This story is published as part of the Global Indigenous Affairs Desk, an Indigenous-led collaboration between Grist, High Country News, ICT, Mongabay, Native News Online and APTN.
Last week, a US federal judge rejected a request by indigenous nations to stop SunZia, a $10 billion wind transmission project that would cut through traditional tribal lands in southwestern Arizona.
Amy Juan, a member of the Tohono O’odham Nation on the Arizona-Mexico border, brought news of the federal court’s ruling to New York last week and told the participants of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples Affairs, or UNPFII, said that she was disappointed, but not surprised.
“We are not in opposition to what is called ‘green energy,'” she said. “It was the process of how it was done. The project is proceeding without due process.”
This is a known complaint at Native gatherings like the one this week, and lastly, at the UN, where the general consensus among indigenous peoples is that decision-makers behind green energy projects usually do not address community concerns.
According to to Pattern Energy, the Canadian-owned parent company of SunZia, the wind transmission project is the largest clean energy infrastructure initiative in US history, and will provide power to 3 million Americans, stretching from New Mexico to as far away as California.
Now on track to be finished in 2026, the transmission pipeline is a cornerstone of the Biden administration’s transition to green energy.
The 550-mile power line has a 50-mile section that cuts through the San Pedro Valley and Native Nations that include the Tohono O’odham, Hopi, Zuni and San Carlos Apache.
The suit against the US Bureau of Land Management was filed in January. The lawsuit called the valley “one of the most intact, prehistoric and historic … landscapes in southern Arizona,” and asked the court to issue restraining orders or permanent injunctions to stop construction.
The tribes fear that the pipeline will irreversibly damage the land both ecologically and culturally.
The federal court reprimanded the tribes for not filing suit sooner, noting that they had a six-year period to file from 2015, when the project was originally approved. “Plaintiffs’ 2024 Challenge to the [project] is therefore untimely,” reads the judge’s decision.
The tribes had been actively press for alternative routes and for more in-depth review of the relevant land for years. Their argument is that the six-year timeline started last fall, not earlier.
Juan said this miscommunication or different interpretations of the law can be compounding factors that stand between indigenous rights and fair green energy projects.
“There really is no consequence when tribes voice their concerns.” she said.
Back at the UN, the ruling was a reminder that the US does not recognize the principles of “free, prior and informed consent” as set out in the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights. Those tenants are intended to ensure that indigenous land is not used without input and consent from the indigenous peoples involved.
Andrea Carmen, who is Yaqui, was at the UN forum on behalf of the International Indian Treaty Council, a group that advocates for indigenous rights around the world. The council advocates a moratorium on green energy projects for all UN entities “until the rights of indigenous peoples are respected and recognized.”
“It is difficult to convince governments and businesses to refuse these large energy projects without outside intervention,” she said.
“They do the same thing as fossil fuels,” she added. “It’s just more trendy.”
