Tribal Consultation in the 21st Century

Routel, Colette; Holth, Jeffrey K.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2012002

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…84-570, federal officials would have been required to initiate government-to-government consultation with Lumbee leaders during this period [145,146]. We acknowledge, however, that the consultation process itself is flawed and has been the subject of many calls for reform [80,120,147,148].…”

Section: Planning and Permitting The Atlantic Coast Pipelinementioning

confidence: 99%

Breaching Barriers: The Fight for Indigenous Participation in Water Governance

Emanuel

Wilkins

2020

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Indigenous peoples worldwide face barriers to participation in water governance, which includes planning and permitting of infrastructure that may affect water in their territories. In the United States, the extent to which Indigenous voices are heard—let alone incorporated into decision-making—depends heavily on whether or not Native nations are recognized by the federal government. In the southeastern United States, non-federally recognized Indigenous peoples continue to occupy their homelands along rivers, floodplains, and wetlands. These peoples, and the Tribal governments that represent them, rarely enter environmental decision-making spaces as sovereign nations and experts in their own right. Nevertheless, plans to construct the Atlantic Coast Pipeline prompted non-federally recognized Tribes to demand treatment as Tribal nations during permitting. Actions by the Tribes, which are recognized by the state of North Carolina, expose barriers to participation in environmental governance faced by Indigenous peoples throughout the United States, and particularly daunting challenges faced by state-recognized Tribes. After reviewing the legal and political landscapes that Native nations in the United States must navigate, we present a case study focused on Atlantic Coast Pipeline planning and permitting. We deliberately center Native voices and perspectives, often overlooked in non-Indigenous narratives, to emphasize Indigenous actions and illuminate participatory barriers. Although the Atlantic Coast Pipeline was cancelled in 2020, the case study reveals four enduring barriers to Tribal participation: adherence to minimum standards, power asymmetries, procedural narrowing, and “color-blind” planning. We conclude by highlighting opportunities for federal and state governments, developers, and Indigenous peoples to breach these barriers.

show abstract

Section: Planning and Permitting The Atlantic Coast Pipelinementioning

confidence: 99%

Breaching Barriers: The Fight for Indigenous Participation in Water Governance

Emanuel

Wilkins

2020

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Federal executive orders and laws such as the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA, Public Law 89‐665) require federal agencies to consult formally with tribes during actions that may affect a tribe's present‐day or ancestral territories (NEJAC ; ACHP ). Ideally, consultation allows federal agencies to understand how regulated projects could adversely affect tribes and their resources (Routel and Holth ). Consultation potentially serves as a powerful tool to protect tribal interests, but its record in practice is mixed, due to inconsistent or incomplete implementation among agencies (Routel and Holth ).…”

Section: Overview Of the Lumbee Tribe And Its Relationship With The Lmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ideally, consultation allows federal agencies to understand how regulated projects could adversely affect tribes and their resources (Routel and Holth ). Consultation potentially serves as a powerful tool to protect tribal interests, but its record in practice is mixed, due to inconsistent or incomplete implementation among agencies (Routel and Holth ). Recent controversies surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline and other infrastructure projects affecting tribal territories also highlight the perils associated with incomplete or insincere consultation (Emanuel ; Norman ; Whyte ).…”

Section: Overview Of the Lumbee Tribe And Its Relationship With The Lmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate Change in the Lumbee River Watershed and Potential Impacts on the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina

Emanuel

2018

Contemporary Water Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing body of research focuses on climate change and Indigenous peoples. However, relatively little of this work focuses on Native American tribes living in the Atlantic Coastal Plain of the United States. The Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina is a large (60,000 member) Native American tribe located on the Coastal Plain in present day North Carolina (U.S.). The tribe has deep connections to the Lumbee River, which flows through a watershed dominated by extensive forested wetlands. In this paper, I outline key issues associated with climate change and water in the region, and I use long‐term climatic and hydrologic datasets and analysis to establish context for understanding historical climate change in the Lumbee River watershed. Downscaled climate model outputs for the region show how further changes may affect the hydrologic balance of the watershed. I discuss these changes in terms of environmental degradation and potential impacts on Lumbee culture and persistence, which has remained strong through centuries of adversity and has also experienced a resurgence in recent years. I close by acknowledging the especially vulnerable position of the Lumbee Tribe as a non‐federal tribe that lacks access to certain resources, statutory protections, and policies aimed at helping Native American tribes deal with climate change and other environmental challenges.

show abstract

“…Cynicism is warranted, given the history of broken treaties, disregarded resource rights, and lands—more than 80 million acres—taken with a mix of political expediency, racialized discrimination, and cold duplicity (Deloria and Lytle ). Both Hopi and other tribal advocates regularly complain that Native nations do not have a legal right to insist that federal representatives consider their consultation recommendations (Eitner ; Routel and Holth ). As a legal researcher for the HCPO put it, federal agencies are “required to consult, but there's no law that requires them to even listen.”…”

Section: Itaakuku—our Footprintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Jurisdictions of significance: Narrating time‐space in a Hopi‐US tribal consultation

Richland

2018

American Ethnologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2013, Hopi Tribal representatives met US Forest Service officials to consult on the significance of archaeological sites in the Tonto National Forest. The meeting exemplified the “meaningful tribal consultation” process that federal law requires US agencies to undertake with Native nations. Disagreement persists about the efficacy of such consultations and about why indigenous actors continue to participate in them. In the 2013 consultations, Hopi officials’ contributions shape the interaction into a narrative exercise of juris‐diction, the enactment of normative authority through language. In this way, consultation participants implicitly negotiate which norms—those of Hopi tradition or Anglo‐American law—should govern how the significance of the archaeological sites in question are legally determined.

show abstract

Tribal Consultation in the 21st Century

Cited by 6 publications

References 1 publication

Breaching Barriers: The Fight for Indigenous Participation in Water Governance

Breaching Barriers: The Fight for Indigenous Participation in Water Governance

Climate Change in the Lumbee River Watershed and Potential Impacts on the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina

Jurisdictions of significance: Narrating time‐space in a Hopi‐US tribal consultation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About