[env-trinity] Siskiyou Daily News: Collaboration v. sovereignty

[Tom Stokely]

Collaboration v. sovereignty
A watershed planning meeting between upper Sacramento, McCloud and lower Pit River stakeholders turned into a heated debate over tribal sovereignty Wednesday, when a group of activists from northern Siskiyou County traveled to Mount Shasta to intentionally disrupt it.


Read more: http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/article/20130610/NEWS/130619998/0/SEARCH#ixzz2W78sNnVv

By John Bowman

June 10. 2013 9:31AM

Collaboration v. sovereignty

A watershed planning meeting between upper Sacramento, McCloud and lower Pit River stakeholders turned into a heated debate over tribal sovereignty Wednesday, when a group of activists from northern Siskiyou County traveled to Mount Shasta to intentionally disrupt it.

Roy Hall Jr. tells upper Sacramento River stakeholders they have no authority to engage in watershed planning because his tribal sovereignty trumps all other powers.


A watershed planning meeting between upper Sacramento, McCloud and lower Pit River stakeholders turned into a heated debate over tribal sovereignty Wednesday, when a group of activists from northern Siskiyou County traveled to Mount Shasta to intentionally disrupt it.


The planning group, known as the Upper Sacramento, McCloud and Lower Pit River Integrated Regional Water Management Group, has been meeting for more than two years to develop a watershed plan that will qualify them for public money allocated for water infrastructure projects. The protesters who derailed the gathering said they believe the planning process is part of a larger government conspiracy to gain control of local water, and possibly more.


On Tuesday, the group Scott Valley Protect Our Water (POW) posted a notice on its website calling on supporters to attend and disrupt the meeting.


“This is a good chance to get everyone there and stop one of the stakeholder processes,” the post stated, adding, “We stopped the TMDL meetings. let’s stop this one to [sic].”


The group of about 10 north county residents was led by Roy Hall Jr., leader of one faction of the Shasta Tribe known as the Shasta Nation, and accompanied by three other members of his tribe along with several non-tribal citizens active in local water and property rights battles.


The meeting began with independent facilitator Elizabeth Betancourt attempting to give an overview of the group’s activities and progress. However, 10 minutes into Betancourt’s introductory statements, Hall asked how tribal sovereignty figured into the group’s planning.


Betancourt, as well as a representative of the state Department of Water Resources, both explained that issues of tribal sovereignty must be handled at the state level because the planning group lacks the authority to address those issues. Betancourt also suggested that Hall submit written comments on the issue so it can be officially incorporated into the group’s planning document.


“I don’t think that’s going to work,” Hall replied. “This has been going on too long and the state is blowing us off.” He said a group of tribal representatives had recently met with John Laird, California’s secretary for natural resources, about their demand for recognition of tribal sovereignty over land management issues. Hall said no notable progress had been made in the meeting.


Louise Gliatto of Yreka said, “It seems to me that if the tribes are sovereign, they should not be put on the same level as the other stakeholders that aren’t sovereign.”


Betancourt explained that, according to the planning group’s governance structure, “Everybody is equal in this process.”


Non-tribal Klamath River resident Mike Adams argued that tribal sovereignty gives tribes ultimate authority over all land and resource management decisions, though he and Gliatto are both outspoken critics of efforts to remove dams on the Klamath River – a concept which several local tribes openly support.


“Sovereignty over the land, which the aboriginal people claim, means they get to put on the land what they choose to put on the land, and only allow you to put on the land what they choose,” Adams said. “Right now they’re saying we don’t want you to put anything on their land. Sovereignty trumps all. They are God. They’re king, and if you don’t like it, you better go find another piece of land. Simple as that. The water is theirs. The air is theirs.”


For nearly an hour, Betancourt attempted to refer Hall and his supporters to state level representatives. She said the proper way to have input incorporated into the planning process is to submit written comments through the official process. Hall repeatedly said he would not allow the meeting to move forward because, in his opinion, the planning group has no authority.


Hall told Betancourt that if the planning group could not solve the issue of tribal sovereignty, “Well, then it’s over. As a tribal chairman with powers above that of the state I can say that this is the only way we’re going to get the state to recognize that we’re thrown under the bus here. It has to stop somewhere, so this is where it’s going to stop.”


“Nobody has to be here. It’s not mandatory,” said Betancourt
“That’s right, so why don’t you go back to where you came from,” Hall replied.


At that point several stakeholders that have been involved in the planning process since the beginning walked out.


Several members of the planning group, including Curtis Knight of California Trout, county supervisor Ed Valenzuela and River Exchange Executive Director Dan Olstein told Hall and his supporters that the regional planning process is an opportunity for cities and communities to come together, identify water infrastructure needs and secure government funding to satisfy those needs.


“We see it as a single, achievable opportunity to bring some allocated state dollars to something that’s greatly needed for our municipalities,” Knight said.


Olstein said, “We’ve received some written input from members of the Pit River Tribe, from members of the Winimum-Wintu Tribe …”


Hall’s mother Betty Hall interrupted Olstein in mid-sentence saying, “The Wintu Tribe doesn’t count here. They’re not aboriginal to the McCloud or those other rivers. That’s ours.”


The level of civility in the room continued to deteriorate – and shortly thereafter, Olstein called for a break but the meeting was never reconvened. None of the items on the meeting agenda was addressed, and meeting organizers would not comment on when a new meeting would be scheduled.


After the meeting, Luisa Navejas of the Winimum-Wintu Tribe told the Daily News, “The best thing to do when you have a water project is to involve the stakeholders, and the projects here have done that.” She said her tribe does not necessarily agree with everyone else in the planning group, but it has been involved in the process as a collaborator from the start.


“Our tribe has spent a lot of time trying to get the wording right to be inclusive of indigenous people, and they have been really great about including us, rewriting it and being open,” Navejas said.


They’re using all the right words,” said Belinda Brown, a tribal council alternate for the Kosealekte band of the Pit River Tribe. “They’re saying ‘integration, we’re all stakeholders, we’re getting our needs out there, we’re working together,’ but it’s a fatally flawed system.”


Brown said the important thing to remember is that the water and land are sacred to local tribes – and their connection to those things has been forcibly taken away.


Members of the Modoc Tribe were present but did not take part in the debate.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20130613/ebe8fdf2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: AR-130619998.jpg&MaxH=225&MaxW=225
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8563 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20130613/ebe8fdf2/attachment.jpe>