Grand Canyon Development Eyed By Navajo Nation

[kristopher]

Grand Canyon Development Eyed By Navajo Nation
By FELICIA FONSECA 03/24/12 01:02 PM ET


FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. -- Generations of Navajo families have grazed livestock on a remote but spectacular mesa that overlooks the confluence of the Colorado and Little Colorado rivers. This is the East Rim of the majestic Grand Canyon – the last with no significant development.

But ancestral tradition and the tranquility of the landscape could be subject to change if the Navajo government's plans are realized for a resort and aerial tramway that would ferry tourists from cliff tops to water's edge.

The vast 27,000 square-mile Navajo reservation abuts Grand Canyon National Park, and tribal leaders say they're losing out on tourist dollars and jobs for their people by leaving the land undeveloped. Navajo President Ben Shelly recently signed a nonbinding agreement that lists the gondola, a restaurant, a half-mile river walk, a resort hotel and spa and RV park among the attractions of a proposed development that he says will bring up to $70 million a year in revenue to the tribe and 2,000 jobs to the impoverished reservation.

"We want people from all over the world to visit Navajo land and the Grand Canyon," Shelly said. "We have many of the world's wonders in our midst."

True enough, but the National Park Service already is voicing objections to ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/25/grand-canyon-development-_n_1378035.html?ref=topbar

[amerikat]

1. People from all over the world already go to the Grand Canyon.

A resort here is a bad idea. I think what they need is a way to bring people into the
interior parts of the reservation. So many great things to see there, Monument Valley, Antelope Canyon, The Hopi Reservation
(lies within the Navajo Nation) just to name a few. Yá'át'ééh

[RobertEarl]

2. Build it

The canyon is so vast that one little spot being taken to make it easier for humans to camp there isn't going to really harm the canyon.

Most people just walk to the edge, go wow, and turn around and go back. BTW I sat on the rim for at least 30 hours in three trips.

[pscot]

3. That's always the rationale, isn't it?

The resource is so vast, what we do to it won't even be noticed. Fish, trees, topsoil, the aquifer; developers just want a little piece of it. What harm could possibly result from that?

[RobertEarl]

4. Right

We should all live in a cave and never drive or go on vacation or do anything,

The Canyon is not really a depletable resource. This development would cause a pretty minor impact to its overall health. Beaches, and swamps and rivers and wetlands, etc. are greatly impacted and are, relatively much worse places to develop, but by God we have, haven't we.

Are you complaining about all those, too?

[pscot]

5. Invoking god

doesn't sanctify what we've done. Big difference between stewardship and pillaging.

[kristopher]

6. What is your response to the development of wetlands etc?

Your post was not really responsive to RobertEarls point. Would you be kind enough to address the meat of his comment?

[pscot]

7. Replacing wetlands with housing developments

or industrial parks is environmental vandalism; stupid and criminal. Wetlands are far more valuable than anything we put in their place.

[kristopher]

8. And how do you relate that to the OP?

...where water is a significant, can't-get-around-it limiting factor for large scale development?

[pscot]

9. Well. I thought I was agreeing with you

But if you'd rather I didn't, I'm cool with that.