Environmental Management

, Volume 52, Issue 5, pp 1057–1070 | Cite as

“Just Another Hoop to Jump Through?” Using Environmental Laws and Processes to Protect Indigenous Rights

Article
  • 570 Downloads

Abstract

Protection of culturally important indigenous landscapes has become an increasingly important component of environmental management processes, for both companies and individuals striving to comply with environmental regulations, and for indigenous groups seeking stronger laws to support site protection and cultural/human rights. Given that indigenous stewardship of culturally important sites, species, and practices continues to be threatened or prohibited on lands out of indigenous ownership, this paper examines whether or not indigenous people can meaningfully apply mainstream environmental management laws and processes to achieve protection of traditional sites and associated stewardship activities. While environmental laws can provide a “back door” to protect traditional sites and practices, they are not made for this purpose, and, as such, require specific amendments to become more useful for indigenous practitioners. Acknowledging thoughtful critiques of the cultural incommensurability of environmental law with indigenous environmental stewardship of sacred sites, I interrogate the ability of four specific environmental laws and processes—the Uniform Conservation Easement Act; the National Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act; the Pacific Stewardship Council land divestiture process; and Senate Bill 18 (CA-2004)—to protect culturally important landscapes and practices. I offer suggestions for improving these laws and processes to make them more applicable to indigenous stewardship of traditional landscapes.

Keywords

Environmental law Site protection Native American Indigenous Human rights Cultural resources 

References

  1. Basso KH (1996) Wisdom sits in places: landscape and language among the western Apache. University of New Mexico Press, Santa FeGoogle Scholar
  2. California Office of Historic Preservation: Dept. of Parks and Recreation (2001) Technical assistance series #1: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and historical resources. Californian Department of Parks and Recreation, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  3. California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Decision 03-12-035, Opinion Modifying the Proposed Settlement Agreement of Pacific Gas & Electric Company, PG&E Corporation and the Commission Staff, and Approving the Modified Settlement Agreement, December 18, 2003Google Scholar
  4. Codding RF, Goode RW (2011) California Indians could regain ancestral lands. San Francisco Chronicle, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  5. Cole Luke (1992) Empowerment as the key to environmental protection: the need for Environmental Poverty Law. Ecol Law Quart 19:619–683Google Scholar
  6. Cummings C (1998) Sacred landscapes from a legal perspective: examples from the United States. In: Oakes J, Rick R, Kathi K (eds) Sacred lands: aboriginal world views, claims, and conflicts. Occasional publication No. 43. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, pp 277–291Google Scholar
  7. Cummins B, Whiteduck K (1998) Towards a model for the identification and recognition of sacred sites. In: Oakes J, Rick R, Kathi K (eds) Sacred lands: aboriginal world views, claims, and conflicts. Occasional publication No. 43. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, pp 3–14Google Scholar
  8. Cunningham F (2012) Personal communicationGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis G (2002) Veto of SB-1828. http://www.sacredland.org/PDFs/Davis_veto.pdf. Accessed 3 Dec 2011
  10. Deloria V Jr (1994) God is red: a native view of religion. Fulcrum Publishing, GoldenGoogle Scholar
  11. Donaldson MW (2011) Letter to Emily Minton, Principal Planner, Lake County Community Development DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  12. Echo-Hawk WR (2010) In the courts of the conqueror. Fulcrum Publishing, GoldenGoogle Scholar
  13. Federal Register (2012) 77(155):47868–47873Google Scholar
  14. Fort K (2010) Order in Save the Peaks vs. US. Turtle talk Indian law blog. http://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/order-in-save-the-peaks-v-usfs/. Accessed 3 Dec 2011
  15. Gould C (2012) An update for friends and supporters of Sogorea Te. http://www.protectglencove.org. Accessed 7 Jan 2012
  16. Horn B (2003) Two lines longer: clash of cultures, religion. San Diego Union-Tribune, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  17. Indigenous Action Media (2010) District court rules for USFS in Save the Peaks Case, plaintiffs will appeal. Indigenous Action Media, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  18. Jones G (2002) Tribes flex power on sacred sites. Los Angeles Times, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  19. King T (2002) ‘Sacred Sites’ protection: be careful what you ask for. http://www.sacredland.org/PDFs/Thomas_King.pdf. Accessed 3 Dec 2011
  20. King T (2003) Places that count: traditional cultural properties in cultural resource management. AltaMira Press, Walnut CreekGoogle Scholar
  21. Krolick H (2012) Electronic communication 11/3/2012, 12/4/2012Google Scholar
  22. Larson E (2011) Friends of Rattlesnake Island sue county; suit seeks environmental study for building project. Lake County News, Lake CountyGoogle Scholar
  23. Little JB (2011a) Maidu group vies with state to oversee Humbug Valley. The Sacramento Bee, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  24. Little JB (2011b) California tribe competes with the state to restore its homeland. High Country News, PaoniaGoogle Scholar
  25. Logan P (2011) Tribes use land conservancies to reclaim ancestral grounds. High Country News, PaoniaGoogle Scholar
  26. Middleton BR (2008) ‘We were here, we are here, we will always be here:’ a political ecology of healing in Mountain Maidu country. Dissertation, University of CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  27. Middleton BR (2009–2010) Let this all return to us: working to reclaim land through the Pacific forest and watershed lands stewardship council. News from Native California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  28. Middleton BR (2010a) Towards a political ecology of healing. J Political Ecol 17:1–28Google Scholar
  29. Middleton BR (2010b) Seeking spatial representation: mapping Mountain Maidu allotment lands. Ethnohistory 57(3):363–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Middleton BR (2011) Trust in the land: new directions in tribal conservation. University of Arizona Press, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  31. Milholland S (2010) In the eyes of the beholder: understanding and resolving incompatible ideologies and languages in US environmental and cultural laws in relationship to Navajo sacred lands. Am Indian Cult Res J 34(2):117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moghaddas J (2010) Letter of support for the Maidu Summit submitted to Pacific Stewardship Council Executive Director Allene ZangerGoogle Scholar
  33. National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee (2000) Guide on consultation and collaboration with Indian Tribal Governments and the Public Participation of Indigenous Groups and tribal members in environmental decision making. http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/publications/nejac/ips-consultation-guide.pdf. Accessed 4 Sep 2012
  34. Pacific Stewardship Council (2007) Land conservation plan, vol 1. http://lcp.stewardshipcouncil.org/Vol_1/toc.htm. Accessed 3 Dec 2011
  35. Pacific Stewardship Council (2008) Volume 3 pilot process. http://stewardshipcouncil.org/documents/Volume%20III%20Pilot%20Process_Adopted%203.26.08.pdf. Accessed 3 Dec 2011
  36. Pacific Stewardship Council (2012a) Summary of fee title Donee recommendations. Pacific Stewardship Council, Foster CityGoogle Scholar
  37. Pacific Stewardship Council (2012b) Summary of watershed lands to be retained by PG&E. Pacific Stewardship Council, Foster CityGoogle Scholar
  38. Parrish W (2011) Cultural genocide in Lake County, CAGoogle Scholar
  39. Peters C (2002) Native American action request. Electronic communication via Andre CramblitGoogle Scholar
  40. Peterson RB, Russell D, West P, Brosius JP (2010) Seeing (and doing) conservation through cultural lenses. Environ Manag 45:5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation v. US Dept of the Interior (Case No. 10cv2241-LAB, CAB, US District Court, Southern District of California, December 15, 2010)Google Scholar
  42. Rivasplata A (2004) SB-18 (Burton) traditional tribal cultural places. Environ Assess 13(4):1Google Scholar
  43. Sacred Lands Alert (2011) Sacred lands alert and call for tribal and public support to protect the ancient aboriginal homeland village of the Elem people from destruction. http://www.scribd.com/doc/62136309/Rattlesnake-Island-Press-Release-Aug-2011. Accessed 3 Dec 2011
  44. Scheck J (2011) Maidu land claim with strings attached. Wall Street JGoogle Scholar
  45. Sutton I (1991) Preface to Indian country: geography and law. Am Indian Cult Res J 15(2):3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sutton I (2001) Indian cultural, historical, and sacred resources: how tribes, trustees, and the citizenry have invoked conservation. In: Clow R, Sutton I (eds) Trusteeship in change: toward tribal autonomy in resource management. University of Colorado Press, Boulder, pp 165–194Google Scholar
  47. Walton AA (2010) Conservation through different lenses: reflection, responsibility, and the politics of participation in conservation advocacy. Environ Manag 45:19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Welch JR, Riley R, Nixon MV (2009) Discretionary desecration: dzil Nchaa Si An (Mount Graham) and federal agency decisions affecting American Indian sacred sites. Am Indian Cult Res J 33(4):29–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Williams RA Jr (1994) Large binocular telescopes, red squirrel Piñatas, and Apache sacred mountains: decolonizing environmental law in a multicultural world. West Va Law Rev 96(4):1153Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Native American StudiesUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations