Testimony in a House hearing frames the discussion about infrastructure development in Indian country. Tribes want to be consulted. Consultation does not mean telling us what you’re going to do. Consultation means listening and making the necessary changes to ensure these projects do not harm our people, our lands, and our resources.
Taking a cue from the new President’s rhetoric and promises, congressional committees initiated a series of hearings on infrastructure in Indian Country. “Infrastructure” usually brings up images of roads, bridges, and transportation systems, or lakes and reservoirs, rivers, dams and sanitation systems. It also includes specific needs for local communities – repair or replacement of inadequate health centers and equipment, dilapidated schools, and insufficient public buildings. Another critical element of infrastructure in the 21st century is access to communications systems – especially broadband access in remote areas.
Infrastructure and Hope
At the first infrastructure hearing in mid-February, Chad Harrison, council member of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, offered testimony that framed the issues of infrastructure in Indian country. He explained the history behind the convening of water protectors and allies at the site of the Dakota Access pipeline, going back to the Fort Laramie treaties of 1851 and 1868.
In spite of the treaties and the statutes that codified them, the “reserved” lands were taken in the rush for gold, agricultural land, and infrastructure. In 1958, another 56,000 acres of “the best remaining lands of the Reservation including timber lands and fertile farming lands” were taken for the construction of the Oahe Dam and the creation of Lake Oahe. Hundreds of families lost their homes; the loss devastated the Tribal economy and culture.
Still, Harrison emphasized, the tribe is not opposed to infrastructure development. “What we oppose is development that is undertaken without our consent and in such a way that it is our community, our people, our cultural sites, and our natural resources that are put at the most risk, and when we are the ones who will pay the cost when something goes wrong.”
“The Tribe does not oppose development. What we oppose is development that is undertaken without our consent and … [when] our community, our people, our cultural sites, and our natural resources … are put at the most risk….”
Harrison listed the administrative processes that the tribe followed assiduously, submitting technical and legal comments and evidence of potential harm from the project. At the urging of the Tribe, and with the agreement of the Department of Interior and the Department of Justice, the Army Corps of Engineers reopened the review briefly, and then concluded that there would be no significant impact on the tribe or the waters of Lake Oahe. On February 8, the president ordered all permits and easements to be issued.
Then Harrison talked about hope. “I ask my friends at this table to explain to the youth, who ran from Standing Rock to Washington, D.C. to plead with the President and the Army
“Perhaps you don’t know what happens when children lose hope, but my community knows and we pray every day that what we fear the most does not happen. “
Corps to take action to protect our lands, how the Army Corps can take unilateral action and move forward with this pipeline and not comply with the process that the Agency had said it would follow. I am tired of trying to explain the government’s action to my youth, who have lost faith and hope… Perhaps you don’t know what happens when children lose hope, but my community knows and we pray every day that what we fear the most does not happen.
As a tribal leader, I cannot lose hope,” Harrison concluded, “that is why we are pursuing our options in litigation to do this process right…When the federal agencies and the industry seek
Transportation, Water, Connectivity and Community Development
The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hosted a “roundtable” discussion on infrastructure issues on March 15. The roundtable was co-hosted by the House Committee on Natural Resources and its Subcommittees on Indian, Insular, and Alaska Native Affairs, and on Water, Power, and Oceans; the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
A roundtable is somewhat less formal than a hearing. Invited panelists typically include a range of people who are most affected by the topic under discussion, and people who have innovative solutions to offer. Roundtables are often moderated by someone who is not a member of Congress, but who has deep credentials on the focus topic. This roundtable was moderated by Professor Carl Artman, from Arizona State University - College of Law, where he directs the program on Economic Development in Indian Country.
Senator Tom Udall, vice chair of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, opened the roundtable by commenting on the particular importance of broadband infrastructure. Like roads and water infrastructures, a strong broadband base sets a platform for economic growth. He noted that, nationally, only 59 percent of residents on Indian lands have fixed access to the internet, and in New Mexico that number is only 20 percent. He and Chairman Hoeven both spoke of their determination that Indian Country must be part of congressional conversations about infrastructure investments, and that any infrastructure packages considered in Congress must include tribes.
The 13 invited witnesses – all tribal leaders or tribal attorneys (plus one investment banker) – were divided into four panels – on Transportation, Water, Connectivity and Broadband Development, and Community Development. A brief summary of the panels’ presentations is here. A video of the roundtable is available now; written submissions by the panelists will be available soon.
On their various specific topics, the panelists raised several common themes, including - Frustration with slow processes within various federal departments, and the inability of departments to coordinate their requirements, definitions, timelines and expectations, even when partnering in a single project. - Emphasis on the importance of partnering early in a development project with tribal, local, state, and federal government agencies that can offer resources or expertise, or that have a stake in the outcome of the project. - Excitement about the possibilities that open up when the federal partners help to leverage private capital to accomplish projects that bring more income and jobs to communities. The panelists shared several examples of these projects, ranging from schools to hospitals to roads, wastewater treatment and broadband access.
Check here for a brief summary of panelists’ remarks.
