Gila River Indian Community

Navajo Generating Station Impacts

Gila River Indian Community

Navajo Generating Station Impacts

Councilman Augustine Enas & Ann Marie Chischilly, GRIC Law Office

January 21, 2011

Gila River Indian Community ProfileGila River Indian Community Profile

Reservation created 1859 Two tribes living along side the Gila River:

Pima (Akimel O’odham) & Maricopa (Pee Posh) Population: 21,000 members 373,000 acres of reservation

1900’s – Diversion of all water 100 years without water flowing Largest epidemic of diabetes in US

1930’s – Began fighting for Water Rights 2004 – Signed Largest Water Settlement in

US history 2010 – Fighting to Enforce Water

Settlement 2010 – 1st Tribe with a Tribal

Implementation Plan to support clean air

What does the EPA BART decision and other pending control technology decisions for coal-fired power plants mean for GRIC?

Navajo Generating Station(increase OM&R costs)

LCRBDF Energy Costs

Gila River Indian CommunityImpacts cost of water

Two Impacts for the

Community based upon the

AZ Water Settlement

Arizona Water Settlement ActArizona Water Settlement Act

A. Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund “LCRBDF” (section 107) NGS surplus power funds the LCRBDF until 2039 Increased OM&R for the BART would

decrease/eliminate the surplus power funding for the LCRBDF

LCRBDF began with $498M currently maintained by BOR

LCRBDF would be expended earlier than 2039 Could not use LCRBDF if expended earlier than

2039

B. Increase cost in water due to energy increase.

Arizona Water Settlement ActFormer Gov. Richard Narcia Arizona Water Settlement ActFormer Gov. Richard Narcia

The specific process for funding this settlement is absolutely, absolutely fundamental to our settlement. Without it, our settlement simply will not work . . . . [T]he funding mechanism of this bill is the strongest possible affirmation that the Federal Government is serious about reaching a fair and binding settlement with every Arizona Indian Tribe that is willing to negotiate in good faith.

Arizona Water Settlement Act Former Gov. Richard Narcia Arizona Water Settlement Act Former Gov. Richard Narcia

For the first time, the United States will be able to negotiate with Indian Tribes in Arizona knowing that if they are able to reach a settlement they will have the revenue, a certain quantity of CAP water, and the resources to guarantee that the operations, maintenance, and the replacement costs associated with that water can be paid for both for this generation and the next generation to come.[1]

[1] Testimony of Governor Narcia, Joint Hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on Indian Affairs on S. 437 (Sept. 30, 2003).

Navajo Generating Station(increase OM&R costs)

LCRBDF Energy Costs

Gila River Indian CommunityImpacts cost of water

Two Impacts for the

Community based upon the

AZ Water Settlement

Worst Case Cost ImpactsWorst Case Cost Impacts

Worst case minimum technology currently proposed is SCR plus enhanced baghouses GRIC remains OPPOSED to SCR as BART because we believe it is

very costly with no commensurate environmental benefitHowever, to protect GRIC’s interest we must assume a worst case scenario

Worst case minimum technology is SCR plus enhanced baghouses

Mercury Controls Control of other HAPs

(multi-pollutant MACT)

Does not include cost of GHG compliance or other regulatory requirements or potential permanent closure of NGS

Economic Impacts on GRICEconomic Impacts on GRIC

Most recent SRP cost estimates for technology as converted to CAP rates for water pumping 48% of GRIC’s Arizona Water

Settlement water is CAP water

CAP energy rates will be increased by 33% or by $16.00 per acre foot.

Economic Impacts on GRICEconomic Impacts on GRIC

Impact on Development Fund Revenues otherwise available to offset huge increase in pumping cost. Cost of technology would reduce

Development Fund revenues by $289 million (2016-2036) and $1.9 million/year thereafter

United States’ Trust ResponsibilityUnited States’ Trust Responsibility

United States has trust responsibilities to GRIC that run to ALL Federal Agencies

Obligation to Protect Community’s water rights under AWSA:

“the water rights and resources described in the Gila River Agreement shall be held in trust by the United States on behalf of the Community.” AWSA Sec. 204(a)(2)

General fiduciary trust obligation to GRIC:

Federal government has “moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust,” and its actions must be “judged by the most exacting fiduciary standards.” Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286, 296-97 (1941)

EPA must protect the Community’s right to receive and use its CAP water allocation.

Navajo Generating Station(increase OM&R costs)

LCRBDF Energy Costs

Gila River Indian CommunityImpacts cost of water

Two Impacts for the

Community based upon the

AZ Water Settlement

Cultural Implications For GRICCultural Implications For GRIC

Loss of Farming Plan to bring 120,000 acres back into farming

production Teaching younger generation how to farm

Can existing farming continue, new farming begin?

Cultural implication Spiritual ceremonies around planting

seasons

Health related implications Highest rate of diabetes

Cultural Implications For GRICCultural Implications For GRIC

Loss of riparian development Spiritual sense of flowing river

Native plants for cultural preservation

Loss of riparian habitat

Loss of animal habitat

Loss of recharge of aquifer

“It’s like losing Our water all over again.”

GRIC GoalGRIC Goal

Ensure that the Federal Government will uphold its Trust Responsibility

and

make the Community whole.