The inaugural First Stewards symposium, to be held July 17-20 in Washington, D.C. is a national event that examines the impact of climate change on indigenous coastal cultures and explores solutions based on millennia of traditional ecological knowledge.

Hundreds of native leaders, witnesses and climate scientists will join policy-makers and non-government organizations for groundbreaking dialogue in what is planned to be an annual meeting at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian.

The Hoh, Makah and Quileute tribes and the Quinault Indian Nation created the symposium because indigenous coastal people are among the most affected by climate change.

“We need everyone engaged in working on adaptations, mitigation and strategies and solutions to climate change,” said Micah McCarty, chairman of the Makah and of the First Stewards steering committee. “Even the polar bears and people of the Arctic Circle cannot escape the second-hand smoke of the vehicle tailpipe and the smokestack that leave such a large carbon footprint. Arctic Circle villages must adapt and change now while still trying to preserve their culture and way of life. The rest of us have a little time if we act now,” McCarty said. Traditional knowledge is needed to make climate science and subsequent models meaningful on a human and local scale.

“Coastal Indian people are already dealing with the effects of climate change,” said Billy Frank Jr., chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC). The NWIFC is an inter-tribal support services organization that assists 19 member tribes in western Washington with natural resources management. “The glaciers that feed our life-giving rivers are melting. Reservations are flooding more often, forcing some tribes to have to move their homes to higher ground. Tribes are the natural choice to lead the nation in the response to climate change, beginning with this symposium in July.”

Regional panels will share climate adaptation strategies from coastal and island ecosystems nationwide where Indian Country, Alaskan Natives and indigenous U.S. Pacific Islanders are at the forefront, creating an incubator for climate change solutions. Tribal regulatory environments allow for demonstrations of solutions to pressing needs, such as renewable energy and adaptation strategies for villages.

“We want to see meaningful collaboration borne out of this first symposium that over the coming years yields effective work to make changes in the way we live on earth to sustain all of us for centuries to come,” McCarty said.

The symposium is in partnership with scientific, tribal and governmental and non-governmental organizations including the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries and National Marine Fisheries Service, The Nature Conservancy, National Congress of American Indians and Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. Other partners include Salmon Defense, United South and Eastern Tribes, Uncas Consulting Services, American Native Renewables, and EA Engineering, Science, and Technology.

For more information or to become a sponsor, visit www.firststewards.org.

Contacts:

Leonda Levchuk, National Museum of the American Indian, Public Affairs Specialist,(202) 633-6613;Vernon Smith, National Marine Sanctuary Program, Media Director, (301)713-7248 ext. 248; Debbie Preston, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, dpreston@nwifc.org, (360) 780-1295; Robin Stanton, The Nature Conservancy, rstanton@tnc.org, (360)425-478-5641

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/a-difficult-choice-on-water/

Arizona’s two senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl, traveled to the Navajo reservation this week to meet with Navajo and Hopi tribal leaders about a proposed water rights accord that would settle the two tribes’ claims to the Little Colorado River system.

Associated PressJohn McCain

Mr. Kyl and Mr. McCain have introduced a bill known as the Navajo-Hopi Little Colorado River Water Rights Settlement, which would require the tribes to waive their water rights for “time immemorial” in exchange for groundwater delivery projects to three remote communities.

The tribes must sign off on the settlement, along with 30 other entities including Congress and the president, before the bill becomes law.

Mr. Kyl said the bill was on a “fast track” and he would like to see it pushed through Congress before this session ends. But the outcome is uncertain, as there is a disagreement within the Navajo and Hopi governments over whether or not to endorse the bill, as well as disapproval within the communities, which are pushing for more public hearings.

The settlement would benefit the two tribes by providing clean drinking water piped directly into their homes, Mr. Kyl said. There is very little surface water on the two reservations, he said, adding that most of the water that does exist is in aquifers and the tribes can’t afford to build the infrastructure necessary to gain access to it.

What the tribes would lose by settling is a crucial bargaining chip. Other parties, including Peabody Coal and two other corporations, want the water for ranching, farming and coal mining operations. Coal mining in particular uses copious amounts of water for its slurries.

The tiny Hopi reservation is completely surrounded by the much larger Navajo reservation, which covers 27,000 square miles of land over sections of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. Many homes lack indoor plumbing, and one out of three families on the Navajo reservation does not have access to a public drinking water system, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Some wells and springs are still contaminated with uranium and other toxic heavy metals, a legacy of 40 years of mining.

In an arid region where water is scarce, some tribal leaders are in favor of settling their claims in exchange for running water. But the bill has also stirred some controversy among environmental groups and tribe members, who say that their leaders didn’t inform them about the details.

“Water is life, and when you take away our water, you take away our lives,” said Ed Becenti, a Navajo grass-roots organizer. He said that after the meeting, which took place behind closed doors, a crowd of about 200 milling outside followed the senators to their cars chanting “Kill bill 2109″ and “Leave our water alone.”

He said that Senator Kyl should “meet with the Navajo and Hopi grass-roots representation on the settlement agreement and go over it in detail.” He added, “Our tribal leaders have evidently dropped the ball on this one.”

Several environmental groups also oppose the bill. The Grand Canyon Trust, which was recently successful in halting new mining claims on federal land around the Grand Canyon, characterized the bill on its Web site as containing “several dangerous provisions that require a permanent waiver” of water rights.

Mr. Kyl acknowledges that the bill has aroused some deep-seated emotions but says that it has been widely misunderstood. “There are a lot of very smart people of good will who are trying to get these people wet water,” he said. The water the tribes have now, he said, exists mainly on paper in the form of rights to water that they cannot use.

Mr. Kyl and Mr. McCain, both Republicans, met privately with leaders of the two tribes in Tuba City on Thursday. Navajo leaders said they were working on scheduling a public meeting with the senators in Window Rock, Ariz., the capital of their reservation.

By: Young Writers 

By Samuel Bliss

[ReadtheDirt.org] Editor’s Note: One of our young and empowered voices—Samuel Bliss—gives us a run down on the issue of bottled water in the Northwest. Even if we don’t want to admit it, the Northwest is not immune from large corporations acquiring rights to its water. This piece complements our previous piece “Bottle the Skagit River?”.

Sam Bliss is a junior studying Environmental Economics and Spanish at Western Washington University. He is a member of a team, along with fellow Students for Sustainable Water club members Anna Amundson and Julia Shure, which won a grant from the university’s Green Energy Fee fund to install water bottle filling stations on campus. The installation of these filtered-water dispensers was accompanied by a campaign to promote education and awareness regarding Bellingham’s municipal water source, Lake Whatcom, and the issues surrounding its maintenance and protection. Sam is an ardent activist for water as a human right rather than a for-profit commodity; he and his fellow club members are part of an ongoing crusade to ban the sale of bottled water at Western. Cycling, songwriting, reading, running, coffee-drinking, breathing, running, eating, singing, cooking, football, learning, laughing, cross-country skiing, crossword puzzles, yoga, and the guitar are among Sam’s many other passions.

The commoditization and privatization of water has taken off with the relatively new advent of bottled water. But why is this so bad? Typically, the lofty price of bottled water is a good place to start. If you’re lucky enough to find a machine where you can still buy a 20-ounce bottle for one dollar, you’re paying 5 cents per ounce of liquid. Compare that to the price of gasoline: even for $3 per gallon of gas, each ounce costs just a fraction over 2 cents. Most municipal water, where bottled water companies like Dasani (Coca-Cola) and Aquafina (Pepsi) get their water, in contrast costs less than 1 cent per gallon. This creates an exorbitant profit margin that puts even oil companies to shame.

EartH2O, an Oregon bottled water company, is just one example of a company taking advantage of these huge revenue-to-cost discrepancies. EartH2O’s water comes from the same natural sources as the Opal Springs municipal water. Not only are they ripping off those who buy their water, they are selling a public resource to turn a private profit.

Nestlé Waters North America, a division of Switzerland-based Nestlé SA – the largest food-and-beverage company in the world – attempted to do the same thing in Enumclaw, Washington in 2008. The plan was to collect water from Boise Spring, a major water source for the city, and bottle it in a 250,000-square-foot plant nearby. Calculations done by the city concluded that with Nestlé taking it’s share, the public system would no longer be able to support new costumers by 2038. This concern was compounded with others such as the expected increase in truck traffic and the company’s business practices elsewhere; ultimately, the proposal was shot down by a 6-1 City Council vote before the details of the project had even been hashed out. Nestlé has a track record of using predatory tactics to obtain rights to pump public spring water at far below market prices.

In addition to being denied the right to bottle Enumclaw’s water, Nestlé has withdrawn proposed projects in Black Diamond and Orting, Washington for logistical reasons, according to company officials. The corporation continues to look for new sources in the Pacific Northwest, and has had its sights set on Cascade Locks, Oregon, in the Columbia River Gorge region, for quite some time now. Though the city’s leaders at first welcomed the proposal as an opportunity to provide a boost to their local economy through property tax collection and job creation, dissent (mostly from critics of Nestlé and of bottled water in general rather than from Cascade Locks community members) has held the plan at bay for several years now. The current state of the situation, according to The Sierra Club: “The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) holds the water rights for Oxbow Springs in the Columbia River Gorge, which it currently uses for a fish hatchery. To enable Nestlé to bottle and sell the spring water, ODFW has proposed creating a water exchange with the City of Cascade Locks: ODFW would get access to Cascade Locks’ municipal water [to use for its hatchery] and Cascade Locks would get access to the spring water which it would in turn sell to Nestlé [at the municipal water rate].” The Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) must approve this permit proposal, and has indicated it will make a decision on the permit in the next month or two.

Municipal water sources are tested for toxins and contaminants hundreds of times per month under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency, and scores are made public in the Environmental Working Group’s National Tap Water Database. Bottled water, on the other hand, is in theory regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), however the FDA does not have even one staff member fully designated to oversee the industry. About 60 to 70 percent of bottled water sold in the U.S. is not subject to any federal oversight because it is sold in the same state as it is bottled, according to theNatural Resources Defense Council. This is because the FDA is responsible only for bottled water that is shipped across state boundaries. Most states claim to regulate this FDA oversight-exempt water, yet dedicate very few, if any, resources to this monitoring; more than 10 states do not supervise their intrastate bottled water at all.

Waste stands as another major effect of the consumption of bottled water; 1.5 million tons of plastic waste are created each year by bottled water. These plastic bottles are produced using up to 47 million gallons of oil, according to Food and Water Watch. Approximately 30 million of the 80 million single-serving water bottles consumed each day are simply thrown away, as reported by the 2009 feature-length documentary Tapped.

Plastic does not biodegrade, rather it photo-degrades. This means that it is broken into smaller and smaller pieces by light, until the fragments can be mistaken for plankton or other food by marine and avian life. Almost all plastics ever produced remain in existence.

Bottled water is only a small part of an infinitely more disturbing trend: the global shift toward the privatization of local freshwater supplies. The access to safe and affordable water is an undeniable right that must not be commoditized by multinational corporations buying up groundwater and distribution rights in an effort to take advantage of the fact that water is fast becoming the world’s most precious resource. No one should be profiting from water scarcity. Clean water shortages arise from the superabundance of pollution and the lack of adequate environmental protection, but corporate control is not the solution. Instead we must focus on new and innovative ways to conserve the clean water we still have and to purify the dirty water. Human ingenuity is the answer; it’s a resource that is often overlooked in our doomsday predictions.

Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, and member of Veterans For Peace -Bruce Gagnon will speak on U.S. expanding militarism, and its impact on the economic crisis here at home. He will stress the need to promote the conversion of the military industrial complex to sustainable production if we hope to have any impact on climate change. 

April 23 –Olympia –To be determined

April 24 –Olympia –6:30 PM, Traditions Café, 300 5th Avenue Southwest

April 25 –Walla Walla -7:00 PM, Whitman College, Olin Hall

April 26 –Bellingham-4:00 PM, Western Washington University, Arntzen Hall

April 27 –Bellingham –7:00 PM, Mt. Baker Theatre’s Encore Room

April 28 –Seattle -7:30 –8:00 AM, Interviewed on KEXP, 90.3 FM

April 28 –Redmond-1:00 PM, Soul Food Books, 15748 Redmond Way

April 29 –Seattle -4:00 pm, University Temple United Methodist Church

April 30 –Tacoma -12:30 –1:30 pm, University of Washington, Tacoma, Carwein Auditorium

Sponsors of the Seattle area events include Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action, Veterans for Peace (Seattle Chapter), United Nations Association, Western Washington Fellowship of Reconciliation, University Temple United Methodist Church, The Alliance for Democracy and the Abe Keller Peace Education Fund.

More details at http://psnukefree.blogspot.com/p/events.html

Copyright © 2009-2011 EcoSalon. All rights reserved.

http://video.mpbn.net/video/2219784260/

Description from MPBN: The legislature has just approved funding to study the feasibility of a four lane private highway from Calais to Coburn Gore. Supporters say it would transform the economy of Northern and Eastern Maine. Others are concerned about environmental impacts. Cianbro CEO Peter Vigue, who has been a champion of the idea, and Barbara Charry of Maine Audubon will discuss the idea with us.

• Visit the East-West Highway in Maine webpage

Maine legislators are considering a bill to spend $300,000 of our tax dollars to fund a financial feasibility study for a private toll road across Maine which would have major consequences for Mainers. On March 12, the Senate passed LD 1671 by a narrow vote of 19 to 15. The House vote could come very soon followed by a second Senate vote.

Our tax dollars should not be used to fund a financial feasibility study for a private toll road. While investors would profit from building the toll road, it would be a raw deal for the people of Maine. Rather than creating economic stability for Mainers, as proponents of the toll road argue, it will harm local economic development in Maine. Here’s why.

It will become a northeast gateway for Canada, not Maine communities, tourists or local businesses.

Canadian businesses and truckers will benefit from a short route across Maine and be willing and able to pay the high tolls, not Mainers or tourists. In a recent MPBN broadcast, Peter Mills from the Maine Turnpike Authority said the toll may cost $100-$200. Second, according to Cianbro President Peter Vigue, the project will only have two interchanges, one north of Dover-Foxcroft to allow containers to be exchanged and one at Route 201.

There will be diminished local economic opportunity and community vibrancy.

A financial feasibility study ignores potential environmental impacts, particularly impacts to Maine’s water and forests if the highway encourages the export of water and wood chips by transnational corporations. This kind globalization leaves communities in poverty because they no longer have value in their land to sustain themselves. Instead, the Legislature should support local economic initiatives, small business and community vitality.

A short-lived increase in jobs isn’t worth a long depression.

The road will depress local land values, decrease tourist appeal, increase pollution that makes the land less viable for farming and other local land use.

Public money will be used for private profit.

Our tax dollars should not be used to fund a financial feasibility study for a private toll road that will benefit investors and Canadian energy and trucking companies, but not the people of Maine.

Taxpayers will be signing a blank check.

If the study requires more than the $300,000 in the bill, the amount can be increased without any further vote. That is not all. The state of Maine would have to rebuild the border crossing station at Coburn Gore to meet Department of Homeland Security requirements. And who will pay the expense to patrol the highway?

Eminent domain will hold sway. With the precedence of legislative support and under the auspices of a “public-private partnership,” private investors may collude with the state to acquire land along the route through eminent domain by arguing it’s for the public good.

No public voice portends an environmental and community disaster. The financial feasibility study opens the door to one of the most significant landscape and cultural transformations Maine has ever seen, yet there is no provision for public input from Mainers. This is a huge infringement on individual rights and local control.

Even more fossil fuel will burned. Climate change is upon us. Building a major highway primarily to truck Canadian goods across Maine for export is going in the wrong direction.

The highway would be a supercorridor for natural gas, and what else? New information that the highway might create a corridor for a natural gas pipeline from Canada’s gas fracking fields in Quebec and New Brunswick to ports in its maritime provinces and for liquid petroleum gas to be trucked to the fields to use for a new gas fracking technology, adds to the urgency to stop this bill and to conduct a thorough study of what this highway might really entail. In fact, Peter Vigue has stated that his goals for the highway include a corridor for utilities and communications.

The east-west highway has taken multiple forms over the past couple decades. Now it is before us in the most dangerous way ever: as a private project. The concept of using public money to fund a study for private investors is unethical. The threat to local control is unprecedented. The toll road will only increase economic inequality in Maine as it benefits private investors and Canadian corporations. We need our legislators to provide a long-term vision for Maine’s economy and Maine’s people, not spend our tax dollars to benefit Canadian exporters.

Chris Buchanan is a grassroots organizer with Defending Water for Life in Maine and lives Belgrade. For more information, visit www.defendingwater.net/maine/.