As NM Congressional delegation push massive 10 mile Chaco buffer Navajo explicitly reject ANY buffer

Radical environmentalists and New Mexico’s congressional delegation (they are one and the same) have re-introduced legislation to create a 10-mile buffer around Chaco Canyon in Northwestern New Mexico. The legislation will prevent future leasing and development of oil, gas, and minerals on non-Indian federal lands. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland could also impose such a buffer on her own.

But, the reality is that the Navajo Nation JUST voted to reject any such buffer around Chaco Canyon. As reported by the Western Energy Alliance such a buffer could “cost Navajo members with allotted property rights an estimated $194 million over the next 20 years.”

In the resolution, the Standing Committee of the 25th Navajo Nation Council states, “If the buffer zone is adopted, the Navajo allottees who rely on the income realized from oil and natural gas royalties will be pushed into greater poverty.” The Council notes the “detrimental impact to Navajo Nation allottees by preventing the development of new oil and gas resources on allotments as a result of the allotments being landlocked,” exposing the fallacy from DOI that the withdrawal will not impact Navajo lands.

New Mexicans Urge Biden Administration to Protect Lands Surrounding Chaco Canyon From Oil and Gas Drilling Until Congress Passes Legislation to Provide Permanent Protection - New Mexico Wilderness Alliance


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

4 Replies to “As NM Congressional delegation push massive 10 mile Chaco buffer Navajo explicitly reject ANY buffer”

  1. It seems that the politicians (other than the Navajo Nation) really don’t care about confiscation of property. Glad the Navajo Nation is standing their ground in defense of their rightfully owned property.

  2. I understand the problem and hope something is done to compensate the tribe members affected. But the parties with the real agenda here are the radical right, represented by the RGF, that barely acknowledges an existential threat because it is bad for business. At least in the short term, which is all any of them care about.

  3. Who stands to make the money from having an exclusion zone?
    that is the question to be asked.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.