Ninth Circuit Oral Argument Audio in Save the Peaks Coalition v. USFS

Here.

Sam Deloria: San Francisco Peaks Could Be the First Test of the Obama Administration’s Support of the UN DRIP

As usual, Sam Deloria is ahead of the curve in thinking about broad issues of Indian law and policy.

From Sam Deloria:

[Are there] any plans to raise this [San Francisco Peaks and the Arizona Snowbowl] as the first situation in which the Obama administration can demonstrate its understanding of the UN declaration it just embraced?

[Is] anyone … taking a stab at formulating a way for the executive branch of USG to give principled accommodation to Indian religious concerns without running afoul of the Establishment Clause?

[I] think we need to write the formula ourselves instead of waiting for them to do it, and I think we need to understand their bewilderment and their need to understand the scope of any accommodation we ask for.

***

In general, I think at this point in most processes, we go limp and expect the government to do the hard work, which is to try to draw the line between ok and not-ok.  And then we criticize them for not doing it, although we haven’t done much to help them.  By dismissing their questions as being merely insensitivity, we forfeit the chance to influence the outcome.

Comments are welcome.

Navajo President Shirley on the Importance of San Francisco Peaks to Dine People

Here: President Shirley statement on Sanctity of San Francisco Peaks.

An excerpt:

After centuries of attempts to subdue and vanquish North America’s native people, as Navajo people we are trying to do everything we can to save self, to preserve our identity, and to live by the teachings our ancestors gave to us. Dook’o’osliid is one of our strengths. It is our essence. It is us. When the foreigners decide to desecrate it to make artificial snow for economic interests alone, that does not help my way of life. That does not help my people’s survival. That does not help when I talk to my children and grandchildren about the importance of the Navajo way, and the pride that is to be taken to be Navajo despite all that tells them they and their beliefs are somehow less than others’.

Update on Arizona Snowbowl Wastewater Snow

From the Arizona Daily Sun via Pechanga:

A federal agency is pressing the city of Flagstaff to offer potable water for snowmaking at Arizona Snowbowl that does not come directly from reclaimed wastewater.

In addition, Snowbowl could get government aid to cover the $11 million in higher costs for the water over 20 winters.

Arizona’s two U.S. senators are blasting the plan as a waste of taxpayer money and a violation of court decisions in favor of making snow at Snowbowl with treated effluent.

The proposal comes in response to tribal concerns that making snow with reclaimed wastewater desecrates the San Francisco Peaks, which they hold sacred.
Continue reading

Commentary on Snowbowl Case

From Truthout:

Ninth Circuit rules effluent does not defile sacred space. Forest Service argued skiing on treated sewage “a compelling government interest.”

The San Francisco Peaks of Northern Arizona “are sacred to at least 13 formally recognized Indian tribes … and this religious significance is of centuries duration.”(1) In February 2005, the US Forest Service issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision approving a proposal to make artificial snow using treated sewage effluent at the Snowbowl Resort located on Humphrey’s Peak, the highest and – to the tribes – most holy of the San Francisco Peaks. That decision was appealed by the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation and the White Mountain Apache Nation. The Circuit Court ruled for the Forest Service. In February 2007, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court unanimously overturned the lower court’s decision. On Friday, August 8, 2008, the en banc majority of the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that “using treated sewage effluent to make artificial snow on the most sacred mountain of southwestern Indian tribes does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (‘RFRA’). It also holds that a supposed pleading mistake prevents the tribes from arguing under the National Environmental Act (‘NEPA’) that the Forest Service failed to consider the likelihood that children and others would ingest snow made from the effluent.”(2)

On August 18, Leslie Thatcher, of Truthout, spoke with the Navajo Nation’s lead attorney in the case, Howard Shanker, who is also running in the Democratic primary for Arizona Congressional District One, the seat currently held by retiring Representative Rick Renzi (R-Arizona), presently under indictment for extortion, wire fraud, money laundering, and other charges related to an Arizona land deal.

Leslie Thatcher, for Truthout: Howard, what do you consider the most important issues in the Snowbowl case to be?

The San Francisco Peaks are federal land and the government has documented for years that the Peaks – especially Humphreys where Snowbowl is located – are sacred to local tribes. Nonetheless, the Feds issued a special use permit to operate a ski resort there that was unsuccessfully challenged in the 1970’s. Most recently, the Forest Service ruled that the resort could pipe up to 1.5 million gallons of treated sewage effluent to the resort for snowmaking in winters when natural snowfall is inadequate. The tribes have appealed that ruling.

The central issue that’s going on and that’s really important is that Native tribes have no First Amendment rights when it comes to government land-use decisions. And the federal government holds thousands of acres of land across the country that the tribes hold sacred. Up until we used the Religious Freedom Restoration Act [RFRA] successfully, there was no way for the tribes to challenge federal use of sacred lands. Now, they have to show there is a compelling government interest and that they are using the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest when government action substantially burdens the exercise of religion.

The current ruling is that there is no substantial burden on the exercise of religion. The judges have said there is no objective evidence of impact on religious belief and practice.

Short of producing God in the courtroom, there’s no way to produce “objective” evidence. A Navajo elder testified that putting effluent on the mountain would be like raping his mother. Other testimonies – the sincerity of which were never challenged – described the disruptions to the spiritual world and contamination of the ritual purity of materials essential to Native ceremonies that spraying the effluent would result in.

The en banc court adopted a very restrictive reading of “Sherbet and Yoder” that does not seem to speak to the statute. In any event, spraying the Peaks can certainly be interpreted as a form of punishment or coercion.

The tribes appealed the Forest Service decision under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) rather than the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Can you explain how the RFRA differs from the First Amendment and why Congress passed the act?

In “Smith,” the Supreme Court said laws of general application can’t constitute a general burden under the Constitution. So then, Congress passed RFRA to say that even though a law may be of general applicability, if it results in a substantial burden to the exercise of religion, you have to do this balancing of interests. Then in 2003, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act [RLUIPA] amending and broadening RFRA’s definition of “exercise of religion.”

The Ninth Circuit Court dissent, written by Judge Fletcher, joined by Judges Pregerson and Fisher, notes that “Under our prior case law, a ‘substantial burden’ on the ‘exercise of religion’ exists where government action prevents an individual ‘from engaging in [religious] conduct or having a religious experience’ and the interference is ‘more than an inconvenience.'” Can you explain how spraying up to 1.5 million gallons of effluent a day on the sacred mountains burdens the various plaintiff tribes’ exercise of religion?

For the Hopi, the Mountain is where the Katsina live; that’s their only sacred mountain; the Katsina are responsible for making the moisture that is essential to Hopi life. It was on Mt. Humphreys that the Hopi had their revelation and they return there for pilgrimages.

For the Navajo, it’s one of four sacred mountains, but it is essential to all blessing way ceremonies which depend on ritually pure materials gathered from the mountain.

The tribes see the Peaks as a single living entity; this is a living being. You can’t poison just one part of it without poisoning the whole.

One man testified that current ski runs are like a scar on the body, something the body can live with, but that putting effluent on the Peaks is like a toxic injection.

For the Apache, the mountain is where souls go after death; the transfer station of souls to Heaven and the spraying will interfere with that operation.

For both the Hualapai and the Navajo, the mountain is their Garden of Eden, where life started.

The government has never questioned the specific special holiness of these mountains to the Native tribes. In fact, in the very beginning, the National Historic Preservation Act uses the Peaks as an example of a sacred space.

Commentary on Arizona Snowbowl Case

From NewsPirates:

Native Americans have traditionally come up short, getting the s**** end of the stick from the Federal government for several hundred years. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has given it to them again, this time literally.

The court ruled that using treated wastewater on the San Francisco Peaks in Arizona to make artificial snow does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and overturned a previous ruling that would have protected the mountain that is sacred to at least 13 Indian tribes.

These dunderheads wrote this in the majority: “The only effect of the proposed upgrades is on the Plaintiffs’ subjective, emotional religious experience.”

Okay so let’s start spraying treated wastewater on the National Cathedral to clean it! Maybe we should mandate that those upscale ski resorts in Aspen should use refined sewage to make their snow so that the rich can zip down the trails! Maybe the next time the Pope shows up he can get out a hose and use some treated effluent, blessed as it comes out of the nozzle, to wet down the adoring throng!

But the real issue is religious freedom. The site has been sacred to Native Americans not for just a few hundred years but for a few thousand. The judges ruling that the tribe “cannot dictate the decisions that government makes in managing ‘what is, after all, its land.’, is a bull. It was the Indians land long before the government ever showed up to commit our own little genocide.

The tribes will appeal, probably to the U.S. Supreme Court, but considering the make up of that what is now a less than august body, their chances are not very good and you know what will continue to be sprayed on the San Francisco Peaks.

Audio of Ninth Circuit Oral Argument in Snowbowl Case

Audio in Navajo Nation et al. v. US Forest Service available here, thanks to Indianz.

Our previous posts about the case are here and here.