Piece o' mah Piece

II. Background Relations between the Hopi and Peabody Energy

This section will describe the impact of the relationship between the world’s largest coal company, Peabody Energy, and the Hopi Indians of Northern Arizona. I will explore everything from the initial misrepresentation of the Hopi people, the 30 year operation of the Black Mesa mine, and the section will conclude with the mine’s closing on December 31, 2005.

A) May 16, 1966: The initial contract/misrepresentation

To clearly understand the dynamics of this exploitative relationship, it is necessary to trace the history all the way back to the first contact in the 1960’s. The unequal playing ground was initially constructed by the long time trusted Hopi attorney, the late John Sterling Boyden. On May 16, 1966, Boyden presented a lease proposal he had prepared for the Hopi council members to sign. The proposal was to open up Hopi tribal lands for mining interests after Boyden had attempted to convince council members of the benefits this would create years prior.

In presenting this proposal Boyden failed to tell the council several of the implications that would come along with it. First and foremost, Boyden failed to tell them that Peabody would be operating one of the largest strip mines in the country on their land. He said nothing of the huge quantities of water that would be needed to operate the mines. Furthermore, he never told the tribe that the coal would help fuel the development boom in the Southwest. “With cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas on the brink of explosive growth the tribe could have exerted enormous leverage to extract the best possible price for it coal and water” (Folger 34). The omission of these facts by Boyden had grave implications for the Hopi and set the stage for more than 30 years of extreme exploitation and unequal relations between Peabody and the Hopi.

Had Boyden been honest with the Hopi about how large and costly the Black Mesa mine would be, it could be reasoned that the Hopi would never have entered into such an agreement. The Hopi world view is one of reverence for the land. I will illustrate later how the relationship between Peabody and the Hopi can be characterized as a clash of cultures. Beyond the cultural component though, the Hopi were misrepresented financially by Boyden as well.

In reference to the bargaining leverage the Hopi could have made for the price of their coal and water, it cannot be stated enough that the price they agreed to under this initial contract was egregiously low and in no regard, fair. The tribe only received 3.3% of gross sales, which is about half the rate that the federal government was getting in mining royalties at the time. In addition, in October of the same year, the lease was altered with a mysterious hand-written amendment that would allow Peabody to withdraw more than 4,000 acre-feet of potable water from underneath the Black Mesa each year (Dougherty 4). “For every acre-foot of water pumped from the Hopi “n-aquifer” (an acre-foot is the amount of water that would cover an acre to the depth of one foot), Peabody was to pay $1.67. In the arid Southwest, water from the n-aquifer should have commanded $30 to $50 per acre foot, even in 1966. Peabody continued to pay a price 30 times lower than the actual market value of Hopi water until the deal was renegotiated in the 80’s (Folger 34). This entire Peabody deal was negotiated in secret with John Boyden acting in the Hopi’s behalf. Why did such an outrageously unfair lease get approved? Why did the lawyer representing the Hopi fail to protect the interest of his impoverished clients, who even today suffer an unemployment rate that hovers around 50%?

Part of the answer was uncovered about 20 years ago when documents came to light showing that John Sterling Boyden secretly worked for Peabody at the same time he was representing the Hopi. Billing records and correspondence with Peabody executives has been discovered, by professor of law Charles Wilkinson, that conclusively show that Boyden’s association with the company lasted from 1964 through 1971.(Folger 34).

The prominent Salt Lake City attorney, John Sterling Boyden, was characterized as growing up a devout Mormon in Coalville, Utah (irony?). After years of making a name for himself he was hired by an unofficial group calling itself the Hopi Tribal council in 1950 to represent the tribe before the Indian Claims Commission. By the 60’s “Boyden had already banked $500,000 for representing the Hopi before the Indian Claims Commission. For his work on the land-dispute case, the Hopi tribal council paid Boyden an additional $1 million – $780,000 for legal services and $220,000 as an expression of “gratitude”, for his work. (Dougherty 3) The whole time that Boyden was being paid to represent the Hopi in these cases, however, he was also on the payroll for the Peabody Energy company. Even after these payrolls and the damaging records of correspondence between Peabody and Bowden during the original 60’s negotiations came to public attention, Peabody to this day defends their dealings with Boyden saying: “The notion that deceased attorney John Boyden was secretly involved in lease negotiations to benefit Peabody’s interests is untrue and a tragic attempt at defaming a dead and honorable man” (Peabody spokesmen Beth Sutton, 2004). Beyond this spin, prominent law scholar and credited discoverer of Boyden’s conflicted interest, commented on the correspondence saying “It just turns your stomach, reading those letters is sickening” (Dougherty 5)

It has been suggested by some that these shady dealings on the part of John Boyden and Peabody Energy could be characterized as Environmental Racism. When considering the validity of such an assertion it can be very problematic to prove. Though Boyden and Peabody are both non-Indians who manipulated their power to exploit the Hopi, it cannot be proven that their intention was racially motivated. What can be asserted is that this was a relationship of unequal nature. Boyden exploited what he likely saw as an easily marginalized group of people for financial gain. There are even more unequal government manufactured relationships (i.e. the appointed Hopi elite council members) that helped allow this lease to be signed without consent of majority of the Hopi population. We will explore these systems later. Before those aspects are explored we must first discuss the operation of the Black Mesa Mine and its impacts on the culture, environment, and sustainability of the Hopi Indians.