Viewpoint: Phoenix Hopis contest chairman's presentation at meeting

On March 9, Hopi tribal members residing throughout metro-Phoenix were notified of a March 14 meeting at the Native American Community Service Center. The meeting was coordinated between Chairman Shingoitewa and William Havens, an Anglo and non-tribal member.

After hearing of the scheduled meeting, many tribal members began emailing and calling one another asking why they were receiving second-hand information about the meeting and wanting to confirm the meeting. Tribal members were also querying why they weren't allowed any input on the agenda topics, being the meeting was being held to benefit all tribal members residing in the area.

On behalf of those asking about the meeting, I emailed Havens to communicate these same concerns. Not accepting I represent a number of "grassroots" Hopi-Tewa members both off and on the Hopi Reservation, Havens took offense to my query. Havens justified that the agenda topics were those of Shingoitewa, not his.

There are many more topics of priority interest to the grassroots people that could have been placed on the agenda and entertained, yet, the agenda was limited to only certain topics. According to Havens, Shingoitewa's topics were: 1) Navajo Generating Station, 2) Little Colorado River Adjudication Case, 3) Hopi Code Talkers, 4) Hopi lands, 5) Snowbowl, and 6) future of Hopi constitution revisions. The topic of "constitutional revisions" was not touched on by Shingoitewa at the meeting; the topic of Hopi Code Talkers was primarily informational.

The highpoints of challenges to the meeting topics presented by Shingoitewa are as follows:

Navajo Generating Station (NGS) - Shingoitewa generally talked about the future of the NGS. He was advised by representatives of the grassroots people that we were aware of a letter sent by him to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the past to consider enforcing less stringent emissions standards than the required EPA Bart Available Retrofit Technology (BART) standards in order for NGS to avoid possible closure. Shingoitewa said that he and the Hopi Tribal Council are now requiring NGS to comply with BART standards.

It was also advised by the grassroots people that there are other unresolved issues such as providing coal from the Black Mesa Mine (on the Hopi side) vs. providing coal from the Kayenta Mine (on the Navajo side) - considering they both must have separate Final Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), etc. - to the NGS. Those issues need to be studied and the findings shared with tribal members.

Little Colorado River Adjucation Case - Shingoitewa didn't provide specific information on what issues were lingering on having the Council deciding whether it will accept and sign the Settlement Agreement with the other 32 non-Hopi stakeholders. He did share some of the history behind the closure of the Mojave Generating Station, and that the Council was carefully studying the agreement and its potential ramifications.

The grassroots people made him aware we were knowledgeable about the stipulations in the proposed Settlement Agreement and were very concerned with the overall content of the proposed agreement, including its waivers, proposing to waive the interests of the Hopi Tribe. We also made him aware of issues surrounding the Upper and Lower Basins of the Little Colorado River. We also advised of our awareness of players located in central and southern Arizona and what their interests continue to be.

One question was asked why the proposed pipeline, as part of the agreement, didn't extend beyond Shungopavi. He didn't have a specific answer to that. He was finally advised that we knew Peabody Western Coal Co. also had an ongoing interest in the settlement being discussed and how it was still being consulted. We finally advised that we would not stand lightly if the tribe signs the agreement in its present form.

Hopi Lands - Shingoitewa spent more time on this topic than any other, even using a display showing all the checkerboard areas being considered for purchase by the Hopi Tribe around the Twin Arrows area and south of the Winslow and Holbrook. He did not provide any specific plans for development adjacent or near these areas. He advised the monies for purchasing certain checkerboard areas was contained in Navajo-Hopi legislation. He also touched on already purchased properties in Oak Creek, in downtown/central/east Flagstaff, the Holbrook Truck Stop and ranch areas around Springerville, claiming they were profitable to the tribe, with the exception of the truck stop.

The grassroots people advised although there was money set aside for the purchase of certain portions of the checkerboard areas, what about tribal or other funds for planning and development. We advised it would require separate monies, aside from monies to purchase certain lands, to actually develop the lands, especially for infrastructure (i.e., utilities - water lines, sewer lines and disposal systems, telecommunications and electrical services, suitable roadways, overpasses, etc.) and securing easements/rights-of-way. The complexities of purchasing, and planning and developing the lands are going to be the most difficult to experience. We also advised it takes economic/enterprise development to create sustainable jobs. We asked where the Council was with purchasing lands. The answer was it is still considering any purchases. Knowing this, we advised that, that process will take years to secure, much less developing any areas purchased.

Snowbowl Issue - Shingoitewa went directly into the Feb. 18, 2011 letter sent to the city of Flagstaff threatening the city with a lawsuit by the tribe if the city would not nullify and void its contract with Snowbowl owners regarding the use of reclaimed (sewer) water to make artificial snow at the Snowbowl. In the process, he advised that he consulted the Hopi practitioners before helping to submit the letter. He did not disclose which practitioners.

The grassroots people made Shingoitewa and Robert Lyttle, attorney to Shingoitewa and the Council, aware of the letter received by the city attorney's office on Feb. 23, 2011. The letter included an alternative to the potential lawsuit - a $40 million offer by the Hopi Tribe to the city of Flagstaff if it would nullify and void its contract with Snowbowl owners. This is the point the meeting got heated, primarily against Lyttle who authored the letter as supported by Shingoitewa. It was demanded by the grassroots people to know whether the letter was approved by the Council, and why the $40 million was offered as part of a proposed settlement.

At the conclusion of discussion under this topic, a strong and clear statement was made by the grassroots people that the San Francisco Peaks "were not for sale" and using effluent to make artificial snow at the Snowbowl "was not acceptable to the Hopi people."

It was inspiring to know our grassroots people cared enough to travel the distance to Phoenix from the Hopi Reservation, Prescott and greater Phoenix to face and challenge Shingoitewa and Lyttle. They traveled the distance because Shingoitewa has refused to meet with them locally on their concerns.

Finally, let it be known that unless we invite non-tribal members into our circle, you have absolutely no business poking your nose into our tribal affairs, which includes Havens and others.