Environmental Justice in America: The Case of the Hopi

“We have nothing, no real strong political structure, no bid title, no money, no education, and no lobbying ability. This type of person can be defeated easily. That’s what has happened to the people at Black Mesa. I mean most of those people probably never have even attended chapter meetings where these things are discussed. Most of them don’t know what elections are, because it’s not part of their life to be standing and voting. I’m not sure we’re going to win. We haven’t learned to play the game called politics…” – Louise Descheeny, Navajo Activist 1973

“Continued operation of the Mohave Station [and Black Mesa Mine] is in the public interest, providing low-cost electricity, hundreds of jobs and a stable revenue source for the Hopi and Navajo.”

-Peabody Energy, 2007

I. Introduction

In the opening section of this analysis I will outline the theoretical and historical framework that will be used to situate the issues of environmental injustice brought on the Hopi Indians. To understand how this minority group has been marginalized by the United States (and specifically our energy sector), it is important to know a little about the history of modern environmental politics. I will use this history as a jumping point to begin describing the environmental justice movement and why it is applicable to the Hopi.

A) The Birth of Modern Environmental Politics

Oddly enough it was the presidential administration of conservative Richard Nixon who led us into the era of Modern Environmental Politics. In the wake of the revolutionary social change that characterized the 1960’s, and with help from Rachel Carson’s earth-shattering expose on the harms of pesticide, there was a growing public concern for several environmental issues. The groundswell culminated in the organization of and country-wide participation in the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970. This public outcry did not go unnoticed by United States politicians. The government reacted fast by passing the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act, all in a relatively short period of time.

These initial bills of legislation have been a cornerstone in the environmental movement and largely influence the way Americans regard the environment. These bills became regulation and as with most federal regulation, they became subject of intense controversy. Fundamental to this controversy is an ill-perceived idea that there is an economic trade-off between environmental protection and business.

Though many question the validity of such an assumption, it remains a prevalent idea in our culture. It also created a backlash towards the environmental movement. This backlash directly contributed to the belief that environmental issues are a white-middle-class thing. There has been a persistent element of truth to this belief though. Humans create concepts such as “race”, “pollution”, and “contamination”. These socially constructed terms are then used to form discourse that often serves the ends of the people who are all ready in power. Discourse and concepts aside, the “environment” has a very real and lasting impact on everyday people who deserve to live in a healthy environment in order to pursue the “life of dignity” that most human rights declarations describe. (Checker 16) The supposed tradeoff between the environment and jobs has been a reality, but they arise mainly in poor and (especially) minority communities. (Shrader-Frechette 6). The recognition of this led to the birth of the environmental justice movement in the 1980’s.

B) Environmental Justice: Civil Rights meet Environmental Rights

In the mid to late 1980’s environmentalism and civil rights converged to begin address the fact that the marginalized people of the globe bear the brunt of the world’s environmental degradation. (Checker 8) The first scene of activism with regard to environmental justice was set in our state in Warren County, North Carolina. In 1982, Warren County was the center of controversy after the Environmental Protection Agency and county officials decided to bend the rules to allow a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) disposal site to dump its waste dangerously close to the water table. At the time, Warren’s population was 75 percent African-American and it was the fourth poorest county in North Carolina. (Shrader-Frechette 8)

In 1987 activists received the scholarly backing needed to legitimate their movement when the United Church of Christ Study was published. This study concludes: “The proportion of minority members in communities with hazardous waste facilities is double that of communities without facilities.” (Westra ET. Wenz xv). This ignited the often controversial concept of environmental racism. Though I believe in its existence, I will be arguing from the perspective of environmental injustice towards minorities, rather than using the controversial term “environmental racism” which becomes problematic to prove.

By 1994, noticing the growing environmental justice movement and the many scholarly studies backing it, President Bill Clinton created executive order 12898. The purpose of this executive order was to dedicate “federal actions to the environmental justice of minority populations and low-income populations.” (www.epa.gov) It created an office of environmental justice as a subdivision of the EPA. The order included an official definition of environmental justice stated as followed:

“The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation or enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.” (EPA 1994)

Though the movement for environmental justice reached notoriety because of issues faced by African-Americans, Native Americans were also acknowledged as a minority group whom experience significant inequalities. “Besides African-Americans, indigenous peoples have repeatedly been victims of environmental injustice. Among Native Americans, some of the most serious abuses have occurred in connection with the uranium mining in the West.” (Shrader-Frechette 9) One of the longest-operating uranium mines in the country’s history can be found in Churchrock, New Mexico, on land owned by the Navajo Nation. The Navajo tribal government signed a governmental mining lease without obtaining the consent of Navajo families and without knowledge of the consequences that the company’s activities would produce. After using and contaminating the region’s only source of drinking water, the companies came under attack. These companies in turn responded to the outcry by claiming immunity to the Federal Water Pollution Control act, in light of the fact that their “activities took place on Native-American land” which they argued “is not subject to any environmental protection.” (Shrader-Frechette 9) An identical and, I would argue a more detrimental, situation is found in the next state to the west: Arizona. Here the Hopi fought a similar battle with our energy sector, but instead of Uranium, Hopi land is rich in coal.

C) The Hopi: Unwilling Environmental Justice Activists

The Hopi have often been characterized as a peaceful people. They claim to have had a continual occupancy on their northern Arizona land since 500 A.D. The modern Hopi reservation is estimated to be about 9 percent of the total land that they originally inhabited. Over the years their land has been claimed and reduced by Spaniards, whites, and even other Native-American tribes. Since the beginning, though, the Hopi have built their villages on top of the area’s large Mesas for defensive purposes. Ironically, it is the top of one of these Mesas that threatens the survival of the Hopi today. (http://www.hopi.nsn.us/history.asp).

The Hopi’s Black Mesa is where the world’s largest privately-owned coal company decided to expand their profits by opening a mammoth of a coal mine. I will argue that since the beginning of the mine, and up to this day, the Hopi have experienced one of the biggest cases of environmental injustice in our recent history. I will furthermore argue that this situation is indicative of the way our nation’s minorities, especially its Native-Americans, experience the powerlessness of environmental injustice. This experience is caused by a variety of factors including: the nation’s appetite for energy and development, corporate greed and unaccountability, and the government’s misrepresentation of Native-Americans.

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 between Hopi Tribal Council members and the Peabody Energy Company 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. This proposal was created to open up Hopi tribal lands for mining interests after Boyden had attempted in the years prior to convince council members of the benefits this would create.

When 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 its 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, because the world view of the Hopi 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 had 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 percent 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 on 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 percent?

Part of the answer was uncovered about 20 years ago when documents were discovered 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 have been discovered by law professor of law Charles Wilkinson that conclusively show that Boyden’s association with the company lasted from 1964 through 1971. (Folger 34)

Boyden grew up a devout Mormon in Coalville, Utah (irony?). After years of making a name for himself, he was hired by an unofficial group that called itself the Hopi Tribal Council in 1950 to represent the tribe before the Indian Claims Commission. By the 1960’s, Boyden had already been paid $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 the discovery of these payrolls and the damaging records of correspondence between Peabody and Boyden during the original negotiations, Peabody continued to defend 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, Wilkinson, 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. The validity of such an assertion it can be very problematic, however. 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, which we will explore 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.

B) Operation of the Black Mesa Mine: A Model of Unsustainability

Black Mesa is a high-altitude plateau that rises 3,000 feet above the surrounding lowlands of the Hopi reservation in Northern Arizona. The name Black Mesa originated as a description of the appearance of its rich coal deposit. The Mesa is composed of anthracite coal, which is highly valued by industry, in part ironically because of our government’s environmental regulation. Anthracite coal is characteristically low in sulfur content and has a high heating value (approximately 10,700 BTU’s per pound). (Glennon 155) In creating the 1970 Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments our government has put pressure on U.S. industry to reduce the amount of sulfur pollution that our coal-fired power plants emit in their annual operation. Burning coal like Anthracite allows power plants to avoid having to make costly upgrades to their technology, for these reasons and more industry saw Black Mesa as a proverbial gold mine.

In 1968 Peabody Energy Company began strip-mining almost 65,000 acres of the Black Mesa. In conjunction with this mine, Peabody began pumping water from the underlying N-Aquifer for the sole purpose of operating the nation’s only slurry pipeline, and the Slurry Preparation Plant located near the Black Mesa Mine. The coal company delivered dry coal in 2-inch (50 mm) particles by belt conveyor into the Black Mesa Pipeline Company's coal storage bins. At the Slurry Preparation Plant the coal was again ground to finer particles and mixed with the freshwater pumped from the N-Aquifer to produce ‘slurry’. The slurry was then piped 273 miles, via the Black Mesa pipeline, to the Mohave Generating Station in Nevada. Upon its arrival at Mohave the coal was then burned to generate electricity for Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Phoenix (Glennon 155). As it became public knowledge that large quantities of high quality water was being wasted on the transportation of coal, “The technology [was] universally rejected as grossly inefficient.” (Folger 33).

This process was repeated each day from 1968 to 2005. According to the EPA the Black Mesa Mine was producing 4.8 million tons of anthracite coal each year. (http://www.epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2006/November/Day-22/i19672.htm). In addition Peabody was pumping approximately 1.3 billion gallons of water from the aquifer each year. It is estimated that both the Hopi and Navajo tribes received a total of $85 million a year from royalties, taxes, employment benefits, and secondary economic spin-off, associated with operating the mines. This revenue was contributing roughly 60 percent of the Hopi tribal government’s annual budget before the mine was closed. (Folger 33)

C) Environmental Impacts of the Mine (1966 – 2005)

Even though the revenue from the mine helped to bring in a majority of the Tribe’s annual budget each year, it is a particular understatement to suggest that the price received by the Hopi was in any way fair. Peabody continued to pay the initial contracted $1.67 per acre-foot of water, until the tribes renegotiated for closer to the market value of their water (an almost 300 percent increase in water price). Even so, the money in no way reflected the price the Hopi have bore in respect to the environmental degradation of their land. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Interior failed to produce an environmental impact statement on the mine until June of 1990. The end result of the impact statement was the recommendation for Peabody to switch the source of their water from the N-Aquifer to the nearby C-Aquifer. The Department Interior included that if this should happen they would increase “life-of-mine” lease until 2026 with a recommended increase of production to 6.2 million tons of coal per year. (http://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/bmk-eis/Black%20Mesa%20Project%20Description.pdf). Here again we see the failure of the U.S. government to protect the environment and future livelihoods of the Hopi people. For all people, but the Hopi almost more so, the state of our environment and the state of our livelihood are two things that are inextricably linked. Never is this more apparent than when looking at Hopi dependence on this water source that Peabody exploited and wasted in this pipeline for over 30 years.

The Black Mesa is not an empty area where a coal mine happens to reside though. Approximately 10,000 Hopi and 27,000 Navajo live and work on the Mesa itself. Although many Hopi have entered the cash economy (either partially or completely), many traditionalists continue to live and practice the same subsistence farming techniques that their ancestors began practicing on this land at least 1,150 years ago. (Glennon 158) The water serves as an integral part of these techniques. This pristine water that was annually used to slurry coal in one of the most arid regions of the United States is also the sole source of Hopi drinking water. Of the 10,000 Hopi that live on the reservation, each person uses an average of approximately 8 gallons a day. Total, the entire Hopi population uses less than 3 percent of what Peabody pumps each day. (Folger 35)

The “traditional Hopi firmly believe that the earth cannot be owned. They view themselves as the caretakers of the earth, believing that they must live in harmony with the laws of the creator in order to maintain balance for the entire planet.” (Hall 131) The Hopi philosophy is congruent with many of the tenants of our modern Sustainable Development movement. The Hopi believe that the earth that we are currently living on is the fourth incarnation of the world. In Hopi mythology three previous versions of the earth were destroyed by God; each time after humans became arrogant enough to think of themselves as god and used its technology in destructive ways. This belief is in many ways parallel to the suspicions Sustainable Development scholars have in regard to our technology and current state of consumption.

In contrast, however, their culture can be seen as clashing with many aspects of Anglo-American capitalist culture. Many Anglo-Americans, especially those in positions of decision-making power, view the land and its resources as a commodity that can be quantified and manipulated for mass production. They also operate under the assumption that natural limitations can be overcome by harnessing technological innovations. (Hall 131) When I visited the Hopi reservation this spring, conversations I had with members of the tribe drove this clash of cultures home for me. I will discuss in further detail later how these cultural differences helped to allow Peabody (and others) to exploit the Hopi.

D) December, 31 2005: Public Backlash and the Closing of Black Mesa

Since mining began, local Hopi and Navajo have fought its operation on the grass-roots level. By the mid 1980’s the Hopi Tribal Council began debating amongst themselves whether or not to end the mining lease. The topic generated a storm of controversy, even among Council members, in large part due to the fact that the majority of the revenue earned by the tribe was derived from the mining operation. In 1990 Hopi Tribal Council member, Vernon Masayesva, walked away from his role as council member because of his frustrations with the government’s handling of the Black Mesa situation. After several years of writing and grassroots organizing, he created a non-profit organization called the Black Mesa Trust in 1998. The mission of this organization is as follows:

“Our Mission: The mission of Black Mesa Trust is to safeguard, preserve and honor the land and water of Black Mesa. At its essence, Black Mesa Trust is about harnessing the lessons of traditional knowledge with Western science and technology to secure permanently our homeland on Black Mesa for generations of children yet to come. It is our hope that our families will always enjoy the wide-open spaces, deep canyons, majestic mesas, and clean air and water that bless our sacred homeland.” (blackmesatrust.org 2007)

Masayesva and the Black Mesa Trust immediately began challenging the water studies that showed “no significant impact” to the N-Aquifer. (Reily 2) For many years Peabody had been arguing that “…study after study has shown that we are not harming it [the aquifer]” (Folger 35) The Corporation often used this misinformation to temporarily win arguments about the company’s impact on Hopi water. What they failed to mention is that the studies showing “no significant impact” are in large part Peabody-funded studies.

The Mohave Power Plant where Black Mesa coal was being sent was one of the largest sources of pollutants in the west. It attracted several protests and lawsuits from a variety of organizations including the Sierra Club and the Grand Canyon Trust, due to the large amounts of white haze it was sending up around the area (especially over the Grand Canyon). The company, Southern California Edison, who owned Mohave, was being pressured to spend an estimated $1.1 billion to retrofit the plant. Before they would make such an investment they demanded that Peabody acquire a permanent lease for the Black Mesa Mine. (Reily 4)

When Peabody went to apply for this lease with the Office of Surface Mining, the Black Mesa Trust and other organizations spread the word using a western tool – the Internet. The Internet and grassroots organizing finally gave the local Hopi residents a voice in the debate. This voice was manifested by the 7,000 objections that the Office of Surface Mining received within a short time, all firmly opposed to the mine’s continued use of the aquifer. (Reily 4) Faced by the unified Hopi and Navajo opposition, Edison decided not to invest in the retrofit and eventually both the Mohave Generating Station and the Black Mesa mine were shut down on December, 31 2005.

Of course, this is where (depending on your perspective) the story just begins. After exploiting the Hopi people and their natural resources it is nearly impossible to repair the damage by simply leaving. In the next section I will explore deeper the impact that Peabody has LEFT on the Hopi from 2005 up to the present day. The aftermath of this unequal relationship has important things to reveal to us about the larger state of environmental justice in America.

III. The Hopi’s Blackest Mesa: 2005 - Present

This section is composed of the largely unfortunate aftermath that Peabody left in the wake of closing the mine. Here we see a sometimes dark and sometimes hopeful future of the Hopi people. I will also discuss the implications to Peabody and how the mine has affected (mostly financially) them. In the mess of things, some people have offered sustainable solutions. I will conclude the section by describing the informal interviews that I conducted in the spring of 2007 on my trip to the Hopi reservation.

A) Capitalistic Model of Growth: Peabody Energy and its Increasing Profits

The Black Mesa was a steady source of profit for the Peabody Energy company during the mine’s 30-plus year operation. They have made tens of millions of dollars from the mine. For a time, combined with the neighboring Kayenta Mine (on Navajo land) the coal represented 6 percent of the total Peabody was pulling in from all its worldwide mining operations. (Folger 33) Peabody has long been an official Fortune 500 corporation. Considered the world’s largest coal company, they operate 40 mines in the United States and Australia alone. Peabody mines produce 250 million tons of coal annually and maintain 10 billion tons of coal reserves. The United States is their biggest customer, accounting for a staggering 90 percent of Peabody’s sales. Aside from mining, Peabody participates in coal trading and brokering, coal bed methane production, transportation-related services, and development of coal-based generating plants. In the last few years Peabody profits have increased about $ 1 billion annually. In December of 2004 they reportedly had pulled in a revenue sum (not gross profit but REVENUE) of $3.63 billion. In December of 2005 the company’s reports show $4.64 revenue and by December of 2006 it had grown to $5.25 billion. (http://www.hoovers.com/peabody-energy/--ID__56753--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml) Considering these numbers, it does not appear to show that the closing of the Black Mesa mine had any negative impact on Peabody Energy.

In fact, I argue against a popularly held misconception about the formal mine closing in 2005. This has not been the end of Peabody activity on the Black Mesa. As recent as June 2006, Peabody was still paying royalties for mining activity on the Black Mesa, where in a release they state that they see the area as a viable source for resource extraction. Also in the released statement Peabody went as far as to say:

“Mining on Black Mesa fuels a sustainable future on reservation lands by providing a significant source of tribal revenue, high-paying jobs and reclaimed lands that are more productive than before mining occurred,” said Peabody Energy President and Chief Executive Officer Gregory H. Boyce. “We're pleased this additional revenue will bring even more benefits to tribal people.” (Peabody, June 9, 2006)

As far as the company is concerned, the Black Mesa mining operation was only suspended. At the end of the statement Peabody assures the public that stakeholders continue to discuss possible solutions for the hopeful reopening of the Mohave Generating Station. (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=129849&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=871115&highlight=).

During my trip, I discovered that this, in fact, was the case until just recently. Peabody continues to try to exploit the region’s resources. They have made several proposals to reopen the mine on Black Mesa with the stipulation that it will no longer use the controversial N-aquifer for transporting coal. Instead they propose to pipe water from the Coconino-aquifer, over 100 miles away near Flagstaff, Arizona, all the way to the Black Mesa. In addition the proposal, called the Black Mesa Project, is asking the Office of Surface Mining to extend the coal-mining lease until at least 2026. As I mentioned before, Peabody is applying for this lease, in part, because of pressure put on them by the Southern California Edison company, the majority owner and operator of the Mohave Generating Station. When I was on the Navajo reservation I picked up the latest issue of the reservation paper, REZ BIZ: A Business Magazine for Indian Country, in which I found the announcement that current effort to restart Mohave, had ceased. Apparently the Southern California Edison company and two other co-owners had announced plans to reopen under new ownership and extend the life of the 1,580-megawatt plant in September of 2006. The reservation article claims that these owners ceased efforts recently after discovering the project was not economically feasible. The cost to bring the plant up to environmental code, with respect to all the required emission controls, was said to be approximately $750 million. This figure doesn’t even include the investment required to rebuild the slurry line infrastructure. So with this conclusion, a small victory was won in the battle to stop the continued exploitation of the area. (Joe 6)

Though the Mohave is indirectly responsible for the Hopi situation, it is important to note how significant these corporate owners are as well. The Southern California Edison company has combined with the Nevada Power Company and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to form the Salt River Project. This entity is the third-largest public power utility in the nation. It provides electric service to more than 900,000 customers in the greater metropolitan areas. Therefore the Salt River Project, which is largely responsible for Peabody’s continued effort at the Black Mesa, is responsible for delivering power to millions of Americans living in the urban west. (Joe 5).

Here again it is important to note that the finger of blame should not merely rest on these large companies. A significant portion of the blame should also be accepted by the larger capitalistic American culture. It’s widely documented and accepted that the majority of the customers served by these companies are Americans, who live lifestyles that require unprecedented levels of energy consumption when compared with the rest of the world. The mantra of economic development at all cost has unfortunately been a dominant characteristic of our culture for far too long. Those of us who live the privileged life that companies like Peabody contribute to have been blinded to the source and means of production for far too long. It is an example of injustice like the situation with the Hopi that can help illustrate problems caused by our blind enjoyment. With this said, I will begin to discuss the economic, cultural, and environmental aftermath left by Peabody since the “suspension” of their mining operations in 2005.

B) Economic Aftermath of the Mine Closing: A Unemployed Region Losses Jobs

In a joint analysis conducted with the EPA right before Mohave and the Black Mesa were closed, the Hopi economy was already declared “depressed”. The analysis sites the 2000 U.S. census which reported that 44 percent of Hopi families with children under the age of 18 subsisted on income that was well below the national poverty level. In contrast with the rest of American households, 40 percent of Hopi homes lacked complete plumbing facilities and almost 35 percent of the homes were even lacking complete kitchen facilities. The report goes on to describe the lack of diversity which is characteristic of a Hopi economy that is largely governmental in composition and including an extremely small private sector. It is of great importance for everyone to know that the people belonging to the Hopi tribe and their micro-economy were in a condition of destitution even during the many years that Peabody Energy era. (http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/877312-p03Lji/877312.PDF)

Considering the short period of time that the mine has been closed, and the fact that (according to Peabody) millions in royalties were still being awarded as recently as 2006, it is particularly difficult to know the true economic problems Peabody has caused. What is known is that on the day Peabody claims they “suspended operations,” about 200 Hopi and Navajo jobs were lost. The loss of mine-related jobs is likely to only continue because its existence created far more than just 200 jobs. In the 1970’s the initial mining was said to have created 750 jobs and estimated mine-related job loss has been speculated as high as 900 jobs. (Glennon 159) Though 200 is a seemingly low number, it is important to understand that on these reservations the unemployment rate has remained consistently around 50 percent. The workers who lost their job that day had been earning 10 times the average annual income of other people on these reservations. In response to this loss, many of these indigenous mine workers expressed some all-too familiar anti-environmental sentiments identical to the complaints which helped spawn the environmental justice movement. An example of this occurred when the New York Times interviewed former employee Myrata Cody, just one month after she lost her job on January 2006. (Broder 2) Myrata was a 48-year-old single Navajo mother with three children and operated heavy equipment at the Black Mesa for 27 years before the mine closed. Her gut-wrenching testimony included:

“This income is the only thing I have…all those people protesting for environmental groups, none of them live up here. If this plant shuts down, some of us are going to have to leave our elderly parents behind to go find work. Who’s going to go out there and check on them, make sure they get their medication? Nobody from the environmental groups, that’s for sure.” (Broder 2)

As I pointed out earlier in the analysis of what factors caused an environmental justice to be created, the claims of minorities with respect to environmentalism were identical to that of this worker.

Unfortunately the backlash is directed at well-meaning environmental groups who are, in part, rightly viewed as disconnected from the local people who depend on the jobs the industry has supplied. Obviously by leaving out the social justice component of the debate, and just fighting the mine without seeking an equal relationship between these indigenous people and the rest of America amounts to nothing more than an attack on the livelihoods of an already vulnerable segment of the population. The greatest negative economic impact that Peabody had on the region was to create a relationship of dependence between the Hopi and their company. This dependency is felt directly by the people who were employed by the mine. If not already, it will eventually be indirectly felt by the entire Hopi population who rely on their Hopi tribal government and their pool of funds that make construction of schools, community centers, roads and other public goods and possibility. If the Hopi tribal government was receiving approximately 60 percent of its annual revenue from Peabody, where will the money come from to replace the void in the budget created after Peabody’s withdrawal? Later I will discuss some of the sustainable options that the Hopi have proposed as solutions to this dilemma. Before I can do that though it is important to discuss the environmental and cultural detriments the Hopi have come to realize in the aftermath of Peabody occupation.

C) The Environmental/ Cultural Impact in the Mine’s Wake: One in the Same

I stated previously that the Black Mesa mine had extreme negative impacts on the environment and culture of the Hopi. It can not be overstated that in a culture such as the Hopi, where their identity is inextricably linked to the land, environmental and cultural impacts are one in the same. Unfortunately by the time the mining operation came to a halt in 2005, much of the damage had already been done. Explosions used in strip-mining unceremoniously (no pun intended) destroyed countless sacred sites and archeological artifacts on the Mesa throughout the 30-plus years of intensive coal extraction. These direct representations of Hopi culture are irreplaceable and lost forever unfortunately.

Aside from the significant destruction of sacred sites, the damage to area’s water supply has had lasting consequences upon Hopi culture. Peabody’s ridiculous misuse of water from the N-aquifer coupled with decades of drought, in the already characteristically arid region, combined to leave many Hopi springs dry. In fact more than 90 percent of the springs on the Hopi reservation have dried up. These springs, and water in general, are integral to Hopi religious ceremonies. These ceremonies honor the rain, which they believe connects them with the creator. It is said that water is so important to the Hopi that easily 50 percent of their surnames relate to water and the water cycle. The springs are also important sources traditionally harnessed for their long subsistence farming. By using such techniques the Hopi have managed to sustain themselves for thousands of years in an area that lacks any major streams or rivers. (Glennon 158) The effect that a 90 percent reduction spring loss will cause on the future of the Hopi culture cannot be quantified numerically though. Furthermore, it is not something that Peabody could ever financially compensate.

Further complicating the situation is the regular run-of-the-mill pollution that occurs with any normal strip-mining operation. Chemicals used as explosives have been acknowledged as the reason for numerous sheep kills in the past. This has been as severe as to kill eighty-six sheep at one time in the summer of 1989. (Hall 149) It is still unknown how much of these and other similar by-products of the strip-mining have infiltrated the surrounding ecosystem. It is safe to assume that these chemicals have leeched into and contaminated the remaining water table or soil.

The destruction of the sole source of Hopi water can be seen as yet another threat to their autonomy. (Hall 153) What happens when this precious source of water ceases to be an option for the Hopi? Not only will this be a huge threat to their cultural identity it will probably lead to the creation of yet another relationship of outside dependency. If, as some have suggested, the water would be piped in from elsewhere this would mean the Hopi would again be utterly dependent on an outside entity for their survival. This was never the case before Peabody began their mining, and it in no way reflects a system of justice in our country. There are some Hopi who are taking the goal of reclaiming sovereignty and sustainability into their own hands. These people are the subject of the next section.

D) Reclaiming that which Peabody Stole: Current Efforts for Sustainability

In discussing the often-bleak threats to the future of the Hopi since Peabody’s closing of the Black Mesa mine, I think it is important to add that there are hopeful prospects being discussed within the Hopi community. Recently the Hopi Tribal Government has established the Hopi Clean Air Partnership Project (HCAPP) to support the tribe’s economic development goals in ways that are more sensitive to the needs and ways of the Hopi people. The United States Department of Energy has funded and supported the development of the Hopi Sustainable Energy Program. These initiatives imply an acute awareness by the tribal government that the Hopi are in desperate need of a paradigm shift from their formal coal-dominated economy to a more diversified and self-sustaining one. In their official report, the key actors of the Hopi Sustainable Energy Program claim that the program’s goal is “to provide affordable and environmentally-safe energy to local residents and business for the purpose of economic self-sufficiency.” (http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/877312-p03Lji/877312.PDF) The broad and ambitious goals of this project are fundamental in reversing the various actions by those groups (specifically Peabody) who have severely undermined Hopi sustainability and self-sufficiency. The plan identifies several sustainable economic opportunities including harnessing renewable sources such as solar and wind, and the possibility of selling energy produced by these resources on the market.

The option of solar energy production for the Hopi has been considered very viable. The annual average for solar exposure on the reservation and most of Arizona is among the highest levels in both the United States and the world. Unfortunately though, the likelihood of a large-scale solar plant is slim. The cost to construct a power plant comparable to the Mohave would likely total at over 8 billion US dollars. The 2004 Hopi Sustainability Project and EPA report concluded that the potential market value of this electricity would not come close to paying off the debt the tribe would go into to construct the solar plant. (http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/877312-p03Lji/877312.PDF) There has yet to be a study conducted to investigate the possibility of a smaller-scale plant. It seems possible that a smaller venture supplemented with other options would be a more appropriate investment for the Hopi. This is even more apparent when considering the rising market value for renewable energy sources. In 2007, as solutions for the issue of global warming have finally become a significant part of the federal government’s agenda, there is also an increasing availability for government-offered subsidies which would aid the feasibility of such a project.

As for wind, the Hopi tribal government began studying this option’s feasibility in a report released on October 19, 2005. The “Feasibility Study for Hopi Utility-Scale Wind Project” saw economic benefits like: “an increase in revenue from exported electricity, the potential of funding a rural electrification, contracting work done in development and construction phases, and new jobs.” (Honie 2). The study, which is still underway, was conducted in partnership with the Department of Energy with the goal of a 100 MW wind project in mind. The initial data collected by a 50 meter test tower has shown positive economic potential. The continued feasibility studies have also been thorough enough to consider the possibility of environmental and cultural impacts in addition to just economic ones. They go as far as to pledge a commitment further assess such impacts by “on-site biological and avian survey work; archaeological, cultural, and historical studies; aviation safety review; and a third person geological review for the proposed site(s).” (Honie 8) By 2005, the project had progressed enough to secure the support of at least $70 million in green energy funds. (Honie 10)

The significance an urgency of this and similar projects for the Hopi cannot be overstated. What I find most encouraging about these possibilities is that it is an opportunity for the Hopi people to finally own the means of production. If this were the case, the Hopi could finally regain some much needed self-sufficiency and economic diversity. The dependence on repressive foreign entities, such as Peabody, to sustain their economy would be relieved to some extent. This, in theory, would empower the Hopi. In all perceivable ways, the Hopi people as a whole would finally be awarded the leverage they need to ensure their best-possible standard of living. It is not clear, however, that this will reverse or protect the Hopi from similar forms of environmental injustice in the future. Perhaps only when the nation decides to make inequities among race and class a thing of the past, will this be the case.

As I’ve discussed earlier the cultural differences between the rest of American society and the Hopi are remarkably vast. It is highly probable that the Hopi’s cultural characteristics, coupled with the lack of political participation/knowledge have been the greatest factors that allow them to be exploited. This is certainly the impression I got when I attempted to interview members of the tribe earlier this year.

E) Informal Hopi Interviews: The Muffled Voices of the Victims

During my short visit to the Hopi reservation this year, I got a different view of the realities often discussed in America’s environmental justice movement. Though I had initially wanted to talk with many of the everyday people who were affected by decisions made without their input, I eventually only had the opportunity to talk to a few Hopi about this controversial subject. The conversations I had led me to believe that this is still a situation that few wish to discuss.

The first person I attempted to talk to was the official Hopi tour guide for our group on the First Mesa. This small soft-spoken middle-aged Hopi woman was knowledgeable in many aspects of traditional and contemporary Hopi life. In noticing this, I made the assumption that she would be very familiar with and open to talk about the situation on the nearby Black Mesa. Her response did not confirm my assumption though. I asked if she knew anybody or any families who worked in the Black Mesa mine. She answered that she “didn’t know anyone” and that she did not “think anyone around here worked there.” In her face I saw a reluctance to talk about anything related to the Black Mesa and I quickly dropped the subject.

Later, reading Charles Supplee’s book I discovered there were reasons for this reluctance and it is actually and common attitude. In Supplee’s Canyon de Chelly: the story behind the scenery, a Navajo discussing the Black Mesa commented: “People up here think that the mine is a dangerous subject to talk about. If you asked them, they would wonder why you wanted to know. They might get afraid that really you might be here to get information about people speaking up against the tribal government.” (Supplee 105) To make matters more complicated, the Hopi tour guide I was attempting to talk to was, in fact, an employee of the Hopi tribal government. It is understandable for the Hopi to be suspicious of the intentions of outsiders after so many examples of exploitation perpetrated by outsiders throughout the tribe’s history. The fact that she was an employee of the tribal government added another angle of complication though. Unfortunately, the tribal government has to date failed to fully renounce the activities and the relationship between Peabody and the tribe they are supposed to represent. For the guide to speak out against the mine would also be an indirect attack on the tribal government and a threat to her job.

Probably the best and most informative conversation I had was the one I had with a former employee of the Black Mesa mine. The Hopi man, currently working as a surveyor for the reservation’s land, discussed the controversy directly and unemotionally. When I asked if he knew anyone who worked there he said “he had once” in a matter-of-fact way, and that “the tribe gets the coal they use to heat and cook from there…and all the electricity. I then asked about the mine’s closing and how he felt about that and the water-rights controversy. “I’m neutral.” He claimed, “We Hopi believe that it’s better to be with the natural world and listen to things like the Sun and sky, than to get into an argument that all ready exists.” Obviously, as someone who was formerly employed by Peabody, it would be hard for him to speak out against an institution that once employed him. I am arguing, though, that the implied cultural references of his statements say a lot about how this injustice was possible for so many years.

The quotes and points-of-view that I have collected in researching this situation have illustrated how marginalized people, like the Hopi, are often very disconnected from the political world that greatly impact their way of life. Though there have been examples of Hopi activists and traditionalists who have spoken out vehemently against the situation, there were many Hopi who accepted it without question. This may reflect a culture that has traditionally removed its self from both outer and inner tribal politics. The reasons for this fragmentation are varied. Charges of exploitation and misrepresentation should also be leveled at the Hopi tribal government, as well. Tribal governments have often been described as tools of the United States government. These supposed “representatives” of the Hopi have historically been both constructed and beholden to the Department of Indian Affairs, a subgroup within the US Department of Interior (DOI). The DOI are also in charge of land management and development, this conflict of interest has often come at the expense of Native Americans. I think it has been truthfully charged that these so-called “Indian governments” are merely figureheads whose only authority is their ability to approve and legitimate development leases brought to them by the US federal government. No matter who is responsible for or why such injustice occurs, the case of the Hopi is indicative of injustice experienced by Native Americans throughout this country.

IV. Conclusions

The worst aspect of the disproportionate environmental burden that the Hopi have had to bare is that it is not a unique story within the United States. It does not take an endless amount of scholarly studies to realize that the country’s waste treatment plants, large mining operations, and dirty coal-fired power plants are not regularly situated in predominately white, affluent neighborhoods. The push to profit off of the resources, which should rightly belong to the Hopi people living on top of them, continues to this day. Among the many proposals there are efforts under way to open a corporate-owned, large-scale, coal-fired power plant on the neighboring Navajo lands.

Local indigenous organization and outside environmental justice proponents have helped give a voice to a population that has been voiceless for too long. There has been extensive documentation on the inequities faced by our country’s indigenous population. The government, itself, has acknowledged this fact by some of the institutions it has created. For example the interagency working group on environmental justice that came out of President Clinton’s 1994 executive order created the Native American Task Force in 1999 to specifically address issues of environmental justice pertinent just to the Native American populations. Among the commitments of this organization is to “enhance the protection of tribal cultural resources and places.” (Office of Environmental Justice, 2004) In my opinion, this organization has made only minimal efforts to help reverse any injustice experienced. Many of their “accomplishments” which they announce in their official fact sheet, are meetings they have conducted to raise awareness. The major significance of this group in my opinion, though, is what is inherently implied by the fact that it was created. The implication is simply that the federal government acknowledges the existence of environmental inequity, and further acknowledges that it has been a significant problem to Native Americans specifically.

Since 1988 there has been an outpouring of academic research attempting to prove and disprove the existence of race and class-based environmental inequities in the United States. In 2005, the release of Evan Ringquist’s meta-analysis has rendered many critics silent. In the conclusion of his detailed analysis he states that the meta-analytic method inconclusively illustrates that these inequities exist ubiquitously. In closing recommendations though, Ringquist offers that: “promoting environmental equity, while important, ought to be viewed as one among a series of competing goals…” instead of the, “primary goal when reinventing environmental regulation” (Ringquist 241) His recommendation is based on the modest inequities seen through the broad scope of meta-analysis, however. I argue instead that while a broad scope is important for proving the existence of inequity, if one looks at the severity of specific cases like the Hopi the importance becomes more apparent. The country cannot discuss reinventing environmental regulation without assuring that the discussion is democratically applicable to member of every race and class.

There have been significant steps taken towards the goal of equality among all members of this society. Through my analysis, I have attempted to show the large amount of work still to be done before we reach this goal. The case of the mine closing for the Hopi can not be seen as a success for the movement. The people have been economically, environmentally, and culturally handicapped. The hopeful message that I can conclude from this analysis is that there are still opportunities to rectify the many relationships of inequality that exist in this country. The first step, though, is recognizing that they exist and can be helped. After this is realized we have to understand the necessity of abandoning are old regressive ways of thinking. The United States needs to abandon its desires of development at all cost and adopt the notions of Sustainable Development. Fundamental to the goal of Sustainable Development is the idea of an inextricable link between environmental justice and social justice.

In addition, we must abandon the notion that there is a trade-off between economic rights and human rights. There is room in the world for both. If not, then we have to seriously reevaluate an economic system that has been continuously allowed to trump the rights of the very species that invented it. Capitalism is a socially-constructed system created with the goal of making life easier for humans. Along the way people began to deify it and value it more than human life. Until this problem is realized and solved, there will be injustice everywhere. I hope that the end result of this analysis is an illustration that the same can be applied to the environmental justice movement. It is a problem that we have every capability of solving.

Bibliography

Blanchard, Paul J.. United States. USGS.Assessments of Aquifer Sensitivity of Navajo Nation Adjacent Lands and ground water vulnerability to pesticide contamination on the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. Albuquerque, NM : U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey ; Denver, CO, 2002.

Broder, John M. “Closing of Mine on Tribal Lands Fuels Dispute Over Air, Water and Jobs” New York Times. New York, NY: Jan 1, 2006. p.1.12

Checker, Melissa. Polluted Promises:Environmental Racism and the Search for Justice in a Small Town. 1st. New York: New York University Press, 2005.

Dougherty, John. “A People Betrayed” Phoenix New Times. May 1, 1997.

Folger, Tim. "A Thirsty Nation: The Hopi have sold their coal and their water to the Peabody Company for decades. The money keeps flowing, but now their springs are running dry" Onearth: environment, politics, people. 26(2004): 30-37.

Glennon, Robert J. Water follies: Groundwater pumping and the fate of America’s Freshwaters. 1^st ed. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 2002.

Hall, Kathy. "Impacts of the Energy Industry on the Navajo and Hopi."Unequal Protection: Environmental Justice and Communities of Color. 1st ed. 1994.

Honie, Norman. “Feasibility Study For a Hopi Utility-Scale Wind Project.” Department of Energy: http://www.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/pdfs/0510review_25thorner.pdf

Joe, George. “Salt River Project Ceases Effort to Restart Mohave Generating Station: Concludes that timeline delays would render the facility economically unfeasible.” REZ BIZ: A Business Magazine for Indian Country. February/ March 2007. P. 5

Klein, Allen D.. "Black Mesa and Kayenta Mines, Life-of-Mine Plans and Water Supply Project, Coconino, Navajo, and Mohave Counties, AZ, and Clark County, NV ." Federal Register Environmental Documents . 01 december 2004. EPA. 6 Feb 2007 .

Layzer, Judith A.. The Environmental Case. 2nd. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2006.

Littin, G.R.. " Monitoring the effects of ground-water withdrawals from the N aquifer in the Black Mesa area, northeastern Arizona [electronic resource] / Gregory R. Littin ; prepared in cooperation with the Arizona Department of Water Resources and Bureau of Indian Affairs." 1999. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 8 Feb 2007 http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/waterusgsgov/water.usgs.gov/pubs/fs/FS-064- 99/pdf/fs-064- 99.pdf

Meiklejohn, Douglas. “Representing New Mexico Communities: The Struggle for Environmental Justice.” Human Rights: Journal of the Section of Individual Rights & Responsibilities. 30.4 (2003): 23- 25. Academic Search Premier. 5 Febuary 2007. http://search.ebscohost.com

Reily, Sean Patrick. “Gathering Clouds” Los Angeles Times. June 6, 2004 www.latimes.com: Copyright 2007

Ringquist, Evan J.. "Assessing Evidence of Environmental Inequities: A Meta-Analysis." Journal of Policy and Management 24(2005): 223-247.

Rosenbaum, Walter A.. Environmental Politics and Policy. 6th. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2005.

Shrader-Frechette, Kristin. Environmental Justice: Creating Equality, Reclaiming Democracy. 1^st ed. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Supplee, Charles. Canyon de Chelly: the story behind the scenery, by Charles Supplee and Douglas and Barbara Anderson. Las Vegas, Nev., KC Publications: 1971

Waters, Frank. Book of the Hopi. 1st ed. Penguin , 1977.

Wilkinson, Charles. Blood Struggle: The Rise of Modern Indian Nations. 1st ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2005.

Westra, Laura Et. Peter S. Wenz ED. Faces of Environmental Racism: Confronting Issues of Global Justice. Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, Inc: 1995. pp. IX-XI

Websites:

http://www.peabodyenergy.com/

http://www.blackmesatrust.org/

http://www.epa.gov

http://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/wr/blackmesaeis.htm - Office of Surface Mining Report

http://www.hopi.nsn.us/

http://www.epa.gov/EPA-Impact/2004/December/Day-01/i26439.htm -EPA Report

http://www.stoppeabody.org

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2006/ -Fortune 500 List/Profiles

Hopefully Coherent

I. Introduction

In the opening section of this analysis I will outline the theoretical and historical framework that will be used to situate the issues of environmental injustice brought upon the Hopi Indians. To understand how this minority group has been marginalized by the United States (and specifically our energy sector), it is important to know a little about the history of modern environmental politics. I will use this history as a jumping point to begin describing the environmental justice movement and then why it is applicable to the Hopi.

A) The Birth of Modern Environmental Politics

Oddly enough it was the presidential administration of, conservative, Richard Nixon who led us into the era of Modern Environmental Politics. On the wake of the revolutionary social change that characterized the 1960’s, and with help from Rachel Carson’s earth-shattering expose on the harms of pesticide, there was a growing public concern for several environmental issues. The groundswell culminated in the organization and country-wide participation in the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970. This public outcry did not go unnoticed by United States politicians. The government reacted fast by passing the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act, all in a relatively short period of time.

These initial bills of legislation have been a cornerstone in the environmental movement and largely influence the way American’s regard the environment. These bills became regulation and as with most federal regulation, they became subject of intense controversy. Fundamental to this controversy is an ill-perceived idea that there is an economic trade-off between environmental protection and business.

Though many question the validity of such an assumption, it remains a prevalent idea in our culture. It also created a backlash towards the environmental movement. This backlash directly contributed to the belief that environmental issues are “a white-middle-class thing.” There has been a persistent element of truth to this belief though. Humans create concepts such as “race”, “pollution”, and “contamination”. These socially constructed terms are then used to form discourse that often serves the ends of the people who are all ready in power. Discourse and concepts aside, the “environment” has a very real and lasting impact on everyday people; who deserve to live in a healthy environment in order that they pursue the “life of dignity” that most human rights declarations describe. (Checker 16) The supposed tradeoff between the environment and jobs has been a reality, but they arise mainly in poor and (especially) minority communities. (Shrader-Frechette 6). The recognition of this led to the birth of the environmental justice movement in the 1980’s

B) Environmental Justice: Civil Rights meet Environmental Rights

In the mid to late 1980’s environmentalism and civil rights converged to begin fighting the fact that the marginalized people of the globe bear the brunt of the world’s environmental degradation. (Checker 8) The first scene of activism with regard to environmental justice was set within our state in Warren County, North Carolina. In 1982, Warren County was the center of controversy after the EPA and county officials decided to bend the rules to allow a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) disposal site to dump its waste dangerously close to the water table. At the time, Warren’s population was 75% African-American and it was the 4^th poorest county in North Carolina. (Shrader-Frechette 8)

In 1987 activists received the scholarly backing needed to legitimate their movement when the United Church of Christ Study was published. This study concludes: “The proportion of minority members in communities with hazardous waste facilities is double that of communities without facilities.” (Westra ET. Wenz xv). This ignited the, often controversial, concept of environmental racism. Though I believe in its existence, I will be arguing from the perspective of environmental injustice towards minorities, rather than using the controversial term “environmental racism” which becomes problematic to prove.

“Besides African-Americans, indigenous peoples have repeatedly been victims of environmental injustice. Among Native Americans, some of the most serious abuses have occurred in connection with the uranium mining in the West.” (Shrader-Frechette 9). One of the longest-operating uranium mines in the countries history can be found in Churchrock, New Mexico, on land owned by the Navajo Nation. The Navajo tribal government signed a governmental mining lease without obtaining the consent of Navajo families and without knowledge of the consequences that the company’s activities would produce. After using and contaminating the regions only source of drinking water the companies came under attack. These companies in turn responded the outcry by claiming immunity to the Federal Water Pollution Control act, in light of the fact that their “activities took place on Native-American land” which they argued “is not subject to any environmental protection.” (Shrader-Frechette 9). An identical, if not, I would argue a more detrimental; situation is found in the next state to the west: Arizona. Here the Hopi fought a similar battle with our energy sector; but instead of Uranium, Hopi land is rich in coal.

C) The Hopi: Unwilling Environmental Justice Activists

The Hopi have often been characterized as a peaceful people. They claim to have had a continual occupancy on their northern Arizona land since 500 A.D. The modern Hopi reservation is estimated to be about 9 percent of the total land that they originally inhabited. Over the years their land has been claimed and reduced by Spaniards, whites, and even other Native-American tribes. Since the beginning, though, the Hopi have built their villages on top of the area’s large Mesas for defensive purposes. Ironically, it is the top of one of these Mesas that threatens the survival of the Hopi today. (http://www.hopi.nsn.us/history.asp).

The Hopi’s Black Mesa is where the world’s largest privately-owned coal company decided to expand their profits by opening a mammoth of a coal mine. I will argue that since the beginning of the mine, and up to this day, the Hopi have experienced one of the biggest cases of environmental injustice in our recent history. I will furthermore argue that this situation is indicative of the way our nation’s minorities, especially its Native-Americans, experience the powerlessness of environmental injustice. This experience is caused by a variety of factors including: the nation’s appetite for energy and development, corporate greed and unaccountability, and the government’s misrepresentation of Native-Americans. First though, let’s talk about the mine.

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 between Hopi Tribal Council members and the Peabody Energy Company 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. This proposal was created to open up Hopi tribal lands for mining interests after Boyden had attempted in the years prior to convince council members of the benefits this would create.

When 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 its 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, because the world view of the Hopi 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 had 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 on 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 were discovered 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 have been discovered by law professor of law Charles Wilkinson that conclusively show that Boyden’s association with the company lasted from 1964 through 1971.(Folger 34).

Boyden grew up a devout Mormon in Coalville, Utah (irony?). After years of making a name for himself, he was hired by an unofficial group that called itself the Hopi Tribal Council in 1950 to represent the tribe before the Indian Claims Commission. By the 1960’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 the discovery of these payrolls and the damaging records of correspondence between Peabody and Boyden during the original negotiations, Peabody continued to defend 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, Wilkinson, 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. The validity of such an assertion it can be very problematic, however. 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, which we will explore 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.

B) Operation of the Black Mesa Mine: A Model of Unsustainability

Black Mesa is a high-altitude plateau that rises 3,000 feet above the surrounding lowlands of the Hopi reservation, in Northern Arizona. The name Black Mesa originated as a description of the appearance of its rich coal deposit. The Mesa is composed of anthracite coal, which is highly valued by industry, in part ironically because of our government’s environmental regulation. Anthracite coal is characteristically low in sulfur content and has a high heating value (approximately 10,700 Btu’s per pound) (Glennon 155). In creating the 1970 Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments our government has put pressure on U.S. industry to reduce the amount of sulfur pollution that our coal-fired power plants emit in their annual operation. Burning coal like Anthracite allows power plants to avoid having to make costly upgrades to their technology, for these reasons and more industry saw Black Mesa as a proverbial gold mine.

In 1968 Peabody Energy Company began strip-mining almost 65,000 acres of the Black Mesa. In conjunction with this mine, Peabody began pumping water from the underlying N-Aquifer for the sole purpose of operating the nation’s only slurry pipeline, and the Slurry Preparation Plant located near the Black Mesa Mine. The coal company delivered dry coal in 2-inch (50 mm) particles by belt conveyor into the Black Mesa Pipeline Company's coal storage bins. At the Slurry Preparation Plant the coal was again ground to finer particles and mixed with the freshwater pumped from the N-Aquifer to produce ‘slurry’. The slurry was then piped 273 miles, via the Black Mesa pipeline, to the Mohave Generating Station in Nevada. Upon its arrival at Mohave the coal was then burned to generate electricity for Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Phoenix (Glennon 155). As it became public knowledge that large quantities of high quality water was being wasted on the transportation of coal “The technology [was] universally rejected as grossly inefficient.” (Folger 33).

This process was repeated each day from 1968 to 2005. According to the E.P.A. the Black Mesa Mine was producing 4.8 million tons of anthracite coal each year. (EPA REPORT – FIND ME MATTEO). In addition Peabody was pumping approximately 1.3 billion gallons of water from the aquifer each year. It is estimated that both the Hopi and Navajo tribes received a total of $85 million a year from royalties, taxes, employment benefits, and secondary economic spin-off, associated with operating the mines. This revenue was contributing roughly 60% of the Hopi tribal government’s annual budget before the mine was closed (Folger 33).

C) Environmental Impacts of the Mine (1966 – 2005)

Even though the revenue from the mine helped to bring in a majority of the Tribe’s annual budget each year, it is a particular understatement to suggest that the price received by the Hopi was in anyway fair. Peabody continued to pay the initial contracted $1.67 per acre-foot of water, until the tribes renegotiated for closer to the market value of their water (an almost 300% increase in water price). Even so, the money in no way reflected the price the Hopi have bore in respect to the environmental degradation of their land. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Interior failed to produce an environmental impact statement on the mine until June of 1990. The end result of the impact statement was the recommendation for Peabody to switch the source of their water from the N-Aquifer to the nearby C-Aquifer. The Department Interior included that if this should happen they would increase ‘life-of-mine’ lease until 2026 with a recommended increase of production to 6.2 million tons of coal per year. (http://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/bmk-eis/Black%20Mesa%20Project%20Description.pdf). Here again we see the failure of the U.S. government in protecting the environment and future livelihoods of the Hopi people. For all people, but the Hopi almost more so, the state of our environment and the state of our livelihood are two things that are inextricably linked. Never is this more apparent than when looking at Hopi dependence on this water source that Peabody exploited and wasted in this pipeline for over 30 years.

The Black Mesa is not an empty area where a coal mine happens to reside though. Approximately 10,000 Hopi and 27,000 Navajo live and work on the Mesa itself. Although many Hopi have entered the cash economy (either partially or completely), many traditionalists continue to live and practice the same subsistence farming techniques that their ancestors began practicing on this land at least 1,150 years ago. (Glennon 158). The water serves as an integral part of these techniques. This pristine water that was annually used to slurry coal in one of the most arid regions of the United States is also the sole source of Hopi drinking water. Of the 10,000 Hopi that live on the reservation, each person uses an average of below 8 gallons a day. Total, the entire Hopi population uses less than 3 percent of what Peabody pumps each day. (Folger 35)

The “traditional Hopi firmly believe that the earth cannot be owned. They view themselves as the caretakers of the earth, believing that they must live in harmony with the laws of the creator in order to maintain balance for the entire planet.” (Hall 131). The Hopi philosophy is congruent with many of the tenants of our modern Sustainable Development movement. The Hopi believe that the earth that we are currently living on is the 4^th incarnation of the world. In Hopi mythology 3 previous versions of the earth were destroyed by God; each time after humans became arrogant enough to think of themselves as god and used its technology in destructive ways. This belief is in many ways parallel to the suspicions Sustainable Development scholars have in regard to our technology and current state of consumption.

In contrast, however, their culture can be seen as clashing with many aspects of Anglo-American capitalist culture. Many Anglo-Americans, especially those in positions of decision-making power, view the land and its resources as a commodity that can be quantified and manipulated for mass production. They also operate under the assumption that natural limitations can be overcome by harnessing technological innovations. (Hall 131) When I visited the Hopi reservation this spring, conversations I had with members of the tribe drove this clash of cultures home for me. I will discuss in further detail later how these cultural differences helped to allow Peabody (and others) to exploit the Hopi.

D) December, 31 2005: Public Backlash and the Closing of Black Mesa

Since mining began, local Hopi and Navajo have fought its operation on the grass-roots level. By the mid- 1980’s the Hopi Tribal Council began debating amongst themselves whether or not to end mining lease. The topic generated a storm of controversy, even among Council members, in large part due to the fact that the majority of the revenue earned by the tribe was derived from the mining operation. In 1990 Hopi Tribal Council member, Vernon Masayesva, walked away from his role as council member because of his frustrations with the government’s handling of the Black Mesa situation. After several years of writing and grassroots organizing, he created a non-profit organization called the Black Mesa Trust in 1998. The mission of this organization is as follows:

“Our Mission: The mission of Black Mesa Trust is to safeguard, preserve and honor the land and water of Black Mesa. At its essence, Black Mesa Trust is about harnessing the lessons of traditional knowledge with Western science and technology to secure permanently our homeland on Black Mesa for generations of children yet to come. It is our hope that our families will always enjoy the wide-open spaces, deep canyons, majestic mesas, and clean air and water that bless our sacred homeland.” (blackmesatrust.org 2007)

Masayesva and the Black Mesa Trust immediately began challenging the water studies that showed “no significant impact” to the N-Aquifer. (Reily 2). For many years Peabody had been arguing that “…study after study has shown that we are not harming it [the aquifer]” (Folger 35) The Corporation often used this misinformation to temporarily win arguments about the company’s impact on Hopi water. What they failed to mention is that the studies showing “no significant impact” are in large part Peabody-funded studies.

The Mohave Power Plant where Black Mesa coal was being sent was one of the largest sources of pollutants in the west. It attracted several protests and lawsuits from a variety of organizations including the Sierra Club and the Grand Canyon Trust, due to the large amounts of white haze it was sending up around the area (especially over the Grand Canyon). The company, Southern California Edison, who owned Mohave, was being pressured to spend an estimated $1.1 billion to retrofit the plant. Before they would make such an investment they demanded that Peabody acquire a permanent lease for the Black Mesa Mine. (Reily 4)

When Peabody went to apply for this lease with the Office of Surface Mining, the Black Mesa Trust and other organizations spread the word using a western tool – the internet. The internet and grassroots organizing finally gave the local Hopi residents a voice in the debate. This voice was manifested by the 7,000 objections that the Office of Surface Mining received within a short time, all firmly opposed to the mine’s continued use of the aquifer. (Reily 4). Faced by the unified Hopi and Navajo opposition, Edison decided not to invest in the retrofit and eventually, both the Mohave Generating Station and the Black Mesa mine were shut down on December, 31 2005.

Of course, this is where; (depending on your perspective) the story just begins. Over 30 years of a company exploiting the people and natural resources of a specific area; things like this do not repair themselves the moment the company leaves. In the next section I will explore deeper the impact that Peabody has LEFT on the Hopi from 2005 up to present day. The aftermath of this unequal relationship has important things to reveal to us about the larger state of environmental justice in America.

III. The Hopi’s Blackest Mesa: 2005 - Present

This section is composed of the unfortunate aftermath that Peabody left in the wake of the mine being closed. Here we face a sometimes dark and sometimes hopeful future of the Hopi people. I will also discuss the implications to Peabody and how the mine has affected (mostly financially) them. In the mess of things, some people have offered sustainable solutions. I will conclude the section by describing the informal interviews that I conducted, this year (2007), on my trip to the Hopi reservation.

A) Capitalistic Model of Growth: Peabody Energy and its Increasing Profits