This article examines the approaches to ecological restoration for Indigenous nations and communities, focusing on the Diné (Navajo) experience with the environmental legacy of uranium mining and extraction on their tribal lands. Western restoration efforts, often ineffective and costly, perpetuate environmental degradation and reflect some persistent neocolonial dynamics. The Western approach to ecological restoration, centered on remediation and attenuation over time, has proven inadequate in addressing the holistic needs of Diné communities. This inadequacy is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of Diné cultural principles and the historical context of colonialism. Events such as The Long Walk and the forced removal of children to boarding schools have profoundly impacted the relationship between the Diné and their lands. Contemporary restoration and remediation efforts on Diné lands illustrate the persistence of neocolonial dynamics. The Diné struggle to assert control over their lands, hindered by the US government's “trust doctrine” of property ownership. This ongoing environmental injustice perpetuates a pattern of separation between the Diné and the land, mirroring broader themes of domination within US educational, scientific, and societal systems. To fully understand the implications of Western ecological restoration approaches, it is essential to examine the guiding principles of Diné culture and contextualize their historical experiences of colonialism. This article aims to shed light on these crucial aspects through the lens of the Diné experience, while avoiding overgeneralization of Indigenous experiences.
History of Colonialism and Diné Cultural Context
The term “Navajo,” originally a legal-political classification established by the US government during the colonization period, illustrates the process of categorizing Indigenous groups for administrative purposes. This process, termed “legibility,” facilitated the standardization and simplification of ethnic identities, a phenomenon particularly pertinent to Diné during the period of tribal nation formation between 1868 and 1937(Curley 2014:129). The Diné, also known as Navajo, comprise a population of 399,494 individuals as of the 2020 US Census, with approximately half residing within Navajo Nation lands (Naabeehó Diné Biyaad). These lands encompass four states, including parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah in the southwestern United States (Becenti 2021). The government of Navajo Nation is subdivided into 110 tribal chapters, each governed by one of five management agencies: Chinle (14 chapters), Crownpoint/Eastern (31 chapters), Fort Defiance (27 chapters), Shiprock (20 chapters), and Tuba City/Western (18 chapters). Analogous to state and county structures within the US government, these agencies and chapters serve as administrative units for governance and representation. Diné is a term that translates to “five-fingered people.” Spanning over 27,000 square miles, Navajo Nation holds the largest land area among tribal nations within the contiguous United States, with the administrative center located in Window Rock, Arizona. Diné people maintain a complex system of beliefs, encompassing creation narratives, principles, laws, customs, and cultural practices (Lee 2014).
Diné Principles—Sá’ah Naagháí bik'eh Hózhóón
Dinétah is the ancestral homelands that hold the most value. Overarching cultural focus is on principles called Sá’ah Naagháí bik'eh Hózhóón (SNBH), which embodies the vital paradigm given from Diné Holy People (Diyin Dine’é). SNBH centers on harmony in all areas of life, including health and wellbeing by connecting the spiritual and physical worlds (Lee 2014). It is the way of life that guides self-determinism for Diné people. While the principle has multiple levels of meaning as a cultural tenet, one interpretation is “according to the ideal may restoration be achieved” (Lewton 2000). The meaningful behavioral environment to Diné people, cultural traditions, and spiritualism are integral to self-identity. Diné cultural identity cannot be characterized in a uniform or stereotyped manner (Lewton and Bydone 2000). It is considered complex, unique, and hybridized to the Diné experience.
Diné culture contains a pattern of reliance on the representation of “four” that is reoccurring. The SNBH is a representation of a four-step process for individuals which includes thinking (nitsáhákees), planning (nahatá), living (iiná), and assurance (siihasin). There are four cardinal directions that play a role in daily life, including how hogans are built. The four seasons and four parts of the day are important to the Diné. The dinétah lies within four sacred mountains and there are four sacred minerals.(Fowler 2022) Most of all, there are four stages of life (Lee 2014: 6; Werito 2014: 27). Diné also believe in dualisms much like in ancient Eastern thought. For instance, the balance of positive and negative energies for equilibrium or balance is needed to achieve SNBH. Diné believe that both negative and positive must exist, and it is moderation that is the pathway to SNBH. The same goes for the references to Mother Earth and Father Sky as genderized entities. SNBH achievement comes from living a distinct sustainable way of life (Lee 2014: 7; Secatero 2014: 14). A movement toward political self-determinism and cultural renewal (Lewton and Bydone 2000) exists that is related to overcoming economic, social, and cultural diaspora effects of colonialism interactions. Beauty of life (hózhó) that comes from balance begins with thinking for oneself and leads to actualization, then acting to achieve one's life goals and reflection (Weirto 2014: 34–35). These are steps not only associated with hózhó but also self-determinism. Many Diné can feel disconnected from their cultural traditions and families as a result of the colonialism policies of the United States in the past and the ongoing neocolonialism that continues today under the restoration of the lands and notion of “trust lands’’ under the US government (Lewton and Bydone 2000). The history of separating land and water from humans is part of the colonialism of the Western settler (Cattelino and Simpson 2022).When examined ecologically, settler colonialism works strategically to undermine Indigenous peoples’ social resilience as self-determining collectives because it is focused on ecological domination (Whyte 2018b: 125).
A Colonial Approach to Land: Two Examples The Long Walk and the US Federal Government Indian Boarding Schools
From the 1500s forward, after many invasions by Spain, Mexico, and eventually the United States. Diné mounted campaigns of resistance to remain on dinétah—ancestral homelands. However, in 1862, James Carlton, the commander of the then titled New Mexico Territory, implemented a plan to relocate Diné to the Bosque Redondo Reservation (Hweeldi) at Fort Sumner, located in what is now the state of New Mexico, approximately 250 to 450 miles from the dinétah (Iverson 2002). Due to starvation and exposure to harsh winter weather, it is estimated that over two hundred Diné died from the journey (Smithsonian Museum 2020a). Bosque Redondo Reservation functioned as internment camps for the Diné people who were taken as prisoners under the auspices of achieving a Western assimilation policy by the U. military (ibid.). The purpose of this US policy was to have the Diné learn the arts of Western civilization, to become Christians, and go to Western schools (Navajo Nation Museum 2022). This removal from dinétah in 1864 is known as The Long Walk. It not only physically separated the land from Diné but also attempted to excise Diné culture by replacing it with Western culture in every aspect imaginable. At the time, the United States was driven by President Thomas Jefferson's expansion notion of Manifest Destiny, an idea that was widely held by US people and continued to be taught for hundreds of years in elementary school history books. Jefferson acted on his idea of westward expansion of the United States with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. The US government continued conquering the Western part of the continent under a notion that the people of the newly formed country were entitled to the land and all its resources. European invaders were a perceived threat by US officials, so expansion of the Western hemisphere was pursued rigorously. This is known as the Monroe Doctrine, coined by President Monroe in 1823. Both concepts were used for unconstrained expansion across the continent from the east to the west coasts and later into Latin America, regardless of what people were already residing on the lands. These colonial concepts lead up to the creation of “trust lands” by the US Supreme Court in the late 1800s and serves as the foundation for Diné people today not owning land as property that can be bought and sold as in most market-based economies. As a result, Diné lands remain mostly undeveloped because of the uncertainty created by a lack of private ownership, which creates an undesirable transaction because of the risk for private investors. Lands of Navajo Nation are held in a “trust” by the US government thereby creating barriers, or completely not allowing for the development of infrastructure. For instance, there is an inability to build private housing or dormitories for students, a lack of diversity of retail or commercial establishments, and even electricity, telecommunications, and internet services are difficult to build due to trust land arrangements. Large portions of the Navajo Nation are missing some of these basic infrastructures needed for developing an economy. The consequence is an inability to develop the land and wealth over time results in maintaining poverty and lower incomes compared to what is enjoyed in other areas of some of the same states that the Navajo Nation shares land with the US government.
The removal of Diné caused by The Long Walk was intended to control land and included the indoctrination of capitalism and Western Christianity as a replacement to the Diné people's way of life. It was an attempt of Diné conversion which translated to a form of diaspora, both from the land and culture. These policies were thought to bring civilization and assimilation of Diné into the new US territories without the threats of conflict in the future (Heard Museum 2023). From 1863 to 1866, more than 10,000 Navajo were forcibly removed from their ancestral lands. On June 1, 1868, Diné leaders signed a treaty. Approximately 2,000 (25 percent) died at the Bosque Redondo Reservation and their bodily remains were buried in unmarked graves (Smithsonian Museum 2020b). The results of The Long Walk were a suppression of Diné culture, which in turn threatened Diné language, traditions, and social fabric of the family unit which is a high value called a “clan” in Diné culture. The US government refused to negotiate the Treaty of 1868, which allowed Diné to return to the dinétah, with women. This was an unusual experience because Diné is considered a matriarchal society. For instance, in Diné culture children receive their clan (family) name from the maternal line along with property such as land use rights and material possessions for living. Nonetheless, after four years, male leaders, along with pleas from many women, successfully persuaded the US military to allow the Diné to return to their home.
The Treaty of 1868, referred to as the Navajo Treaty, included the right of self-determination, self-sufficiency, and protection of Diné homelands (Heard Museum 2023). The Navajo Nation Museum in Window Rock, NM has a poignant representation of the disconnection of the families still trying to reconnect in an exhibit titled the Navajo Treaty of 1868. A map is posted that places a pin where maternal clans reside because many today are not aware of their ancestry before The Long Walk (Navajo Nation Museum 2022). This is one example of the colonial practices of the United States that had a devastating impact on the Diné people. It is a profound example of separation of Diné from dinétah and culture.
US Federal Government Indian Boarding School System
The US Federal Government Boarding School System started in the 1800s under the US Department of War and was operated by both the US federal government and Christian missionaries. Diné children were removed from tribal lands and relocated to boarding schools without parental consent. The Carlisle Indian Industrial School, founded by Richard Pratt, was used as a model for these Indigenous boarding schools set up across the United States, and particularly concentrated in the southwest and western areas of the county. In 1879, Pratt established the most well-known of this form of boarding school called the Carlisle Indian School in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and was Headmaster of the school for 25 years (Navajo Relief Fund 2022). At the time, the crude economic justification was explained by Carl Schurz, the US Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Schurz estimated in 1881 that it “cost nearly $1 million dollars to kill an Indian in warfare while it cost only $1200 to enroll an Indian child for eight years of schooling” (Heard Museum 2023). When arriving at the boarding schools, assimilation of Western culture was immediately initiated and enforced in the harshest conditions. Children were given Western haircuts, stripped of their clothing, which was replaced by Western garments such as military or Victorian era clothing. As part of this forced relocation, the children were given Western names and forbidden to use their language. They were segregated by age and gender. Siblings were separated to prevent any reliance on previous family connections. Besides being stripped of the Indigenous culture, boarding school rules were often enforced through punishment, including corporal punishment, such as solitary confinement, flogging, withholding food, whipping and slapping, or cuffing (US Department of Interior 2022: 58). The use of child labor under poor sanitary and nutrition conditions was common. As a result, many children did not survive the harsh and abrupt change in their lives.
Today, the US Department of Interior is leading the Federal Boarding School Initiative to investigate the loss of human life. One purpose is to return through repatriation and disinterment the remains of the children to their clan families. The US Department of Interior (US DOI) found that between 1819 to 1969, the Federal Indian Boarding School System consisted of 408 schools across 37 states including 21 schools in Alaska and seven schools in Hawaii. Some individual schools accounted for multiple sites. The 408 schools comprised 431 specific sites. Initial results show that the earliest opening date of a Federal Indian boarding school was 1801, and the latest opening date was 1969 (US DOI 2022: 6). In 1919, the US government determined that only 2,089 of an estimated 9,613 Diné children were attending school. According to the US DOI (2022: 46), the government set up trust accounts for tribes using funds generated by Indigenous wealth depletion from cessions of territories to pay for the attempted assimilation process of Indigenous people. As Congress has found, a large proportion of the expense for the operation of the schools came from Indian treaty funds and not US appropriations. For example, between 1845 and 1855, while over $2 million was spent on the Federal Indian Boarding School System, US appropriations accounted for only 1/20th, or $10,000 per year, of that sum, with tribal nation trust fund monies supplying the rest. In 1908, the Supreme Court ruled in Quick Bear v. Leupp that the United States could use monies held in treaty and trust fund accounts for Indian territories ceded to the United States to fund children “induced or compelled” to attend Indian boarding schools that were operated by religious institutions or organizations.
Congress passed the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, which established that the US government could contract with tribal governments for services. The legislation rejuvenated tribal governments by admitting, rejecting, and countering previous paternalistic policies. Indigenous people were now able to operate schools. Since 1975, more than 70 schools have taken charge of operations. Indigenous people now have the chance to take control of education bringing Indigenous languages, beliefs, and philosophies into schools. It was not until 1978 with the passing of the Indian Child Welfare Act that Indigenous parents gained the legal right to deny children's placement in schools not on the tribal lands (Navajo Relief Fund 2022).
Similar to The Long Walk, the boarding school experience was another attempt to remove Diné from dinétah and culture. These two examples of colonialism exemplify the Western approach to culture and human rights taken by the United States toward Indigenous people. The pattern is to separate Diné from both dinétah and cultural identity. We see this repeating in modern times represented in the neocolonialism of environmental injustices of uranium extraction and its legacy of Western ecological remediation never achieving restoration. Deborah McGregor and colleagues (2020: 35) point out that Indigenous environmental justice (IEJ) is distinct because it must address the challenges of the ecological crisis as well the various forms of violence and injustices to Indigenous peoples. IEJ issues are deeply rooted in the issue of land rights and domination of sovereignty. Different ontologies exist of land in settler colonialism and Indigenous movements for decolonization and environmental justice. Settler ontologies of land focus on land for the sole use of humans. Indigenous ontologies of land are commonly oriented around relationality and reciprocal obligations among humans and nonhumans (Burow et al. 2018: 57; Gilo-Whitaker 2019). Also, IEJ has to account for more than how humans live respectfully with the dynamics of ecosystems as explained by concepts of sustainability and in mainstream environmentalism (Curnow and Helferty 2018). It has to include moral relationships—including responsibility, spirituality, and justice—within a society yield empirical and humanistic insights about resilience (Whyte 2018a: 139).
Neocolonialism: WW2 and Environmental Injustices by the US Government to the Navajo People
When World War II (WW2) began, Diné were confronted with two major issues—the first was the use of the Diné language, and the second was a naturally occurring element found in the earth called uranium is present in abundance on Diné lands. Both areas were exploited by the United States, which created significant advantages in winning WW2. For instance, Diné language was used by the US government in radio tactical communications in the war effort, and uranium extraction was the fuel for creating a weapon of mass destruction. The uranium extraction needed for nuclear weapons in WW2 and during the Cold War has created a legacy that remains today, which forms the current neocolonial relationship between the United States and Diné in the remediation of the uranium mines and related waste disposal.
Ironically, while many Diné children were forced to attend boarding schools away from home where they were forbidden to speak the Diné language, the US military found the language as a tactical asset to be used in WW2. Diné language was rare and not written down for deciphering by US opponents in WW2. Diné served as “Code Talkers” conveying vital communications during the war via radio. The Marines during WW2 recruited 29 “Navajo Code Talkers” as radio operators, which expanded to nearly four hundred. With a population of about 50,000 in 1942, about 540 Diné enlisted in WW2 and about 420 of those trained as Code Talkers (Iverson 2002; US Department of the Navy 2020). Many of these Code Talkers were children who attended and survived the forced boarding schools. As adults, it was puzzling that the same government that had tried to take away the Diné language in the boarding schools later gave them a critical role speaking their languages in military service (Smithsonian Museum 2020b).
The second support of the war came from Diné land. There was a naturally occurring element, found in the rocks below the surface of the land, called uranium, the element that held an atom used for nuclear fission in nuclear weapons, and later in commercial civilian nuclear energy. It was this large molecule that successfully tested Einstein's equation E = mc2. Diné lands contained some of the richest and most accessible sources of uranium. These sources of uranium were identified by the US government as a national security resource for the war effort and post-war as the United States entered a nuclear arms race with the former Soviet Union. As a result, the mining of uranium on Diné lands began at a rapid pace and continued for decades with little regard to human health or environmental risks.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA 2004: 15), the risks that were associated with uranium mining were implicitly evident as long ago as the early sixteenth century. Central Europe workers in silver mines, where uranium mineralization is now recognized, made these miners more susceptible to pulmonary disorders than workers at other mines. In 1879, such diseases were diagnosed as lung cancer without the understanding of what was the contribution of uranium at the time. The extraction of uranium used for weapons continued from 1947 to 1970 (US Department of Energy 2022a). After the price of uranium collapsed in the mid-1960s, the mines were abandoned, leaving behind exposed waste rock debris consisting of radioactive uranium ore.
Under the US Department of Energy (US DOE) Program called the Defense-Related Uranium Mines Program, a total of 4,225 mines have been identified.. Many of these locations are outside of Diné lands. It took significant piecing together historical databases across several organizations to locate these mines, and some were not completely identified. Only 592 locations of the mines are known by geopolitical boundaries and another 3,633 included map coordinates in the archives (US DOE 2014: 12). About 46 percent were considered small production size (0–100 tons), with the others being larger. Approximately 487 of the mines had unknown locations but were identified from ore shipments and other references.
The distribution of these mines has been studied. Approximately 69 percent of the mines are located in Colorado (1,539) and Utah (1,380), with another 23 percent present in Arizona (413), Wyoming (319), and New Mexico (247). The remaining mines are in the Western states, along with one each in Alaska, Florida, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Of the total tons of uranium ore produced for defense-related purposes (a total of 75.9 million tons), New Mexico leads with a production of over 35 million tons, followed by Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, each with just over 11 million tons. Arizona produced nearly 3 million tons, and Washington produced 1.1 million tons of uranium ore. Approximately 85 percent (3,575) of the mines are not reclaimed or their status is unknown. There are 131 mines (about 3 percent) that are closed and 483 (approximately 11 percent) that have been or are in some stage of reclamation (US DOE 2014a: 13).
From 1944 to 1989, nearly 30 million tons of uranium ore was extracted under leases with the Navajo Nation (US Environmental Protection Agency 2021a. The US federal government was the sole purchaser of uranium until 1966. It continued to purchase ore until 1970. Sales to the commercial industry began in 1966 (US Environmental Protection Agency 2020:4). The US Congress required two five-year plans to be produced by the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to begin the restoration of the abandoned mines left from the extraction of uranium on the Navajo lands. In 2020, US EPA issued a new 10-year plan, which comprehensively identified the abandoned mines left as a legacy of the mined uranium on Navajo lands. The agency (US EPA 2021a: 7) reports that there are 523 abandoned mines, with more than one thousand mining features like waste piles and mine openings. Only 230 mines have been funded for remediation through environmental agreements, not certain if full restoration can be achieved. This group of mines are estimated to cost $1.7 billion dollars with $16 million dollars going to the Navajo Nation as grants. During this same period, 3809 homes were evaluated for piped water in the six abandoned mine regions. Over 1,100 structures were assessed for contamination, and over 50 structures were remediated.
According to the US EPA (2021a: 7), this contamination includes 485 abandoned uranium mines on the Navajo Nation and 38 abandoned uranium mines within one mile of the Navajo Nation in the neighboring states of New Mexico (30 mines), Arizona (six mines), and Utah (two mines). US EPA (2021a: 10) is addressing abandoned uranium mines on the Navajo Nation through its Superfund program in partnership with Navajo Nation's EPA (NNEPA) Superfund program. These are both remediation programs without any commitment to restoration. There are 46 mines that have been identified as priorities because of their close proximity to Diné homes. Two of the priorities were the Northeast Church Rock mine and the Old Church Rock mine. Large volumes of radioactive milling tailings are produced during the extraction and processing of uranium from the ore, sometimes exceeding millions of tons at a single uranium mining or milling facility.
Under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA), the US DOE is responsible for long-term surveillance and maintenance of four former uranium-ore-processing milling sites within the Navajo Nation at the Tuba City Site, the Monument Valley Processing Site, the Mexican Hat Site, and the Shiprock Site. Before these tailings were secured by the US DOE and the US EPA, the abandoned materials were left by the mill and excess mining waste was left nearby the mine. These materials were used by Diné in concrete, mortar, and street pavements (Rock and Ingram 2020). This material was used from uranium mines when building Diné homes. These materials include ore and waste rock used for foundations, walls, or fireplaces; mine tailings were mixed into cement used for foundations, floors, and cinder block walls and other contaminated building materials (wood, metal, etc.) that may have been salvaged from the abandoned mine areas. The problem is that these tailings retain most of the radioactivity of the ore from which they are derived, and their radioactivity is very long-lived (IAEA 2004: 15).
Despite a long and well-developed understanding based on Europe's experience earlier in the century that uranium mining led to high rates of lung cancer, few protections were provided for Diné miners before 1962, and adoption after that time was slow and incomplete (Brugge and Goble 2002; Voyles 2015). In fact, the US Public Health Service was aware of the dangerous exposure in the mines in the 1950s, but it failed to inform the miners of the risks, violating the basic foundational goal of informed consent. As a result, the United States enacted the Radioactive Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 (amended in 2020 and extended again in 2022) to address the high rates of illness among miners. This act acknowledged responsibility for the historical mistreatment of uranium miners by the US government and is the only formal apology issued by the US government for the impacts of uranium to the Navajo Nation.
When uranium mining began, the predominant modes of transportation for Diné were by horse and wagon or by foot on the reservation. Diné language had no word for radiation, few spoke English or had formal education. Thus, Diné population was isolated from the general flow of knowledge about radiation and its hazards by geography, language, and literacy level (Brugge and Goble 2002: 1411). The notion of “property rights” was not established in Diné culture, and the word nuclear, radiation, or uranium were not Diné vocabulary. Even today, the word that refers to uranium is leetso, or yellow monster (Brugge et al. 2006). Miners ate lunch at the mines and drank water, inhaled the air without masks, and brought home the clothes and other personal items after work, exposing the entire household.
In 2022, the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency (NNEPA) established the Guidance for the Uniform Application of Fundamental Law of the Diné to be used for all activities associated with the cleanup of the abandoned uranium mines across the Navajo Nation (Shirley 2022). The purpose of this guidance was to apply the Fundamental Law of the Diné (Diné BI Beenahaz’áanii) to direct decision-making for remediation efforts. This guidance codified the Fundamental Law in lieu of using traditional and cultural teaching along with contemporary law applied by judges in court cases. While it does not perfectly replace traditional self-government, it is expected to be applied in government operations. This Fundamental Law is not considered human-made but transmitted through the generations. It is distinct from traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), but it shares some elements. However, TEK is one aspect of Fundamental Law. Unlike Western approaches, Fundamental Law views all things as beings, such as humans, plants, and animals in relation to the environment. All things are sacred whether living or nonliving, like rocks, soils, or other natural matter.
TEK is learning by observation not by Western scientific experiments and statistical testing (Rock and Ingram 2020). This process entails local and traditional practices specific to each geographical location. Preservation and sustainability are protected practices for future use of the natural resource. One example of TEK is, when working on environmental or ecological resources, asking what Mother Earth would do to heal itself. Focusing on the science of natural attenuation (healing) and enhanced strategies rather than engineering approaches from the Western culture of remediation is a preferred method of the Navajo (Waugh et al. 2011; Webber et al. 2021). When healing is required, a procedural model is used with a neutral mediator (which is also used for peacemaking). Traditional practices such as song, prayer, and ceremony are still the original source of the Fundamental Law. Some foundational principles include Hózhó (harmony), K’é (peacefulness and solidarity), K’éi (kinship).
The extraction of uranium was conducted by the US government and its contractors in the race for obtaining nuclear weapons in WW2 and the following decades for the Cold War escalation. This occurred without a plan for restoration, which could have taken place early in the process during the design of the extraction of the uranium ore. This is not a Diné approach to dinétah. Like other environmental justice communities, workers were not consulted nor given any occupational or public health protection. In addition, after the extraction was completed, lands were left abandoned without any plan to remediate let alone restore the ecological functioning of land for decades. Like the pattern of removing the Diné with The Long Walk and the boarding schools, again the extraction of uranium was another removal of land from the Diné. This time the separation from land left a legacy of negative health and ecological effects that can be passed through genetic mutations due to radioactivity.
An Inappropriate Non-Indigenous Approach of Diné Lands
The approach to “restoration” of the uranium mines has several formal steps that are rooted in the Western cultural approach and distant from Native cultures. First, it begins with the overlay of the laws and policy approaches to restoration onto the Diné culture and agencies. It includes the inability to adapt Native American lifestyles and culture into the decision structure of risk assessments, and the concept of interconnectedness of the human and natural worlds (Rock and Ingram 2020). Secondly, the abuse and removal of the land, separating it from the ecosystem as part of the remediation effort, is in conflict with a Diné approach. It breaks the relationship of the ecosystem and harmony by further separating the land from its natural source. Diné TEK for policy considerations on abandoned mines restoration is problematic when the decision-making process and remediation options so closely mimic Western approaches. The remediation process itself involves more removal of soil and structures or contaminated waters rather than a goal to restore ecological function. And limited access to mine areas restricts land use in the future is a common “restoration” solution to protect public health. General science and engineering approaches to remediation do not seek to restore the ecological functioning or healing of the area to its original state before the mining, but centers on protecting public health by separating Diné from the ecosystem. Finally, the ultimate postcolonial approach that continues to plague the restoration of the Navajo Nation is the “trust lands.”
The Overlay of a Bureaucratic Decision-making Approach and the Lack of Inclusivity in Diné Lands Restoration
The legacy from the extraction of uranium has been catastrophic to people and the land. The US EPA and US Department of Energy have taken very similar bureaucratic approaches to the restoration of the contaminated lands commonly known in the United States as Superfund (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980), to the point where identical names of the agencies and laws are used. In fact, the same agencies and often federal contractors that work on remediation in the attempt of restoration on US Superfund projects are the same ones working on the restoration of Diné lands. The Navajo Superfund Program guides decision-making on the remediation of the abandoned uranium mines with US EPA serving as a co-regulator with NNEPA. There can be approximately nine different government agencies involved with the restoration of the mines and protection of public health. The Navajo Superfund Program was created in 2008 using the same title of the law—Navajo Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act in the United States is enforced by the NNEPA. It mirrors closely the Western approach used by the US laws and US EPA. The irony is even though the Superfund Program in the United States has had questionable effectiveness and many cost and schedule overruns plagued with delays for site completion criticized by Congress, environmental interest groups, industry, and the topics of many investigations, this is the same approach being taken for the Diné remediation. Superfund has also been criticized as not working as closely with community groups particularly with environmental justice communities based on race, income, and Indigenous communities so an additional route for addressing these communities was created within the US EPA and for all federal agencies under Executive Order 12898 in 1994 by President Clinton. In early 2023, the Biden Administration established an Office of Environmental Justice in the US Department of Justice as well as in the Council on Environmental Quality in the White House.
Separation of the Dinétah without the Ability to Restore Ecological Function and Land Use
The remediation option chosen for the abandoned mines and the waste has been to separate the Diné from the land. This time by removing the soil or structures, and often restricting access to the area surrounding the mines. For instance, mines have been fenced off with warning signs of danger to not enter the area. The contaminated materials have been removed from the lands and transported to other locations. Mill tailings have been taken away from the land or left on the property onsite deemed not useful.
The Western approach has been to separate the dinétah by closing off access to the mines immediately and never restoring the land use to its original or even partial ecological function. Furthermore, this damage and loss of land use of the property was never fully compensated for economically. Often, these sites cannot be revitalized to its original use because of a loss of land and ecological function. Similar national sacrifice lands have been the history of other US DOE sites where nuclear materials have damaged the lands permanently without the possibility of restoration.
Under a Diné approach to TEK, future uses of the land are not considered harmonious solutions when there are restrictions or something less than complete functionality of the natural resource. In addition, the TEK would not include the solution of fencing off lands to protect humans from its environment. For example, risk assessments that are typically performed in Western culture are all grounded in studies on ecological value, exposure pathways, and probabilities. This is a foreign approach to Diné understanding because it focuses on land use and not the value of the land. The closest notion in the Western world is the intrinsic value of land as we see in protection policies of wilderness, endangered species, and national park lands. In the United States, human interventions and management failures as seen in the use of wildlife management of wolves, elk, and natural resources of fire, or even technology such as cell towers in the parks. The very notion of property ownership is in direct contradiction with a Diné worldview, which is more of stewardship of the land and not long-term destruction of ecosystem from nuclear radiation.
Some examples of the concerns expressed by Diné come from interviews and meetings conducted by the US EPA (as part of the Superfund Community Relations Plan requirements) about the restoration of the ecosystem involving the abandoned uranium mines. Often the Navajo people expressed concerns on health, cleanup, future land uses, communication preferences, and compensation concerns. A Diné person from the North Central Abandoned Uranium Mine region was asked in 2018, to specify a top concern for the area. The reply was: “It's difficult to specify one concern because past mining has a multitude of after-effects. Some places may have been temporarily covered, but what about uranium/radon vapor and contaminated dust emitted through the air?” (US EPA 2021b: 11). Another member replied, “we have concerns . . . too many of our people here have passed. It's a very sorrowful and empty feeling. Our relatives and animals have suffered tremendously” (US EPA 2021b: 5). Another person stated: “Many of us showered with water from mine pits. What about the women and children who got secondary exposure through the dust from our father's clothing? At the end of each day, they would come home covered in dust. Our mother's hand-washed their work clothes and the small children crawled on their fathers or hugged them. Is there such a thing as uranium caused cancers passed genetically?” (US EPA 2021b: 5). Many expressed their preference that the land be returned safely to farming and grazing use and wildlife habitat. Most agreed that the land should not be simply fenced off and restricted from use by current and future residents (US EPA 2015: 18). Another explained: “My concern is the removal method. Where will the waste be moved, how will it be done, what method and why? Those are the questions I'd like to have the agencies answer and . . . to fully explain to the impacted communities. Also, I'd like to know if these mined areas can be reused in the future? Will our water be safe to use again?” (US EPA 2015: 19).
Many people expressed concerns to the US EPA about not restoring the land to its original state—“Life long ago was simple, we were nomadic (summer in the mountains, down valley in the winter). Then we got grazing rights here. We took care of the land and the land took care of us. We prayed for health and happiness. All of that is gone now, because of the mines. Long ago we had cattle and horses and took care of Mother Earth and she took care of us—now that's gone. We used to sing, dance and pray here” (US EPA 2021b: 19). “The uranium and mill companies destroyed our ceremonial ground. How will the federal government repair that? Ceremonies are a part of our daily life . . . I feel we, the elders, need to help so this doesn't happen again in the future. . . . What we keep wondering, too, is . . . why did the US government harm our land in the first place?” (US EPA 2015: 20). “Before the uranium companies caused the mine waste, our water was clean. Now our water table, artesian springs, and streams have been polluted, even the runoff can't be trusted. We are living in the midst of contamination” (US EPA 2021b: 16).
The Notion of Wastelanding of the Dinétah
The framing of the desert lands as barren and worthless in the Euro-American worldview of the environment is overlaid onto dinétah. Thus, the Western view is that the desert lands are not of ecological value and cannot be productive. These are lands that are referred to in the literature as “wastelands. “The notion of “wastelanding” continues in the lack of restoration of the ecology of the dinétah from the legacy of the uranium extraction. Tracey Bryne Voyles (2015) points out that it is this erroneous view of deserts as barren lands without ecological uses. It reflects an anthropogenic viewpoint that added to the environmental injustices of Indigenous peoples and continues into the restoration decision-making. Similarly, it is this wastelanding frame of dinétah that does not allow the land to be restored or treated as something that should be given property compensation for harm.
Many Indigenous religious practices are linked to sacred sites, places in the natural world that have been used for ceremonies and rites since time immemorial. Often, particular ceremonies and rituals can only be performed at these locations. Many such sacred sites are located on what is, today, publicly owned land by the federal government. The government has at times desecrated, destroyed, or barred access to sacred sites, rendering religious exercise extremely difficult or impossible (Williams and deLisle 2021). Earth is one of the sacred elements along with life, air, light/fire, and water. Diné culture honors the land, and Fundamental Law requires living in harmony (hózhó) with it. Diné understand that all human actions have consequences which can come over time and are rarely quantifiable in the form acceptable to the scientific community (Shirley 2022: 7). Taking from nature, particularly the land, causes disharmony. And the taking of uranium from the dinétah has caused negative consequences such as illness, contamination, and destruction for generations from the exposure to radiation that passes down intergenerationally.
Conclusions: Lessons Learned for the Future of Ecological Restoration
Much like during WW2 and the Cold War, where the sense of urgency helped to drive the uranium mining, the world is faced with another sense of urgency with climate change impacts. Many countries are now turning to nuclear energy as a viable option for carbon-free energy as opposed to fossil fuels. In particular, many countries and international organizations like the IAEA and others are investing heavily in newly designed advanced reactors and small modular reactors as options for replacing oil, natural gas, and coal sources for energy generation. The United States is also extending the life span of aging reactors to supply energy needs, which requires more nuclear fuel. As the world races to secure carbon neutral energy sources to address climate change, there are several lessons that can be learned from the exploitation of natural resources that took place on Diné lands and the Western approach to restoration of the ecosystem afterwards.
Nuclear energy has been reframed recently as a green, clean energy source that can supply the large amount of energy needed that renewables such as wind and solar cannot meet. The United States is one of the largest generators of nuclear energy in the world. It is seeking to increase that generation to replace the majority of its fossil fuel dependency. In addition, a new nuclear arms race is beginning with the US building new enrichment plants for producing nuclear fuel. However, there remains a couple of lessons learned from the uranium experience with nuclear materials that could prevent future degradation of the earth and protect the sovereignty of Indigenous peoples. First, there is the issue of obtaining nuclear fuel to power the reactors both aging and new reactors, and processing materials for nuclear fuel. As new mining and processing efforts begin to support the nuclear materials needed for this large investment taking place in supplying nuclear energy, the lessons need to be remembered of the uranium mines and milling provide the world with some key lessons on Indigenous human rights. The cautionary lessons learned from performing extraction without designing plans for restoring ecosystem functioning should be clear. Hózhó of the natural world should be an overriding principle in the planning stage of any new extraction of uranium or additional elements from the earth. Second, both in the planning and design of any new nuclear energy generation for both weapons and energy, people impacted need to be heard and listened to in the preliminary stages. Incorporating the local people into the process of the planning and design is critical to the restoration process and ecosystem functioning post-extraction. TEK gained from Indigenous communities is critical to maintaining and restoring the land after the extraction with minimal negative impacts. The goal needs to maintain the land or other natural resources to their ecological functioning before, during, and after extraction and processing takes place.
References
Becenti, Arlyssa. 2021. “Dine Enrolled Population Increases to 399,494.” Navajo Times. https://navajotimes.com/reznews/dine-enrolled-population-increases-to-399494/.
Brugge, Doug, Timothy, Benally, and Esther Yazzie-Lewis. 2006. The Navajo People and Uranium Mining. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Brugge, Doug, and Rob Goble. 2002. “The History of Uranium Mining and the Navajo People.” American Journal of Public Health 92 (9): 1410–1419. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.92.9.1410
Burow, Paul Berne, Samara Brock, and Michael R Dove. 2018. “Unsettling the Land: Indigeneity, Ontology, and Hybridity in Settler Colonialism.” Environment and Society 9 (1): 57–74.
Cattelino, Jessica R., and Audra Simpson. 2022. “Rethinking Indigeneity: Scholarship at the Intersection of Native American Studies and Anthropology.” Annual Review of Anthropology 51: 365–381.
Curley, Andrew. 2014. “The Origin of Legibility: Rethinking Colonialism and Resistance among the Navajo People, 1968–1937.” In Diné Perspectives Revitalizing and Reclaiming Navajo Thought, ed. Lloyd, L. Lee, 129–151. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Curnow, Joe, and Anjali Helferty. 2018. “Contradictions of Solidarity: Whiteness, Settler Coloniality, and the Mainstream Environmental Movement.” Environment and Society 9: 145–163. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26879583.
Fowler, Sally, Navajo Elder. Personal communication, April 16, 2022.
Gilio-Whitaker, Dina. 2019. As Long as Grass Grows: The Indigenous Fight for Environmental Justice, from Colonization to Standing Rock. Boston: Beacon Press.
Heard Museum, 2023. “Away from Home American Indian Boarding School Stories.” Phoenix, Arizona. https://boardingschool.heard.org/.
International Atomic Energy Agency. 2004. “The Long-Term Stabilization of Uranium Mill Tailings—Final Report of a Co-Ordinated Research Project 2000–2004.” 1011–4289. Iverson, Peter. 2002. Diné : A History of the Navajos. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Lee, Lloyd L., ed. 2014. Diné Perspectives Revitalizingand Reclaiming Navajo Thought. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Lewton, Elizabeth L., and Victoria Bydone. 2000. “Identity and Healing in Three Navajo Religious Traditions: Sa'ah Naagháí Bik'eh Hózho.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly 14 (4): 476–497. https://doi.org/10.1525/maq.2000.14.4.476. p 479.
McGregor, Deborah, Steven Whitaker, and Mahisha Sritharan. 2020. “Indigenous Environmental Justice and Sustainability.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 43: 35–40.
Navajo Nation Museum. 2022. Reichard, Gladys Amanda. 1990. Navajo Religion: A Study of Symbolism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rock, Tommy, and Jani C. Ingram. 2020. “Traditional Ecological Knowledge Policy Considerations for Abandoned Uranium Mines on Navajo Nation.” Human Biology 92 (1): 20–26. https://doi.org/10.13110/humanbiology.92.1.01
Secatero, Shawn L. 2014. “Beneath our Sacred Minds, Hands, and Hearts: One Dissertation Journey.” In Diné Perspectives Revitalizing and Reclaiming Navajo Thought, ed, Lloyd L. Lee, 19–24. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Shirley, Valinda. 2022. “NNEPA Guidance for the Uniform Application of Fundamental Law of the Diné to AUM.” Report number v06-21-2022. Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency.
Smithsonian Museum. 2020a. “Explore this interactive Bosque Redondo | The Navajo Treaties Study.” National Museum of The American Indian. https://americanindian.si.edu/nk360/navajo/bosque-redondo/bosque-redondo.cshtml.
Smithsonian Museum. 2020b. “Struggling with Cultural Repression.” National Museum of The American Indian. https://americanindian.si.edu/nk360/code-talkers/boarding-schools/.
US Department of Energy. 2014a. “Defense—Related Uranium Mines—Report to Congress.” August.
US Department of Energy. 2014b. Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act Sites Fact Sheet. Office of Legacy Management. Fact Sheet.
US Department of Energy. 2022a. Defense-Related Uranium Mines Program. Office of Legacy Management. Fact Sheet. https://www.energy.gov/lm/articles/defense-related-uranium-mines-program-fact-sheet.
US Department of Energy. 2022b. “U.S. Department of Energy Office of Legacy Management Launches Campaign to Address Abandoned Uranium Mines on Tribal Lands.” Office of Legacy Management. News Release. January 11. www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2022/01/11/2365059/0/en/U-S-Department-of-Energy-Office-of-Legacy-Management-Launches-Campaign-to-Address-Abandoned-Uranium-Mines-on-Tribal-Lands.html.
US Department of Interior. 2022. Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative Investigative Report. May 2022.
US Department of the Navy. 2020. “Navajo Code Talkers—World War II Fact Sheet.” April 16. Naval History and Heritage Command. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/n/code-talkers.html.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. “Abandoned Uranium Mines.” Fact Sheet. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-02/epa-factsheet-abandoned-uranium-mine-settlements-on-the-navajo-nation.pdf.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Navajo Nation: Cleaning up Abandoned Uranium Mines. Community Relations Plans Superfund Interviews. https://www.epa.gov/navajo-nation-uranium-cleanup.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2021b. “Navajo Nation: Cleaning up Abandoned Uranium Mines. Community Relations Plans Superfund Interviews.” https://www.epa.gov/navajo-nation-uranium-cleanup.
Voyles, Traci Brynne. 2015. Wastelanding :Legacies of Uranium Mining in Navajo Country. Legacies of Uranium Mining in Navajo Country. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Waugh, William J., Edward P. Glenn, Perry H. Charley, Marnie K. Carroll, Beverly Maxwell, and Michael K. O'Neill. 2011. “Helping Mother Earth Heal: Diné College and Enhanced Natural Attenuation Research at U. S. Department of Energy Uranium Processing Sites on Navajo Land.” In Stakeholders and Scientists: Achieving Implementable Solutions to Energy and Environmental Issues, ed. Joanna Burger, 119–147. New York: Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8813-3_6.
Webber, Zak R., Kei G.I. Webber, Tommy Rock, Isaac St. Clair, Carson Thompson, Sarah Groenwald, Zach Aanderud, Gregory T. Carling, Rebecca J. Frei, and Benjamin W. Abbott. 2021. “Diné Citizen Science: Phytoremediation of Uranium and Arsenic in the Navajo Nation.” Science of The Total Environment 794 (November):148665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148665.
Werito, Vincent. 2014. “Understanding Hozho to Achieve Critical Consciousness: A Contemporary Dine Interpretation of the Philosophical Principles of Hozho.” In Diné Perspectives Revitalizing and Reclaiming Navajo Thought, ed. Lloyd L. Lee. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Williams, Joel West, and Emily deLisle. 2021. “An ‘Unfulfilled, Hollow Promise’: Lyng, Navajo Nation, and the Substantial Burden on Native American Religious Practice.” Ecology Law Quarterly 48 (3): 809–842. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z381G0HW0Z
Whyte, Kyle. 2018a. “Critical Investigations of Resilience: A Brief Introduction to Indigenous Environmental Studies & Sciences.” Daedalus 147 (2):136–147.
Whyte, Kyle. 2018b. “Settler Colonialism, Ecology, and Environmental Injustice.” Environment and Society 9: 125–144. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26879582.