Thursday, October 6, 2011

Northern Wisconsin Water Rights Ruling Could Become Conservative Rallying Point

People who know a lot more about water rights and Native American treaty rights than do I tell me the Environmental Protection Agency's recognition of the Bad River band's water quality standards and right to set them is a very big deal.


That's because because it tips decision-making power over water and land management towards the Tribe and its interests, and away from the Gegobic mining company, its proposed open-pit iron ore mine, and legislative efforts to fast-track a mining permitting process and stage-manage the political situation near Ashland.


Further explanation, here.

"It gives the tribe a very big stick," said lawyer Glenn Stoddard of Eau Claire, who represents the band.
Which is all well and good in a perfect world, but I wouldn't put it past Scott Walker and his allies to use this turn of events as a political and ideological lever against the Federal government, the EPA and their regulatory authority - - and also against environmentalists and more liberal voices in the southern part of the state who are supporting the Tribe when Walker looks for, or manufacturers issues during the recall.


He and allies, whether in the Legislature or on talk radio can stir the pot and play the demagogue, though the Tribe and the EPA are completely within their rights and obliged to help guarantee clean water for the rice harvest and the integrity of Tribal land and tradition.


The Journal Sentinel story elicited some ugly, anti-tribe, anti-Obama comments, like the ones below. Cool heads need to prevail.
So much for eliminating the 27% unemployment in Northern WI - that's double that on Indian Reservations that rely solely on government handouts...too bad the EPA couldn't do their own dirtywork instead of shuffling it off to the Indians who don't possess the technical knowledge to properly test the waters unless they hire outsiders to do it for them.
And:
... obama is in charge of the EPA. ya know who wont allow us to drill in the gulf, alaska or anywhere else.... killing jobs.






3 comments:

Anonymous said...

In 2009 the tribe was granted” treatment as state” status which allowed them to set water quality standards within the reservation boundaries. These standards are then subject to approval by the EPA. I am thinking that what has happened is that the tribe has now submitted its standards to the EPA and the EPA has now approved those standards.

This may be misinterpreted into thinking that the tribe has gained the authority to set water quality standards on others outside of the reservation boundary, but the final authority on water standards remains to be the EPA. For example, if the tribe submits a standard of x parts per million of sulfates on its own water and this standard is approved by the EPA, the tribe could rightfully protest any outside source which exceeded this limit, but they would not have direct authority over that source. In practice, the EPA would have that authority and it would not seem practical that they would approve a higher standard within the reservation and a lower standard flowing into it. In essence, the standards approved within the reservation would be the same that would be acceptable outside it. That water quality standard flowing into the reservation would remain under the authority of the EPA, not the tribe.

If anything, this latest approval by the EPA demonstrates that it remains to be the final authority on water standards, otherwise the tribe would not be seeking permission of approval from them.

Anonymous said...

These conservatives really should read the Constitution they keep invoking. Our forebears signed treaties with the Indians, under a Constitution that gives these treaties the force of law. Something tells me our treaties with the Ojibwa don't just give them their reservations but promise to protect their way of life on those reservations, and that means not poisoning their wild rice beds.

enoughalready said...

I would think this would be a good rallying point for liberals as much as for conservatives. The mine has to be controversial, and I think water rights are a very sensitive subject for everyone.