Tribes Give New Hope To Fight Against Coal Ports
NW tribes flex their muscle over proposed coal terminal project
In a protest this week, fishermen from the local Lummi tribe lined up their boats in unified opposition of a plan to build six coal export terminals along the Pacific Northwest coast, opening up inland coal to Asian markets.
Environmental groups and "green-minded politicians" have already come out against the project. This spring, hundreds of anti-coal activists were joined by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and energy experts at a rally in Portland, Oregon rally protesting the 'invasion' of the Pacific Northwest.
In the past few weeks, local tribes have been joining this movement and bringing historic clout and legislative power with them. Citing injury to fishing rights and religious and sacred sites, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission released a statement saying, "tribal communities are expressing grave concern about the health and safety impacts from environmental dangers of coal dust".
The New York Times reported on this growing concern among the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, quoting Billy Frank Jr., Chairman of the Northwest Indian Fish Commission.
The idea of a half-dozen new coal export terminals in western Washington and Oregon--and the hundreds of trains and barges running from Montana and Wyoming every day to deliver that coal--would threaten our environment and quality of life like nothing we have seen before. Coal may be a cheap source of energy for other countries, but these export facilities and increased train traffic would come at a great cost to our health, natural resources and communities.
The Times goes on to explain that, at least in this part of the nation, history has shown that "a tribal-environmental alliance," such as been demonstrated in recent events, "goes far beyond good public relations."
The cultural claims and treaty rights that tribes can wield -- older and materially different, Indian law experts say, than any argument that the Sierra Club or its allies might muster about federal air quality rules or environmental review -- add a complicated plank of discussion that courts and regulators have found hard to ignore.
Although many tribes around the nation received rights to hunt and fish in the treaty language of the 1800s...few places had a focus on a single resource -- fish, especially from the Columbia River and its tributaries -- that tribes here did. They also, crucially, persisted in using the resources that the treaties had granted them.
In the 1970s--when both the environmental and indian rights movement were gaining momentum--tribes in this area were successful in pushing court cases that reinforced their claims. Instances where local tribes have been able to flex their might include salmon stock restoration in the Columbia River and, just this year, restoring wild flow to a section of the Elwha River in "one of the biggest dam removal projects in the nation's history."
Further, an executive order from the Clinton era directs federal agencies to allow tribal access to sacred sites and requires that they take into account religious practices in federal decision making. Lummi leaders, in their protest this week, said the proposed Cherry Point site is full of sacred sites and burial grounds.
"It brings another set of issues to the table," Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber told the New York Times, crediting the tribes with having a voice that 'even a governor cannot match.' "It definitely increases the pressure."
Last month, a regional congress of more than 50 tribes from seven states passed a resolution calling on the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers "to conduct a full environmental analysis for all six proposals to transport and export coal through their shared lands and waters." The ACE had previously announced that they would conduct an Environmental Assessment rather than a more rigorous Environmental Impact statement. The resolution went on to demand "full transparency and government to government consultation throughout the entire decision making process the local, state, and federal levels."
The first public hearings for the terminal projects are set to begin this month in Bellingham, near the Lummi reservation.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just four days to go in our Spring Campaign, we are not even halfway to our goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
In a protest this week, fishermen from the local Lummi tribe lined up their boats in unified opposition of a plan to build six coal export terminals along the Pacific Northwest coast, opening up inland coal to Asian markets.
Environmental groups and "green-minded politicians" have already come out against the project. This spring, hundreds of anti-coal activists were joined by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and energy experts at a rally in Portland, Oregon rally protesting the 'invasion' of the Pacific Northwest.
In the past few weeks, local tribes have been joining this movement and bringing historic clout and legislative power with them. Citing injury to fishing rights and religious and sacred sites, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission released a statement saying, "tribal communities are expressing grave concern about the health and safety impacts from environmental dangers of coal dust".
The New York Times reported on this growing concern among the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, quoting Billy Frank Jr., Chairman of the Northwest Indian Fish Commission.
The idea of a half-dozen new coal export terminals in western Washington and Oregon--and the hundreds of trains and barges running from Montana and Wyoming every day to deliver that coal--would threaten our environment and quality of life like nothing we have seen before. Coal may be a cheap source of energy for other countries, but these export facilities and increased train traffic would come at a great cost to our health, natural resources and communities.
The Times goes on to explain that, at least in this part of the nation, history has shown that "a tribal-environmental alliance," such as been demonstrated in recent events, "goes far beyond good public relations."
The cultural claims and treaty rights that tribes can wield -- older and materially different, Indian law experts say, than any argument that the Sierra Club or its allies might muster about federal air quality rules or environmental review -- add a complicated plank of discussion that courts and regulators have found hard to ignore.
Although many tribes around the nation received rights to hunt and fish in the treaty language of the 1800s...few places had a focus on a single resource -- fish, especially from the Columbia River and its tributaries -- that tribes here did. They also, crucially, persisted in using the resources that the treaties had granted them.
In the 1970s--when both the environmental and indian rights movement were gaining momentum--tribes in this area were successful in pushing court cases that reinforced their claims. Instances where local tribes have been able to flex their might include salmon stock restoration in the Columbia River and, just this year, restoring wild flow to a section of the Elwha River in "one of the biggest dam removal projects in the nation's history."
Further, an executive order from the Clinton era directs federal agencies to allow tribal access to sacred sites and requires that they take into account religious practices in federal decision making. Lummi leaders, in their protest this week, said the proposed Cherry Point site is full of sacred sites and burial grounds.
"It brings another set of issues to the table," Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber told the New York Times, crediting the tribes with having a voice that 'even a governor cannot match.' "It definitely increases the pressure."
Last month, a regional congress of more than 50 tribes from seven states passed a resolution calling on the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers "to conduct a full environmental analysis for all six proposals to transport and export coal through their shared lands and waters." The ACE had previously announced that they would conduct an Environmental Assessment rather than a more rigorous Environmental Impact statement. The resolution went on to demand "full transparency and government to government consultation throughout the entire decision making process the local, state, and federal levels."
The first public hearings for the terminal projects are set to begin this month in Bellingham, near the Lummi reservation.
In a protest this week, fishermen from the local Lummi tribe lined up their boats in unified opposition of a plan to build six coal export terminals along the Pacific Northwest coast, opening up inland coal to Asian markets.
Environmental groups and "green-minded politicians" have already come out against the project. This spring, hundreds of anti-coal activists were joined by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and energy experts at a rally in Portland, Oregon rally protesting the 'invasion' of the Pacific Northwest.
In the past few weeks, local tribes have been joining this movement and bringing historic clout and legislative power with them. Citing injury to fishing rights and religious and sacred sites, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission released a statement saying, "tribal communities are expressing grave concern about the health and safety impacts from environmental dangers of coal dust".
The New York Times reported on this growing concern among the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, quoting Billy Frank Jr., Chairman of the Northwest Indian Fish Commission.
The idea of a half-dozen new coal export terminals in western Washington and Oregon--and the hundreds of trains and barges running from Montana and Wyoming every day to deliver that coal--would threaten our environment and quality of life like nothing we have seen before. Coal may be a cheap source of energy for other countries, but these export facilities and increased train traffic would come at a great cost to our health, natural resources and communities.
The Times goes on to explain that, at least in this part of the nation, history has shown that "a tribal-environmental alliance," such as been demonstrated in recent events, "goes far beyond good public relations."
The cultural claims and treaty rights that tribes can wield -- older and materially different, Indian law experts say, than any argument that the Sierra Club or its allies might muster about federal air quality rules or environmental review -- add a complicated plank of discussion that courts and regulators have found hard to ignore.
Although many tribes around the nation received rights to hunt and fish in the treaty language of the 1800s...few places had a focus on a single resource -- fish, especially from the Columbia River and its tributaries -- that tribes here did. They also, crucially, persisted in using the resources that the treaties had granted them.
In the 1970s--when both the environmental and indian rights movement were gaining momentum--tribes in this area were successful in pushing court cases that reinforced their claims. Instances where local tribes have been able to flex their might include salmon stock restoration in the Columbia River and, just this year, restoring wild flow to a section of the Elwha River in "one of the biggest dam removal projects in the nation's history."
Further, an executive order from the Clinton era directs federal agencies to allow tribal access to sacred sites and requires that they take into account religious practices in federal decision making. Lummi leaders, in their protest this week, said the proposed Cherry Point site is full of sacred sites and burial grounds.
"It brings another set of issues to the table," Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber told the New York Times, crediting the tribes with having a voice that 'even a governor cannot match.' "It definitely increases the pressure."
Last month, a regional congress of more than 50 tribes from seven states passed a resolution calling on the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers "to conduct a full environmental analysis for all six proposals to transport and export coal through their shared lands and waters." The ACE had previously announced that they would conduct an Environmental Assessment rather than a more rigorous Environmental Impact statement. The resolution went on to demand "full transparency and government to government consultation throughout the entire decision making process the local, state, and federal levels."
The first public hearings for the terminal projects are set to begin this month in Bellingham, near the Lummi reservation.