#NativeVote16 – Overdue national debate about pipelines and ‘sound science’

img_0084
The federal government’s 2014 climate change assessment puts the Standing Rock dispute in context with this paragraph about the Great Plains. “Rising temperatures are leading to increased demand for water and energy. In parts of the region, this will constrain development, stress natural resources, and increase competition for water among communities, agriculture, energy production, and ecological needs.” (Trahant photo)
Mark Trahant / TrahantReports

On Friday I tweeted: “What an extraordinary day, the federal government has a pulse.” The United States finally weighed in on what many of us believe is the most important issue in the country right now: The question of how this nation will address climate change.

And pulse or not this remains an unsettled question. But at least last week the federal government took one small step toward the right answer.

Let’s back up. The Standing Rock Tribe filed suit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers because the agency did not adequately consult with the tribe as required law. On Friday U.S. District Judge James Boasberg disagreed, saying that the Tribe had not demonstrated that an injunction was warranted to stop construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

The most remarkable section of the ruling, however, was the background of the case.  “A project of this magnitude often necessitates an extensive federal appraisal and permitting process. Not so here. Domestic oil pipelines, unlike natural-gas pipelines, require no general approval from the federal government. In fact, DAPL needs almost no federal permitting of any kind because 99% of its route traverses private land.”

The only regulatory role for the federal government in this case “concerns construction activities in federally regulated waters at hundreds of discrete places along the pipeline route. The Corps needed to permit this activity under the Clean Water Act or the Rivers and Harbors Act – and sometimes both. For DAPL, accordingly, it permitted these activities under a general permit known as Nationwide Permit 12.”

In other words — as a public policy — there is no public debate about this pipeline except in the context of water.

Several minutes after the court ruling three federal agencies issued their own statement.

“We appreciate the District Court’s opinion on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act.  However, important issues raised by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other tribal nations and their members regarding the Dakota Access pipeline specifically, and pipeline-related decision-making generally, remain.”

So the Department of the Army, the Department of Justice, and the Department of the Interior acted to “reconsider” previous decisions regarding the Lake Oahe site and its approval. “The Army will move expeditiously to make this determination, as everyone involved — including the pipeline company and its workers — deserves a clear and timely resolution,” the statement said. “In the interim, we request that the pipeline company voluntarily pause all construction activity within 20 miles east or west of Lake Oahe.”

The statement also called for a serious discussion on tribal consultation about such projects. (More about that later.)

So what does this all mean? It means there will be a quick review (who knows what quick means in Fed-speak) about the underground water crossing of the Missouri River near the Standing Rock Reservation.

And, if the federal government has a pulse, it also has the ability to keep a secret. There is no way this was a rushed decision. This had to be debated at the White House level because so many multiple federal agencies were involved (it’s interesting that the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy did not join in on this statement.)

img_0053

 

The idea that the water crossing needs a second look is a entry point into a larger question, how important are water resources in the era of climate change?

I suspect the oil and pipeline industry already knows the answer. A news release from the National Association of Manufacturers said “President Obama has crossed the line.” This decision “sets a bad precedent that could threaten future infrastructure projects.” The Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now was even gloomier in its assessment. “Should the Administration ultimately stop this construction,  it would set a horrific precedent.  No sane American company would dare expend years of effort and billions of dollars weaving through an onerous regulatory process receiving all necessary permits and agreements, only to be faced with additional regulatory impediments and be shutdown halfway through completion of its project.”

This is too rich. A federal judge (in a ruling the industry liked) said the process was not onerous. In fact it’s the opposite because domestic oil pipelines require no general approval from the federal government.

The Midwest Alliance went on to say: “We hope and trust that the government will base its final decision on sound science and engineering, not political winds or pressure.”

And that is exactly where the country ought to start the conversation, using sound science.

The federal government’s best science comes from the U.S. Global Research Program. In its most recent report, it says “climate change does not occur in isolation. Rather, it is superimposed on other stresses, which combine to create new challenges.”

The Dakota Access Pipeline is such a challenge. The industry’s own promotions say this pipeline will move more oil to markets faster, eventually moving 570,000 barrels a day. Instead of reducing consumption, it makes it easier and cheaper for Americans to have more.

Yet at the same time the United States has promised the rest of the world that we will use slow down our use of oil and reduce our carbon impact. The official goal is to limit the increase (not reverse) global warming to “well below” 2 degrees centigrade. That will not happen with more, cheaper oil.

Again, consider the Federal Government’s best science. It says: “Climate change challenges the idea of hydrologic stationarity, which assumes that the statistical characteristics of hydrologic data are constant over time—in other words, that water dynamics of the future can be expected to be similar to those of the past. Climate change means that this assumption may not hold for all cases, undermining fundamental paradigms of water resource management and infrastructure design.” My translation: We need to protect water as the most important resource on the planet.

That same report says in order to protect basic human needs there needs to be “a safeguarding of natural assets, promoting resilience in urban and rural areas, decoupling carbon emissions from economic growth, and encouraging sustainable production and consumption patterns.”

The sound science is clear. We need to make sure that water is treated as the nation’s most important natural resource. Water is life. That’s not politics. It’s science.

Mark Trahant is the Charles R. Johnson Endowed Professor of Journalism at the University of North Dakota. He is an independent journalist and a member of The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. On Twitter @TrahantReports

Reposting or reprinting this column? Please credit: Mark Trahant / TrahantReports.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reversing diabetes in Indian Country

996ed80b-f9d4-47db-9c21-552099bd769b

The next phase in the epidemic: Reducing the rate of growth and other success stories

MARK TRAHANT

Indian Country has long faced the epidemic of diabetes with rates 2.3 times greater than the general population. The toll from this deadly disease was so great that a federal Special Diabetes Program for Indians was launched some thirteen years ago.

Across America diabetes rates are exploding. A recent piece in The Washington Post put it this way: “Diabetes has reached epidemic proportions in the U.S., due to sugary diets and the lack of exercise. If current disease rates continue, one in three Americans will have diabetes by 2050. Over time, the condition can lead to kidney failure, limb amputations and blindness, among other complications.”

The post linked to a blogger, The Data Dude, and a chart that shows diabetes rates increasing in all but a few counties across the nation, a total of 2,992 of counties. Only five counties had rates that stayed the same and only ten counties showed an actual decrease.

Here is the thing. Two of the ten counties showing a decrease in diabetes rates are found on Indian reservations, Fort Peck, Montana, and Rosebud, South Dakota. According to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rate of growth for diabetes in Roosevelt County, Montana, dropped from 13.2 percent to 12.9 percent, a three-tenths decline from 2004 to 2012. And a similar decline occurred in Mellette County, South Dakota, where the rates declined from 13 percent to 12.7 percent.

If these two reservation communities are showing a decline, what do the numbers look like across Indian Country?

Unfortunately the CDC and the Indian Health Service use different data because, of course, the county map is not ideal. The Indian Health Service reported that its data would not be comparable with the county data cited.

However — and this is important — IHS data do indicate a slowing in the rate of rise of the prevalence of diabetes in American Indian and Alaska Native people nationally. From 2001-2005, there was a relative increase in age-adjusted diabetes prevalence in American Indian and Alaska Native adults of 2.2% per year on average. Contrast that with the period between 2006 and 2013 where diabetes prevalence among the same population increased at a rate of 0.8% per year on average.

Another measurement of that trend comes from the United States Renal Data System. The data show that the incidence of end-stage renal disease due to diabetes in American Indian and Alaska Native people decreased by 43 percent between 2000 to 2011. Looking at the numbers another way, between 1995 and 2006, the incident rate of End Stage Renal Disease in American Indians and Alaska Natives with diabetes fell by 27.7 percent—a greater decline than for any other racial or ethnic group.

The IHS says: “This translates into far fewer American Indian and Alaska Native patients with diabetes starting dialysis. Also, obesity rates and diabetes prevalence in American Indian and Alaska Native youth have not increased since 2006.”

What’s working?

In Poplar, Montana, Tessie LeMere, diabetes coordinator for the Fort Peck Tribal Health Department, says a lot of the work is community focused. One important activity encouraging people to drink water instead of sugary soda. “We offer our water system. If you have your own jug, you can bring it in here and we’ll give you clean water. We do home visits. We do community screenings. The community screenings are a big thing because it’s not just for our patients, that’s for everybody just to get the awareness and prevention out there. We have wellness centers. We pay to those so our patients have access. We also have a dialysis program over at tribal health. That I think has brought the awareness more into reality.”

Perhaps that’s it. The success in Indian Country of the diabetes program is about doing everything, reaching out to both patients and those who are at risk for the disease. Again the numbers tell a story. A generation ago, before the Special Diabetes Program for Indians, only about a third of all Indian Health patients had access to diabetes clinics; today that number exceeds two-thirds. And 94 percent of patients have access to diabetes clinical teams, three times more than in 1997. And nearly 100 percent — 99 percent according to IHS — of people in the IHS system have access to diabetes education (up from 36 percent in 1997).

We hear all the time about how bad things are in Indian Country. The story of improving diabetes rates counters that narrative. It shows a lot of things: First, tribally designed programs work, government funding is important and lessons from Indian Country can help the larger nation treat its diabetes epidemic

Mark Trahant is an independent journalist and a member of The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. For up-to-the-minute posts, download the free Trahant Reports app for your smart phone or tablet.

Fort Peck Tribal Health Department is a success story showing how a community can reduce diabetes rates. From left: Janene Padilla, Diabetes Coordinator Tessie LaMere.  Cheryl Bighorn-Savior (RN), and Laurel Cheek.
Fort Peck Tribal Health Department is a success story showing how a community can reduce diabetes rates. From left: Janene Padilla, Diabetes Coordinator Tessie LaMere. Cheryl Bighorn-Savior (RN), and Laurel Cheek.

Op-Ed post: Medicaid expansion will boost Montana’s economy, people

Montanans love to talk about how special our state is. For those from some place other than Montana, you may think that we mean our beautiful mountains, the vast golden prairies, and incredible blue sky that never seems to end. And you would be right – we do mean that. But what really makes Montana special is the people.

The people of our state are kind and generous. We are the type of people who celebrate together during the good times, and look out for each other when times get tough.

Montana is particularly lucky because the people can dramatically change the direction and future of our state. Over the last few months, it was clear that the people of our state stepped up and did just that. They talked and our legislature listened. Late last week, the Montana Legislature passed the Health and Economic Livelihood Partnership (HELP) Act (SB 405). This bill is compromise legislation to extend health care coverage to low-income Montanans who need it, and the Governor has indicated that he will sign it as soon as it reaches his desk.

We are a group of organizations that have spent the past two and a half years working to expand access to affordable health care for the lowest-income Montanans. And we will forever be grateful to you, the people of Montana, for making your voices heard.

It was you who made more than 10,000 calls and emails to your legislators in support of Medicaid expansion. More than 150 of you submitted letters to the editor and opinion editorials. More than 300 of you came to the Capitol to testify. You kept the conversation going on social media. Hundreds of you came to rally on the Capitol steps or walk the halls talking to your legislators. It was you who passed Medicaid expansion.

Montana will be a better place because you made your voices heard. This legislation will help create thousands of new jobs. Montanans will be healthier and more productive because when people have health care, medical problems are more likely to be treated earlier and illnesses are less likely to affect one’s ability to work. Our rural hospitals will be able to keep their doors open because more people will have insurance to cover medical expenses. Montana tax dollars will come back to our state to boost our economy. And most importantly, tens of thousands of Montanans will be able to get the health care they need and deserve.

Never forget that when you talk – and sometimes it has to be loud and often – but if you talk loud and often enough, your elected representatives will listen.

Montana thanks you.

Sincerely,

Montana Women Vote, Montana Human Rights Network, Montana Budget and Policy Center, Montana Primary Care Association, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Montana Organizing Project, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana, Western Native Voice, SEIU 775, MHA…An Association of Montana Health Care Providers, and AARP Montana.