Letters: Regarding the noise to save NGS, Peabody

There is noise on and off the reservation to save Navajo Generating Station and Peabody Mine to save 800 high-paying jobs and revenues.

Let me remind you that Peabody lied to both the Navajo and Hopi tribes before 1969 and many times since they lied to the workers last year and lying to them again now, saying there is future in coal. They are pushing the Navajo Nation to renege on a promise in an agreement all to their benefit.

As a coal company, Peabody won’t face the fact that the market for its product is ending. Their executives have golden parachutes and can afford to live in that bubble. Working families — including those that work at Peabody and NGS — can’t afford to lack a plan that is based on reality.

We need leadership to step forward and demand better for Navajo and Hopi workers and families, and for the restoration of our land, water, and air, after decades of pollution by the coal industry. If Peabody won’t tell the truth, then allow me to clarify some points as to how we got here:

• First, the six owner/operators of NGS agreed to cease operations last summer, due to economic instability of the coal industry. The decision to cease operation was also in compliance with the original 1969 lease, which the Navajo Nation was a signatory to.
• With the concerns of the loss of revenues and jobs, the president and the speaker of the Navajo Nation Council talked the owners into agreeing to a negotiation for two additional years.
• In July 2017, with very strong support of the workers from both industries, the Navajo Nation spent months negotiating with Salt River Project to extend the operations for two more years to December 2019. It would be followed by two additional years until 2021 for decommission, reclamations and other clean up after 50 years of operation.
• In December 2017, the secretary of the Interior, on behalf of the president of the United States, signed the new replacement lease firming up the retirement date for NGS. It’s a done deal just as the workers wanted, two more years of operation and two more years of decommission for a total of four years.
• In the agreement the Navajo Nation negotiated, a total of $169,118,361 revenue was secured over a period of 35 years. These payments would come in various stages beginning in 2018.
  Also, in the agreement the Navajo Nation would get various assets, estimated value over $163 million. This would amount to a total of $332,118,361. Some of the assets includes railroad, a lake pump, transmission lines capable of carrying 500 MW and other assets, and guaranteed rights to 1,500 acre-feet of water from Upper Colorado River and future support from SRP to acquire additional water rights from the river.
• During this entire time, with the help of the Interior, Navajo Nation and Peabody continue to search for new ownership. The deadline for submission of a written letter of interest was Oct. 1, 2017, over five months ago. We hear there are 15 submissions with one delegate saying there is a “high caliber investor” in the pack who all conveniently refuses to be known publicly, hiding from public scrutiny.
• Economists are saying there is no future in energy produced by coal compared to renewables and natural gas cost. Just last month, the Federal Regulatory Commission (appointed by Trump) opposed a proposal by the Department of Energy to support coal industries. As it stands, there is no future in coal, and there is no buyer.
• Department of Commerce handed out $30 million to states and communities to transition away from coal, and out of that, $624,000 went to the Navajo Nation, Arizona State University and the Hopi Tribe to help transition away from NGS and Peabody to develop renewable sources, grow businesses and economic development. There is no dollar available to continue coal.
• The Navajo Nation is facing one of the worst droughts since the early 1900s, due to climate change. The extractive industries within and surrounding the Navajo land are all major contributors and NGS is the dirtiest of all power plants in the Southwest. Yet, these industries have been using huge amounts of water while polluting and wasting our land and air.
  There are those telling our people that the nation will be devastated by the closing of NGS and Peabody. I do not believe it.

Just last month our three branch chiefs signed a proclamation recognizing the 150-year since the Treaty of 1868. The proclamation talks about the many hardships our people have experienced throughout our history, which taught us resiliency and perseverance.

Those same people are failing to tell us all of the above, including the Navajo Permanent Trust Fund, which is now over $3 billion. Then there is the Sihasin Fund to relieve historic hardships and just this month it was amended to meet the nation’s economic needs.

They are also failing to tell us what’s gained through the replacement lease. All the money, all the assets and water rights will be lost if a new owner is found.

I would much rather re-gain our water rights soon after 2019, rather than later, at uncertain time. I strongly believe we have full rights to all of the 50,000 acre-feet of Upper Colorado River and all of the N-aquifers of Black Mesa. Water is everything. Water is life.

I would much rather have the Navajo Nation leadership be honest with all of us — it is inevitable that the coal industry will disappear and move forward with developing renewables and diversifying economic development. Our Navajo leadership needs to seize the opportunity, but needs to start planning for a transition now.

The future of Diné will be much, much brighter after Navajo Generating Station and Peabody.

Percy Deal
Big Mountain, Ariz.

Coal-fired plants have outlived themselves

The Farmington Daily Times printed a story about the Hopis and Navajos saying they will suffer if coal-fired plants closed. In my opinion, both tribes, politicians and the media are seeing only one side of this situation.

All plants have a life expectancy and these plants have far exceeded their limits. A 45-year-old plant is barely in operation when it was scheduled to last 10-15 years prior to 2018.

A good analogy would be to compare a vehicle designed to be driven 80,000 miles. We’ve kept it on the highway 720,000 miles longer than expected. Some of the parts of this vehicle are no longer being manufactured. They’re obsolete.

This same situation is occurring with the coal plants.

Over the years the integrity of these plants are questionable. The years have caught up with them and they can no longer run at optimum levels. What the average layman does not know is what investor would fund a business that fails to make money? The repairs alone would bankrupt any and all investors. As a result these aging plants area poor investment for all involved.

As for the suffering that would cause, my company hired excellent financial planners for their employees. It’s a shame not everyone may have made these plans for their future or retirement.

Justin D. Yazzie Jr.
Farmington N.M.

‘Redskins’ is a disparaging term

This paper addresses the online Navajo Times posting, “Descheenie bill would prohibit Washington team name” (Jan. 30, 2018).

Arizona State Rep. Eric Descheenie introduced House Bill 2499 on Jan. 31 at a press conference. The bill would prohibit a team name or logo that is disparaging to Native Americans from being used or displayed at public facilities.

The prediction is that the bill will not become law. Interestingly, even Mr. Descheenie recognizes this. “The measure is meant to send a message and that it ‘likely will not go anywhere’ in the Republican-controlled Legislature,” he said.

So why put HB 2499 out there if it has no chance of becoming law? Why invest time and money on it?

A couple of things come to mind. It deserves recognition. Laws change all the time. They evolve as society evolves. So, maybe in 10, 20-plus years, it could become law.

Another point is if a state legislative body won’t make such laws, an alternative route would be to apply public pressure. Due to the disparaging term of “redskins,” public demand could influence the sport team to rid itself of its use voluntarily.

The online Navajo Times Facebook page includes comments made in response to Mr. Descheenie’s bill such as “Who cares?” and “Why does it matter? There are more pressing problems that need to be addressed such as poverty, alcoholism …”

Some replied that it matters because the redskin connotation affects all Native Americans, particularly the children’s self-esteem when they hear the derogatory remarks made about them or to them.

The word “redskin” is a slur. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights stated that slurs in sports are harmful.

Also, Mr. Descheenie emphasized that HB 2499 is to restrict government speech and not restrict freedom of speech. An entity’s ability to legally restrict speech depends on the type of speech.

If HB 2499 is to restrict government speech, then it is immune to the First Amendment freedom of speech challenges. Mr. Descheenie explains his proposed HB 2499 is not designed to limit the fans’ or the sport teams’ free speech, but it is designed to limit the government and its facilities as it pertains to the offensive “redskin” term.

Although Matal (formerly Lee) v. Tam is a freedom of speech and not a government speech case, I make mention of it because the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Lanham Trademark Act of 1946 which prohibits federal trademark registration because it “may disparage” people, violates the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause. The operative word is “disparage.”

Matal v. Tam dealt with a musical band that consists of all Asian members who call themselves the Slants. The band leader, Simon Tam, initiated an application to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to register the band’s name, the Slants.

The PTO denied the registration of Slants because to do so would violate the federal law known as the Lanham Act of 1946, which bars disparaging trademarks.

The PTO did so because the word “Slants” is disparaging to the Asian population. Tam appealed and lost. Finally, the appellate court held that the PTO wrongly denied the issuance of the trademark because the disparagement clause violates the First Amendment’s freedom of speech.

The question before the U.S. Supreme Court was, “Does the Disparagement Clause violate the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech?”

The court held (8-0) yes, the disparagement clause violates freedom of speech. The court based its ruling on the First Amendment principle that “speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”

It is my opinion that the court got it wrong and the same ruling should not apply to the Washington Redskins football team’s awaiting case.

According to various online articles, the prediction is that the U.S. Supreme Court will apply the same logic utilized in Matal v. Tam to the Washington Redskins trademark cancellation case, if it agrees to hear the case.

If so, then it is expected that the Supreme Court will also deem the Lanham trademark section to violate the freedom of speech in the Washington Redskins case.

The Washington football team name originated in 1932, but the term “redskin” has a long historical connotation. Note that the word “redskin” is not limited and refers to all Native Americans.

In 1992, Suzan Harjo, poet, writer, and an advocate for Native Americans, presented to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board before the U.S. Department of Commerce a request for the cancellation of the Washington Redskins trademark.

In 1998, Harjo and her six Native American peers succeeded in having the trademark cancelled. But it was short-lived because Pro Football Inc. appealed to the U.S. district court and the prior ruling was overturned in 2003.

Disparagement continues in contemporary times. When NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell was asked whether he’d address a Native American as a redskin to his face, he sidestepped the question, replying, “This is the name of a football team …”.

So did the team’s trademark attorney Bob Raskopf — “That’s not what this case is about. It’s what our word means. You need to put the word in context.”

The team’s president, Bruce Allen, argues their use of the name “has always been respectful of and shown reverence toward the proud legacy and traditions of Native Americans.”

A point well made is, “If it’s a slur when you say it to an American Indian’s face, it’s a slur when you sing it with 80 thousand other fans” (Nunborg, 2014).

Tammie Blackwater
Farmington, N.M.

Looking for Teresa

I am writing to see if I can find my friend, Teresa Litson. I’ve known her since 1980 or 1981.

Teresa was a nurse at the Gallup Indian Medical Center. We lived at the Catholic Indian Center many years and when she retired she moved back to her home in Wheatfields, Arizona.

I tried to contact her recently through some people who had the same last name but I didn’t get anywhere with them.

I hope this will reach you, my dear friend.

My phone number is 505-713-7448 and my address is: 210 Rudy Drive, Box 33, Gallup, NM 87301.

Grace Begay
Gallup, N.M.

---