FERC, hydropower, and tribal rights: Confrontations at the Little Colorado River

IF 2 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Journal of Political Ecology Pub Date : 2024-02-05 DOI:10.2458/jpe.2930
E. Hite, Denielle M. Perry, Christian Fauser
{"title":"FERC, hydropower, and tribal rights: Confrontations at the Little Colorado River","authors":"E. Hite, Denielle M. Perry, Christian Fauser","doi":"10.2458/jpe.2930","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is well positioned to help advance the United States' clean energy transition through their management of energy projects. One obstacle to achieving the transition is meaningful consultation with Tribal Nations. Following decades of conflict between tribes and FERC regarding infrastructure development, the agency issued a \"policy statement on consultation with Indian tribes\" in 2003. The Policy acknowledges FERC's trust responsibility to tribes and seeks to work on a \"government to government\" basis with them, and recent amendments explicitly incorporate treaty rights into FERC's decision-making processes. Despite these interventions, tensions between FERC and tribes continue over the persistent lack of consultation and omission of government-to-government discussions regarding proposed hydropower. In this article, we question the application of FERC's decision-making powers as they intersect with tribal sovereignty via a discourse analysis of 'consultation.' The article applies an ethnographic perspective to explore the 'political' in political ecology and assess FERC's role in licensing the Big Canyon project, a proposed closed-looped pump hydropower project in Navajo Nation in Arizona. The project was proposed in 2020 without adequate consultation with the affected Diné peoples, illuminating significant gaps between FERC's stated policy on consultation and its operationalization. Compounding the situation further, the Big Canyon project would exacerbate human-water relationships by diminishing groundwaters in an area already facing aridification, thereby challenging the health of springs that feed the Little Colorado River, provide habitat for protected species, and are sacred to many Indigenous peoples. Studying the intersection of tribal rights and FERC presents a critical juncture for assessing the underlying power dynamics of decision-making processes regarding pumped storage hydropower in the United States, within the broad context of a clean energy transition. ","PeriodicalId":46814,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Political Ecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Political Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2458/jpe.2930","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is well positioned to help advance the United States' clean energy transition through their management of energy projects. One obstacle to achieving the transition is meaningful consultation with Tribal Nations. Following decades of conflict between tribes and FERC regarding infrastructure development, the agency issued a "policy statement on consultation with Indian tribes" in 2003. The Policy acknowledges FERC's trust responsibility to tribes and seeks to work on a "government to government" basis with them, and recent amendments explicitly incorporate treaty rights into FERC's decision-making processes. Despite these interventions, tensions between FERC and tribes continue over the persistent lack of consultation and omission of government-to-government discussions regarding proposed hydropower. In this article, we question the application of FERC's decision-making powers as they intersect with tribal sovereignty via a discourse analysis of 'consultation.' The article applies an ethnographic perspective to explore the 'political' in political ecology and assess FERC's role in licensing the Big Canyon project, a proposed closed-looped pump hydropower project in Navajo Nation in Arizona. The project was proposed in 2020 without adequate consultation with the affected Diné peoples, illuminating significant gaps between FERC's stated policy on consultation and its operationalization. Compounding the situation further, the Big Canyon project would exacerbate human-water relationships by diminishing groundwaters in an area already facing aridification, thereby challenging the health of springs that feed the Little Colorado River, provide habitat for protected species, and are sacred to many Indigenous peoples. Studying the intersection of tribal rights and FERC presents a critical juncture for assessing the underlying power dynamics of decision-making processes regarding pumped storage hydropower in the United States, within the broad context of a clean energy transition. 
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
联邦能源管理委员会、水电和部落权利:小科罗拉多河的冲突
联邦能源管理委员会(FERC)通过对能源项目的管理,完全有能力帮助推进美国的清洁能源转型。实现转型的一个障碍是与部落民族进行有意义的协商。在部落与联邦能源管理委员会就基础设施开发问题发生数十年冲突之后,该机构于 2003 年发布了 "与印第安部落协商的政策声明"。该政策承认联邦能源管理委员会对部落的信任责任,并寻求在 "政府对政府 "的基础上与部落合作,最近的修正案明确将条约权利纳入联邦能源管理委员会的决策过程。尽管采取了这些干预措施,但联邦能源管理委员会与部落之间的紧张关系仍在继续,原因是在拟议的水电项目中始终缺乏协商,也没有进行政府与政府之间的讨论。在本文中,我们通过对 "协商 "的话语分析,对联邦能源管理委员会的决策权与部落主权的交叉应用提出质疑。文章从人种学的角度探讨了政治生态学中的 "政治",并评估了联邦能源管理委员会在大峡谷项目许可中的作用,该项目是亚利桑那州纳瓦霍部落拟建的封闭式循环泵水力发电项目。该项目于 2020 年提出,但未与受影响的迪内族人进行充分协商,这说明联邦能源管理委员会所声明的协商政策与实际操作之间存在巨大差距。使情况更加复杂的是,大峡谷项目将通过减少已经面临干旱化的地区的地下水而加剧人水关系,从而挑战为小科罗拉多河提供水源、为受保护物种提供栖息地并对许多原住民具有神圣意义的泉水的健康。在清洁能源转型的大背景下,研究部落权利与联邦能源管理委员会之间的交集是评估美国抽水蓄能水电决策过程中潜在权力动态的关键时刻。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Political Ecology
Journal of Political Ecology ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
17.40%
发文量
47
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Political Ecology is a peer reviewed journal (ISSN: 1073-0451), one of the longest standing, Gold Open Access journals in the social sciences. It began in 1994 and welcomes submissions in English, French and Spanish. We encourage research into the linkages between political economy and human environmental impacts across different locations and academic disciplines. The approach used in the journal is political ecology, not other fields, and authors should state clearly how their work contributes to, or extends, this approach. See, for example, the POLLEN network, or the ENTITLE blog.
期刊最新文献
The political ecologies of "green" extractivism(s): An introduction  Indigenous onto-epistemology and the Niyamgiri Movement in India Justice in fishing territories: Human rights violations in artisanal fisheries analyzed by the Colombian Constitutional Court Hydropolitical potentialities in a post-'Day Zero' Cape Town: "Sensemaking" and the Cape Flats Aquifer Review of Benally, Klee. 2023. No spiritual surrender: Indigenous anarchy in defense of the sacred
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1