Jay Daniels: Return per cap if you oppose resource development

All across the United States, environmentalists and activists are making insightful and even legitimate concerns come to the forefront. Some concerns have far reaching effects that could last for eternity and some merely impact current fears. I worry about water contamination. I lived on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation for about 24 years and I experienced the alkali contaminated waters resulting from the 1950's Murphy Oilfield boom. Poplar-area folks had water hauled to their farms to survive and it was funded by the oilfield companies. Now, through joint efforts with the U.S. Congress, the reservation has a water system that pipes in water from the Fort Peck Reservoir some 60 miles away from Poplar. This mitigated the horror of dealing with the alkali water although it took years of suffering and hardships by the water users. So I fully understand what can happen and we do need to address it today and develop a plan that preserves, protects and conserves trust resources.

But, what really confuses me is that tribal members everywhere can oppose trust resource development, but yet they will stand in line at the post office to pick up their economic and trust resource per capita payments. They completely forget that they are against this type of development, but they continue to collect bonus, royalty and per capita payments that are a benefit from income deriving from the very thing they are against.

When I read about folks who are against what they oppose, the best statement they can make is to refuse these payments. How hypocritical is it to speak against these developments and then stand in line with others to get your per capita payment. Sure, some per capita payments are for past claims, Cobell payments, etc., but they should oppose those payments which are tied to development and should be stamped "return to sender."