Reclaiming or Rebranding? The Federal Land Grab – Green Colonization – Disguised as ‘Land Back’

The bond between land and people is a timeless connection but concerns about government overreach in land management have ignited debates across the nation, in states like Arizona, where landscapes are steeped in Native American history and potential for economic growth, the tensions are particularly acute. 

The debate over federal land protections raises deeper questions that go beyond mere policy and regulation. We question the intentions behind federal officials’ eagerness to designate lands as National Monuments, seeing it as a strategic move to make the nation more dependent on foreign energy sources. We know that bureaucratic red tape can inadvertently create tinder boxes for wildfires, neglecting proper land management in the name of preservation. 

The lack of consultation with all affected tribes and the potential mislabeling of lands as “sacred” by certain tribal leaders further muddy the waters. Are these designations always rooted in authentic Native history and creation stories, or are they sometimes contemporary constructs serving other agendas?

Blatant Overreach

We raise our concerns about government overreach, especially in applying the Antiquities Act. Instances of unilateral designation of National Monuments, seemingly without proper consultation or understanding of economic implications, highlight potential infringement of private – and tribal-citizen owned – property rights. 

A notable example is the Osage Nation’s relationship with the U.S. government and the subsequent loss of their oil fortune. Recent oil and gas lease bans and political debates shed light on this issue, reflecting a growing sentiment that more explicit guidelines and genuine collaboration in decision-making must exist.

Land Back is the New Land Grab, Dressed in Green Colonization 

Federal “land grab” attempts often conflict with local and tribal land management practices. Recent examples highlight these challenges, such as a new national monument near the Grand Canyon and the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments. 

We call this “green colonization.” This concept refers to the acquisition of land by the federal government in the name of climate change mitigation and environmental protection. While the intentions may appear noble, critics argue that this approach echoes historical patterns of dispossession and control, only now cloaked in the language of sustainability. The government’s track record in managing resources – be it land, finances, or social programs – is far from unblemished. 

Local authorities and Tribes, who have lived on these lands since time immemorial, find themselves in opposition to these federal decisions. We recognize local communities’ rich knowledge and cultural connection and ask for a collaborative approach to avoid new conflicts and create lasting and respectful preservation strategies.

New, Safer, Cleaner Methods for Economic Growth

Restrictions on mining and logging in the name of “national monuments” are often seen as hindrances to economic growth and job creation. Federal protections – land grabbing – can impede these industries’ economic opportunities in tribal areas rich in mineral resources.

Like this recent study, economic analyses of mining and logging industries provide insights into the potential revenue and employment possibilities. Responsible stewardship can ensure that short-term gains do not lead to long-term environmental damage or cultural loss.

Chemists at Oregon State University have developed a novel method for uranium extraction that offers a safer and cleaner alternative to traditional techniques. Operating in alkaline rather than acidic conditions, this approach utilizes less harmful chemicals and has potential applications in fuel preparation, legacy waste treatment, and environmental contamination cleanup. 

The debate over federal land protections raises deeper questions that go beyond mere legislation or economics. Are these designations always rooted in authentic Native history, or are they serving other political or economic agendas? The example of Arizona’s energy restrictions paints a picture of a complex interplay between preservation and development.

We must examine federal land protections’ underlying motivations and consequences, ensuring they reflect a balanced and inclusive perspective that improves domestic energy sources and slows down our dependence on imports. It’s a task that calls for dialogue and a shared vision for the future, where the timeless bond between land and people is honored in all its multifaceted richness.