To the Editor:
>
>I'm writing from the Boston, Massachusetts, area to commend the Arizona
>Republic for publishing the in-depth series of articles by Jerry Kammer
>about Black Mesa. Their scope and quality is enormously important. The
>story of this tragedy needs telling, and needs to be heard by a national
>and international audience. Jerry Kammer's research--including maps,
>history, chronology, sidebars, and photographs--and sensitive writing are
>very important.
>
>Please keep all of Mr. Kammer's articles available on your website for the
>widest possible continuing readership.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Carol S. Halberstadt
>Newton, Massachusetts
>_____________________
>

-----------
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 00:12:49
>To: Opinions@arizonarepublic.com
>From: Thursday <dh88691@pop.goodnet.com>
>Subject: "Coal Conspiracy"
>
>February 6 00
>
>
>To the Editor:
>
>
> I read with great interest your series on the so-called Navajo-Hopi
land dispute. I believe there is much more to say on the subject, but would
like to concentrate on two points.
>
> The first is to observe that the moral justification for removing
the Navajo people from their land is that it somehow "rights and ancient
wrong," mainly the purported taking of Hopi land by the Navajos. This
justification is based on a shallow interpretation of the "standard history"
of what is now the American southwest. It characterizes the Hopi as the true
"owners" of the land and the Navajo as marauders and "recent invaders." This
story line been useful for the tourism industry, the museum establishment,
Pueblo specialists in Anthropology, and of course for the Hopi Tribal
Council. In fact, recent research is confirming the tradition and oral
history of the Navajo and Hopi. In their own stories, both tribes can be
seen as modern peoples who came together on the land at about the same time,
springing from mostly the same deep cultural, historic and ethnic roots.
Nobody "took" anyone else's land until the United States arranged it.
>
> The second point I would like to make is about the "coal
conspiracy" which is supposed to be the driving force behind the "land
dispute." The real story is much bigger.
>
> After World War II, a tremendous political effort was made at
regional development in the American Southwest, particularly southern
Arizona. The centerpiece was to be the Central Arizona Project, sponsored
in particular by the late Senator Hayden. In order to bring Colorado River
water to the Phoenix amd Tucson areas, a number of things had to be done.
Water claims had to be settled, and were in Arizona v. California. The
canal itself had to be constructed. More importantly, a huge supply of cheap
electric power was needed to pump the water over the mountain ranges that
stood in the way.
>
> The original plan was for two dams on the Colorado, Glen Canyon,
and another one in the Grand Canyon. The latter encountered strong
opposition and an alternate power source had to be found. It was then
decided that Black Mesa coal should fire two huge power plants, at Page and
Bullhead City.
>
> It was Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall who supervised
development of the coal-fired option. Land title questions had to be
settled in Black Mesa (Healing v. Jones) and operators had to be brought on
board for the coal mine and electric power plants (Peabody Coal, Southern
Cal Edison, Salt River Project). Secretary Udall was instrumental in
securing the election of the compliant Raymond Nakai as Navajo Chairman, and
the removal of a troublesome Navajo Tribal attorney, Norman Littel.
Sweetheart leases for the coal mine and the Navajo Generating Station near
Page soon followed.
>
> At Hopi, Peabody Coal Co. attorney John Boyden orchestrated the
resurrection of the Hopi Tribal Council and the Hopi co-signing of the
Peabody leases. The rest, as they say, is history. The only question on
which history is silent is whether the removal of the Navajos was a
concession made by the United States to the Hopi Tribal Council for that
signature. I believe it was.
>
> It was my experience working for the Navajo Nation on this issue
that it was the United States that made an institutional commitment for
policy reasons to the removal of the Navajos. This commitment was braced by
consistent, effective and very expensive Hopi lobbying. The Navajo Nation
did what it could to opppose removal but simply could not devote comparable
political resources to a single issue. Absent completely from the lobbying
effort was Peabody Coal. They had already got what they needed.
>
> The Central Arizona Project is now reality. The water for which
twenty thousand people lost their homes is too expensive for agriculture,
and much of it is being pumped back into the ground. The Navajo and Hopi
tribes remain locked in court, while their people are locked in poverty and
unemployment. All who read this, go out to the CAP canal, look at the water
and ask yourself if it was worth it.
>
> For further reading I recommend two books: Marc Reisner's "Caddilac
Desert" and David Brugge's "Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute: and American Tragedy".
>
>
>
>Jon Norstog
>P.O. Box 1718
>Window Rock AZ 86515
>
>
>you can call me during the day at
>
>(505) 775-7110 or evenings (520) 871-3445
>