Talk:Black Mesa (Apache-Navajo Counties, Arizona)

Untitled

Added tag re: POV and accuracy today. Definitely NOT NPOV. Needs a good cleaning up. Lots of irrelevant (or maybe relevant, but misplaced) info. MadScientistMatt 07:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This article seems a bit emotive for an encyclopedia. I probably agree with you, but it should be put in better terms.

I agree with Mad-Matt. The third paragraph is very emotive and contains non-factual statements. Peabody Energy mines the Black Mesa area under the complete supervision and control of the Hopi and Navajo tribal governments since the entire mine area lies within the boundaries of those entities. Huge royalties are paid to each tribe by Peabody in order to mine the coal. What the two tribes do with that money is up to them I would suppose. The mines, Black Mesa and Kayenta, are in very sparsely populated areas of the reservations and any residents that are or were displaced have been approved by the tribal governments and the costs of relocation and monetary compensation are borne by Peabody. There is a current dispute over groundwater pumping but that issue is currently being addressed by the two tribes, Peabody and the BIA. The 100 foot loss per year quoted stains credulity. The slurry pipeline, (from the Black Mesa mine), has been in use since the 1970's, which would equate to a 3,000 ft plus loss to date in groundwater levels. Not a likely scenario in my opinion.

AZ Gila Monster 21:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In regards to GilaMonster's comments: The fact that the mine exists within the reservation boundaries does not automatically mean the tribes have "total supervision and control". Access to mineral exploitation on reservation lands is largely controlled by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Secretary of Interior. The "huge royalties [which] are paid to each tribe by Peabody" are worth less than one tenth of the actual market value of coal from other comparable mines ($0.12/ton vs $1.20/ton at 1960's rates). The mines, which are on fact really in just one area not "areas" as they are adjecent/bordering each other, are only amongst such a sparse population comparative to other areas of the reservation as a result of the coerced relocations of the people who lived there and the "residents that are or were displaced" were not "approved by the tribal governments", they were ordered tobe displaced by the federal congress in the Navajo-Hopi Relocation Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-531) despite public opposition from Navajo tribal office holders. The "costs of relocation and monetary compensation borne by Peabody" are actually borne by United States taxpayers as proscribed in the Relocation Act. As to the aquafer drain issue: I don't know where the 100 ft. per year figure comes from. Perhaps better information exists in the form of: The slurry pipeline has used over 2 billion gallons of water per year since it began operation and many deep wells, springs and seeps which feed off of the N-Aquafer have gone dry since pumping began.Dismantling 04:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

After a bit of research may I add the following. The N-HRA of 1974 has nothing to do with the relocation of tribal members to accommodate the mine. The NHRA was intended to resolve a long standing land dispute between the Navajo and Hopi tribes involving the Joint Use Area of approx. 18 million acres. The JUA was originally intended to allow both tribes to use the area but tribal disagreements had been ongoing for decades. This Act was amended further in 1996 and 2006. The following link is a summary of this long standing dispute; http://www.lapahie.com/Navajo_Hopi_Land_Dispute.cfm#Summary The roughly 50 families that had to move directly due to the mines were administered by the tribes as an eminent domain issue and the costs were indeed borne by Peabody. Concerning mineral leases on tribal lands, those leases are negotiated with the BIA and the tribes but the royalty agreements are strictly the realm of the tribes. In 2005, $27 million in royalties were paid for the 5 million tons of coal from the Black Mesa mine and $43 million for the 8 million tons of coal from the Kayenta mine. Mineral lease payments of roughly $8 million were paid to the Interior Dept, the majority of which is returned directly to the tribes. The following links have info concerning those facts. http://www.omb.navajo.org/main/previous_budget.html http://www.peabodyenergy.com/Media/publications.asp http://www.peabodyenergy.com/pdfs/06_AR_FINANCIALS.pdf http://www.hopi.nsn.us/ The pumping of groundwater is now a moot point. The Black Mesa mine has been inactive since Dec 2005 due the shutdown of the Mohave generating station in Laughlin, NV which was the recipient of the slurry coal from the pipeline. Mohave was mothballed due to lawsuits by the Sierra Club and other environmental groups and will likely not be reactivated due to the roughly $1 billion modification costs involved. While in operation, the pipeline used roughly 4,000 acre feet of water yearly which equates to roughly 1.3 billion gallons. More info on the following links. http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/PowerGeneration/MohaveGenerationStation/ http://www.ag.unr.edu/uced/reports/technicalreports/fy2002_2003/2002_03_07.pdf http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Jul-10-Sun-2005/business/2369846.html AZ Gila Monster 06:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's true that the NHRA (1974) is separate from the relocations out of the Peabody lease area, and I apologize that I blended the facts. However the two are not mutually exclusive. The "long standing land dispute" between the tribes was largely fabricated by the public relations firm hired to lobby congress and the media by Hopi Tribal lawyer, John Boyden, who was secretly also employed by Peabody during the same time period in the 1960's. The Joint Use Area encompasses nearly the entirity of Black Mesa (which this wikipedia article is about). The pumping of water from the N-Aquafer has ceased (for supplying to the slurry line only, mine facility water usage continues), but the impact effected by decades of pumping is real and is deserving of historical recognition, not omission. Also there is currently a proposal before the Buruea of Reclemation and the Office of Surface mining to restart pumping for the slurry line in increased volume and to reopen the Black Mesa mine with or without the Mohave generating station (which its new group of investors are in fact hoping to reopen). This proposal is currently in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) phase. While I do not provide links to "official" sources, I can provide links to sites/sources that do: www.blackmesais.org , www.blackmesatrust.org , the documentary "Broken Rainbow" (1986), the book "The Second Long Walk" by Jerry Krammer, for starters. The best source of accurate information is the elders on Black Mesa and in the Hopi villages, however white culture doesn't recognize the legitimacy of "unofficial" sources. 72.177.71.137 20:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Dismantle

I've removed the dispute tag because the offending material is now gone. As an editorial comment, the truth (as the above paragraph indicates) is far worse than any of the now-removed material. We're not going to solve the Navajo / Hopi land dispute (which, overall, dates back at least to the 1880s and I think is a byproduct at least in part of the federal government's attempts to keep Catholic missionaries out of Indian territory) or questions of tribal resources here...but the circumstances surrounding the coal lease and the money coming form it involve the US government too, and are one of the larger corruption scandals in US history, just not well covered. There are some mainstream press accounts about all of this, by the way, just far less than if a similar incident had occurred off reservation. I'll see if I can find any and want to wade in. Anyway, they are the subject of a separate article. No point putting it here, in an article about the place. Wikidemo 20:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

External website

Clearly www.blackmesasource is NOT the website for Black Mesa, Arizona -74.12.81.178 06:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Same name

Would it be worth mentioning, at least in passing, the 7+ other Arizona geographical features called "Black Mesa"? -71.223.182.246 (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Co-ordinates

The latitude and longitude given are in western Arizona, north of Swansea and I think probably in Mohave County. About 250 miles from Kayenta. Graham Clark (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)