Throughout my childhood and teen years, summer was the best part of the year because I'd spend a month or (hopefully) two with my grandpa. It meant either a flight to Reno and then a drive up the I-80 and Highway 95, or a drive down from Seattle through the Santiam Pass and south through Bend or Burns, Oregon to grandpa's house. Our favorite pastime was fishing up and down mountain creeks or through Thacker Pass to King's River's Bilk Creek. On our way there, it seemed like traffic kept growing and growing over the years even though the unincorporated community of Orovada has a population of less than 200.
Neither my grandpa nor I knew what was going on until today. In 2021 on the last day of his presidency, the Trump administration approved plans for an open-pit mine at Thacker Pass. This was surely a surprise for my grandpa's old neighbors whose cattle ranches and alfalfa fields had been sitting on the country's largest lithium deposit. This project has drawn both praise and ire between Nevada's mining industry and the north Humboldt County locals, including the nearby Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe.
Generally, 77 percent of the total mining production in the United States is centered in Nevada. Part of this is what is at issue here: lithium mining. Lithium is used in the production of batteries for electric vehicles, and as the transportation industry continues to trend toward electric vehicles, the global demand for lithium increases. Because of this, many advocates for the mining project at Tracker Pass, which is being built by Lithium Americas, a Canadian multinational corporation, argue that it would expedite US battery manufacturing. This in turn would shift the country away from fossil fuels where the supply chain has been disrupted by Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Lithium Americas and other mining corporations have pointed Nevada's regulatory schemes on the industry to preemptively strike against and assuage any environmental concerns. A cornerstone of Nevada's regulation on the mining industry is its stringent reclamation laws. These laws require mining companies to "restore a mine to its natural landscape once mining is complete." The reclamation scheme has to be pre-approved by federal and Nevadan regulatory agencies and have to be "paired with financial guarantees."
Lithium Americas has promised "300 permanent jobs paying an average salary of $62,000" which is "nearly twice the per-capita income" of the surrounding Humboldt County. It has also promised 1,000 new construction jobs and has partnered with Great Basin College (a company that provides training classes for local tribe members) to commit "$5 million for a new preschool and cultural museum." The state as a whole has around "15,000 Nevadans [that] are directly employed by the mining industry with 26,000 people who contribute throughout the supply chain."
This all sounds great, right? What could be the problem?
In Nevada, given the numerous mining sites across the states, some project that the various sites are "expected to produce toxic acid drainage for hundreds of years." At the Thacker Pass site, the mine is expected to be a source of groundwater contamination "for at least [the next] 300 years." In opposition to the mining project is an anomalous coalition. Three separate actors brought suit to enjoin the construction of the site:
A rancher arguing the project will consume precious groundwater that sustains his herd; environmental groups that support electric vehicles but see the vast mining operation as too destructive; and tribal members determined to preserve the legacy, lifestyle and land of their ancestors.
This political mix-match alliance stems from local resistance to what many consider will be an environmental catastrophe for the rural communities in the Orovada valley. For the McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe, it also means sacrilege on the land where US Cavalry "murdered dozens of Paiutes" in a battle both at Thacker Pass and the nearby Disaster Peak. The chairwoman of the tribe, Maxine Redstar, has tried to mediate the situation between her people and their needs and federal officials. But despite assurances from the Bureau of Land Management and mining officials that the site would be well regulated, her people rebelled and formed the "People of the Red Mountain" which intervened in the suit to enjoin construction of the Thacker Pass site.
As of February 2023, the lawsuit was dismissed by United States District Court Judge Miranda Du and the construction of the mine was green lit. In her decision, Judge Du seemed to dismiss the plaintiffs' worries about the damage that would be done to their air, water, and wildlife quality. For me, this is unsurprising. I have come to understand, through my Federal Indian Law class, the federal government, across all three branches, is dismissive of most claims made by tribes trying to preserve their lands and traditions. However, the fight over the Thacker Pass lithium mine represents the various rural coalitions that can be formed in order protect communities from invasive and exploitative forces that discount the value of those communities.
3 comments:
Thanks for this informative post. While I am not familiar with how Nevada’s regulation governing mining is enforced, the promise that the mining corporation will “restore [the] mine to its natural landscape once mining is complete” made me think about how often empty rhetoric about repairing damage is used to obscure ongoing damaging. The same questions I have for the mining corporation about its treatment of the land, I have the for United States government about its treatment of indigenous people: when will the destruction be complete and how can it ever be repaired? In our Rural Livelihoods class discussion of race and ethnicity in rural America, we touched on possible ways reparations could be made to indigenous populations, noting the insufficiency of land acknowledgements without more. It seems like an easy place to start would be to stop bulldozing sacred indigenous land.
It's so easy to get drawn into the rhetoric that big corporations promote. Specifically here, I hear about the promise of jobs, economic growth, community investments, and replacing fossil fuels with a 'more eco-friendly alternative.' These fallacies distract from all of the negative environmental and cultural impacts that these rural communities are facing.
It surprises me that a coalition with such a variety of people has been shut down with a loose assurance that the Thacker Pass lithium mine would be well-regulated. The government has made it clear that it has no problem overlooking Native Americans with their legislation (or lack thereof). This blog has so many examples, including the post, "Where's the law?" that touch on this.
This was such an interesting and yet disheartening post. Thank you for sharing!
Wow, what an interesting topic! Thank you so much for your in-depth analysis of this very current issue. It both does and does not make sense that the three separate actors you mentioned (the ranchers, the environmentalists, and the tribe) joined forces to halt the construction of the mining site. I see their relevant interests very clearly from your post. I am left wondering though, how do the more conservative politicians of Nevada, reconcile their support of the project with their duty to protect the interests of their constituents? The rancher, at the least, is someone they should be considering. Also, how does the current executive branch, who granted $700 million to support lithium mining, reconcile the same issues? Maybe the rancher is not their usual voter, but the environmentalist sure is!
Further, how can the current Democratic Party bet their “green energy transition” on lithium mining that will clearly have horrendous environmental impacts for centuries to come? I understand that it would be an alternative to fossil fuels, but at what cost? It leads me to think about the discussion we had in class recently, about when the timer starts on our views and arguments. Right now, it seems like Democrats are ignoring the immediate consequences of the lithium mines for future rewards. But, it is unclear from any research I’ve done whether or not that bet will pay off. Will it be enough to slow down global warming to a point where, in 300 years, we are not suffering immensely? Especially considering that by 2050 it is assumed that global temperatures will rise by at least 1.5 degrees Celsius, and that by 2300 the seas will still be rising even if we magically reversed climate change today.
Post a Comment