
ground in communities actually don't have the same care
infrastructure or physical infrastructure of larger
organizations. The same kind of--like, even public transit,
just the same infrastructure. So, there is an inherent
unpredictability of having been made vulnerable through policy
over decades and even centuries.
And the stability of multi-year grant-giving makes it so
people can make decisions about maybe we can hire a staff
member to do this really important clean water project, to do
this really important climate resilience project. It is really
hard to hire somebody if you, literally, have 12 months in
which to make a hiring decision, hire them, train them, get
them doing the work, and then suddenly the time is up.
I think part of it is just the inherent instability in
which we are working means even longer multi-year grants would
be helpful. And then you get shorter grants, and you find that
it is untenable, from an implementation and planning
perspective.
Mr. Tonko. I hear you. So, it fundamentally focuses on the
fairness of it all, and the resources you need to compete and
compete effectively.
From your perspective, how does increased funding through
multi-year grants increase an NGO's competitiveness in the
Federal grants process?
Ms. Chatterjee. Again, I think it is the same kind of
capacity constraints. Like, there are organizations that are
able to have--I mean, even to have a development director who
has even 2 percent of their time to look at opportunities for
funding.
I think that the other side of this is that there should
be, actually, probably fewer openings for funding, but more
time on outreach, so that, actually, you don't have to, as an
organization, have somebody full-time looking for these
opportunities, but there is actually staff whose job it is to
go look at who is actually working in these communities, who
could actually deliver these outcomes that we need in terms of
climate resilience, clean water, transit equity, whatever it
is, make sure that the Federal Government is actually doing
that outreach so it is not just on the organization.
With multi-year funding, the organization can put some
capacity to it, but it is still going to be limited, and it
needs to come from both directions.
Mr. Tonko. All right, thank you for that. And it is clear
to me that communities facing environmental injustice, as well
as rural, disadvantaged, and impoverished communities in all of
our districts, bear the brunt of the effects of climate change,
and yet lack adequate access to critical Federal programs.
Ensuring that grant-making organizations reflect our
nation's diverse tapestry and supporting the communities that
have historically been left behind will be the way that we
right the wrongs from decades of disinvestment and help us
unlock America's full potential.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. And, again, sorry for
the technical problems this morning.
The Chairman. I am glad you got out. Thank you very much.
The gentleman yields.
The whole issue about how agencies react strikes me--I
recall, during the previous administration, when Secretary
Zinke was in charge of Interior, he hired an old football buddy
to manage grants and cooperative agreements for the Department
of the Interior. We raised the issue.
[Audio malfunction.]
The Chairman [continuing]. A disruption of work that had
been ongoing on issues such as climate change and effect. That
was the authority within DOI to do exactly that, and I think
that is what Mr. Graves was complaining about. And I hope,
going forward, that there is some understanding that that kind
of authority should not be all encompassing, as it was
previously.
I am glad that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
are coming to that recognition that we came to a while back.
But having said that, let me now ask Mr. McEachin.
You are recognized, sir, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
starting this very important conversation, or continuing this
very important conversation. I would like to start off by
asking Mr. Dosunmu, whose name I have just butchered, and I
apologize.
Mr. Levin asked you a question that you gave a very
thoughtful answer to concerning, really, the importance of
people of color and Indigenous people being able to get
involved in the environmental justice process. Can you explain
some of the challenges you had faced with getting funders to
recognize that importance that you speak of, of racial and
economic justice as a part of funding?
Mr. Dosunmu. Thank you so much, Congressman, for the
question.
The biggest challenges are that there is this set of
unfortunate implicit biases that have shaped the funding
community for a very long time, rooted in the lack of
diversity, which we have already talked quite a bit about here
today. So, part of the work is actually getting those funders
to move beyond the inflexibility of their funding practices to
see the work that is happening in our communities.
It is a misnomer to suggest that communities of color are
not involved in the environmental movement. They are just not
resourced. In many ways, they are leading the movement. But
funders can't see that, because they are wed to traditional
funding practices, they are wed to a set of implicit biases.
So, part of what we do is really highlight the work that is
happening on the ground, highlight how it is shifting the power
dynamics, and really driving the movement forward, and really
put that in front of funders and force them to reckon with
that.
And as I said, we wrote to all of the major funders and we
asked them, ``Do you think, given the work that is happening on
the ground, that 1.3 percent is a workable number, is a good
number?'' And none of them said yes. Well, if you agree that it
is not, then you have to take action to change your practices.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you for that. And this next question
might be a little bit of a curve ball, so if you need to think
about it and send us an answer, that is fine.
But my office, along with other Members, have written to
some of these funders, asking them to reconsider their
practices and include Indigenous people, people of color in
terms of their funding, even put folks within their own
organizations who look like you and I do in charge of some of
the money as they dole it out to these groups.
What else can we do, not necessarily through legislation,
but through moral persuasion or our bully pulpit as
Congresspersons to help in this cause?
Mr. Dosunmu. I think you hit the nail right on the head,
Congressman, that it is the use of your bully pulpit and of the
moral persuasion power of this body to push the field in a
positive direction. And many of you, including yourself,
Congressman, have been allies to our work in that regard, and
we would encourage others who have voices, particularly those
who have voices with major funders in their communities, to
start asking the questions.
And, again, I come back to that piece around some of what
is able to persist in terms of these practices is able to
persist because we don't ask the questions, we don't prompt the
answers. So, really, part of the work is asking the questions,
asking funders to be transparent, asking them where their
funding is going currently. And that has a way of forcing them
to think internally and make changes. So, that bully pulpit
piece is, really, critically important.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you.
Ms. Chatterjee, can you share with us some concrete ways
that U.S. Climate Action Network has elevated the voices of
Black and Indigenous people of color within the organization?
Ms. Chatterjee. Yes, thank you. USCAN has been on quite a
transformation process, and I don't want to pretend that our
journey is done. We are constantly learning. But we have been
able to pull our organization to putting justice at the heart
of the work.
And part of that is through giving explicit stipends for
collaborative work to members who are organizing in communities
of color and are people of color themselves. Part of that is
making sure that, when we send representatives, whether it is
to Federal Government processes, or to United Nations
processes, that we prioritize being represented by people of
color. Our full membership votes, it is democratic, but we ask
them to prioritize putting people of color into positions of
access and influence.
So, those are just a few of the examples of what we have
done, and we continue to be learning and on the journey.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you for your hard work.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. McEachin. The gentleman
yields. Let me now turn to the Chair of the Subcommittee.
Representative Porter, you are recognized.
Ms. Porter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Funders and Big
Green organizations, and Black, Indigenous, and community
leaders of color all seem to agree with the need to get more
money to rural and minority-led non-profits. But somewhere
along the way things are breaking down.
Mr. Dosunmu, why is that happening?
Mr. Dosunmu. Thank you so much, Congresswoman. The main
thing, again, it goes to those implicit biases. It goes to
those ingrained practices. It goes to, in fact, who the funders
are talking to and hearing from.
I think part of the work of shifting the field in a
different direction is actually creating tables and spaces for
funders to see the work that is happening on the ground in
communities and be able to fund that work. And they have blind
spots currently that don't allow them to see it.
So, part of what we have to do is really push them to get
beyond those blind spots and see the impactful work that is
happening.
Ms. Porter. I know there is a big size difference, in some
cases, between sort of the largest foundations and those
organizations and non-profits that are often led by and
focusing on involving and engaging Black, Indigenous, and
people of color communities.
Do you ever hear the argument that funders don't want to
take on the sort of responsibility of these smaller
organizations, and sort of the smaller the organization, even
though it is less donor dollars, somehow the donor feels that
they would be taking on too much, they don't want to be the
sole funder?
And how can we deal with that argument, if you have heard
that?
Mr. Dosunmu. We have absolutely heard that. And the reality
is that it is a false concept. And it creates a vicious cycle,
because they say, ``Well, we don't want to fund the smallest
organizations.'' The smallest organizations don't get funding,
and they don't get the opportunity to grow and build capacity.
So, part of what we have really driven home is that funding
these organizations is not a liability. Funding these
organizations is funding the most impactful work that is
happening on the ground in communities across the country. They
are the organizations that are moving the needle. So, by not
funding them, you are missing out on the opportunity to really
change the game.
It is driving home that message and really making the moral
case for it. But also making the strategic case for it is that
it is not a liability, it is an asset to the movement to fund
these organizations.
Ms. Porter. Yes, because for many of those smaller
organizations, I would think the choice is going to be between
having maybe a sole donor or no donor at all----
Mr. Dosunmu. Right.
Ms. Porter [continuing]. And ceasing to exist. So, I think
that is really important.
You mentioned about getting the right people at the table,
and I wanted to follow up about that. Do these larger donors,
funders, and bigger green organizations, do they have the right
staff to be able to improve, in terms of seeing and recognizing
the groups that are closest to the communities who have been
hurt by environmental damage and are in need of environmental
justice?
Mr. Dosunmu. The short answer is no, Congresswoman, they
don't. But that is a critical question, because it highlights
the ways in which each leg of the JEDI stool is connected to
the other.
You can't get to real and meaningful equity until you get
to real and meaningful diversity. But the lack of diversity is
what drives the inequity in the system. So, part of the
conversations that we are having is not only about pushing
those funders to see BIPOC organizations that are doing the
work, but also pushing those funders to build the internal
infrastructure and the internal commitments that will get them
to a place where they can affirm that work.
So, it is not just on them to say we are making a
commitment to transparency, we are making a commitment to the
30 percent, it is also on them to say we are going to make a
commitment to do the culture change work that is required of us
in order to get to those numbers.
Ms. Porter. In your testimony, you mentioned California's
environmental justice legislation as a success story. Can you
just say a little bit more in your final few seconds here about
the coalition that helped make that a reality, and what lessons
we might learn?
Mr. Dosunmu. Absolutely. We emphasize the work of the CEGA,
and their work in really convening a table of community
organizations to advance a number of initiatives in California.
And the important thing to note about that is that what
California has done really has been the model for President
Biden's Justice40 Initiative. So, that is another way in which
BIPOC leadership is actually lighting the way for Federal
advancement on this very important issue. If you don't have the
California laws, you don't have the New Jersey laws, you don't
have the current Federal commitment at all.
So, we are losing out on an opportunity to support that
work when we don't fund the BIPOC organizations like CEGA and
others that have been critical to the work in California.
Ms. Porter. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and let me
now invite and recognize Representative Soto for 5 minutes.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman. Back in 2014, in Florida,
when I was in the State Legislature, we had an amendment that
got on the ballot, known popularly as Amendment 1, and it was a
public land acquisition amendment. And I had the opportunity to
work with some major conservation organizations in the
district, Florida Conservation Voters, Audubon Society, Sierra
Club.
And it was toward the end, around September, that we had
conversations about how to outreach with the Hispanic
community. And we did this at a local area in Kissimmee, as we
were talking about how important the environment was to
communities of color, to our rural communities. So, they put in
money in the last month-and-a-half for Hispanic, Spanish
language outreach. What did we see? The amendment passed by 70
percent of the vote. But among the Hispanic community, we voted
for it by 75 percent. We outpaced the rest of the state.
And after bringing folks out to the Kissimmee--first of
all, it was funded by the Land and Water Conservation Fund. So,
we are already seeing Federal programs make a big difference.
But they saw folks are very committed to being outdoors, as
Floridians, very into recreation, hiking, kayaking, fishing,
hunting, doing all these different things outdoors. Even a lot
of our celebrations are outdoors in these areas--or Moss Park,
another area that benefited from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
Our communities are also affected through utilities, where
they are sited, the air and water quality that relates to that.
And we see this also in our territories like Puerto Rico, as
well as tribes like the Seminole Tribe in Florida, which is why
we are excited that we passed a few of these key issues out of
Committee.
The Kissimmee River Wild and Scenic River bill, which I
appreciate the Chairman helping pass that out, that will help
clean water and recreation in a very Hispanic area of our
district, and a very rural area, as well.
Restoring Resilient Reefs passed out of the House just
recently, which is key for our state's clean water, habitat,
tourism, you name it. Again, lots of communities of color
living in the Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach County areas.
And then a billion just recently by President Biden for the
Everglades, biggest award by far ever to help with clean water,
habitat, recreation. We are seeing these themes over and over.
And that also affects the Seminole Tribe, which for years has
had to endure terrible water quality because of pollution.
Locally, we just had OUC agree to close their coal plant
over the next few years. And local Latinos with Moms Clean Air
Force were a big part of that. I was proud to work with them,
and now we are working on solar. Why? Because that coal plant
was in their community in East Orange County. And they stood
up, and I was proud to join them.
But those are some examples of folks maybe not always early
on, but eventually realizing, wow, this is not only morally
right--which is the most important thing--but it is also a
smart, long-term strategy to build lasting coalitions to enact
change.
Ms. Chatterjee, in your testimony, you briefly had
mentioned how addressing only diversity or inclusion alone is
insufficient to move the needle in any meaningful way. Can you
elaborate on why it is critical for mainstream environmental
organizations to advance all the principles of JEDI: justice,
equity, diversity, and inclusion?
Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you for the question and for sharing
those examples from Florida.
Diversity is an important basis and first step, but it is
not the whole journey. People don't know what they don't know.
You can hire a group of people of color, but if they are not
familiar with the situation at hand, it takes time to develop
expertise and understand what the equity and justice
interventions needed are made. And there is nothing necessarily
about being a person of color that inherently makes you
understand these issues, right?
So, even though it is a critically important first step, it
is totally insufficient to actually achieving justice and
equity. There have to be additional steps made both for
inclusiveness, so people stay once you have hired a diverse
workforce, but then also to make sure that that next step is
made to putting racial justice and economic justice at the
heart of the initiatives and work.
Mr. Soto. I am glad you mentioned that, Ms. Chatterjee. I
think if we all focus on hiring local, hiring early as we are
working on initiatives across the United States, that is at
least incremental change we could do that--we have seen work in
Florida--as we work on the greater wealth consolidation issues
that affect not only the environmental community, but, let's
face it, all of America.
Thank you for the time and your focus on this today,
everyone.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Soto. The gentleman yields.
Let me now invite the Vice Chair of the Committee.
Mr. Garcia, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and, of course, all the
witnesses that have joined us today.
The work this Committee has done to dismantle environmental
racism, restore and preserve our nation's lands, and uplift the
importance of clean air and a healthy environment has had a
significant impact on the life of people in Chicagoland.
However, it is well known that we, as lawmakers, don't do
this work alone. As elected representatives, we have a
responsibility to carry with us the voices of our constituents,
and with that comes great responsibility.
That said, we reach out to the brightest minds across the
world, many of which I would argue reside in my district, to
craft the most impactful policies. And it is important that the
partners that we work closely with understand the practical and
tangible benefits of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion,
and why, historically, that has not always been the case.
Some questions for our panelists.
Mr. Forbes, it is well documented that the early American
conservation movement was exclusionary and often disparaging of
communities of color. You have already pointed to some
instances. In fact, writings from an early leader of the
conservation movement described Indigenous and Black people as
dirty, lazy, and uncivilized.
In your view, how has that troubled foundation determined
which environmental policies tend to be prioritized, and are
certain communities and their priorities still being left out?
Mr. Forbes. Thank you so much, Congressman. Of course, they
are, is the short answer.
The origin stories that you speak about, we in the
environmental movement, we have to speak about them. We have to
acknowledge them. And that is the only way--it is not about
shaming us or punishing us, it is the only way to liberate us
to actually do the work that we need to do.
A key tenet of this conversation has been about
prioritizing the most affected. I think the only path to
getting there is by acknowledging how we have failed to do that
in the past. Every time I have seen that happen, sir, I think
the organizations have come out of that process stronger and
more capable then of making space and standing beside others to
allow them to lead and carry the work.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Forbes.
A question for Mr. Dosunmu. In my community, organizers on
the ground are often driving most of our impactful climate
wins. In Chicago's Southeast and Southwest sides, communities
are fighting to reject plants that are proposed that would
increase pollution levels in an already burdened community.
Mr. Dosunmu, from your perspective, why is it important
that these stories and locally driven environmental movements
are being shared and supported by mainstream environmental
organizations and foundations?
Mr. Dosunmu. Thank you so much, Congressman, and I will
just say that the work happening in your district is very close
to my heart. I lived on the South Side of Chicago during
college, so I know that work and that area very well, and the
organizations that are lifting up that work.
And what I will say is that many funders are operating
under a false notion that you can do environmental work without
power-building work. And I think part of what the examples that
you have laid out in your district highlight is that
communities of color understand that that work cannot be
disconnected from power-building work. So, they are actually
working not just to tackle kind of traditional environmental
notions, but they are also working to build meaningful
political power among those residents, so that they are able to
really shift the center of gravity, environmentally.
The reason it is important to lift up those examples is
that it really highlights the intersectionality of
environmentalism and meaningful power-building in communities
of color.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, and I will just end with this. Black
and Brown leaders and organizations and individuals must be
engaged, uplifted, and supported if we are to truly tackle the
climate crisis.
Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Garcia. Let me now
recognize Representative Cohen.
Sir, you are recognized.
[Pause.]
The Chairman. Mr. Cohen, you are recognized.
[Pause.]
The Chairman. Representative Trahan, you are recognized for
5 minutes.
Mrs. Trahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the
witnesses here today. I am so glad we are having this hearing
today. If future generations are going to care for and support
the protection of public lands and waters, then public land
agencies will have to work to ensure that these places are
accessible and relevant to the day-to-day lives of residents.
The city that I am from, Lowell, Massachusetts, is
incredibly diverse. More than 60 languages are spoken
throughout the city. And immigrants have come from all over to
make Lowell home. My Brazilian grandmother, who immigrated to
Lowell, used to work in the very mill that is now my
congressional office, and this is the American Dream at its
absolute best.
Not only is a former mill my congressional office, but it
is also part of the Lowell National Historic Park. The Park is
a treasure in our community and includes a museum that educates
visitors about Lowell's rich history as an industrial mill town
that immigrants like my grandparents helped build. Right now,
the Park is working with the local community to co-create a new
exhibit called ``One City, Many Cultures,'' and this exhibit
will update the existing immigrant exhibit that opened back in
1988.
Over the last 30 years, Lowell's demographics, like many
other cities, continue to change, making an update necessary.
And this new exhibit will tell the stories of diverse cultures,
as well as the cultural changes that Lowell has witnessed. When
it is completed, it will feature panels written in English and
Spanish. Viewers will be able to listen to Kami being spoken,
and there will even be a section dedicated to a storybook in
which guests can record their own stories.
This initiative demonstrates the potential that urban parks
have to educate, connect, and strengthen our local communities.
However, uneven access to parks, especially urban parks, and
funding systems that have historically steered their
investments toward richer locales, have ignored a vital group
of stakeholders and change leaders for far too long.
One way to increase access is for agencies, as well as non-
profits, to adopt and implement policies so that public lands
and conservation workforce reflects the growing diversity in
our nation, both in rank-and-file positions and throughout the
leadership ranks.
Ms. Chatterjee, thank you for being here. I am wondering if
you can speak to the importance of access to urban parks for
communities like Lowell.
Ms. Chatterjee. Sure, thank you so much for your question.
I actually went to Lowell for a big Bengali conference once,
just a testament to immigrant communities being attracted to
Lowell, Massachusetts.
But yes, it is incredibly important in terms of making sure
that young people have access to supportive infrastructure,
care and physical infrastructure and parks within their
communities in terms of the future we want.
I spend my time working to fight the climate crisis so that
we can have communities where our kids can thrive, learn about
our history, and have jobs. And I think that, historically,
there have been big efforts to push these things.
Right now, one of the things we have been talking about is
the Civilian Climate Corps. One of the things we could do with
the Civilian Climate Corps is make sure that we do have urban
parks being put together, but also rural parks being put
together. There is no reason why we shouldn't be putting every
single person to work putting together the things that we need
as communities, the core things we need in order to thrive.
So, I think it is critically important as just a piece of
what makes our communities beautiful and what we are all
fighting for.
Mrs. Trahan. Well, thank you for visiting Lowell, and,
hopefully, we can welcome you back there soon.
I grew up in Lowell, and Urban Park had an incredible
impact on my childhood and my upbringing. I am wondering what
you see as the greatest challenge to creating more urban parks
across our country like the one in Lowell.
Ms. Chatterjee. I think the greatest challenge is lack of
funding, and the greatest challenge to lack of funding is the
lack of our ability to get policies through, which comes back
to what we are all here to talk about, which is why can't we
get these policies done that we need?
It is because we are not being inclusive and bringing in
the communities that actually have the power of the community
behind them to get things passed--not just talked about, but
actually passed. So, having the money means that we can have
the parks.
Mrs. Trahan. Right. Well, I appreciate all of that, and
certainly I believe that all politics is local. But I also
think that all activism, all history, and certainly our action
on the climate, is also local, too.
I appreciate your answers and your being here today. Thank
you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Let me recognize
Representative Tlaib for 5 minutes.
Your questions, comments?
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you so much for our
panelists. I really appreciate, Chairman, you being such a
champion on environmental justice issues. You know how personal
that issue is to me.
Some of you might know already, I represent some of the
most polluted neighborhoods in Michigan. And for us,
environmental justice isn't a choice. It is a daily fight for
survival. Many of my residents have steel mills and oil
refineries for neighbors, literally feet away from their front
steps. They have auto factories and power plants in their
backyards.
The cumulative impact of all these pollution sources
combining together is a toxic cocktail that my residents ingest
every single day, and so do their children. These communities
have high rates of asthma, cancer, and respiratory disease. Our
environmental decision making is literally killing communities
of color.
And these communities have been shut out, always, in
policymaking and advocacy spaces for far too long.
You all know the fossil fuel industry, the lobbyists. I
left another Committee hearing, and just hearing of the
gaslighting and the misleading information by the industry,
changing their names, talking about it in a way when, at the
end, we are still breathing dirty air.
So, I would like to emphasize the sense of urgency we need
at this moment. If you have 20 major source air polluters
within a couple of miles of your home, you are going to act
with a lot more urgency than someone living in a safer, cleaner
community. Look where shutting our frontline environmental
justice communities out of the halls of power has gotten us. I
mean, look at it. No meaningful climate action as we continue
hurtling toward planetary doom. Corporate polluters continue to
make record profits. The more even subsidy--we give them
everything. They keep, again, profiting off of our public
health disaster and our environmental disaster.
So, I am proud that in my district we have so many
environmental justice groups that have the JEDI values
ingrained into the fabric of their organizations. Groups like
Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition, Solardarity, We Want
Green, Too are walking the walk, and it is part of what makes
me very much an effective partner here in bringing their voices
to the halls of Congress.
Ms. Chatterjee, just even hearing you talk about this, I
don't know, it just reminds me how exhausting it is, how
incredibly exhausting it is that we are giving these platforms,
talking about it over and over again. Like, I am tired of the
public hearings. I go, Chairman. I go, I submit comments, I get
my residents to submit comments, and nothing changes. It is
exhausting.
Ms. Chatterjee, how would empowering frontline Black,
Brown, and Indigenous environmental justice leaders actually
impact Federal environmental policymaking change for U.S.
climate action? What does empowerment really look like?
Tell my colleagues on this Committee what to do.
Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you so much. I think what to do is
know the names of the environmental justice communities in your
district. Talk to them. Bring them in. Make sure they are the
first folks that you ask when a decision is coming up.
Make sure that when we are getting closer and closer, and
negotiations are happening, what continually feels like it
happens is that the most important issues for Black and Brown
communities get negotiated away by people who don't speak for
that community. So, making sure that doesn't happen is an
incredibly powerful position to be in.
And I am just grateful that we have all of you in that
position, because we are out of time. Lives are at stake, and
we have to make this change in who we listen to and who we
believe has the solutions. And I think you are doing it, a lot
of you are doing it, and it is nice to see, but we just have to
go faster and harder.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes, the Chairman needs more help from our
Committee, and we are going to work hard in getting that done.
Mr. Dosunmu--I hope I said it right, because people mess up
my name--your testimony mentioned, of course, the $1.34 billion
awarded to 12 national environmental funders, and only 1.3
percent went to communities of color-led, justice-focused
groups. What would directing hundreds of millions--I mean, I
already know this answer, but I want colleagues to understand,
and I think it was something that Ms. Chatterjee kind of talked
about. But how can it really--because I know it will accelerate
that kind of urgency I have been talking about. But give us
some examples of how injecting and investing in the communities
impacted the most would look like in policymaking.
Mr. Dosunmu. Absolutely. Thank you so much for your
question. I grew up in a community very similar to the one you
represent, that you have described, around these issues. And
what I know, again, is that the most transformative solutions
are happening at the community level.
So, injecting hundreds of millions of dollars into BIPOC-
led organizations will get you imaginative thinking like the
thinking that the Gulf Coast Center for Law and Policy is doing
around just transition, or the work that Green Latinos is doing
around closing toxic landfills, or the work that the California
Environmental Justice Alliance is doing to pull Black, Brown,
and Indigenous communities together to really push for
transformative legislation at the state level.
There are tangible benefits to injecting money into BIPOC-
led organizations, and the most tangible benefit is that we
actually resource the best solutions, which is not what we are
doing right now.
Ms. Tlaib. No. Thank you, and I yield. Thank you, Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Thank you very much.
Let me recognize Mr. Cohen.
Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
[Pause.]
The Chairman. Mr. Cohen?
[Pause.]
The Chairman. Recognizing myself, there seems to be a--Mr.
Westerman, is there anyone on your side of the aisle that
wishes to be recognized that has not at this point?
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Not at this point, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Cohen, are you available at this point?
[No response.]
The Chairman. There is some technical difficulty with Mr.
Cohen's connection. Let me recognize myself. Otherwise, we will
be here in limbo for a while.
I mentioned in the opening remarks--and I have some
questions that are pertinent to this hearing, but I mentioned
the remarks that the issue of JEDI and what we are dealing with
here in terms of integrating justice, equity, diversity, and
inclusion not only into mainstream environmental institutions,
but the discussion has been more expansive than that--it is not
just a moral necessity, it is a very, very practical necessity.
And as you exclude voices from diverse and impacted communities
in decision-making processes, all those policies that are made
around those issues fall short of the goals.
In fact, the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine released a report just last year that underscores how
advancing JEDI in environmental institutions is necessary to
ensure that the Federal environmental policies are designed to
work for all Americans.
They also said in that report that environmental
foundations, and I quote, ``need to prioritize addressing both
the severe racial justice and equity disparities in their
funding of climate NGOs and the diversity of their board and
staff advisors.''
I mentioned that, but let me just talk about two issues
that came up from the witnesses and also from the questions
that my colleagues asked, and one has to do with the issue of
capacity building and power. And both to Ms. Chatterjee and Mr.
Dosunmu, if you could answer and respond to this question and
also respond what you saw with what the National Academy said,
capacity building.
Let me just take one example, cumulative impact, and the
frustration that many impacted communities have of a single
source analysis versus a cumulative analysis that it is
impacting the whole community, the public health of that
community, and the general environment of that community with
capacity in terms of resources, the ability for communities to
be able to deal with this question much more effectively.
Your response to that? I use that as one example of where
capacity building, I think, is critical to impacted communities
to be able to make their point----
[Audio malfunction.]
The Chairman. Ms. Chatterjee?
Ms. Chatterjee. Yes, thank you. I absolutely agree with the
findings of the National Academy of Sciences that you are
raising here--that it actually is more impactful to bring
communities to the table.
And in terms of capacity building, my view is that often
that capacity is best brought through just unrestricted grant
dollars. I think oftentimes what we see is that foundations
feel that they know what capacity an organization might need,
and they sometimes are right, and they sometimes are wrong.
So, our inclination is to argue for unrestricted grants to
communities of color-led organizations organizing in
communities of color, doing that work, so they can decide for
themselves if what they need most is media training or is what
they need most a scientific analysis?
I think that it really depends on the time and the
community. Our inclination is to encourage unrestricted grants
for capacity building.
The Chairman. Yes, and Mr. Dosunmu, let me just kind of
rephrase another question.
I said it was practical, and that these are practical
things that need to be done in order to be effective for
environmental institutions and NGOs, mainstream ones. But it
applies as well to the policymakers in government, because
there is a relationship to that policy development and the NGOs
outside.
And I asked a question about the practicality. As this
country continues to become more diverse, the need for
inclusivity also applies to the issue that we are talking about
here today, the environment in general, not only the climate
issue that we must do something about, but also the long-term
conservation that also must be part of this nation's policy,
and how these new constituencies are--the role that they are
going to play in the future in the protection of our public
lands, waters, and dealing with climate, why there is a
practical policy importance to recognizing that inclusion is
necessary for the long term.
Mr. Dosunmu. Absolutely, thank you so much, Congressman,
for the question.
I think part of it is recognizing that the earlier you
bring communities in and the more substantively you engage
those communities, the better off your policymaking is going to
be.
So, currently, what community engagement looks like and
community outreach looks like is that it is almost a box that
funders check or, in some cases, that elected officials check,
and it is really not substantive. It is not driven by a desire
to have deep connectivity with the communities and the
organizations that are doing the most important work.
One of the things that I can say from the vast experience
that I have in this space is that often decisions are imposed
on our communities. They happen to our communities. They don't
emanate up from our communities. And we have to shift that
dynamic if we really want to meaningfully address the crisis
that is at hand. We have to make sure that the most thoughtful
and most innovative ideas and policies actually are able to
influence the public discourse and the ultimate policy
outcomes.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. And let me now go back
to and recognize Mr. Cohen for 5 minutes.
Sir.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know that I need
that time, particularly, but I appreciate your coming back. I
have had technical problems in getting back to the Committee.
But at the beginning of the Committee, my friend, the
Ranking Member, made a lot of comments about inflation, and how
that has harmed so many poor people with the cost of energy.
I just realized that inflation--and I am sure my friend
knows this, as well--is a worldwide problem, and that inflation
is in Brazil, and it is in Germany, and it is everywhere, in
Europe, and all around the world. It is not a problem that
President Biden is not aware of and attacking, but it is not
something he has done, because it is a worldwide problem. And a
lot of it relates to the pandemic.
And President Biden has done so much to try to encourage
people who are resistant to doing it, including people in our
Congress on the other side of the aisle, on the Floor to wear
masks, to be concerned about others, to not spread the virus,
and to get vaccinated and boosted. And too many people in red
states, predominantly, have not cooperated. They have not
gotten vaccinated, they have not worn masks, and they spread
the virus.
And it has been shown. Tennessee, my home state, is
generally first in the country in the number of people
infected, because we have almost no policies from our governor
concerning wearing masks. This avoidance of science is hurting
our country and hurting poor people more than it is wealthier
people.
And when you have the problems we have with climate change,
which is one of the deals we have with fossil fuels, it is poor
people that don't have the money in summer when it gets so hot
to go to Colorado, or Wyoming, or one of their little resorts,
or when it gets cold in the winter and miserable, they can't go
to Naples, Florida, because they can't afford it, where the
wealthy can go. So, climate change has a disproportionate
effect on poor people, and that is why we need to be concerned
about it.
I was looking at Plan B yesterday. Plan B was published
about, I think, 15, 20 years ago, and we are still not getting
around to Plan B, and we are out-using Mother Earth, and we are
taking too many resources out of it and putting too many
pressures on it, and it only has a limited capacity, and we are
over that capacity, and we are not going to be around when it
runs out of steam, runs out of ability to absorb and to provide
water and necessary resources, and to work as it should.
But it is just a problem, and that is one of the questions
I was going to ask earlier, Mr. Chair. And I know you are aware
of them, but I get tired of hearing Republicans talk about
inflation and about the supply chain, which are worldwide
problems, much of which has to do with China, and the pandemic,
and closing down, and not getting goods out to market.
And ships have been averaging 4 days sitting off of ports
on the supply chain. It is worse now, but it has always been
somewhat bad.
Anyway, that is one thing that I wanted to get off my
chest, which I guess I have done.
Delegate Freeland is no longer with us, is he?
[No response.]
Mr. Cohen. Does anybody that is with us on the panel
represent particularly Native American Indians?
Mr. Freeland. I am here, Representative Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. OK, thank you, Delegate. I just wanted to get
your perspective on how Deb Haaland, our former colleague and
my friend, is doing as the Secretary of the Interior concerning
Native American Indian issues.
Mr. Freeland. That is a very good question. That has yet to
be determined, Congressman. We haven't had an opportunity to
speak with her. I say that, that is why. We don't know what she
is or what her intentions are. We don't know what her thoughts
are. We don't know. So, that is yet to be determined,
Congressman, thank you.
Mr. Cohen. Have you made an attempt to talk with her?
Mr. Freeland. Yes, we did, Congressman. We were actually
out there last week, and we did request to meet with her
directly related to the issue of Chaco Canyon, but we never got
a response.
Mr. Cohen. Well, I appreciate that.
I am very concerned about the horses and the burros out in
the West. And, of course, they get in a fight with the cattle
farmers, and who has the right to the land, and I am concerned
that we ought to be doing more with the scientific efforts to
reduce their population, and by herding them up, and then
having them end up in pens, and herding them in the roundups
without helicopters, and all that. And I am just concerned----
Voice. It confirms that----
Mr. Cohen. Excuse me.
Voice [continuing]. They have been trying.
Mr. Cohen. I didn't hear whatever somebody was saying.
Maybe somebody was not muted.
But the bottom line is--and it may be kind of simplistic--
but I was thinking Native American Indians--horses were their
friends and the cattle farmers weren't, and I don't know if
things have changed that much. And I wish that we had better
results from the Department of the Interior on taking care of
our four-legged friends and their opportunities to graze and
not be treated inhumanely.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Let me just thank the
witnesses for their very valuable testimony, the Members for
their questions, and for the questions that some of those
questions brought up, and those are important, as well.
The members of the Committee may have additional questions
for the witnesses, and we will ask them to respond to those in
writing.
Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee will
submit witness questions within 3 business days following that
hearing, and the record will be open for 10 business days for
the responses.
Before closing and thanking everybody once again, let me
say that I think this has been a very good hearing. The effort
to rewrite history or erase it is--well, some people, some
attempt is being done at that. The fact is that it can't
happen. It is about correcting past practices and redirecting
history so we don't repeat those mistakes again.
And I think that the discussion today goes to that issue,
and it is about capacity, it is about inclusion, but it is also
about beginning to develop the kinds of policies and integrate
them fully, and the legislative initiatives that are going to
give marginalized communities, diverse communities, those that
are most impacted, least attended to, not just the opportunity,
but the empowerment to be able to have some significant say
over the quality of their particular lives and their
communities' lives. And I think it is important.
The nexus for Chaco was always, Mr. Freeland, the
protection in perpetuity of the Chaco landscape, its
facilities, its cultural, religious, and spiritual
significance. And the buffer and withdrawal, whether 5, 10,
discussion going on, was with that intent, and that intent was
driven by a variety of advocacy on the part of many tribes
across this country in New Mexico, and the then-administration
and Navajo Nation. So, those discussions are ongoing, but the
nexus that I believe we all agree with is, in perpetuity, the
conservation and protection of that landscape.
The other issue is the one that came up about the question
of using slave labor in order to acquire our precious or rare
minerals for import into this country. Nobody supports that
concept.
And I think that we are going to be consistent. I would
extend to my colleagues the invitation to join with some of us
in the prohibition of this Federal Government--of our doing
business with multi-national and conglomerates and corporations
that are doing business on public land and water, but have a
track record of environmental labor abuse, and now a cultural
resource abuse, and the exploitation and abuse of women, that
we not do business with them, i.e. Rio Tinto mining company.
So, if we are going to be consistent on one end and
prohibit the import, we should also prohibit them having access
to our public lands to be able to do business, not pay any
royalties, and continue the practices outside our country. If
we are going to be consistent, let's apply the rule to all.
But we are going to go forward with this.
I want to thank the staff for this meeting.
With no further business for the Committee, we are
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:07 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Statement for the Record
Written Testimony of Mark Mitchell, Chairman
All Pueblo Council of Governors
Testimony Submitted February 22, 2022
Greetings House Natural Resources Chairman Raul Grijalva and
committee members, my name is Mark Mitchell, former Governor of the
Pueblo of Tesuque and Chairman of the All Pueblo Council of Governors
(APCG). The APCG represents the 20 Pueblo Nations of New Mexico and
Texas. Each Pueblo exercises its own Sovereign authority to govern its
affairs.
The mission of the All Pueblo Council of Governors is: ``To
advocate, foster, protect and encourage the social, cultural, and
traditional well-being of our Pueblo Nations. Through our inherent and
sovereign rights, we will promote language, health, economic and
educational advancement of all Pueblo people.''
The first recorded convening of this council dates back to 1598. At
that time, many more Pueblos were thriving throughout the American
Southwest but through generations of colonialism from Spain, Mexico,
and the United States, we only have 20-member Pueblos today.
Through generations of colonialism and direct policy decisions to
eradicate our Pueblos and cultural survival, we retain and maintain the
languages of Keres, Tewa, Tiwa, Towa, and Zuni. The Pueblos' footprint
across the American Southwest is evident in the world renown structures
of Chaco Culture National Historical Park (``CCNHP'') Bears Ears
National Monument, Mesa Verde National Park, Aztec Ancestral Ruins,
Hovenweep, and Bandelier National Monument, and many others.
I want to thank you, Chairman Grijalva and the entire House Natural
Resources Committee, for holding this oversight hearing titled,
``Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Environmental
Policymaking, Role of Environmental Organizations and Grantmaking
Foundations.'' As you know, our member Pueblos do not currently enjoy
permanent occupancy of many of our sacred landscapes described above;
however, each Pueblo retains our ongoing cultural practices and
commitment to these sites through song, story, pilgrimage, and customs.
We continuously reaffirm our commitment to steward sacred landscapes
beyond our existing landholdings in our daily prayers and traditions.
Our cultural resources are quintessential to our survival, and they
are precious, nonrenewable, and irreplaceable. Each and every one of
our cultural resources, sacred sites, and historic properties is
intricately connected and plays a vital role in the spiritual and
ecological web of relationships that comprise a traditional cultural
landscape.
As Chairman of the All Pueblo Council of Governors, I would like to
share the critical urgency to protect two landscapes facing direct
threats in New Mexico: 1) the Greater Chaco Region; and 2) the Caja Del
Rio Landscape.
Preservation of the Greater Chaco Region
As members of the House Natural Resources Committee know, the
protection and preservation of the Greater Chaco Region from unfettered
oil and gas mineral development has been a priority for the All Pueblo
Council of Governors for many years. In fact, APCG has adopted numerous
resolutions calling on the federal government, including the Department
of the Interior and Congress, to remediate the impacts of oil and gas
mineral development that has encroached upon and continues to threaten
the CCNHP and its interrelated outlier cultural resources. These
resources are situated within the larger sacred landscape known as the
Greater Chaco Region.
The APCG has consistently advocated a two-part approach for the
protection of the Greater Chaco Region by seeking: 1) withdrawal of
federal lands and minerals from future mineral development surrounding
the CCNHP in a critical 10-mile withdrawal area; and 2) tribally led
cultural resource studies and tribal consultation that inform federal
undertakings in the Greater Chaco Region, to ensure the protection of
cultural resources.
The APCG developed the critical 10-mile withdraw protection
position in close partnership with the President and Vice-President's
office of the Navajo Nation. Beginning in 2015, Chapters within the
Navajo Nation expressed their concerns about the negative impacts of
oil and gas development in the area, including on culturally and
historically sacred areas, individuals' health, and the environment,
citing the Navajo Nation's critical cultural and historical ties to the
area and the harms caused to the Navajo people living in the area.
After numerous meetings between the APCG leadership and the
President and Vice President of the Navajo Nation, the Chaco Cultural
Heritage Area Protection Act (``Act'') was introduced by Senator Tom
Udall that would withdraw federal lands and minerals within a critical
10-mile withdraw surrounding the CCNHP from future mineral development.
As carefully constructed by APCG and Navajo Nation, the Act included
provisions protecting the Navajo Nation's and its allottees' to rights
to development on their land, even within the withdrawal area.
Over the last few years, the Congress has recognized the need to
protect the cultural resources within the critical 10-mile withdrawal
area and has enacted spending legislation to prevent the Department of
the Interior from making available any federal lands and minerals
available for leasing or development.
Despite the historic and united effort from the Pueblos, Navajo
Nation, and the State of New Mexico to protect the Greater Chaco
Region, some within the Navajo Nation no longer support the 10-mile
withdrawal area. APCG has made multiple attempts to reach the Office of
the President and the Speaker of the 24th Navajo Nation Council to
renew our historic partnership to protect the cultural resources while
carefully balancing the interests of their Nation's and allottees'
mineral development rights. To date, no responses have been provided.
As announced during the White House Tribal Nations Summit, the
Department of the Interior (``Department'') has initiated the
consideration of administratively withdrawing federal lands and
minerals within the critical 10-mile withdrawal area surrounding the
CCNHP from oil and gas development, using existing statutory authority
under the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act for a maximum period
of 20 years.
The Department's administrative withdrawal effort advances the
APCG's two-part position and carefully aligns with the protection
efforts the Pueblos and the Navajo Nation developed to ensure maximum
protections for cultural resources are maintained while allowing for
development on Navajo and allottee land. The Department will continue
its robust public commenting opportunities, tribal consultation
requirements, and submission of a report on all considerations to the
Congress prior to the Secretary's completion of the administrative
withdrawal.
The Pueblos through APCG maintain that we continue to look to renew
our partnership with all stakeholders to protect the Greater Chaco
Region and its significant cultural resources.
Preservation and Protection of the Caja Del Rio Landscape
Since time immemorial, our people have occupied and ecologically
stewarded extensive areas of New Mexico including the 107,068-acre
plateau now known as the Caja Del Rio, located near Santa Fe, New
Mexico. Our ancestors' migration and our continuous occupation and
religious use of the Caja Del Rio have resulted in a dense
concentration of Pueblo cultural resources and a vast, multi-layered
living cultural landscape consisting of separate overlapping cultural
landscapes for individual Pueblos and Tribes.
This landscape holds thousands of sacred sites, housing structures,
ceremonial kivas, petroglyphs, ancient irrigation systems, and other
sites potentially eligible for designation as a Traditional Cultural
Property in the National Register of Historic Places. APCG and member
Pueblos also advocate for the protection of important cultural
resources in this area including those that are not archaeological in
nature like shrines, springs, plant and mineral gathering places,
viewsheds, sound sheds, and other important natural features and sacred
sites.
As continually demonstrated by Pueblos and reaffirmed by
archaeological and ethnographic record, many Pueblos maintain a
historic, ongoing, and significant cultural connection to the Caja Del
Rio cultural landscape, including through story, song, prayer, hunting,
medicine gathering and pilgrimage. Protection of this area's natural
resources, traditional cultural properties, and sacred sites is
necessary to our member Pueblos' cultural preservation now and into the
future and has formally been established as a priority in APCG's legacy
protection efforts. Maintenance and protection of the ecological and
spiritual relationships between our member Pueblos and the resources
this cultural landscape holds are central to the longevity, maintenance
and revitalization of our cultural knowledge, histories, practices, and
identity as Pueblo people. These resources contribute to the present
and future well-being of our communities, to New Mexico and to the
entire world. APCG also recognizes the importance of cultural resources
in this region as delineating historic land grant boundaries, some of
which may be used to resolve current jurisdictional concerns and
disputes.
Despite the Caja Del Rio's recognition as a sacred landscape for
the Pueblos and its richness in cultural resources, it continues to
suffer mismanagement resulting in ongoing, cumulative adverse impacts
including the desecration of sacred sites, illegal dumping, poaching,
unregulated shooting, and off-road misuse.
On January 17th or 18th, at least 10 petroglyphs were defaced with
graffiti of swastikas and human anatomy. This marks the third known
incident at the petroglyph site in the last year. As you can imagine,
many of our secular and traditional Pueblo leadership, community
members, and youth continue to heartfully express outrage, sadness, and
grief for the disturbance and desecration of the beloved cultural
resources left by our ancestors. Pueblo leadership attests the
desecration to years of mismanagement of the Caja Del Rio, where the
jurisdictional makeup includes management by United States Forest
Service (``USFS''), Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico State Land
Office, and private ownership.
In addition to legacy mismanagement of the region causing
persistent cultural desecration, theft of cultural artifacts, illegal
dumping and poaching, this already vulnerable cultural landscape is
further endangered by the Department of Energy's (``DOE'') proposed
Electrical Power Capacity Upgrade project. In absence of adequate
tribal consultation by DOE and USFS, APCG via resolution and letter has
formally called upon the project's joint lead agencies, to fully assess
environmental and cultural resource impacts of the proposed project by
initiating a Section 106 Review Process and to carry out a full
Environmental Impact Statement in compliance with legal obligations
under the National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA''), the National
Historic Preservation Act's Section 106 Review Process, and in
consideration of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of
Indigenous People's principle on Free, Prior, and Informed Consent.
As Pueblo people, we take desecrations to our sacred places as
reminders that we must continually and strategically act through all
available mechanisms to achieve justice so that we can preserve the
sacred cultural resources that have sustained each Pueblo since time
immemorial. At the forefront of our efforts with Congress and the
Administration should precede the recognition and maintenance of the
United States' solemn federal trust responsibility to Tribes, and
commitment to advance the government-to-government relationship through
meaningful and effective communication, collaboration, and tribal
decision-making authority on the preservation of tribal cultural
resources.
In conclusion, we look forward to continuing our relationship with
the federal government, including the Congress, to address urgent
issues impacting the Pueblos cultural resources, including those beyond
each member's existing reservation boundaries.
______
Statement for the Record
Written Testimony of Governor Randall Vicente
Pueblo of Acoma
Testimony Submitted February 22, 2022
On behalf of the Pueblo of Acoma, please accept this written
testimony for the House Committee on Natural Resources' (Committee)
oversight hearing titled ``Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in
Environmental Policymaking: The Role of Environmental Organizations and
Grantmaking Foundations.'' Our testimony addresses issues raised
regarding protection of the sacred landscape of the Greater Chaco
Region.
I. Sacred Landscape of Greater Chaco Region Under Threat
The Greater Chaco Region is a sacred landscape important to the
cultural identity of Pueblos and other Tribal Nations. It is a truly
special place unlike any other. Before the Pueblos transitioned to our
existing landholdings, spreading out over the landscape like spokes of
a wheel, we occupied Chaco Canyon. Our occupancy and, thereafter, our
ongoing interactions with Chaco Canyon resulted in a dense
concentration of cultural resources--including vast ancestral Puebloan
structures, shrines, sacred sites, and natural formations with
culturally relevant modifications and understandings--and an
interconnected sacred landscape important to the maintenance of our
governance systems, languages, cultures, and traditions. This landscape
is known as the Greater Chaco Region, and it spreads throughout the San
Juan Basin.
Chaco Canyon and the Greater Chaco Region play an integral role in
Acoma's living history, culture, and identity. Our discussion of Chaco
cannot be separated from our discussion of our present-day home and
community of Haaku, Acoma. As Acoma people, Chaco Canyon and the
Greater Chaco Region are deeply rooted in our collective memory, and
the experiences of our ancestors. It is an extension of our ancestral
homeland, where our ancestors lived for generations to form the
foundations of our cultural practices, traditions, and beliefs that
help define our identity as Acoma people today. Chaco Canyon, and its
vast landscape, are not abandoned--but instead they contain the
cultural resources that tie Acoma to Chaco, and from Chaco to the place
of our emergence. The Greater Chaco Region is therefore a living
landscape, depended on by living indigenous communities, like Acoma.
Within the Greater Chaco Region are archaeological and significant
cultural resources, left by our creator, utilized by our ancestors, and
accessible to us for the continuance of our cultural practices.
Over many decades, mineral development has encroached on the
Greater Chaco Region, creeping closer and closer to its center point
within the Chaco Culture National Historical Park. By many estimates,
over 90% of available federal land in the San Juan Basin has already
been leased for oil and gas development. As a result, tens of thousands
of oil and gas wells have been developed in the Greater Chaco Region.
These development decisions have been made without sufficient tribal
consultation and without sufficient identification and assessment of
impacts on irreplaceable tribal cultural resources and the sacred
landscape.
Compounding these issues is a serious lack of cultural resource
data identifying cultural resources in the Greater Chaco Region
important to the Pueblos and other Tribal Nations.\1\ While
archaeologists are adept at recognizing many types of archaeological
resources (potsherds, room blocks, pit houses, etc.), many of the
cultural resources important to the Pueblo are outside the domain of
archaeology. For Acoma, all ancestral pueblo archaeological resources
are cultural resources, but not all cultural resources are
archaeological in nature, and therein lies a major issue. When we are
confronted with unchecked oil and gas development in a region we know
to be rich in cultural resources, we are forced to rely upon federal
agencies, as our trustee, to safeguard these resources. However, these
agencies are often unable or unwilling to take the necessary steps to
engage with tribal experts to identify and consider impacts on
significant cultural resources--where this necessary first step
includes providing us with the opportunity to survey nominated lease
parcels and potential drilling sites before federal action is taken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Uncited Preliminary Brief (Deferred Appendix Appeal) of All
Pueblo Council of Governors and National Trust for Historic
Preservation as Amici Curiae Supporting Appellants, Dine Citizens
Against Ruining Our Environment v. Zinke, Civ. No. 18-2089 (10th Cir.
2018) (All Pueblo Council of Governors amicus brief describing
violations of National Historic Preservation Act and implementing
regulations in failure to consult with Pueblo tribal governments during
applications for permits to drill in order to gather required
information about potentially affected historic properties, including
traditional cultural properties).
As Acoma, we have a culturally-embedded and inherent responsibility
to protect our cultural resources and sacred landscapes. It is for this
reason that Acoma has prioritized protecting the sacred landscape of
the Greater Chaco Region.
II. Collaborative Efforts to Protect Sacred Landscape
The Pueblos have always sought to be pragmatic when it comes to the
protections we seek for the Greater Chaco Region. For this reason, we
have pursued a 2-part approach meant to balance protecting the sacred
landscape and recognizing that development is already ongoing,
including on sovereign tribal and allotment land. The first part of our
2-part approach is seeking withdrawal of federal land from new mineral
development in the especially critical 10-mile withdrawal area
surrounding the Chaco Culture National Historical Park and including
its outliers.\2\ The second part is seeking sufficient tribally-led
cultural resource studies and tribal consultation before all other
development, including oil and gas lease sales, in the broader Greater
Chaco Region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Chacoan Outliers Protection Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-11
(designating certain outlying sites as ``Chaco Culture Archaeological
Protection Sites''); Act of Dec. 19, 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-550, Title V
(creating Park) (codified at 16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 410ii-410ii-7).
This nuanced approach reflects the protections the Navajo Nation,
the Pueblos, and other stakeholders \3\ came together to agree upon.
Navajo Nation and Pueblo coordination on protection of the Greater
Chaco Region dates back years. Navajo people local to the Chaco area
raised to their leadership concerns about the effects of oil and gas
development on their health, the environment, and the sacred
landscape.\4\ Navajo leadership then took up the issue.\5\ Soon after,
Navajo and the Pueblos came together government-to-government to
strategize, and the joint withdrawal efforts were born from those
discussions.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ As part of this collaborative effort, the State of New Mexico
undertook to withdraw New Mexico state trust lands within the
withdrawal area. Moratorium on New Oil and Gas and Mineral Leasing in
Greater Chaco Area, N.M. Comm'r of Pub. Lands Exec. Order No. 2019-002
(Apr. 27, 2019).
\4\ The Counselor Chapter, Ojo Encino Chapter, Dilkon Chapter,
Torreon/Star Lake Chapter, and Dine Medicine Men's Association, Inc.
passed resolutions in 2015; the Tri-Chapters of the Eastern Agency
wrote to the Resources and Development Committee in 2016; and the
Counselor Chapter in 2016 initiated the Hozhoogo na'ada assessment
model and process. Harvard thereafter released data on the effects of
oil and gas development on local Navajo residents' health during the
COVID-19 pandemic, and representatives from the Counselor Chapter
discussed ongoing concerns. See Kendra Chamberlain, For Greater Chaco
Communities, Air Pollution Compounds COVID-19 Threat, NM Pol. Rep.
(Apr. 15, 2020), https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2020/04/15/for-greater-
chaco-communities-air-pollution-compounds-covid-19-threat/. These same
Navajo people and organizations continue to be vocal in support of
protecting Chaco, and some Navajo Council Delegates are included in
this group.
\5\ Once the issue was brought to Navajo leadership, Navajo
leadership thereafter informed the Bureau of Land Management of the
concerns. Letter from Russell Begaye, President, Navajo Nation, and
Jonathan Nez, Vice President, Navajo Nation, to Bureau of Land Mgmt.,
Dep't of Interior (Feb. 6, 2017) (``Re Concerns Regarding Chaco Canyon
Cultural Historic Park'').
\6\ In a historic collaborative effort, the Navajo Nation and the
Pueblos met in February 2017 government-to-government and mutually
committed to working together. Press Release, Navajo Nation, OPVP
Protect Chaco Canyon Region Through Collaboration with All Pueblo
Council of Governors (Feb. 24, 2017), https://www.navajo-nsn.gov/
news%20releases/opvp/2017/feb/opvp%
20protect%20chaco%20canyon%20region%20through%20collaboration%20with%20a
ll%20pueblo %20council%20of%20governors.pdf.
The Pueblos and the Navajo Nation agreed to advocate for withdrawal
of federal land from future mineral leasing and development within the
approximately 10-mile withdrawal area, and we further agreed to
preserve the rights of Tribal Nations and allottees to develop on their
land even within this withdrawal area.\7\ The Pueblos have never
strayed beyond these agreed-upon protections. The Pueblos do not and
have never advocated for withdrawing other Tribal Nations' land or
allotment land from development, and we have supported all efforts to
make clear that a withdrawal would not prevent tribal or allottee
landowners from developing on their land. Further, we have limited our
request to withdraw federal land to only a small, critical area of the
Greater Chaco Region. As the entire area is a sacred landscape, we view
withdrawal of the 10-mile withdrawal area as a minimum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Navajo Nation's and the Pueblos' staff worked with Senator
Udall's Office to create federal legislation to permanently protect the
withdrawal area--and this effort became the Chaco Cultural Heritage
Area Protection Act. In April 2018, the Navajo Nation and Pueblos again
met government-to-government to formally review and approve the
language of the legislation. The outcome was a critical compromise to
support the withdrawal of federal land from future development but to
preserve the rights of the Navajo Nation and Navajo allottees to
develop on their own land. The Navajo Nation and the Pueblos together
supported the introduction of the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area
Protection Act of 2018, S. 2907; its reintroduction as the Chaco
Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2019, S. 1079 and H.R. 2181,
with additional protections for the Navajo Nation's and Navajo
allottees' development rights; and the legislation's movement through
Congress toward enactment, including by giving congressional testimony,
see, e.g., Written Testimony of Navajo Nation, Vice President Myron
Lizer, Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2181, the Chaco Cultural Heritage
Area Protection Act of 2019, Before the H. Comm. on Natural Resources
Subcomm. on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands (June 5, 2019),
available at https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
Lizer,%20Myron%20-%20Written%20Testimony.pdf; Written Testimony of
Myron Lizer, Vice President, Navajo Nation, Oil and Gas Development:
Impacts on Air Pollution and Sacred Sites: Field Hearing Before the H.
Comm. on Nat. Res. (Apr. 15, 2019), https://www.Congress.gov/116/
meeting/house/109319/witnesses/HHRG-116-II06-Wstate-LizerM-
20190415.pdf; Written Testimony of Rickie Nez, Delegate and Chair of
Navajo Nation Council Res. & Dev. Comm., Oil and Gas Development:
Impacts on Air Pollution and Sacred Sites: Field Hearing Before the H.
Comm. on Nat. Res. (Apr. 15, 2019), https://naturalresources.house.gov/
imo/media/doc/2.4%20Testimony%20-%20Nez%20-%2004.15.19.pdf (noting
cultural importance of Chaco and need to protect air quality for
cultural and health purposes); see also Felicia Fonseca, Tribes Urge
U.S. to Ban Drilling Around Sacred New Mexico Site, Navajo-Hopi
Observer (Mar. 26, 2019, 10:29 AM), https://www.nhonews.com/news/2019/
mar/26/tribes-urge-us-ban-drilling-around-sacred-new-mexi/.
Additionally, the withdrawal is but one aspect of the Pueblos'
efforts to protect the Greater Chaco Region. Among other measures, the
Pueblos advocated to the Department of the Interior (Department) and
then to Congress for federal funding to complete a tribally-led
cultural resource study of the Greater Chaco Region. We were able to
secure sufficient funding for both the Navajo Nation and the Pueblos,
in conjunction with the Hopi Tribe, to complete such studies, and the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
studies are now underway.
In recent years, some within the Navajo Nation have broken with the
previously established Navajo position in favor of the Chaco
withdrawal. The Pueblos have sought a government-to-government meeting
with the Navajo Nation to address these issues, but our requests have
not been answered.\8\ However, we were able to submit testimony to the
Navajo Council describing the long-standing partnership between the
Navajo Nation and the Pueblos with regard to Chaco protections and how
the withdrawal is designed to protect tribal and allottee development
rights.\9\ We would warmly welcome a meeting with the Navajo Nation to
discuss our collaborative efforts to protect the Greater Chaco Region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See, e.g., Letter from Mark Mitchell, Chairman, All Pueblo
Council of Governors, to Jonathan Nez, President, Navajo Nation (Feb.
10, 2022) (requesting meeting and access to Navajo land for tribally
led cultural resource study); Letter from Wilfred Herrera Jr.,
Chairman, All Pueblo Council of Governors, to Jonathan Nez, President,
Navajo Nation, and Seth Damon, Speaker, Navajo Nation (Apr. 15, 2021)
(requesting meeting to discuss continued partnership to protect Chaco);
Letter from J. Michael Chavarria, Chairman, All Pueblo Council of
Governors, to Jonathan Nez, President, Navajo Nation, and Seth Damon,
Speaker, Navajo Nation (Jan. 30, 2020) (same).
\9\ Letter from E. Paul Torres, Chairman, All Pueblo Council of
Governors, to Exec. Dir., Off. of Legis. Servs., Navajo Nation, and
Seth Damon, Speaker, Navajo Nation (Dec. 11, 2019) (providing testimony
on Navajo Legislation No. 0366-19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Effects of Administrative Withdrawal on Tribal and Allotment Land
As a consequence of advocacy by the Pueblos and others, and in line
with the protections agreed upon with the Navajo Nation, the Department
has announced that it is considering withdrawing for a 20-year term
351,479.97 acres of public land and interests located in an
approximately 10-mile withdrawal area surrounding the Chaco Culture
National Historical Park and including its outliers.\10\ Such public
land would be withdrawn from location and entry under the United States
mining laws and from leasing under the mineral leasing laws but not
from disposal under the mineral materials laws, and the withdrawal
would be subject to valid existing rights. According to the
Department's notice, the purpose of the withdrawal is to protect the
landscape rich in tribal cultural legacy from the impacts of oil and
gas development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Notice of Proposed Withdrawal and Public Meetings; San Juan
County, NM, 87 Fed. Reg. 785 (Jan. 6, 2022).
The administrative withdrawal contemplated by the Department goes
no further than the protections agreed upon between the Pueblos and the
Navajo Nation. It would be limited to the 10-mile withdrawal area and
would withdraw only public land; it would not apply to tribal or
allotment land.\11\ Further, even on federal land otherwise withdrawn,
ongoing development would be permitted to continue, as withdrawal is
subject to valid existing rights.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 1702(j), 1714 (only providing authority for withdrawal of
federal land); Press Release, Bureau of Land Mgmt., Bureau of Land
Management Takes Next Steps to Protect Chaco Canyon (Jan. 5, 2022),
https://www.blm.gov/press-release/bureau-land-management-takes-next-
steps-protect-chaco-canyon (``The two-year segregation and potential
withdrawal . . . would not apply to minerals owned by private, state,
or Tribal entities.'').
\12\ Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C.
Sec. 1701 note (stating withdrawal is subject to valid existing
rights); Press Release, Bureau of Land Mgmt., Bureau of Land Management
Takes Next Steps to Protect Chaco Canyon (Jan. 5, 2022), https://
www.blm.gov/press-release/bureau-land-management-takes-next-steps-
protect-chaco-canyon (``The two-year segregation and potential
withdrawal would not affect existing valid leases . . . .'').
Additionally, completion of the Department's administrative
withdrawal would only make more permanent the current status quo.
Dating back to at least the Obama administration, an informal pause was
put in place to prevent new oil and gas leasing and development on
federal land in the withdrawal area. After a brief but worrisome period
of reversal that required significant advocacy by the Pueblos and
others, the Trump Administration also put in place a similar pause.\13\
And, since December 2019, Congress through appropriations legislation
has maintained a moratorium preventing new oil and gas leasing and
development on federal land in the withdrawal area.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Press Release, Sen. Martin Heinrich, Heinrich Secures
Commitments from Interior Secretary to Protect Chaco Canyon (May 28,
2019), https://www.heinrich.senate.gov/press-releases/heinrich-secures-
commitments-from-interior-secretary-to-protect-chaco-canyon.
\14\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260
Sec. 430 (2020) (containing following language for Fiscal Year 2021:
``None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to accept a
nomination for oil and gas leasing under 43 CFR 3120.3 et seq, or to
offer for oil and gas leasing, any federal lands within the withdrawal
area identified on the map of the Chaco Culture National Historical
Park prepared by the Bureau of Land Management and dated April 2, 2019,
prior to the completion of the cultural resources investigation
identified in the explanatory statement described in section 4 (in the
matter preceding division A of this consolidated Act).''); Further
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Pub L. No. 116-94 Sec. 442
(2019) (containing identical language for Fiscal Year 2020).
Last, examining the landownership map of the withdrawal area,\15\
it is clear that almost all allotments abut non-federal land that would
not be withdrawn. Further, when allotments do touch federal land, often
there is already ongoing development on that federal land that would
not be prevented by the withdrawal.\16\ Thus, there will be very few
allotments isolated by surrounding withdrawn federal land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Bureau of Land Mgmt., Proposed Withdrawal Chaco Culture
National Historical Park Surrounding Area (Jan. 6, 2022), https://
eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2016892/200507919/20052736/250058919/
ProposedChacoAreaWithdrawalMap_FFO_1_06_2022.pdf.
\16\ Bureau of Land Mgmt., Proposed Withdrawal, Chaco Culture
National Historical Park Surrounding Area (Jan. 6, 2022), https://
eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2016892/200507919/20052736/250058919/
ProposedChacoAreaWithdrawalMap_FFO_1_06_2022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Additional Tribal Consultation and Commenting Opportunities
Preceding Completion of Administrative Withdrawal
Inherent in the Department's administrative withdrawal process will
be opportunities for further consideration of the voices of the
Pueblos, Navajo Nation, allottees, and others.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) administrative
withdrawal process under which the Department is considering the Chaco
administrative withdrawal involves significant public comment and
consideration.\17\ For withdrawals the size contemplated by the
Department for Chaco, the Department must provide public comment
opportunities and conduct environmental review, and it must provide a
detailed report to Congress regarding analysis of the impacts of
withdrawal.\18\ Indeed, when President Biden in November 2021 announced
that the Department would begin the administrative withdrawal process,
the Department said it would be conducting an environmental analysis,
seeking public comment, and conducting tribal consultation on the
proposed administrative withdrawal.\19\ Thereafter, on January 6, 2022,
the Bureau of Land Management published notice of the proposed
withdrawal in the Federal Register, formally beginning the withdrawal
process and opening a 90-day comment period.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C.
Sec. 1714(c)(1).
\18\ Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C.
Sec. 1714(c); 43 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 2310.1-2310.5.
\19\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Interior, Secretary Haaland
Announces Steps to Establish Protections for Culturally Significant
Chaco Canyon Landscape (Nov. 15, 2021), https://www.doi.gov/
pressreleases/secretary-haaland-announces-steps-establish-protections-
culturally-significant-chaco.
\20\ Notice of Proposed Withdrawal and Public Meetings; San Juan
County, NM, 87 Fed. Reg. 785 (Jan. 6, 2022); see also Press Release,
Bureau of Land Mgmt., Bureau of Land Management Takes Next Steps to
Protect Chaco Canyon (Jan. 5, 2022), https://www.blm.gov/press-release/
bureau-land-management-takes-next-steps-protect-chaco-canyon; see also
Bureau of Land Mgmt., Chaco Culture National Historical Park Area
Withdrawal (Jan. 25, 2022), https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/
project/2016892/510.
Additionally, it is important to note that the withdrawal
contemplated by the Department has been the subject of multiple
congressional hearings, including a field hearing,\21\ through
consideration of the Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act.\22\ We also
understand that members of the New Mexico Congressional Delegation and
officials within the Department of the Interior have met with the
Navajo Nation, the Pueblos, and others on the withdrawal and other
Chaco protection efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Press Release, H. Comm. on Nat. Res., Chair Grijalva Announces
April 15 Field Hearing in New Mexico on Air Quality, Sacred Sites
Impacts of Oil and Gas Development (Apr. 5, 2019), https://
naturalresources.house.gov/media/press-releases/chair-grijalva-
announces-april-15-field-hearing-in-new-mexico-on-air-quality-sacred-
sites-impacts-of-oil-and-gas-development_gov-lujan-grisham-will-
testify.
\22\ See note 7, supra.
In closing, we thank this Committee for its attention to
appropriate protective measures for the Greater Chaco Region. It is a
deeply sacred and irreplaceable landscape to which our identity is
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
tied.
______
Statement for the Record
Written Testimony of Governor J. Michael Chavarria
Santa Clara Pueblo
Testimony Submitted February 22, 2022
On behalf of the Santa Clara Pueblo, please accept this written
testimony for the House Committee on Natural Resources' (Committee)
oversight hearing titled ``Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in
Environmental Policymaking: The Role of Environmental Organizations and
Grantmaking Foundations.'' Our testimony addresses issues raised
regarding protection of the sacred landscape of the Greater Chaco
Region.
I. Sacred Landscape of Greater Chaco Region Under Threat
The Greater Chaco Region is a sacred landscape important to the
cultural identity of Pueblos and other Tribal Nations, including the
Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe. It is a truly special place unlike any
other. Before the Pueblos transitioned to our existing landholdings,
spreading out over the landscape like spokes of a wheel, we occupied
Chaco Canyon. Our occupancy and, thereafter, our ongoing interactions
with Chaco Canyon resulted in a dense concentration of cultural
resources--including vast ancestral Puebloan structures, shrines,
sacred sites, and natural formations with culturally relevant
modifications and understandings--and an interconnected sacred
landscape important to the maintenance of our governance systems,
languages, cultures, and traditions. We call this place the Greater
Chaco Region, and it spreads throughout the San Juan Basin.
The protection of the Greater Chaco Region is important to the
Pueblo of Santa Clara due to the current influence and profound history
it has reflected on the traditions and customs of Santa Clara Pueblo
and various Tribal Nations within Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona. Chaco
Canyon is still considered a living resource and community that the
Pueblo of Santa Clara currently uses as a viable teaching to elders and
youth of the Pueblo. Santa Clara Pueblo and various Tribal Nations can
trace over 70 villages expanding over 25,000 square miles within the
San Juan Basin, all holding significance and connection to the Greater
Chaco Region's sacred landscape.
Chaco Canyon has direct traditional connections to the Pueblo of
Santa Clara, and many ethnographic studies showcase similarities to the
Tewa People and specifically to the Pueblo of Santa Clara. Through our
oral history within the Pueblo from elders and traditional leaders, it
has been stated that our presence within the Chacoan landscape has been
a relative influence to our dynamic customs and traditions within the
Pueblo today. From current and past field visits to the area and
outlying ancestral sites observed by elders of the community, these
findings have been confirmed. Our ancestral village of Puye Cliff
Dwellings, and other villages within the Pajarito Plateau, also
showcase similarities in pottery, masonry, petroglyphs, and
astronomical relics similar to the Chacoan era. Through traditional
song, prayer, and dances, these villages and locations to the Northwest
and primarily in the Greater Chaco Region are heavily referenced, which
showcases our general and spiritual connection to the area.
The Greater Chaco Region must be protected from outside entities
that profit from oil and gas leases. We are currently witnessing
impacts and desecration to ancestral sites, as many sites have been
damaged by development and otherwise left with trash and broken glass
and driven upon by vehicles. For example, our staff during a field
research survey at the Dalton Pass gazed upon in disbelief a kiva pit
with a barbeque grill in the middle, along with tire tread marks going
over the site as if no respect to the historical and cultural
significance was shown. If this type of treatment and lack of respect
and care for these cultural resources continues, then the need and
concern for protection is of the upmost importance to the Pueblo of
Santa Clara. Furthermore, additional development in this sacred
landscape will only worsen climate change issues and eradicate
environmental awareness movements that cannot be reversed, which will
also open the door for further future exploration.
Over many decades, mineral development has encroached on the
Greater Chaco Region, creeping closer and closer to its center point
within the Chaco Culture National Historical Park. By many estimates,
over 90% of available federal land in the San Juan Basin has already
been leased for oil and gas development. As a result, tens of thousands
of oil and gas wells have been developed in the Greater Chaco Region.
These development decisions have been made without sufficient tribal
consultation and without sufficient identification and assessment of
impacts on irreplaceable tribal cultural resources and the sacred
landscape. In fact, there is a serious lack of cultural resource data
identifying cultural resources in the Greater Chaco Region important to
the Pueblos and other Tribal Nations.
As direct descendants of Chaco Canyon, it is important to
distinguish our sovereignty from the fossil fuel industry and private
stakeholders, and we must exercise our sovereignty to ensure that our
history and ancestral landscapes will not be impacted or destroyed. It
is personally important to the Santa Clara Pueblo to fulfill our duties
in protecting and restoring our ancestral sites.
II. Collaborative Efforts to Protect Sacred Landscape
The Pueblos have always sought to be pragmatic when it comes to the
protections we seek for the Greater Chaco Region. For this reason, we
have pursued a 2-part approach meant to balance protecting the sacred
landscape and recognizing that development is already ongoing,
including on sovereign tribal and allotment land. The first part of our
2-part approach is seeking withdrawal of federal land from new mineral
development in the especially critical 10-mile withdrawal area
surrounding the Chaco Culture National Historical Park and including
its outliers.\1\ The second part is seeking sufficient tribally-led
cultural resource studies and tribal consultation before all other
development, including oil and gas lease sales, in the broader Greater
Chaco Region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Chacoan Outliers Protection Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-11
(designating certain outlying sites as ``Chaco Culture Archaeological
Protection Sites''); Act of Dec. 19, 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-550, Title V
(creating Park) (codified at 16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 410ii-410ii-7).
This nuanced approach reflects the protections the Navajo Nation,
the Pueblos, and other stakeholders \2\ came together to agree upon.
Navajo Nation and Pueblo coordination on protection of the Greater
Chaco Region dates back years. Navajo people local to the Chaco area
raised to their leadership concerns about the effects of oil and gas
development on their health, the environment, and the sacred
landscape.\3\ Navajo leadership then took up the issue.\4\ Soon after,
Navajo and the Pueblos came together government-to-government to
strategize, and the joint withdrawal efforts were born from those
discussions.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As part of this collaborative effort, the State of New Mexico
undertook to withdraw New Mexico state trust lands within the
withdrawal area. Moratorium on New Oil and Gas and Mineral Leasing in
Greater Chaco Area, N.M. Comm'r of Pub. Lands Exec. Order No. 2019-002
(Apr. 27, 2019).
\3\ The Counselor Chapter, Ojo Encino Chapter, Dilkon Chapter,
Torreon/Star Lake Chapter, and Dine Medicine Men's Association, Inc.
passed resolutions in 2015; the Tri-Chapters of the Eastern Agency
wrote to the Resources and Development Committee in 2016; and the
Counselor Chapter in 2016 initiated the Hozhoogo na'ada assessment
model and process. Harvard thereafter released data on the effects of
oil and gas development on local Navajo residents' health during the
COVID-19 pandemic, and representatives from the Counselor Chapter
discussed ongoing concerns. See Kendra Chamberlain, For Greater Chaco
Communities, Air Pollution Compounds COVID-19 Threat, NM Pol. Rep.
(Apr. 15, 2020), https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2020/04/15/for-greater-
chaco-communities-air-pollution-compounds-covid-19-threat/. These same
Navajo people and organizations continue to be vocal in support of
protecting Chaco, and some Navajo Council Delegates are included in
this group.
\4\ Once the issue was brought to Navajo leadership, Navajo
leadership thereafter informed the Bureau of Land Management of the
concerns. Letter from Russell Begaye, President, Navajo Nation, and
Jonathan Nez, Vice President, Navajo Nation, to Bureau of Land Mgmt.,
Dep't of Interior (Feb. 6, 2017) (``Re Concerns Regarding Chaco Canyon
Cultural Historic Park'').
\5\ In a historic collaborative effort, the Navajo Nation and the
Pueblos met in February 2017 government-to-government and mutually
committed to working together. Press Release, Navajo Nation, OPVP
Protect Chaco Canyon Region Through Collaboration with All Pueblo
Council of Governors (Feb. 24, 2017), https://www.navajo-nsn.gov/
news%20releases/opvp/2017/feb/opvp%
20protect%20chaco%20canyon%20region%20through%20collaboration%20with%20a
ll%20pueblo %20council%20of%20governors.pdf.
The Pueblos and the Navajo Nation agreed to advocate for withdrawal
of federal land from future mineral leasing and development within the
approximately 10-mile withdrawal area, and we further agreed to
preserve the rights of Tribal Nations and allottees to develop on their
land even within this withdrawal area.\6\ The Pueblos have never
strayed beyond these agreed-upon protections. The Pueblos do not and
have never advocated for withdrawing other Tribal Nations' land or
allotment land from development, and we have supported all efforts to
make clear that a withdrawal would not prevent tribal or allottee
landowners from developing on their land. Further, we have limited our
request to withdraw federal land to only a small, critical area of the
Greater Chaco Region. As the entire area is a sacred landscape, we view
withdrawal of the 10-mile withdrawal area as a minimum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Navajo Nation's and the Pueblos' staff worked with Senator
Udall's Office to create federal legislation to permanently protect the
withdrawal area--and this effort became the Chaco Cultural Heritage
Area Protection Act. In April 2018, the Navajo Nation and Pueblos again
met government-to-government to formally review and approve the
language of the legislation. The outcome was a critical compromise to
support the withdrawal of federal land from future development but to
preserve the rights of the Navajo Nation and Navajo allottees to
develop on their own land. The Navajo Nation and the Pueblos together
supported the introduction of the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area
Protection Act of 2018, S. 2907; its reintroduction as the Chaco
Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2019, S. 1079 and H.R. 2181,
with additional protections for the Navajo Nation's and Navajo
allottees' development rights; and the legislation's movement through
Congress toward enactment, including by giving congressional testimony,
see, e.g., Written Testimony of Myron Lizer, Vice President, Navajo
Nation, Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2019: Hearing on
H.R. 2181 Before the Subcomm. on Nat'l Parks, Forests, and Pub. Lands
(June 5, 2019), https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
Lizer,%20Myron%20-%20Written%20Testimony.pdf.
Additionally, the withdrawal is but one aspect of the Pueblos'
efforts to protect the Greater Chaco Region. Among other measures, the
Pueblos advocated to the Department of the Interior (Department) and
then to Congress for federal funding to complete a tribally-led
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cultural resource study of the Greater Chaco Region.
We were able to secure sufficient funding for both the Navajo
Nation and the Pueblos, in conjunction with the Hopi Tribe, to complete
such studies, and the studies are now underway.
In recent years, some within the Navajo Nation have broken with the
previously established Navajo position in favor of the Chaco
withdrawal. The Pueblos have sought a government-to-government meeting
with the Navajo Nation to address these issues, but our requests have
not been answered.\7\ However, we were able to submit testimony to the
Navajo Council describing the long-standing partnership between the
Navajo Nation and the Pueblos with regard to Chaco protections and how
the withdrawal is designed to protect tribal and allottee development
rights.\8\ We would warmly welcome a meeting with the Navajo Nation to
discuss our collaborative efforts to protect the Greater Chaco Region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, e.g., Letter from Mark Mitchell, Chairman, All Pueblo
Council of Governors, to Jonathan Nez, President, Navajo Nation (Feb.
10, 2022) (requesting meeting and access to Navajo land for tribally
led cultural resource study); Letter from Wilfred Herrera Jr.,
Chairman, All Pueblo Council of Governors, to Jonathan Nez, President,
Navajo Nation, and Seth Damon, Speaker, Navajo Nation (Apr. 15, 2021)
(requesting meeting to discuss continued partnership to protect Chaco);
Letter from J. Michael Chavarria, Chairman, All Pueblo Council of
Governors, to Jonathan Nez, President, Navajo Nation, and Seth Damon,
Speaker, Navajo Nation (Jan. 30, 2020) (same).
\8\ Letter from E. Paul Torres, Chairman, All Pueblo Council of
Governors, to Exec. Dir., Off. of Legis. Servs., Navajo Nation, and
Seth Damon, Speaker, Navajo Nation (Dec. 11, 2019) (providing testimony
on Navajo Legislation No. 0366-19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Effects of Administrative Withdrawal on Tribal and Allotment Land
As a consequence of advocacy by the Pueblos and others, and in line
with the protections agreed upon with the Navajo Nation, the Department
has announced that it is considering withdrawing for a 20-year term
351,479.97 acres of public land and interests located in an
approximately 10-mile withdrawal area surrounding the Chaco Culture
National Historical Park and including its outliers.\9\ Such public
land would be withdrawn from location and entry under the United States
mining laws and from leasing under the mineral leasing laws but not
from disposal under the mineral materials laws, and the withdrawal
would be subject to valid existing rights. According to the
Department's notice, the purpose of the withdrawal is to protect the
landscape rich in tribal cultural legacy from the impacts of oil and
gas development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Notice of Proposed Withdrawal and Public Meetings; San Juan
County, NM, 87 Fed. Reg. 785 (Jan. 6, 2022).
The administrative withdrawal contemplated by the Department goes
no further than the protections agreed upon between the Pueblos and the
Navajo Nation. It would be limited to the 10-mile withdrawal area and
would withdraw only public land; it would not apply to tribal or
allotment land.\10\ Further, even on federal land otherwise withdrawn,
ongoing development would be permitted to continue, as withdrawal is
subject to valid existing rights.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 1702(j), 1714 (only providing authority for withdrawal of
federal land); Press Release, Bureau of Land Mgmt., Bureau of Land
Management Takes Next Steps to Protect Chaco Canyon (Jan. 5, 2022),
https://www.blm.gov/press-release/bureau-land-management-takes-next-
steps-protect-chaco-canyon (``The two-year segregation and potential
withdrawal . . . would not apply to minerals owned by private, state,
or Tribal entities.'').
\11\ Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C.
Sec. 1701 note (stating withdrawal is subject to valid existing
rights); Press Release, Bureau of Land Mgmt., Bureau of Land Management
Takes Next Steps to Protect Chaco Canyon (Jan. 5, 2022), https://
www.blm.gov/press-release/bureau-land-management-takes-next-steps-
protect-chaco-canyon (``The two-year segregation and potential
withdrawal would not affect existing valid leases . . . .'').
Additionally, completion of the Department's administrative
withdrawal would only make more permanent the current status quo.
Dating back to at least the Obama administration, an informal pause was
put in place to prevent new oil and gas leasing and development on
federal land in the withdrawal area. After a brief but worrisome period
of reversal that required significant advocacy by the Pueblos and
others, the Trump Administration also put in place a similar pause.\12\
And, since December 2019, Congress through appropriations legislation
has maintained a moratorium preventing new oil and gas leasing and
development on federal land in the withdrawal area.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Press Release, Sen. Martin Heinrich, Heinrich Secures
Commitments from Interior Secretary to Protect Chaco Canyon (May 28,
2019), https://www.heinrich.senate.gov/press-releases/heinrich-secures-
commitments-from-interior-secretary-to-protect-chaco-canyon.
\13\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260
Sec. 430 (2020) (containing following language for Fiscal Year 2021:
``None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to accept a
nomination for oil and gas leasing under 43 CFR 3120.3 et seq, or to
offer for oil and gas leasing, any federal lands within the withdrawal
area identified on the map of the Chaco Culture National Historical
Park prepared by the Bureau of Land Management and dated April 2, 2019,
prior to the completion of the cultural resources investigation
identified in the explanatory statement described in section 4 (in the
matter preceding division A of this consolidated Act).''); Further
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Pub L. No. 116-94 Sec. 442
(2019) (containing identical language for Fiscal Year 2020).
Last, examining the landownership map of the withdrawal area,\14\
it is clear that almost all allotments abut non-federal land that would
not be withdrawn. Further, when allotments do touch federal land, often
there is already ongoing development on that federal land that would
not be prevented by the withdrawal.\15\ Thus, there will be very few
allotments isolated by surrounding withdrawn federal land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Bureau of Land Mgmt., Proposed Withdrawal Chaco Culture
National Historical Park Surrounding Area (Jan. 6, 2022), https://
eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2016892/200507919/20052736/250058919/
ProposedChacoAreaWithdrawalMap_FFO_1_06_2022.pdf.
\15\ Bureau of Land Mgmt., Proposed Withdrawal, Chaco Culture
National Historical Park Surrounding Area (Jan. 6, 2022), https://
eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2016892/200507919/20052736/250058919/
ProposedChacoAreaWithdrawalMap_FFO_1_06_2022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Additional Tribal Consultation and Commenting Opportunities
Preceding Completion of Administrative Withdrawal
Inherent in the Department's administrative withdrawal process will
be opportunities for further consideration of the voices of the
Pueblos, Navajo Nation, allottees, and others.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) administrative
withdrawal process under which the Department is considering the Chaco
administrative withdrawal involves significant public comment and
consideration.\16\ For withdrawals the size contemplated by the
Department for Chaco, the Department must provide public comment
opportunities and conduct environmental review, and it must provide a
detailed report to Congress regarding analysis of the impacts of
withdrawal.\17\ Indeed, when President Biden in November 2021 announced
that the Department would begin the administrative withdrawal process,
the Department said it would be conducting an environmental analysis,
seeking public comment, and conducting tribal consultation on the
proposed administrative withdrawal.\18\ Thereafter, on January 6, 2022,
the Bureau of Land Management published notice of the proposed
withdrawal in the Federal Register, formally beginning the withdrawal
process and opening a 90-day comment period.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C.
Sec. 1714(c)(1).
\17\ Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C.
Sec. 1714(c); 43 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 2310.1-2310.5.
\18\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Interior, Secretary Haaland
Announces Steps to Establish Protections for Culturally Significant
Chaco Canyon Landscape (Nov. 15, 2021), https://www.doi.gov/
pressreleases/secretary-haaland-announces-steps-establish-protections-
culturally-significant-chaco.
\19\ Notice of Proposed Withdrawal and Public Meetings; San Juan
County, NM, 87 Fed. Reg. 785 (Jan. 6, 2022); see also Press Release,
Bureau of Land Mgmt., Bureau of Land Management Takes Next Steps to
Protect Chaco Canyon (Jan. 5, 2022), https://www.blm.gov/press-release/
bureau-land-management-takes-next-steps-protect-chaco-canyon; see also
Bureau of Land Mgmt., Chaco Culture National Historical Park Area
Withdrawal (Jan. 25, 2022), https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/
project/2016892/510.
Additionally, it is important to note that the withdrawal
contemplated by the Department has been the subject of multiple
congressional hearings, including a field hearing, through
consideration of the Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act.\20\ We also
understand that members of the New Mexico Congressional Delegation and
officials within the Department of the Interior have met with the
Navajo Nation, the Pueblos, and others on the withdrawal and other
Chaco protection efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See note 6, supra.
In closing, we thank this Committee for its attention to
appropriate protective measures for the Greater Chaco Region. It is a
deeply sacred and irreplaceable landscape to which our identity is
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
tied.
______
THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
February 7, 2022
The Honorable Raul Grijalva, Chairman
The Honorable Bruce Westerman, Ranking Member
House Committee on Natural Resources
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, and all Members
of the House Committee on Natural Resources:
On behalf of our more than one million members and supporters, The
Wilderness Society (TWS) writes to express our appreciation and views
regarding the oversight hearing titled, ``Justice, Equity, Diversity,
and Inclusion in Environmental Policymaking: The Role of Environmental
Organizations and Grantmaking Foundations'' on February 8, 2022.
Public lands and waters are often seen as a defining feature of our
nation's shared heritage and character. However, throughout our
history, racism, exclusion, oppression, and injustices have
traditionally shaped the policies, operations, and funding that have
excluded and inequitably distributed the benefits of nature. While
America's national parks, wildlife refuges, cultural heritage sites,
and other public lands and waters continue to be popular with many,
they are often inaccessible, unwelcoming, and exclusionary particularly
for systemically and deliberately overlooked populations such as
communities of color, disabled populations, low-income communities,
Indigenous peoples, and LGBTQ+ communities.
Dialogue and research consistently shows that people from all
backgrounds and communities are interested in the environment and
addressing climate change. However, people of color, Indigenous
peoples, and low-income communities are most impacted by environmental
injustices and climate change all while being the least represented in
policy and decision making. Some of the most consequential and
ubiquitously valued ideas of conservation and public land policies are
rooted in racist origins and concepts. Many of these policies continue
to have harmful and inequitable implications for communities of color
today. As the environmental movement aims to expand and progress, we
have an opportunity to address these inequities and improve
policymaking and implementation to ensure the benefits of nature are
equitably afforded to all.
Now more than ever, it is imperative to ensure that public lands
are delivering on the benefits that were promised to every person,
regardless of their income, race, or zip code. From health and wellness
to climate mitigation and resilience, public lands offer a myriad of
benefits that should be to the advantage of all people and communities,
not just a few. That is why TWS has committed to respectfully and
authentically engaging and empowering communities that have been
historically marginalized in the conservation movement or have not
equitably benefited from our public lands. Through policy and
programmatic work based in community-led conservation and equitable
access to nature that centers diversity, equity, justice, and
inclusion, our organization and community will build a more welcoming
and inclusive movement for environmental stewardship and public lands
protection that is long-lasting and resilient.
We know that our journey toward building a more diverse and
inclusive organization and movement is still in the initial stages. Our
advancement has not been perfect; however, we understand the importance
and urgency of creating a more just, diverse, equitable, and inclusive
system for managing and protecting our public lands. As one of the many
conservation and environmental organizations working to ensure diverse
representation and decision-making power regarding public lands, it is
essential that we remain diligent because our collective determination
will have an immense impact on our communities and our planet.
TWS appreciates Chairman Grijalva, Members of the Natural Resources
Committee, and staff's leadership for engaging and centering Black,
Indigenous, and people of color communities to meaningfully address the
climate crises and achieve environmental justice. We look forward to
continuing to work with the committee to advance more just, equitable,
diverse, and inclusive natural resource and climate policies.
Thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
Mo Dailey,
Vice President of Conservation Programs
______
Submission for the Record by Rep. Grijalva
Dear White Enviros: You can't fight climate change without communities
of color
THE HILL, February 8, 2022
By Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Andres Jimenez, Opinion
Contributors
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view
of the Hill
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In the summer of 2020, amid America's national reckoning with its
white supremacism and systemic racism, lovers of nature and
conservation began to ask questions about how our national parks and
other public lands fit into this reckoning.
They took a closer look at beautiful, nationally prized landscapes,
like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite National Park, that reflect the work
of early conservationists who envisioned vast protected swaths of
pristine, untouched wilderness for future generations to enjoy.
And then they saw the truth. When conservationists claimed these lands,
they were already richly inhabited by Indigenous Peoples who had had
been cultivating, conserving, and connecting with them since time
immemorial.
But conservationists' vision for these landscapes did not include
Indigenous Peoples. Armed with this belief and other racist ideals,
white people and government leaders embarked on the violent, forcible
removal of Indigenous communities from their ancestral homelands.
Environmental and social justice champions like us can't pretend that
our feelings about America's conservation history aren't complicated.
How can we appreciate a movement that created places of refuge for both
humans and wildlife when that same movement tried to erase the
existence of Indigenous Peoples from those very places?
Unfortunately, modern day conservation efforts haven't fully removed
this stain on its history; environmental non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) continue to be white-dominant spaces, perpetuating--albeit more
subtly--the stigma of the past.
A groundbreaking 2014 report by Green 2.0, an independent non-profit
organization that aims to increase racial and ethnic diversity in the
environmental sphere, showed that only one in eight NGO staff were
people of color. More alarmingly, only one in 20 board members were of
color.
Green 2.0 and the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources know we
need a change. On Feb. 8, the committee is holding a congressional
hearing to talk to some of the country's foremost experts about the
environmental movement's diversity problem and its impacts on federal
environmental policymaking.
The committee will have new data on hand from Green 2.0's most recent
2021 Transparency Report Card showing that, while NGOs have made some
progress in diversifying staff over the past several years, NGO
leadership is still nearly 75 percent white. This lopsided scenario
isn't an unfamiliar pattern. When organizations work to increase
diversity simply for diversity's sake, but don't make transformational
changes that bring more inclusivity, justice, and equity to the
workplace, their efforts fall short.
For the first time this year, the report also examined where
environmental grantmaking foundations are sending their money. The
results were disappointing, but not surprising. The foundations that
were willing to respond reported funding white-led environmental NGOs
at nearly double the rate of NGOs led by people of color.
Witnesses at the hearing will talk about how environmental NGOs and
foundations can do better--not just because it's the right thing to do,
but because the climate crisis requires it. Those most impacted by an
issue must be at the table when finding solutions to address it.
Communities of color and Indigenous Peoples are overwhelmingly on the
frontlines of climate change; they're the ones bearing the brunt of
higher temperatures, sea level rise, and stronger and more frequent
severe weather events, including hurricanes and heatwaves. They're the
ones whose communities have been infiltrated by polluting petrochemical
plants and fossil fuel production facilities. Yet, they're also the
ones who are being left out when environmental organizations are
deciding how they'll address climate change.
Excluding Indigenous voices from the conservation conversation is
especially misguided. Indigenous Peoples maintain an invaluable wealth
of Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge (ITEK) that has been
accumulated through their relationship with the natural world and
passed down through oral and written histories. ITEK should be at the
forefront of solutions for more sustainable and responsible stewardship
of our environment. The White House recently issued an executive order
to formally recognize ITEK as a body of knowledge that should inform
federal decision-making; environmental NGOs should follow a similar
course.
We can't change the American environmental movement's dark history of
white supremacy. But if we want to light a sustainable and equitable
path through the climate crisis, the environmental movement must close
shop on the ivory tower and open the door to more diverse voices for a
more just and inclusive future.
***
Raul M. Grijalva chairs the U.S. House Committee on Natural
Resources. He has represented Southern Arizona in Congress since 2003.
Andres Jimenez is the executive director of Green 2.0.
______
Submissions for the Record by Delegate Freeland
Proposed Navajo Nation Committee Resolution
from the 24th Navajo Nation Council
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.eps If the proposed resolution is unacceptable to you, please
contact me at the Office of Legislative Counsel and advise me of the
changes you would like made to the proposed resolution.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
24TH NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL
OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER
May 20, 2021
Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, Chairwoman (D-NV)
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)
Energy and Natural Resources Committee Office
304 Dirksen Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Honorable Senator Cortez, and Honorable Senator Lee:
This letter serves as a humble invitation from the 24th Navajo
Nation Council Speaker Seth Damon, and the Resources Development
Committee to request a formal meeting in person within the Eastern
Agency of the Navajo Nation, to discuss continued partnership in
regards to greater Chaco Canyon National Heritage Monument region.
The initial Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2017
(hereafter, CCHAPA) was a congressional bill that identified and set
precedence within the intercultural heritage that all tribal nations
share throughout the greater southwest. This particular act also made
note and emphasized the potential impacts to our Navajo people in
relation to the ongoing development of gas and oil within the Eastern
Agency of the Navajo Nation.
Since time immemorial, our sacred ceremonial and clan origin
historical connection to Chaco Canyon has, and continues to be the
center points of what Chaco Canyon is today. Through our Navajo
language, oral histories, as stated in much of the statements within
the CCHAPA, speak to our history as mentioned are indeed, ``invaluable
and irreplaceable cultural resources.''
With that stated, there is also the acknowledgement of our current
heritage which includes our Navajo allotees who have direct stakeholder
ship within and around Chaco Canyon National Heritage Monument. Navajo
Nation fully supports the allotees and their rights to develop their
land and any leasing they wish to undergo as landowners and as direct
stakeholders within the Navajo Nation Eastern Agency.
In the fall of 2019, Legislation 0366-19 was approved by the 24th
Navajo Nation Council which affirmed the position of the Navajo Nation
through its governing body. This legislation solidified the cultural,
spiritual and cosmological connection that the Navajo Nation and the
people have to the greater Chaco Canyon region area. Further, it
established a collective voice that expounded upon the efforts of not
only protecting the landscape of Chaco Canyon, but to also respect and
work with Navajo allottees to further advance development, as well as
protection of our precious resources. As a result, this legislation
passed in support of all of the above, which included a position of
setting the boundary of a 5-mile buffer within and around the greater
Chaco Canyon National Heritage Monument area.
The 24th Navajo Nation Council's Resources and Development
Committee therefore respectfully and rightfully request that the Navajo
Nation Legislation 0366-19 be adhered to as the official position and
continued efforts to collaboratively manage Navajo Nation lands, and
minerals, while also respecting the allotees rights to develop their
land.
With collaborative efforts, we would like to extend an invitation
to the Energy Natural Resources Subcommittee of jurisdiction and the
Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining leadership to
participate in a field hearing in Navajo Eastern Agency. This hearing
would assist in the ongoing collaborations of the Navajo Nation and
your subcommittee and leadership in regards to hearing the Navajo
Allotees positions and voices on these matters.
Your participation will greatly present to our people that
leadership from both the federal and the Navajo Nation, are working
together to continue advocacy for the betterment of all our
constituents. Please do not hesitate to reach out to the Chief of
Staff, Sherylene Yazzie at the Office of the Speaker,
[email protected] or the Resources and Development
Committee Chair, Rick Nez at [email protected] if you should have
any questions. We look forward to your response and look forward to an
in-person meeting with our Navajo Nation allotees. Ahe hee'
Sincerely,
Seth Damon, Speaker, Rickie Nez, Chairman,
24th NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL RESOURCES & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
24th NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL
Mark Freeland, Vice
Chairman,
EASTERN NAVAJO LAND
COMMISSION
24th NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL
______
24TH NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL
OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER
September 17, 2021
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi The Honorable Kevin McCarthy
Speaker House Minority Leader
U.S. House of
Representatives U.S. House of Representatives
H-232 Capitol Building H-404 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader McCarthy:
We applaud Congress for its historic inclusion of tribal program
investments in the proposed $3.5 trillion budget resolution and
reconciliation proposals. However, we write to respectfully inform you
of our opposition to the managers amendment of the House Natural
Resources Committee proposal that includes a section to prohibit new
oil and gas development within the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area in
northwestern New Mexico and the Navajo Nation.
In the fall of 2019, Legislation 0366-19 (attached) was approved by
the 24th Navajo Nation Council, which affirmed the position of the
Navajo Nation through its governing body. The legislation solidified
the cultural, spiritual and cosmological connection that the Navajo
Nation and the people have to the greater Chaco Canyon region area.
Further, Legislation 0366-19 established a collective voice that
expounded upon the efforts of not only protecting the landscape of
Chaco Canyon, but to also respect and work with Navajo allottees to
further advance development, as well as protection of our precious
resources. As a result, this legislation passed in support of all the
above, which included a position of setting the boundary of a 5-mile
buffer within and around the greater Chaco Canyon National Heritage
Monument area.
In the summer of 2019, Legislation 0189-19 (attached) was also
approved by the 24th Navajo Nation Council authorizing and requiring
Navajo Nation leadership to meet with Congressional leadership to
request Congress to hold hearings in the affected areas of the Navajo
Nation, which has not been completed.
The official position of the Navajo Nation reflects the interests
of the Navajo allotted land owners (``allotees'') in the greater Chaco
area and it provides a compromise between the threat to their
livelihoods and the bills' calls for increased protections from mineral
development.
There are numerous Navajo cultural resources sites across the
eastern portion of the Navajo Nation where Navajo allottees will
potentially be impacted. The proposed cultural resource investigation
(``study'') that is to be performed by cultural experts within the
Chaco Canyon and Chaco Culture National Historic Park, should fully
fund the Navajo Nation to oversee due to the land status that surrounds
the Park is all within the boundaries of the Navajo Nation.
The 24th Navajo Nation Council respectfully submits another request
for a Congressional field hearing at Nageezi, N.M. by members of
Congress before any language prohibiting new oil and gas development
within the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area. The purpose of this field
hearing will allow Congressional leaders to hear directly from the
Navajo people who face a real threat under the current version of the
managers amendment of the House Natural Resources Committee proposal
that includes a section to prohibit new oil and gas development within
the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
Chief of Staff Sherylene Yazzie at [email protected]. The
Navajo Nation Office of the Speaker will respectfully follow-up with
your offices within two weeks regarding this request. Thank you for
your honorable consideration.
Sincerely,
Seth Damon, Speaker, Rickie Nez, Chair,
24th NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL RESOURCES & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Mark Freeland, Council
Delegate,
24th NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL
______
MAP OF CHACO CULTURAL HERITAGE WITHDRAWAL AREA
April 2, 2019
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
THE NAVAJO NATION
November 24, 2021
The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
President of the United States of America
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20515
Dear President Biden:
On behalf of the Navajo Nation, we write to state our position to
the proposed withdrawal of federal lands from new oil and gas leasing
in the Greater Chaco Area and to request an immediate conference with
the Department of the Interior.
Congress has considered multiple proposals to create a buffer zone
around the Chaco Culture National Historical Park at the request of the
All Pueblo Council of Governors but continues to ignore the desires of
the Navajo people whose land would actually be impacted by such a
decision. This issue is important to the Navajo Nation; specifically,
to our Navajo allotment owners.
There are currently 53 Individual Indian Allotments (allotments)
leased in the 10-mile buffer zone around Chaco based on the latest map
proposed in the legislation considered by Congress. These allotments
generate an average of $6.2 million a year in royalties for
approximately 5,462 allottees. Many allottees, including Navajo elders,
rely on this income to meet their daily needs. However, the gravity of
this decision is much larger as there are 418 unleased allotments
associated with approximately 16,615 allottees. So, this rule could
impact over 22,000 allottees.
The White House has stated, as did Congress, that the rule would
not apply to Individual Indian Allotments or to minerals within the
area owned by private, state, and Tribal entities. However, in reality,
the rule would have a devastating impact because the indirect effects
would make the allottee land worthless from the standpoint of energy
extraction. For example, the Mancos Shale reservoir lies south of
Counselor, Huerfano and Nageezi Chapters and north of the Chaco Park.
To maximize full extraction of the product, a horizontal lateral
crossing of two to four miles of subsurface may be required. Due to the
cross jurisdictional land status in Navajo Eastern Agency, a proposed
horizontal lateral may need to cross federal land. But the Department
of the Interior has already told us that any horizontal drilling that
requires access through federal lands would be prohibited under the
proposed rules.
In fact, the existing temporary ban on leasing have already
impacted our people, as energy companies have told some of our Navajo
allottees that they will not pursue exploratory drilling unless they
know they can access the sites using horizontal drilling through the
federal lands. Because of the ban, something that was once the most
valuable marketing of our lands is now in jeopardy of becoming an
unproductive piece of property.
In trying to negotiate with our Congressional representatives, the
Navajo Nation Council passed legislation that agreed to reduce the size
of the 10-mile buffer zone to 5 miles to reduce the impact on Navajo
allottees. We are willing to continue discussions with the federal
government but announcing this initiative at the White House Tribal
Nations Summit, knowing that that Navajo Nation Council and Local
Navajo Government entities has passed resolutions in opposition, was an
unwarranted affront to the Navajo Nation.
We are also mystified by the fact that only one listening session
with 10 allottees was held in July with Assistant Secretary of Indian
Affairs Bryan Newland as a way to support tribal engagement in the U.S.
Department of the Interior's press release issued November 11, 2021.
Even more disturbing is hearing the Department of the Interior commit
to ``early, robust, interactive, pre-decisional, informative, and
transparent'' tribal consultation when essentially no tribal
consultation has been held with critical stakeholders in this case. By
simply bypassing true and inclusive tribal consultation with the Navajo
Nation and our Individual Indian Allottees, the Biden-Harris
Administration is markedly undermining its trust responsibility they
owe to the Navajo Nation and the 22,000 Individual Indian Allottees
impacted by this decision.
To evince respect to us as a sovereign government and people we
insist you not to move forward on this initiative without first
reaching an agreement with the duly elected leaders of those affected
by it. We ask that you engage in proper tribal consultation before
publishing the proposed withdrawal in the Federal Register and
reconsider the proposed withdrawal.
Respectfully,
Jonathan Nez, President, Myron Lizer, Vice President,
THE NAVAJO NATION THE NAVAJO NATION
______
U.S. Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Washington, DC 20240
September 24, 2020
Hon. Jonathan Nez
President, Navajo Nation
P.O. Box 7440
Window Rock, AZ 86515
Dear President Nez:
In 2019, Congress made $1,000,000 available to contract with
relevant federally recognized Tribes or Tribal organizations to allow
Tribal cultural experts to perform a cultural resources investigation
to identify culturally and historically significant areas and sites in
areas of high energy development potential within the Chaco Canyon
region of the Southwest.\1\ Congress expected that such investigation
would give special emphasis to areas of high development potential as
defined in Figure 10 of the Bureau of Land Management's February 2018
Final Report, ``Reasonable Development Scenario of Oil and Gas
Activities'' for the Mancos-Gallup RMPA Planning Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Law No. 116-94; S. Rpt. 116-123 at 17, 56.
Congress directed that the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs (AS-
IA) consult with affected Tribes prior to soliciting proposals and
award funds within 270 days of Pub. L. 116-94's enactment. Indian
Affairs consulted with Tribes on the Chaco Canyon cultural resources
investigation on March 5th and 6th of this year. The consultations made
clear that the two main Tribal perspectives regarding culturally and
historically significant sites in the Chaco Canyon area were
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
represented by the Navajo Nation and the Pueblos.
My letters of July 27, 2020 inviting the Navajo Nation and the
Pueblos to submit proposals to conduct the cultural resources
investigation by September 8, 2020 strongly encouraged all parties to
consider submitting a joint proposal or otherwise ensuring that any
study fully represent both perspectives. That has not occurred, and
instead two separate proposals for preparing the cultural resources
investigation were submitted by the Navajo Nation and by the Chaco
Heritage Tribal Association (CHTA), an unincorporated association of
representative Pueblos and the Hopi Tribe. In deference to the course
chosen by the Navajo Nation and the Pueblos, and to ensure that the
views of the relevant federally recognized Tribes or Tribal
organizations are represented as Congress intended, each applicant will
be awarded a portion of the funding.
Having reviewed the Navajo Nation's submission, I am pleased to
notify you that the Nation will be awarded the amount identified below
to undertake the cultural resources investigation and prepare a
comprehensive report identifying culturally and historically
significant areas and sites:
Award Amount: $434,356.00
This award is contingent upon the Nation providing certain
information that the Nation did not include in its submission,
including an estimate of overall costs to complete the study broken
down by category (e.g., labor, materials), and the identity and
credentials of the associated individuals/staff who will be assigned to
perform the study.
Nothing in this award is intended to impact the timing of the
Mancos-Gallup Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA).
The award funds are provided to the Nation under Pub. L. 116-94 and
will be administered in accordance with the Uniform Administrative
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal
Awards.\2\ The Nation may contribute additional funding from its own or
other sources to the cultural resource investigation study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2 C.F.R. Part 200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Grant Agreement will be sent to you for your signature. Please
return the signed Grant Agreement and the missing information listed
above to the Grant Officer, Jo Ann Metcalfe, by four weeks from the
date of this letter. The grant agreement authorizes the transfer of
funds to the Navajo Nation through the Automated Standard Application
for Payments (ASAP). The grant agreement must be fully executed by both
parties before project work can begin. We will notify you once the
funds have been transferred to ASAP.
Grant Officer:
Jo Ann Metcalfe
Bureau of Indian Affairs
12220 Sunrise Valley Drive
Reston, VA 20191
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (703) 390-6410
Mr. Garry Cantley, Bureau of Indian Affairs Western Regional
Office, will serve as the Project Monitor, and will be available to
discuss and advise on technical issues relating to the project. All
written correspondence concerning the project should be addressed to
the Project Monitor.
Project Monitor:
Garry Cantley
Division of Environmental, Safety, and Cultural Resources
BIA Western Regional Office
2600 N. Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004
T: (602) 379-6750
Email: [email protected]
I am pleased to provide you with the opportunity to undertake this
important study. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr.
Matthew Kelly, Counselor to the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, by
email at [email protected] or phone at (202) 208-7163.
Sincerely,
Tara Sweeney,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs
[all]