Author: Preferred Customer

Evergreen State College

5/14/2007

Research Analysis

Tribes are sovereign nations, able to decide their destiny because of their special relationship to government and ability to decide their fate according to the rights and treaties accorded them under law. Yet, Tribes are afflicted by the very laws that were put in place to protect them from environmental degradation inflicted by the communities that surround them. This group set out to understand the extent that
Tribes feel they have a voice in deciding environmental policy and are invited by the state to participate in the policy making process.
Our group’s initial premise is that Tribes are negatively affected by the rule of government and of special interest, whose concerns are that of their own and not that of the people whose resources, sacred beliefs, and environment are at stake. We believe that Tribes health and cultural heritage are overlooked when it comes to making public policy about the environment. Through our research we have come to understand that a person’s position within the tribe determines the level with which the individual feels they are able to influence environmental decision making within the tribe. For example, not all tribes, or tribal members are equal. Some tribal members have more influence over policy making because of their unique relationship with certain environmental decision makers and government policy staff. Tribes are not afraid

Tribal Perceptions of the Washington State Environmental Policy Making Process

Tracy bray, august cabrera, Scott decker, erik Hansen

www. spipa.org

of respect from legislators and other government officials.
Tribes and government agencies have been embroiled in conflict over environmental policy for decades. Business and special interests are engaged in a non-stop tug-of-war with Tribes over resources such as salmon and cultural rights predicated on treaties signed long ago. Policy makers and public administrators struggle to develop policies that balance the needs of the environment, general public, and Tribes. At times, the Tribe’s cultural and economic considerations are ignored completely.
In Washington State there are currently 29 federally recognized American Indian Tribes. The Tribes are sovereign nations with their own administrative codes and court system. Federal law ensures that Tribes govern their own land, and create and enforce Tribal laws.
Resources and the environment have been at the forefront of Tribal concern due to the heavy influence the resources have on the people, their cultural identity and heritage. Tribes depend on clean water to produce abundant stocks of fish and shellfish for sustenance and a steady economy. The campaign to reassert Native American fishing rights began in the 1960’s with “fish-ins” on the Puyallup River, led by Robert Satiacum and Billy Frank Jr. Washington State officials believed that Native Americans should follow State laws that regulate fishing and the 1968 decision that followed was not helpful towards resolving the conflict.
A new complaint was fined in 1970 and Native Americans and their supporters began demonstrating against Washington State, which resulted in some 60 arrests. The controversy finally made it to federal court where Judge George Boldt ruled in favor of Treaty rights guaranteeing Native Americans half of the salmon catch in any given year. This landmark decision became known as the Boldt Decision. The Boldt Decision was appealed by the State of Washington until 1979, when the Supreme Court upheld the earlier decision.
In 1988, tensions between Washington State and Tribes rose sharply again as the federal Indian Gambling Regulatory Act gave Tribes the right to operate gambling enterprises on their land. The passage of this new Act was a wake-up call for Washington State, who began to recognize the unique status of Tribes and set about to improve relations with Tribes by creating the 1989 Centennial Accord.
The Washington State Centennial Accord was signed in 1989 creating a protocol for how Tribes and State Departments interact with one another on government to government relations. The Tribes inherent rights mandate that state government agencies collaborate with Tribes when making policy that affects Tribal interests.
The work group sought to quantify the type and nature of relationship between Washington State Tribes and the Washington State environmental policy process. We set out to better understand the desired relationship of Tribes to the State’s environmental policy making process. We also wanted to learn if Tribes felt Washington State adequately incorporated their cultural considerations when developing environmental policy. We approached our data collection phase wanting to know how tribal leaders, tribal staff, and tribal members perceived the Washington State environmental decision making process, and how they perceived their relationship and participation in that process.
Our research targeted the 29 federally recognized tribes in Washington State, specifically the tribal leaders, environmental directors, and staff members of those tribes. Letters were sent to tribal leaders and environmental directors asking them to participate in an on-line survey. In addition, the letters encouraged them to solicit tribal staff participation. The on-line survey was the primary mechanism for data collection and provided an opportunity to solicit participation in one-on-one interviews. In all, we received 25 responses to the survey and completed 4 one-on-one phone interviews.
The survey asked questions in three thematic areas:
Tribes relationship to the State
Respondent’s personal relationship to environmental policy making process
Respondent’s relationship with environmental policy making for the Tribe
Our initial premise was that Tribes felt left out of the environmental making process and the State was not sensitive to Tribes considerations. Our findings surprised us in some areas and not in others. For example, we were surprised to find that nearly half (43%) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that tribal considerations were incorporated in environmental policy. Yet when asked if they felt the process worked well for the Tribes, less than a quarter (24%) of respondents agreed. Conversely, over three quarters (76%) of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that the State’s process worked well for Tribes.
We were surprised by what appeared at first glance to be a discrepancy in the data. If Tribes considerations are incorporated in the process, then why would the process not work for Tribes? We were not surprised to learn from the interviews that the reason for the discrepancy is because Tribes are not afraid to force issues with the State by threatening litigation.
Our survey asked respondents to rate their personal relationship with the Washington State environmental making process in two areas. The first area asked questions about respondent’s beliefs regarding their own effort and success in participating in the State’s environmental making process. The second area asked questions about the State’s efforts to involve Tribes in the environmental making process.
In the first area, only 28% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed they were active participants and successful at influencing the environmental making process. Conversely, 72% disagreed or strongly disagreed they were active or successful.
The second area found respondents even less satisfied with their involvement with the State’s process. In these questions, we wanted to measure the Tribes perception of the State’s effort to reach out and involve the Tribes. We asked participants if their involvement was actively sought by the State, and if they were adequately involved and satisfied with the level of involvement. In this area, 87% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed their involvement was sought. Only 13% agreed their involvement was sought. Interesting that of the 13%, no one strongly agreed their involvement was sought.
In addition, we wanted to explore the relationship respondents felt to the Tribes environmental policy making process. We asked if the respondent had a role in deciding the Tribe’s environmental policies – 63% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed, 37% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Finally, we asked respondents if they had a role in implementing environmental policy for the Tribe. This question was the only one that showed sensitivity to position within the Tribe. We expected most of our questions to be sensitive to a person’s professional relationship with the Tribe depending on whether they were staff, tribal member, or tribal leader. However, our findings show this question revealed that there appears to be a relationship between the person’s self-identified professional role in the Tribe and their perception of their role in implementing tribal environmental policy. In other words, depending on the respondent’s role in the Tribe determined their perceived role in implementing environmental policy as depicted in the following chart:
This may seem like common sense, but we were surprised this was the only question that was sensitive to the respondent’s professional role. We concluded more data was necessary to make any further assessment of this relationship. We also realized a potential design flaw in our data collection methods was the practice of not collecting tribal identifiers. The result is we are unsure if the number of survey respondents (25) were from across all 29 federally recognized Tribes or just a handful, which means we have no ability to determine how many Tribes are actually represented.
We concluded there are areas for improvement and further investigation in our research, referenced later in this report. However, in spite of the design limitations and small sample size, the findings are clear that Tribes perception of Washington State environmental policy making process does not adequately meet the level and standard of the Tribes who participated in the research.
As a research team we began with a simple question “How do Tribes feel about the environmental policy making process in Washington State.” We researched the history of the relationship between Tribes and the State. We learned of a long history of disagreement between Tribes and the State over environmental policy making that led to court battles, protests, and innovative actions like creation of the Centennial Accord and the first Legislative Committee n Indian Affairs.
We developed a survey to understand the current feelings and perceptions of tribal leaders, tribal staff, and tribal members to the environmental policy making process. Our survey provided the research team with data that showed respondents do not feel the environmental policy making process works well for Tribes and they were not successful in influencing the process. The data shows that how a tribal member feels about their ability to be involved with and influence environmental policy making is directly related to their stature and role within the Tribe.
The personal opinion of this research team is that change is possible. As future public administrators we can make a difference by thinking about the findings of this research and realizing the importance of making sure Tribes voices, cultural beliefs, and economic concerns are present and heard when deciding environmental policy.

“We have differences, and since the beginning of time we bargained in good faith, and that needs to be honored. Our treaties need to be honored; the way of life needs to be honored, including protecting the environment.” (Interview participant)

“The state continues conflict with tribes. They are concerned about political repercussions for working with the tribes. Ever since the Boldt decision, tribes have won litigation, many political careers have been made by keeping conflict with tribes.” (Interview participant)

Page #

Tribal Perceptions of the Washington State Environmental Policy Making Process

“This Accord is intended to build confidence among the parties in the government to government relationship outlining the process for implementing policy. Not only is this process intended to implement the relationship, the parties will continue to strive for complete institutionalization of the government to government relationship by seeking an Accord among all the tribes and all elements of state government.” (Washington State Centennial Accord Part III, Purpose and Objectives, 1989)

Evergreen State College

Page #

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

“I would like to find out more about stuff… but they don’t really share what they are doing environmental-wise. Well, they do a little bit, but not all the time. So at this point I don’t feel like I have much involvement, though I would like it.” (Interview participant)

Page #

Tribal Perceptions of the Washington State Environmental Policy Making Process

“I’m very concerned about the environment. I wish the powers-that-be would… see a forested area more than just like dollar signs standing up. All they see is trees they can cut down and sell. They should see other values.” (Interview participant)

www.spipa.org

Evergreen State College

Page #

References:
Agyeman, J. (2005). Where justice and sustainability meet. Environment; 47(6), 10-23.
Colorado Water Quality Forum. (2004). Basic Standards Implementation Work Group. Retrieved November 5, 2006, from http://www.cwqf.org/Workgroups/Basic%20Standards%
20Triennial%20Review/2004Jan14.htm
Brulle, R. J., & Pellow, D. N. (2006). Environmental justice: Human health and environmental inequalities. Annual Review of Public Health, 27(1), 103-24.
Cajete, G. (2000). Native Science Natural Laws of Interdependence. Clear Light Publishers, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Clyburn, J. E. (2003). Environmental justice and the intersection of health and economic development. Human Rights: Journal of Section of Individual Rights & Responsibilities, 30(4), 7-8.
Donatuto, J. (2003). Project design and implementation: Bioaccumulative toxics in Native American shellfish. In Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Research Conference Proceedings (pp. 1-9). www.swinomish.org/planning/environmental_science/water_resources/publications/1e_donat.pdf
Hardy, J., & Palcisko, G. (2006). Draft Report Human Health Evaluation of Contaminants in Puget Sound Fish. Washington State Department of Health
Judd, N., et al. (2005). Framing scientific analysis for risk management of environmental hazards by communities: Case studies with seafood safety issues. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(11), 1502-1508.
Koenraad, M. (2002). The importance of weight-normalized exposure data when issuing fish advisories for protection of public health. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(7), 671-677.
The National EPA-Tribal Science Council. (2006). Paper on tribal issues related to tribal traditional lifeways, risk assessment, and health and well-being: Documenting what we've heard. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Office of the Press Secretary. (2004). Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. Retrieved November1, 2006, from http://www.schlosserlawfiles.com/
consult/Memo092304.htm
Robyn, L. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and technology. American Indian Quarterly; 26(2), 198-221.
Smith, L.T. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books Ltd.
Suagee, D. B. (2003). Environmental justice and Indian country. Human Rights: Journal of Section of Individual Rights & Responsibilities, 30(4), 16-17.
Suarez, J. P. (2003). Integrating environmental justice at the Environmental Protection Agency. Human Rights: Journal of Section of Individual Rights & Responsibilities, 30(4), 8-9.
Targ, N. (2003). Forward with environmental justice. Human Rights: Journal of Section of Individual Rights & Responsibilities, 30(4), 7-8.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2000). Executive Order 13175: Consultation and coordination with Indian tribal governments. Retrieved October 25, 2006, from http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/eo/eo13175.htm
United States Environmental Protection Agency: Office of Water. (2002). Community culture and the environment: A guide to understanding sense of place. (EPA Publication No. 842-B-01-003). Washington, DC: Author.
United States Environmental Protection Agency: American Indian Environmental Office. (1984). EPA Policy for the administration of environmental programs on Indian reservations. Retrieved October 26, 2006, from www.epa.gov/indian/1984.htm

Tracy bray, august cabrera, Scott decker, erik Hansen