ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) – The nation’s largest American Indian reservation is awash in extreme drought, and that has forced its leaders to declare an emergency.
Navajo Nation President Ben Shelly signed the emergency declaration Monday along with a memorandum directing all executive branch agencies to develop plans for responding to the drought and educating the public about its effects.
“We are going to do everything we can to bring our people through this drought. We have many needs, and we are a strong people,” Shelly said in a statement. “Water is precious, and we have to learn how to conserve and change our practices to make sure we prevail through these drought conditions.”
Over the last month, drought on the Navajo Nation – from the tribe’s lands in New Mexico and Arizona to southeastern Utah – has gone from bad to worse. The latest federal drought maps show extreme conditions covering the Four Corners region.
Some areas of the reservation have seen just over one-third of their normal precipitation this year. The soil is dry and wells aren’t producing water like they have in the past, Shelly said.
Making matters worse is summer forecasts are predicting continued high temperatures and below average precipitation for the area. Navajo emergency management officials said that will likely result in lower river flows, which could have negative effects for livestock and municipal wells.
There are about 5,000 stock ponds across the reservation, and officials said as water supplies dwindle, more pressure will be placed on the tribe’s windmills and drinking water wells.
The tribe’s commission on emergency management said drought conditions have already created a critical shortage of water and feed for livestock.
“The land condition will continue to deteriorate and the socio-economic framework of the Navajo Nation will be negatively impacted,” the commission stated. “The livestock owners and farmers will need to plan to protect and preserve their land and their livestock.”
The declaration makes available emergency funds for Navajo communities and clears the way for the tribe to seek a federal disaster declaration.
I’ve lingered at the fringes of the debate over genetically modified foods since the ’90s, hoping that some solid fact would filter out and show me clearly who was in the right. But that hasn’t happened. Every shred of information, it seems, is contested, and all this turbulence keeps the water muddy.
Now the debate is coming to a head again. Britain is reconsidering its restrictive position. Here in the U.S., bills to require the labeling of GM foods were introduced to the legislatures in 28 states this year. Now that I’m writing on food for Grist, I can’t keep waiting on the sidelines for someone else to clear this up. I’m going to have to figure it out for myself.
A project like this requires humility. Many people — including, I’m sure, many of you — may have greater expertise in this area than I do. If so, let me know where you think I should be pointing the searchlight. Or, if you’re like me, and just want to get reliable information from someone who’s not bent on convincing you one way or the other, well, come along for the ride.
My goal here is to get past the rhetoric, fully understand the science, and take the high ground in this debate — in the same way that greens have taken the high ground in talking about climate. It’s hard to make the case that we should trust science and act to stem global warming, while at the same time we are scoffing at the statements [PDF] of *snort* scientists on genetic modification.
Now that doesn’t mean we have to stop thinking, and simply accept everything that the voice of authority lays in front of us. I’m going to look at the science critically, and take into account the efforts of agricultural corporations to cant the evidence. When Mark Lynas made his speech saying that he’d changed his mind about genetic engineering, I was unconvinced, because he didn’t dig into the evidence (he provides a little more of this, though not much, in his book). Lynas did, however, make one important point: There are parallels between opposition to GM crops and other embarrassingly unscientific conspiracy theories. If there are grounds to oppose genetic engineering, they will have to be carefully considered grounds, supported by science.
Of course people who are concerned about genetic engineering don’t have a monopoly on error and overstatement. As the journal Nature put it in a special issue in on transgenic crops:
People are positively swimming in information about GM technologies. Much of it is wrong — on both sides of the debate. But a lot of this incorrect information is sophisticated, backed by legitimate-sounding research and written with certitude. (With GM crops, a good gauge of a statement’s fallacy is the conviction with which it is delivered.)
Over the next few weeks, I’ll be writing a series of pieces, attempting to highlight legitimate concerns and identify the arguments that should be taken out back and … retired. In the courtroom, a judge will often work with both sides to determine a set of facts that all can agree upon, before moving on to argue about how the law should apply to those facts. I’d like to do something similar here: sort out established facts, and gain a sense for what the bulk of the science indicates.
I’m going to start with the most politicized issue: Is there any evidence that genetically modified food is directly harmful to people who eat it? There’s a one-word answer to this: no.
If you aren’t prepared to take my word for it (especially that particular word), things get a bit more complicated. The most persuasive evidence is that millions of people have been eating genetically modified foods for the past 20 years without any obvious ill effects. If anyone exhibited acute symptoms after eating GM food, we would have seen it.
At the same time, the absence of evidence of harm does not prove safety. If the effects were subtle and chronic, and showed up in only a small subset of the population, it’s possible that we could have missed something. And we don’t know what to look for.
That’s the point Margaret Mellon made when I called her at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in Washington, D.C. Mellon has been critical of U.S. policies on genetically engineered crops.
“People need to understand how hard it is to use the scientific method to address the issue of, ‘Is genetic engineering safe?’” she said.
The problem: It’s not a yes or no question.
“It does not appear,” Mellon said, “that there’s any risk that applies across the board to all genetically engineered food and to all people. Each plant is different, each gene insertion is different, each person’s response is different.”
In other words, every GM food could be wonderfully healthy until one particular gene insertion causes things to go awry in just such a way that it messes with the immune system of one particular person. How do you deal with this?
“You need to make a list of all the things that might be potential problems and analyze each of these risks in a wide variety of genetically engineered products,” Mellon said.
Dozens of scientific advisory panels have done this sort of brainstorming. The World Health Organization [PDF], for example, reached the fairly common conclusion that the problems in genetically engineered foods are fundamentally the same as the dangers that arise naturally in plant breeding. Each relies on mutations randomly mixing up the genome. Each sometimes provides unexpected outcomes — try to make corn disease-resistant, end up with too many toxins in the kernels. In both GM and conventional breeding, scientists rely on screening to weed out the bad cobs.
However, researchers generally acknowledge that there’s something a little different about genetic engineering. The United Kingdom’s 2003 Genetic Modification Science Review [PDF], led by David King, puts it this way: “By virtue of the different processes involved, there will be some sources of uncertainty and potential gaps in knowledge that are more salient with respect to GM food production techniques.”
If you have no idea what that means, that’s because it’s incredibly vague. Sure, King is saying, there’s something unusual about transferring a firefly gene into a tomato — that kind of thing doesn’t happen very often in nature. (Although it does happen, amazingly– scientists have found examples of genes moving between different species.) But we don’t know what that difference implies. The report goes on to say that the science so far suggests that those implications have amounted to nothing so far. All the same, this unique technique does create “uncertainty and potential gaps in knowledge.”
The quest for greater certainty on genetic engineering leaves you chasing shadows: When you’re dealing with gaps in knowledge, rather than hard data, it’s hard to tell what’s an outlandish hypothetical, and what’s the legitimate danger. Anything, of course, is possible, but we shouldn’t be paralyzed by unknown risks, or we’ll end up huddled in our basements wearing tinfoil hats. Exhibit A:
There’s no way to completely eliminate risk. The real question is, have we thought through the realistic potential for problems, and put regulatory safety nets out to protect ourselves?
Trying to answer that opens another can of worms. Critics like Mellon say that, right now, the producers of GM crops aren’t required to do any testing at all. GM boosters say that regulations are so onerous they stifle innovation. Clearly, someone is wrong here. I’ll take that up in my next post.
Dozens of buildings were leveled and at least five people were killed, while 40 more were still missing as of Monday morning. The fracked oil was en route to New Brunswick, which is home to the largest oil refinery in Canada. From Reuters:
The train, which did not have an engineer aboard when it derailed, was hauling 72 tanker cars of crude from North Dakota to eastern Canada. It rolled downhill from an overnight parking spot, gathered speed and derailed on a curve in the small town of Lac-Megantic at 1 a.m. on Saturday.
Each car carried 30,000 gallons of crude oil. Four caught fire and exploded in an orange and black fireball that mushroomed hundreds of feet into the air and flattened dozens of buildings, including a popular bar.
“It looks like a war zone here,” said Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
The disaster plunged the media into debate: Is it safer to move oil through underground pipelines (à la Mayflower, Kalamazoo, and Keystone XL), or to move it by rail?
Frackers and tar-sands miners are extracting record amounts of oil in America and Canada. Existing pipelines can’t carry the whopping bounty to refineries, so energy companies are seeking to lay lattices of new pipes. Meanwhile, the glut of liquid hydrocarbons is being loaded onto trains, which are being sent vast distances — and are triggering high-profile spills and accidents.
The Toronto Globe and Mail argues in the wake of the Lac-Mégantic disaster that “[p]ipelines are the safest way of transporting oil and natural gas, and we need more of them, without delay.”The New York Times considers the pipeline-vs.-train question more impartially, quoting environmental experts:
Edward Whittingham, the executive director of the Pembina Institute, an environmental group based in Calgary, Alberta, said there was not conclusive research weighing the safety of the two shipment methods.
“The best data I’ve seen indicates,” he said, “depending on your perspective, both are pretty much as safe as each other, or both are equally unsafe. There’s safety and environmental risks inherent in either approach.”
Accidents involving pipelines, Mr. Whittingham said, can be more difficult to detect and can release greater amounts of oil. Rail accidents are more frequent but generally release less oil.
But the comparison obfuscates an obvious reality: The oil can’t be moved safely at all. (Same goes for natural gas.)
After a string of pipeline and rail accidents in recent years, it’s clear that letting the energy industry move incendiary bulk fluids around the continent is like tossing a book of matches into the crib to keep little Johnny happy while his folks stare at the television. And that’s without even considering the climate impacts of the fossil-fuel mining binge, or the many hazards of fracking.
The weekend tragedy is a reminder that the energy industry can’t be trusted to do anything safely, let alone transport oil.
On the edge of the western mountain range, protesters with Croatan Earth First! are currently occupying an industrial manufacturing facility owned by Momentive and located at 114 Industrial Drive. North Carolinians, who have been fighting to prevent hydraulic fracturing from coming to central North Carolina are joined in this action by people from around the country who also oppose shale gas extraction nationwide. Momentive is one of the largest worldwide distributors of “resin coated proppants,” a necessary component for fracking. Each fracturing stage requires approximately 136 tonnes of proppants.
“We are here to send a message to the oil and gas industries: we will not stand idly by as you destroy this land, or any other, for your personal profit. Respect existence, or expect resistance,” said an Earth First! activist.
The North Carolina legislature plans to begin permitting frack sites as early as March 2015 in the Cumnock Shale Basin located underneath Lee, Moore, Chatham, and surrounding counties. Fracking has been tied to water aquifer contamination in Pavilion, Wyoming according to an EPA study and linked to high levels of methane in Pennsylvania water wells according to a study by Duke University. Researchers with Cornell University found that fracking operations nationwide released massive amounts of methane (a greenhouse gas) straight into the atmosphere, and concluded that, if not curbed, would speed climate change faster than carbon emissions.
The NC legislature is negotiating on the possibility of legalizing toxic wastewater injection in state or transporting it elsewhere. The process uses 1-8 million gallons of clean water each time a well is fracked.
“We are under drought conditions already, yet the oil and gas industry is allowed to pump millions of gallons of water out of our streams. This is devastating life in our rivers and streams. To make matters worse they send this water back into the riverways poisoned with radioactive materials,” said organizer Lydia Nickles. “Preserving our waters is preserving our lives and all life. We want an end to shale gas extraction everywhere.”
Activists with the Earth First! Movement are calling on people nationwide to resist fracking where they live and organize solidarity actions.
“Even if you don’t have a rig in your area to shut down, you can affect the industry. Momentive and other companies that create proppants for the gas industry have facilities nationwide as well as internationally. It’s time to disrupt the chain of supply. Go to www.frackindustry.org and organize to take action now!”
A message from Croatan Earth First!: “We are acting in solidarity with and take inspiration from the courageous many who have been standing together to take action in the North Carolina capital during Moral Mondays, and we encourage everyone to continue to show our collective power, acting up against the repressive corporate and legislative powers for the liberation of all and the integrity of land, water and air.”
Iraq is among the countries in the Middle East facing severe water shortages. Photo: Ali al-Saadi/AFP
John Vidal, The Guardian
Wells are drying up and underwater tables falling so fast in the Middle East and parts of India, China and the US that food supplies are seriously threatened, one of the world’s leading resource analysts has warned.
The situation is most serious in the Middle East. According to Brown: “Among the countries whose water supply has peaked and begun to decline are Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. By 2016 Saudi Arabia projects it will be importing some 15m tonnes of wheat, rice, corn and barley to feed its population of 30 million people. It is the first country to publicly project how aquifer depletion will shrink its grain harvest.
“The world is seeing the collision between population growth and water supply at the regional level. For the first time in history, grain production is dropping in a geographic region with nothing in sight to arrest the decline. Because of the failure of governments in the region to mesh population and water policies, each day now brings 10,000 more people to feed and less irrigation water with which to feed them.”
Brown warns that Syria’s grain production peaked in 2002 and since then has dropped 30%; Iraq has dropped its grain production 33% since 2004; and production in Iran dropped 10% between 2007 and 2012 as its irrigation wells started to go dry.
“Iran is already in deep trouble. It is feeling the effects of shrinking water supplies from overpumping. Yemen is fast becoming a hydrological basket case. Grain production has fallen there by half over the last 35 years. By 2015 irrigated fields will be a rarity and the country will be importing virtually all of its grain.”
There is also concern about falling water tables in China, India and the US, the world’s three largest food-producing countries. “In India, 175 million people are being fed with grain produced by overpumping, in China 130 million. In the United States the irrigated area is shrinking in leading farm states with rapid population growth, such as California and Texas, as aquifers are depleted and irrigation water is diverted to cities.”
Falling water tables are already adversely affecting harvest prospects in China, which rivals the US as the world’s largest grain producer, says Brown. “The water table under the North China Plain, an area that produces more than half of the country’s wheat and a third of its maize is falling fast. Overpumping has largely depleted the shallow aquifer, forcing well drillers to turn to the region’s deep aquifer, which is not replenishable.”
The situation in India may be even worse, given that well drillers are now using modified oil-drilling technology to reach water half a mile or more deep. “The harvest has been expanding rapidly in recent years, but only because of massive overpumping from the water table. The margin between food consumption and survival is precarious in India, whose population is growing by 18 million per year and where irrigation depends almost entirely on underground water. Farmers have drilled some 21m irrigation wells and are pumping vast amounts of underground water, and water tables are declining at an accelerating rate in Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu.”
In the US, farmers are overpumping in the Western Great Plains, including in several leading grain-producing states such as Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska. Irrigated agriculture has thrived in these states, but the water is drawn from the Ogallala aquifer, a huge underground water body that stretches from Nebraska southwards to the Texas Panhandle. “It is, unfortunately, a fossil aquifer, one that does not recharge. Once it is depleted, the wells go dry and farmers either go back to dryland farming or abandon farming altogether, depending on local conditions,” says Brown.
“In Texas, located on the shallow end of the aquifer, the irrigated area peaked in 1975 and has dropped 37% since then. In Oklahoma irrigation peaked in 1982 and has dropped by 25%. In Kansas the peak did not come until 2009, but during the three years since then it has dropped precipitously, falling nearly 30%. Nebraska saw its irrigated area peak in 2007. Since then its grain harvest has shrunk by 15%.”
Brown warned that many other countries may be on the verge of declining harvests. “With less water for irrigation, Mexico may be on the verge of a downturn in its grain harvest. Pakistan may also have reached peak water. If so, peak grain may not be far behind.”
Native games, neuroscience, and historical trauma–they sound like an odd trio but collectively may provide answers to problems across Indian country. Educators, researchers, and youngsters from Alberta, Saskatchewan, the western U.S. and Alaska, even as far away as Delhi, India gathered at the First International Traditional Native Games Conference in Pablo, Montana on June 26-28.
Gregory Cajete, Tewa from Santa Clara Pueblo and director of Native American Studies at the University of New Mexico, has authored five books dealing with Native games. “We see young children as they’re growing up, especially the first few years of their life. Everything is play. The human propensity to be athletic is a very integral part of natural forms of education. It’s also the way the brain develops.”
Jaak Panksepp, a neuroscientist at Washington State University, has studied games and their effect on the brain. “The most sophisticated emotion built into our brains is play,” he said. “If we take play out of the lives of our children we will have children that cannot grow up to be normal, vibrant, positive human beings that respect others and know how to interact with them. Play is the bridge to a full human life.”
The third element, historical trauma, is well documented among Indigenous Peoples. Native Americans have been subjected to it in many ways, including the period of boarding schools that altered tribal life–and tribal games. “Early on Native games were targeted to erase them,” Cajete said. “If you’re trying to subjugate a people you begin to go for those institutions that bring people together and have an influence in terms of how well they can be controlled. Native games were the focus of many agents at that time.”
A game of double ball elicits many smiles and much laughter. (Jack McNeel)
The loss of games at boarding schools was illustrated when 17 elders from the Blackfeet Nation were invited to watch as youngsters took part in some games, and to offer comments as tribal protocol dictates. In some cases the youngsters knew much more about the games than did the elders, most of whom had spent time in boarding schools during their early years.
Recovering and restoring those traditional games, getting them reintroduced in Native communities and in schools, is the goal of the International Traditional Games Society, hosts of the conference.
Young people, teens and pre-teens, came to the conference to learn and to compete in various games. Jeremy Red Eagle, Sioux, is a board member of the International Traditional Games Society. He brought 10 young people with him from Helena, Montana. “We focus on the positive things: our language, our ceremonies and culture, our song and dance-and our games.” Then Red Eagle commented on two weeks of traveling with these young people and how they were sticking together without fighting or arguments. “These games are the foundation of what started our youth program. These kids will be leaders in our communities.”
Many games are played on a field while many others can be played in a classroom or at home. Most are quite simple and can be played with materials readily available: rocks, limbs, sticks, balls of buckskin or yarn. The list goes on. Some are games of skill or endurance while others may be of intuition.
Lacrosse seemed to be the game of choice but shinney was not far behind. Double ball is another favorite, somewhat similar to the other two but using straight sticks with double balls made of two stuffed pouches and joined together by a short band, usually of tanned buckskin.
Nicole Johnston, Inupiaq, chairs the World Eskimo Indian Olympics. She brought two young athletes to the conference to demonstrate games played in the far north. She is also a record holder in the women’s two-foot high kick. Their games are all designed for survival in the arctic north and thus very different from those which originated farther south.
The World Eskimo Indian Olympics ear pull event (Courtesy World Eskimo Indian Olympics)
The youth who participated in the games were honored at the final ceremony. Gifts were distributed including sets for shinney and double ball The visitors from Alaska gave gifts of an Indian stick pull stick and a kick-ball to the host organization.
On news today that rocker Ted Nugent, the Motor City Madman, may run for president in 2016, ICTMN asks one question: How would a President Nuge be for Indian country?
Well, we know he’d protect your Second Amendment rights.
And as ICTMN reported in April, he’s boldy stated his credentials for being an authoritative voice for Indian country (albeit in defense of his supporting the Washington Redskins logo). “Because of my clean and sober, hands-on conservation bowhunting lifestyle and song ‘The Great White Buffalo,’ Native American tribes have invited me to teach their young people how to reconnect with the land and teach them how to bow hunt the mighty American bison. It was in their midst that I learned firsthand about the terrible problems facing my Indian BloodBrothers.”
He’s also this guy. Not looking very presidential. But very intense. Edward Snowden would never have gotten away if there was a President Nuge.
Read The Washington Post Magazine article that moves the Nuge into contention for 2016 HERE.
Tribal leaders in Arizona praised the Supreme Court’s June 17 decision to strike down Arizona’s Proposition 200, which effectively restricted the voting rights of American Indians in the state.
The Hopi Tribe, the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona and other groups in the voting rights case, Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, were represented by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which characterized the Arizona law as a “state voter suppression measure.” The law would have required potential voters present proof of citizenship in order to register to vote by mail.
Hopi Tribal Chairman LeRoy N. Shingoitewa says the tribe took the case to the country’s highest court because “no tribal member should be required to come in and say, ‘I’m a citizen of the United States.’ We’ve always been here. Many tribal members were born in homes. Many have no birth certificate. It’s not right for anyone to deny us the right to vote.”
Yavapai-Apache Nation Tribal Councilwoman Lorna Hazelwood also welcomes the ruling. “As a sovereign Indian tribe in Arizona, we recognize that the Supreme Court’s ruling on voter’s rights is a victory for Arizona tribes. Our people have been challenged for decades in engaging in the voting process, just based on the historical segregation of demographics. The 2004 voter approved Prop 200, continued to further discourage election participation of our people. The Supreme Court’s decision eliminating this provision is commended and welcomed by our Tribal Leader’s and eliminates the discouragement and challenges of our tribal voters.”
On the other hand, Gila River Indian Community Gov. Gregory Mendoza says that the ruling, while allowing “voter registration drives and individual registrations to continue without eligible voter registrants being burdened with providing documentation of citizenships,” still leaves open the possibility of voter discrimination. “The Court provided that Arizona cannot require individuals registering to vote to provide evidence of citizenship when they register [to vote] using a federal form. Nevertheless, the state can require individuals to prove their citizenship with documents such as a driver’s license or passport when registering with a state form…. The ruling left in place a dual-registration system; a federal system and a state system. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Community members predominately use the state form.”
Gov. Mendoza’s concern that voter discrimination could continue in Arizona was underscored when on June 25, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Shelby County v. Holder. Shelby County, Alabama, argued that the special circumstances under which the federal government assumed the authority to approve changes to state voting procedures, among them lower voter turnout among minorities, specifically African Americans, no longer exist 50 years after the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. Justice Clarence Thomas, in an opinion concurring with the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, wrote, “Regardless of how one looks at that record, no one can fairly say that it shows anything approaching the ‘pervasive,’ ‘flagrant,’ ‘widespread,’ and ‘rampant’ discrimination that clearly distinguished the covered jurisdictions from the rest of the nation in 1965.”
The court, in its 5-4 decision, agreed and struck down the part of the law that determined what criteria would be used to put a state under federal oversight in regard to voting rights in elections for everything from choosing a U.S. president to choosing local school board members.
In their dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan wrote that “second-generation barriers,” such as gerrymandering district boundaries to put a majority of whites in each voting district and at-large voting, which dilutes the voting power of minorities, still exist. They noted that “between 1982 and 2006, DOJ [U.S. Department of Justice] objections blocked over 700 voting changes based on a determination that the changes were discriminatory.”
Arizona was among the nine states that were covered by the Voting Rights Act and that had to seek preclearance before it could make any changes to its voting procedures, which included how districts were drawn, where polling places were located and when they were open. That is no longer the case. What the Supreme Court gave with one hand, it may have taken back with the other.
Duane Champagne, Indian Country Today Media Network
More than two-thirds of American Indians are now living off reservation in urban areas. During World War II, many Indians migrated to urban areas to contribute to manufacturing during the war effort. During the subsequent Cold War period and U.S. economic expansion, Indians were attracted to urban areas, and supported by Bureau of Indian Affairs relocation programs.
Most reservation Indians migrate to urban areas because they need employment to support themselves and their families. Some research indicates that many Indian migrants would remain at their home reservations, if there were enough jobs.
Like most urban migrants, many Indians do not plan to stay in urban places and often maintain ties to their reservation communities. Many return to the reservation to visit during the summers, and many often return for ceremonies. Moving to an urban area does not necessarily mean that tribal members have forgotten their communities and tribal nations.
How well are urban Indians doing? There is no systematic national data about the economic well-being of urban Indians. For the last couple of decades researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles and Indian community members within Los Angeles urban Indian organizations have carried on analysis of Indian employment based on U.S. Census data for Los Angeles County. Census data is one of the few places where systematic information about urban Indian employment can be found. In the last Census count of 2010, the data suggest that urban Indians in Los Angeles are among the working poor. The participation of Indians in the Los Angeles County labor force is about 60 percent, and similar to other ethnic groups.
However, American Indians show higher rates of unemployment and have average salaries that are less than half the salaries of non-Hispanic white workers. Los Angeles County urban Indian workers have significantly less job security and are significantly less rewarded for their efforts. Indian workers are willing to work, but often are last hired and first fired, and on average make about $22,000 annual salary. The low level of financial remuneration makes life difficult for many Los Angeles urban Indians because the cost of living in Los Angeles is high.
In contrast to the stereotype of lazy Indian workers, Los Angeles Indian workers are willing to work, but face problems getting and maintaining employment, and find that the economic rewards for working are relatively minimal. Poverty rates for Indians in Los Angeles County are about 22 percent, which are similar to other traditional urban ethnic minorities such as blacks and Latinos.
However, the lower the poverty rates on reservations, which are often above 30 percent, and significantly higher than in urban areas. Urban Indians may be doing better economically on average than reservation Indians, but the economic circumstances for urban Indians, based on the Los Angeles data, suggest urban Indians are struggling economically. While there is a significant urban Indian business community in the Los Angeles-Long Beach area, and an emergent middle class, it sometimes takes generations before Indians move up the economic ladder.
The urban area continues to hold a relative economic attraction for reservation Indians. In economic terms, life in urban areas may be better than on reservation, and reservation Indians continue to look for employment in urban areas. The significant employment difficulties for Indians in the urban economic environment suggests why many Indians would prefer to remain on their home reservations, if there was sufficient employment. Tribal communities offer social, cultural and political support, but often offer few stable or enduring economic opportunities. Indian workers are pushed to relatively difficult economic lives in urban areas. The future of tribal nations will depend on culture, community, and political sovereignty, but jobs and economic opportunity for tribal members will play a major role in keeping Indian workers and talent at home and in the service of tribal nations.
Come October, and again in May 2014, it could cost more to ride the ferry.
The state is planning increases on all routes to meet its budget for the next two years.
The cash-strapped system must raise $328 million in fares for 2013-2015, according to the state Transportation Commission — about 6 percent more than it’s collected the past two years.
If approved, passenger fares would rise 2 percent and vehicle fares would rise 3 percent on Oct. 1. Passenger fares would rise another 2 percent and vehicle fares 2.5 percent on May 1, 2014. Increases would be higher for routes in the San Juan Islands.
For a car, pickup or SUV (between 14 and 22 feet long) and driver, for example, the one-way, low-season fare for the Mukilteo-Clinton route would increase from its current $7.85 to $8.10 in October and $8.30 next May.
For Edmonds-Kingston, the fare would rise from $13.15 to $13.55 to $13.90.
For Coupeville-Port Townsend, the change would go from $10.20 to $10.50 to $10.75.
Other changes would reduce fares to reward riders who take up less space on the boats. For example, fare for cars under 14 feet will be charged 70 percent of the vehicle fare charged for standard vehicles.
The oversize motorcycle surcharge would be eliminated. Those who currently pay the surcharge would, depending on their motorcycle’s size, pay either the under-14-feet vehicle fare or the motorcycle fare.
Also, the youth discount would be become half price of a full fare, a bigger savings from the current 20 percent discount.
Members of the Ferry Advisory Committee on Tariffs, made up of riders and other interested parties, had input on the plan, according to the ferry commission.
A series of public hearings are planned and a decision is scheduled for July 30. The hearings nearest to Snohomish County are scheduled for 6 to 8 p.m. Wednesday in at the Island County Courthouse Annex, 1 NE Sixth St., Coupeville, and 6 to 8 p.m. July 15 at the Bainbridge Island Commons Senior Center, 402 Brien Drive.
Written comments will be accepted at transc@wstc.wa.gov, on the web at [URL]http://tinyurl.com/lou9m42;http://www.wstc.wa.gov/ContactUs/feedback.htm[URL] and over the phone at 360-705-7070.
For more information, go to the commission’s website [/URL]http://tinyurl.com/l9pox2v;http://www.wstc.wa.gov/WhatsNew/FerryFareRateSettingPublicOutreach.htm[URL].
