Alternative Energy in American Indian Country: Catering to Both Sides of the Coin
This article looks at both sides of the renewable energy “coin” in relation to American Indian country. On the one side, it appears that tribal governments are opposed to any energy development on their lands. All told, however, this couldn’t be further from the truth – tribes merely seek a seat at the table when decisions are made regarding developments that will adversely affect their lands and/or areas of cultural significance. Indeed, contrary to being opposed to alternative energy development, tribes are very actively seeking to develop their lands in a manner that is consistent with their cultures and traditions. But, large-scale alternative energy projects are virtually absent from Indian country. This article argues that the oft-overlooked other side of the renewable energy “coin” are the federal regulations that hinder these projects from coming to fruition. The final section of the article will discuss what Congress is – and is not – doing regarding the two sides of this “coin.”
Controlling the narrative: Critiquing the geopolitical narratives of US environmental impact assessments and exclusion of Indigenous communities
Environmental policy, while often well-intentioned, can fall short when environmental issues intersect with Indigenous community concerns. The intention of the United States National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is for federal agencies to consider the adverse environmental impacts prior to action. While NEPA has resulted in some agencies making more environmentally conscious decisions, agency self-interest is sometimes prioritized over socio-ecological well-being. Rather than using environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for their potential to inform just and sustainable environmental decisions, in practice federal, state, and private agencies have the power as assessment document authors to create geopolitical narratives. These narratives can be utilized to legitimize the outcomes that best serve their interests rather than the well-being of the surrounding physical and social environment. This article further explores the details of these narratives through two case studies in which Indigenous communities argued that the EIA documents did not adequately consider their worldviews or holistic adverse impacts. Through the utilization of a case study structure, a qualitative content analysis of EIA documents, and an environmental geopolitics framework informed by Indigenous scholarship, this article illustrates how the EIA process, in its current form, allows for agencies to justify or obscure geopolitically motivated actions, often at the expense of Indigenous communities. This work aims to critically enrich EIA scholarship by exploring the phenomenon of inadequate consideration of Indigenous worldviews through an Indigenous environmental geopolitics framework, building on conceptual understandings of the shortcomings of the EIA process and encouraging changes that make strides toward more equitable environmental assessment practice.
Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation
The State of Kansas imposes a tax on the receipt of motor fuel by fuel distributors within its boundaries. Kansas applies that tax to motor fuel received by non-Indian fuel distributors who subsequently deliver that fuel to a gas station owned by, and located on, the Reservation of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (Nation). The Nation maintains that this application of the Kansas motor fuel tax is an impermissible affront to its sovereignty. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that the application of the Kansas tax to fuel received by a non-Indian distributor, but subsequently delivered to the Nation, was invalid under the interest-balancing test set forth in White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980). But the Bracker interest-balancing test applies only where “a State asserts authority over the conduct of nonIndians engaging in activity on the reservation.” Id., at 144. It does not apply where, as here, a state tax is imposed on a non-Indian and arises as a result of a transaction that occurs off the reservation. Accordingly, we reverse.