Arctic Policy – Water Policy Consulting LLC

Governor Dunleavy Nominations Graphite Creek Project to Fast-41 Permitting

Hot Springs Creek Below the Proposed Graphite One Mine Site

Due to Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy’s nomination of Graphite Creek project in the remote Kigluaik range north of Nome, as a high-priority infrastructure project, as eligible for new legislation intended to fast track the permitting process for transportation projects. Title 41 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, (Fast-41) adopted by Congress during the Obama administration which was intended to be a surface transportation reauthorization focusing on highway, transit, and rail programs. The Act establishes a new Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FPISC), authorized to stream line the NEPA process including elimination of public review and comment. Due to the unprecedented authority provided to the Council, until now, the Act has traditionally been applied only to Infrastructure and transportation Projects.

However, mining companies and the Trump administration have been pressuring FPISC to include mining as a sector under the Act. According to the mining industry magazine Critical Minerals Alaska 2020, “a federal entity meant to provide a one-stop-shop capable of coordinating permits across different federal agencies, thereby streamlining and shortening the overall process for large infrastructure projects that are eligible for the program. Mining projects that supply the materials needed for the energy, communication, and transportation infrastructure in the U.S. may be eligible for Fast-41.” [1] If the proposed Graphite One Mine is included into Fast-41, Critical Minerals Alaska 2020 says it “could help reduce the seven to 10 years it takes the average large mining project in the U.S. to get through the permitting process.”[2]

The sudden surge in the mining of graphite and other precious minerals in Alaska results from a dramatic increase in demand for batteries, solar power, computers, and other high-tech products that require such minerals. For instance, graphite is a significant component of the lithium-ion batteries used for electric cars and some renewable energy systems. According to the World Bank , due to the growing global interest in such cars and energy, the demand for graphite, lithium, cobalt, and other battery metals could increase by nearly 500 percent by 2050.[1] The report says that, “[g]raphite demand increases in both absolute and percentage terms since graphite is needed to build the anodes found in the most commonly deployed automotive, grid, and decentralized batteries. ” Similarly, according the United States Geological Survey, there are currently no graphite mines in the United States, requiring American battery and other manufacturers to import 58,000 metric tons of graphite during 2019.[2] According to CMA2020, with “5.7 million metric tons of quality graphite outlined so far, Graphite One Inc.’s Graphite Creek deposit in Northwest Alaska could provide a reliable domestic supply of graphite to North America’s burgeoning lithium-ion battery sector.” [3]

[1] Shane Lasley, High priority Alaska REE, graphite projects Gov nominations elevate mine projects to Fast-41 permitting, p. 6-7, High priority Alaska 2020 (November 2, 2020).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Shane Lasley, Western Alaska deposit could feed graphite into supply chain, Mining News, CRITICAL MINERALS ALASKA, pp. 28-29 (2020)

Public Lands Management Under Trump Descends into Chaoss

President Donald Trump’s appointment of William Perry Pendley as Director of the Bureau of Land Management who is openly hostile to environmental regulations, has turned into yet another legal debacle typical of the current administration. Pendley’s inflammatory statements and open opposition to social justice and diversity including for native and African American communities, statements that public lands should be privatized, conflicts of interest, unethical conduct, support of anti-government extremists and efforts to dismantle the BLM, have outraged conservation and tribal organizations throughout the western U.S. It, therefore, quickly became obvious to Interior Secretary David Bernhardt that because of Pendley’s record, there would be no way he would obtain confirmation from congress if the administration did what was legally required and nominate him for that purpose. In fact, in a procedure that the U.S. Supreme Court calls a “critical structural safeguard” of democracy, the Appointments Clause of the Constitution requires that the heads of prominent federal agencies be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate” a standard that is also found in the federal Vacancies Reform Act.

Especially when it comes to dismantling environmental regulatory standards, however, the Trump administration has never been that concerned with federal law or, for that matter the U.S. Constitution and Bernhardt resolved the issue of Pendley’s radical anti-public land views, racism and support of extremists simply by repeatedly extending Pendley’s appointment as Director of the agency for the past 13 months.

As a result, in July 2020, the state of Montana and several conservation organizations filed a lawsuit to enjoin Bernhardt from continuing to extend Pendley’s status as Acting Director of BLM. This prompted Trump to finally put Pendley’s name before congress as required only to almost immediately remove it because of concerns of several republican senators in key states who are up for election about the audacity of the appointment. However, rather than remove Pendley as acting Director in accordance with with the law, Secretary Bernhardt announced that Pendley will “stay on leading BLM” as the bureau’s deputy director of policy and programs, who is also “exercising the authority of director.”

This, once again, got the attention of the Montana U.S. District Court which as part of the lawsuit filed by the state and conservationists a couple months before, promptly enjoined Pendley from exercising such authority and Bernhardt from unlawfully delegating the authority of the BLM director to him. In fact, the Court’s declaration that Pendley served unlawfully as the Acting Director of the BLM for well over a year, also meant that many of the decisions he made during that time were similarly illegal, threatening Trump’s strategy to dismantle protections of public lands and open them up to development.

Chief Judge Brian Morris found that “’any function or duty’ of the BLM Director that has been performed by Pendley would have no force and effect and must be set aside as arbitrary and capricious” and instructed DOI to compile any such acts and provide a full report to the Court. Therefore, any of the official actions Pendley took over the 424 preceding the decision including opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or the National Petroleum reserve to oil drilling,” or vast acreages of public lands, including areas relied on by Native village communities for subsistence, to mining, are potentially unauthorized.

Unflagging Opposition to Business-as-Usual Extraction Practices

With Present Trump rolling back one environmental policy after another, ongoing efforts to slow global warming, safeguard wilderness, and provide clean water and air can seem futile. But never doubt that a handful of thoughtful, committed lawsuits can change the world. Indeed, it may be the only recourse that can.

We need look no farther than the Gwich’in Native community for inspiration when it comes to fighting to protect the environment. For more than thirty years they have resisted attempts to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling. Under Trump’s plan to open lease sales across the entire coastal plain, that fight has kicked into high gear. For the Gwich’in, the coastal plain, birthing grounds for the Porcupine caribou herd which numbers approximately 200,000, is sacred ground. Their culture, history and way of life revolve around the caribou and the 1.5 million-acre expanse of coastal lands. Sarah James, Gwich’in elder, explains, “We have a special connection in that we are a part of the caribou and the caribou are part of us. It is our language, our songs, our dance…. We take care of the caribou, and in return, they take care of us, and that’s really important to my people here.”

The Gwich’in Sterring Committee, along with several other plaintives including Canada’s Yukon chapter of Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, filed a lawsuit in late August, seeking to overturn Trump’s approval for oil leasing, and siting violations of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and likely impacts to the Porcupine Caribou Herd.

A second lawsuit to halt oil leasing on the Refuge filed by The National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, and Center for Biological Diversity sight insufficient concern over increased greenhouse gas emissions and melting permafrost, poor air quality, and negative impacts to the region’s wildlife.

And most recently, a third lawsuit to overturn drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was filed on September 9th with the U.S. District Court in Anchorage by attorneys general for 15 states and led by Washington and Massachusetts. The lawsuit states that drilling will contribute to global climate change and its effects such as sea level rise and extreme weather events.

A number of other environmental legal battles continue in Alaska and Siberia. In North-western Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve, Trump seeks to overthrow Obama-era safeguards by expanding development into regions of the Reserve long slated for protection. Two recent lawsuits are pushing back against expanded development in NPR-A oil leasing. The lawsuits are in response to the final environmental impact statement released by the Bureau of Land Management in June allowing oil leasing on 18.7 million acres in the 23-million-acre reserve, including drilling in Teshekpuk Lake. Teshekpuk is the largest lake on the North Slope and provides critical habitat for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds.

And while a lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s reversal of restrictions on Pebble Mine was dismissed in US District Court, Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan has joined a growing rank of conservatives who are openly opposed to the Pebble mine project. The proposed gold, molybdenum and cooper mine, in South-central Alaska’s Lake and Peninsula region, is recognized as a threat to the nationally-significant Bristol Bay salmon fisheries. Following the release of secret recordings by Pebble executives, Sullivan stated in a tweet on September 24^th, “Let me be even more clear: I oppose Pebble Mine. No Pebble Mine.” This follows a surprise stipulation issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in late August to Dynasty Minerals Ltd requiring the mine owners to outline how they will offset damage to wetlands and any impacts to the Bristol Bay salmon fishery. Other conservatives who oppose the mine, at least as it is currently proposed, including Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, Donald Trump Junior and Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

In the southern part of the state, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, and other conservation groups including the Chilkat Indian Village of Klukwan, lost lawsuits in federal district court and the Ninth Circuit court which sought to challenge federal permits issued to the Palmer mine project near Haines. The Constantine Metal Resources Ltd. obtained permits to build 2.5 miles of roads across U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands to access zinc, copper, gold and silver deposits. The lawsuit argued that BLM did not factor in future mining development at the Palmer mine and impacts on the 3,000 bald eagles and spawning salmon along the nearby Chilkat River.

In southeastern Alaska, the Trump administration is zeroing in on the Tongass National Forest, seeking to exclude this, the nation’s largest national forest, from the Clinton-era roadless rule. A much-disputed study by the U.S. Forest Service states that lifting protections “will not significantly harm the environment.” By year’s end, the Trump administration hopes to open vast tracts of pristine old growth forest to road construction and timber sales. Recent lawsuits blocking timber sales that failed to identify impacted areas, and for deficiencies in the review process have stalled the sales process several times. That pushback resulted in the Trump administration implementing the new roadless rule exemption.

Meanwhile, in the Russian far north, a lawsuit has been filed against Norilsk Nickle seeking 1.96 billion dollars in damages for a May 29^th fuel spill. The spill, blamed on melting permafrost, dumped 21,000 tons of diesel into the Ambarnaya and Daldykan rivers which feed into Lake Pyasino before emptying into the Arctic Ocean. The spill is one of the largest ever recorded in the Arctic and has been compared with Alaska’s 1989 ExxonValdez spill, in part because both spills coincided with the spring migration — just as birds and fish are returning to their natal grounds.

The one take-away the Gwich’in can offer in this legal playing field is don’t give up. The fights for the Coastal Plains, the Tongas, and the headwaters of Bristol Bay continue, one lawsuit at a time. For Gwich’in elder Sarah James it’s straight forward. “We’re not a nonprofit. We’re not a movement. We’re not a corporation. We’re a neets’aii Gwich’in tribal government, and that’s how we’re now taking on this issue, government-to-government, and we’re standing our ground.”

There are alternatives to sacrificing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s coastal plain

The Trump administration recently gave the final go-ahead to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which by the end of 2020 would authorize the sale of two separate 400,000-acre oil and gas leases, encompassing a major portion of the refuge’s coastal plain and 8 percent of the 19.3 million-acre Refuge.

Opponents who have filed multiple lawsuits to stop the leasing, believe that the approval process was rushed for political reasons resulting in a flawed and inadequate analysis of the environmental impacts, violating prohibitions on killing or harassing of polar bears and laws requiring the protection of indigenous subsistence resources as well as exacerbate sea level rise, extreme weather events, the spread of diseases like and other impacts of climate change.

Alaska’s political leadership, on the other hand, seems unfazed by yet another botched Trump administration environmental analysis and the fact that more drilling in the Arctic will contribute to Alaska’s carbon footprint. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, for example, said “[t]his is a capstone moment in our decades-long push to allow for the responsible development of a small part of Alaska’s 1002 Area. … I’m confident the ROD has been developed carefully and comprehensively and look forward to the lease sales mandated by law…”

Why are our political leaders still stepping in line with President Trump’s insatiable thirst for oil no matter what the environmental cost, when economists have been warning for decades that the state is too dependent on the oil and gas industry to bail it out from spending at an unsustainable rate year after year?

It should have been obvious in the mid-1980s when global oil prices crashed sending the state into a full recession, that not only were the days of the oil and gas fueling fiscal growth over, but continuing to put all the state’s eggs in one basket would actually harm the economy. That the ongoing sugar-daddy delusion was still alive and well by 2003, however, is illustrated by then-Gov. Frank Murkowski’s announcement regarding the solution to the state’s economic crises: “Ladies and gentlemen, in a single word, it’s oil.”

Today the state’s addiction to oil is partly illustrated by the millions it provides via annual tax write-offs to oil and gas corporations who drill in Alaska but do not provide much in the way of return on this investment. in 2014, for example, the state’s largest producer, ConocoPhillips, made 68 percent of its global profits from Alaska but invested only 15 percent of its global capital in the state.

Despite the delusion of some politicians that drilling in places like ANWR could take Alaska back to the days of economic Nirvana of Prudhoe Bay, one thing that could prevent development in ANWR would be if presidential candidate Joe Biden who, if elected, has promised to “permanently protect” the refuge.

But in the end, rather than politics or litigation, it is simple economics that could stop drilling in the coastal plain. Ever sense COVID-19 — which came at a time when oil prices were already down — drove those prices to historic lows, the industry as a whole has been bleeding money, shedding jobs, and interest in drilling in the remote sites with difficult conditions, such as the Arctic refuge, may be waning.

More importantly, while oil companies are making cutbacks in drilling programs, banks
are less inclined to front them capital on future investments resulting in a vicious cycle of less funding available for future drilling. This situation has been further exacerbated by the
declaration from several global banks that they will stop financing oil and gas exploration in the Arctic due to the need to move away from fossil fuels and invest in alternative energy sources because of the rapidly increasing impacts of climate change on communities and ecosystems in the Arctic.

The good news is that with the banks turning away from fossil fuel investments while they decide what kind of energy programs could benefit from COVID-19 stimulus funding, there may not be a better chance than right now to move towards green energy. Fossils fuels have become no more than an economic dinosaur and a carbon-producing disaster, especially for the Arctic.

So, rather than sacrificing the coastal plain and Alaska’s fiscal future, why not investigate the potential local and global economic impact of renewable energy in the Arctic, including solar, and hydro and wind power as part of Alaska’s financial recovery?

This Op-ed also appeared in the September 24, 2020 edition of Arctic Today.

Lawsuits Filed on ANWR

Three lawsuits have been filed seeking to block the Trump administration’s efforts to sell oil leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, and Center for Biological Diversity have signed off on a lawsuit sighting insufficient concern over increased greenhouse gas emissions and melting permafrost, poor air quality, and negative impacts to the region’s wildlife. The lawsuit alleges violations of the National Environmental Protection Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, and the Endangered Species Act. A second lawsuit, filed by the Gwich’in Steering Committee also sites violations of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and includes plaintiffs in Canada’s Yukon chapter of Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. Most recently, a third lawsuit was put forth by fifteen states including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Concerns addressed in this lawsuit include habitat damage and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as impacts to waterfowl hunting and a lucrative birdwatching industry for birds that breed on the Arctic plain and overwinter in the lower 48 states.

Is Federal Disaster & Hazard Mitigation Aid Getting to Those Communities Most in Need?

In August 2020, National Public Radio’s Ted Talk broadcast an episode entitled “Our Relationship with Water” in which Colette Pichon Battle who is an attorney turned climate activist who grew up in Bayou Liberty just north of New Orleans.[1] She says she was thrown into her new role because rising sea levels, flooding and other climate factors are threatening the land that has been in her family for generations. Pichon-Battle says “’I work at the community level to make sure that black folks, poor folks and native folks are part of thia climate conversation’” including to communicate the policy and science of climate change to her neighbors and that the scientific community and policy makers listen to the traditional knowledge that the community can provide about the area.[2]

After Hurrican Katrina caused a tidal surge from the Gulf that swept her entire community into Lake Pontchartrain, she found that the surge was caused by sea level rise and the absence of barrier islands, now gone because of oil and gas drilling, which use to block such surges. Once she realized that hurricans like Katrina and likely worse are her to stay and in looking at flood maps of Lousiana she realized that her community along with other African American, Native American and impoverished communities would likely simply disappear before the end of the century. Quechon-Battle, notes that she was invited to the Whitehouse during the Obama administration to talk with the Federal Emergency Management Service, the agency primarily responsible for assisting communities with disaster and hazard mitigation preparedness in relation to flooding and other natural events, about how her community could obtain assistance to prepare for future flooding events. She says that during this conversation “the FEMA administrator said ‘I understand what your saying, but the FEMA regulations are’nt ment for the most vulnerable communities.’ The disaster assistance process for this country are ment for the middle class.” Despite the double take she made when she heard this statement she firmly believes that “This was an honest comment from FEMA. This is what you realize when you recognize that you recognize that the structures that are in place right now are absolutely not meant for me.”[3]

Arctic Native communities which have been experiencing increased permafrost melt, loss of sea ice, extreme weather events, flooding and erosion that may make current residences and settlements uninhabitable in the near future, no all to well about competition for limited federal disaster and hazard mitigation funding to defend against the inevitable march of climate change. In addition to what communities like Quechon-Battle’s experienced when approaching FEMA for help, in many cases, agencies require cost-benefit analysis, plans, environmental analysis, or other measures above and beyond analysis or strategies contained in Hazard Mitigation Plans (HMPs) or other plans before such communities qualify to apply for funds. Similarly, because standard arctic community HMPs do not contain a detailed cost-benefit analysis of natural hazards affecting water resources, such communities cannot obtain high rankings that larger cities can to qualify for competitive funding or other federal or state assistance needed to address such impacts. Finally, the villages cannot afford to hire consultants or even staff to conduct climate adaption planning on behalf of such communities to include more meaningful consideration of economic impacts and risks associated with coastal water resource management resiliency strategies, in order to move beyond the planning phase and into on the ground project implementation.

There is a need, therefore, to conduct economic risk-benefit and environmental analysis and otherwise close the gap between Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other governmental funding and technical assistance programs such so that North Bering Sea communities can implement on-the-ground projects that will address the Villages’ climate-related coastal water resources management challenges.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2020/08/06/899845219/our-relationship-with-water.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

Bringing Water Justice to the Arctic

Responding to the current focus on anti-discrimination and the need to provide clean water to communities as a means of preventing infection and spread of the Pandemic, the decades old environmental justice and human right to water movements have combined to create new terminologies such as “Water Ethics” and “Water Justice.” House Democrats responded to the call by proposing a $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill that would include everything from tax incentives for clean energy businesses, funding for drinking water programs and for climate resiliency upgrades to public housing. They hope to submit the bill to Congress by the 4^th of July holiday.

The need to shore up water infrastructure is even getting attention in the Arctic these days where, as part of the America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2020, the plan to expand and deepen the city of Nome’s port was recently approved by the Army Corp of part of Engineers. Because the purpose of the expansion is primarily to extend the harbor into Norton Sound and dredge the outer area so that it is deep enough to accommodate big vessels like fuel tankers and large cargo and cruise ships, it’s main effect will be to further open the Arctic to commerce and development. In their present form , therefore, both infrastructure bills are missing an opportunity to effectively respond to the Pandemic and increase climate resiliency by incorporating adequate water infrastructure for indigenous communities, including many Arctic Native communities who have never had running water.

It’s easy to imagine , for example, many of the Alaska Native communities who have never had access to running water, shaking their heads in response to recent federal and state health agency cries to “Wash Your Hands!.” According to water justice advocates, “more than 2 million Americans who lack indoor plumbing or wastewater services live in remote areas, or come from high-risk groups like the elderly, disabled, homebound and homeless.” Closing the access gap, therefore, should include the use of “existing disaster response protocols to close this access gap and prioritize communities where local capacity is limited. It should partner with state and local municipalities for both immediate and long-term solutions.”

Water ethics is also getting media attention these days in the form of the disproportionate impact of oil and gas development on Arctic Native communities as it relates to climate change. Last month, for example in the worst environmental disaster in Russian history, tons of water spilled into the Ambarnaya River in Siberia, due in part to rapidly melting permafrost at the Nornickel plant. As with so many industrial crises, the damage from the spill landed heaviest on the nearby indigenous peoples of the Taimyr Krasnoyarsk Territory.

In a bizarre twist on the water injustice of oil and gas drilling, however, the Alaska Delegation has managed to turn recent attention on the problem of discrimination on it’s head, by requesting that the federal government investigate recent global banking policies to forego loans and investments with companies that produce oil and other fossil fuels. Their argument? Such policies harm local Alaska Native communities who rely on drilling in the Arctic for jobs. Noticeably absent from the letter that Lisa Murkowski, Dan Sullivan and Don Young sent to the comptroller of the currency and the chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp , however, is the discriminatory effects of carbon producing drilling activity on these same communities who rely on the unraveling fresh water and marine ecosystems in the rapidly heating Arctic for subsistence.

Still, our response to COVID-19 may provide an opportunity to address climate change in the Arctic. At least for now, airlines and other businesses are in slowdown around the globe and in some countries, CO2 emissions and air pollution are at their lowest in many years. To some extent, house democrats are using the opportunity provided by the Pandemic to address the need to convert to clean energy and focus on environmental justice by introducing climate change legislations which calls for net-zero CO2 emissions over the next 30 years and reducing pollution in communities that are disproportionately affected.

Why not go a step further and take the hint when Mother Nature is trying to send us a message? Could we, for example, use the opportunity from reduced travel and other CO2 emitting activities to switch to flying less, making a quicker switch to electric cars and focusing less on infrastructure that supports carbon producing industrial development, and more on providing water accessibility and applying nature-based solutions related to water issues?

WPC Developing Panel on Impacts of Rising Stream Temperatures and Development at American Water Resources Association Annual Meeting

Salmon Die-Off Tubutulik River in Western Region, Alaska

WPC is convening a session topic entitled “The Impacts of Mining and Climate Change on Rising Stream Temperatures in Alaska” for the American Water Resources Association’s Annual Meeting taking place in Orlando, Florida from November 3-6.

In the summer of 2019, due to dramatic temperatures increases, thousands of salmon died throughout Alaska as they migrated to spawning grounds, because the water exceeded lethal temperature limits. These climate related stressors are further exacerbated by state and federal lands that are being opened to mining and related development on fish and wildlife populations.

The Session will address the impacts of increasing water temperatures in watersheds affected by land releases and therefore, the combined impacts of climate change and mining development on subsistence resources in Alaska including: 1) Application of models starting with global emission scenarios that will ultimately detect instream flows for specific subbasins and collection of instream flow, temperature and dissolved oxygen data; 2) Identify lands that include critical fish habitat and potential locate able minerals that have been opened for mining; and 3) A process for applying the modeling and data collected to assist policy makers and land managers to mitigate land uses that potentially exacerbate climate related impacts to watersheds.

Please contact us if you are interested in being a presenter on this topic and traveling to Orlando in the fall!

Tentative Presentation Topics include : 1) Forcasting drought and temperature increases and modeling stream flows in Alaska; 2) Use of Traditional Knowledge in Protecting Rivers in the Arctic; 3) Bureau of Land Management FLPMA Land Withdrawal Revocations; Overview of 2019 Water Year in Alaska; 4) Pacific Northwest Drought Early Warning System.

Indigenous Communities are Essential Part of Climate Discussion

Native Village of Elim Staff Collecting Flow Data – Tubutulik River, Western Region, Alaska

A new report released by the People’s Climate Network (PCN)— an alliance of activists, scholars and citizens from around the world, suggests that the role indigenous communities can play in mitigating the climate crisis is being overlooked. While global climate change movements make headlines and ”highly-educated people in far-off cities make policy” the People’s Climate Report, attempts to “amplifying voices from the grassroots.”

The report also highlights coexistence of forests, wildlife and local communities is highlighted to provide the perspective of local communities of the impacts of climate change and extraction industries especially mining. Such development leads to loss of forest cover, depletion of groundwater, increase in net-carbon emissions, changes in local weather patterns, loss of traditional tribal livelihoods and a collapse of various plant and animal species—all in the name of ‘development’.

The report show cases the case of Devi, India in which twenty year earlier, locals took the lead in returning health back to forest ecosystem after mining activity devastated the area. This included groups of mostly women who get up early in the morning to patrol forests in groups and digging pools and making mud dams to conserve water. Now a fully recovered forest with abundant resources including a steady supply of food and water, which has resulted in the return of the animals.

According to the report, “[t]hese natural resource dependent communities are among the poorest of the poor.” “They have not had a single day of formal education. And yet they have been the ones protecting this 200-hectare forest for the past twenty years or so.”

Similarly, Last month Hannah Panci from the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission spoke at Lawrence University as part of the Spoerl Lecture Series, about climate impact and preparedness. Specifically, Panci discussed working with almost a dozen local Native American tribes, to develop a climate vulnerability assessment which combines both scientific research and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) in order to create a vulnerability score for different species on tribal lands.

The organization gathers TEK by visiting the various communities, which include members that still make their living off hunting, gathering and fishing, and interviewing community these members about changes they are noticing about fish and wildlife they use for subsistence. Through this process, important information about traditions that have been passed down for generations and which species are the most important to the tribes. According to Panci, two of the main ones are wild rice and walleye, but there are 11 primary species that tribal members are concerned about.

The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission then applies this information to determine what impacts climate change is having on these species and apply current scientific data to create maps of the region where such impacts are occurring and apply protection measures. By combining conventional science and local knowledge of locals is the best possible means for assisting tribal communities in the Great Lakes to prepare for climate change.

Finally, during a recent event at UC Davis in March 12, professor Beth Rose Middleton who is chair of the Native American Studies Department and Fellow at the John Muir Institute of the Environment, discussed “Tribal Leadership in Climate Change Adaptation.” Professor Middleton discussed the leadership in environmental policy and planning provided by California Indian nations in traditional including land stewardship and interventions in state, national and international policy. Middleton’s research includes Native land trusts, Native-led conservation land acquisitions, tribal participation in the carbon credit market and the importance of re-introducing traditional fire management.

Democratic presidential nominees Oppose Water Privatization

Two front runners in the field of Democratic nominees for the U.S. presidential election appear to be unified on the controversial issue of the privatization of water systems including Elizabeth Warren who released an environmental plan that, among other things, calls for the nation’s water systems to be remain a public resource that should “be owned by and for the public.”

According to the plan “A Warren Administration will end decades of is investment and privatization of our nation’s water system — our government at every level should invest in safe, affordable drinking water for all of us.” The Warren plan includes the need for tighter federal classification of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances, the reinstatement of the Waters of the United States rule which was eliminated by the Trump administration in order relieve industry from water protection restrictions, and investment into public water system infrastructure.

Warren’s focus on water ethics puts her in line with democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who advocates for similar protections for water resources in legislation he is sponsoring including the WATER Act which would help municipalities or state agencies bring treatment works back into public ownership and the Green New Deal, which would over haul the country’s approach to environmental issues. “According to Common Dreams. “Months earlier, in November 2018, Sanders gave a forceful rejection of privately controlled water after voters in Baltimore easily passed Question E, which bans the privatization of the municipal water and sewer systems.”

Research on private water systems, suggest that they “put public health at risk, a 66-page paper by University of Louisville law professor Craig Anthony Arnold argues, because the profit motive incentivizes companies to provide better services to customers who pay more and to maintain infrastructure with an eye to the length of the firm’s contract.” The Huffington Post.

While the Warren plan, does indicates that if Warren were to become the next president of the United States, privately-run water systems would become far less common, it does not provide whether or not, as president, she would take action to prevent their formation.