Jamie Gearhart
Environment and Politics
Section 01
Debate Paper 3: Should the Navajo Generating Station be closed within five years?
When construction of the Navajo Generating Station had begun in 1969, people were
already aware of its potential to release an enormous amount of pollution into the air. Today,
many are still debating whether the economic benefits provided by the power plant justify the
amount of emissions and toxins it produces. The main function of the Navajo Generating Station
is to produce enough power to pump trillions of gallons of water from the Colorado River across
336 miles in order to help cities across Arizona, like Phoenix and Tucson, to expand and support
life. Although many argue that the power plant serves a purpose that is essential for life and
growth in Arizona, many environmentalists cite the abhorrent amount of pollution and health
risks caused by the plant as a reason to overlook this argument. For example, the generating
station alone accounts for 29 percent of Arizona’s total emissions from energy generation. A few
other stakeholders, aside from environmentalists, include the owners of the generating station,
the people that work there, the people who mine the coal that powers the plant, the people that
live around the power plant and have to face the health risks caused by released toxins, and the
people that receive the water transported by the generating station. One issue that must be
addressed regarding the Navajo Generating Station is finding a way to compensate the people
who work for the plant (including coal miners) and whose livelihoods depend on the continuous
operation of the plant in the case that the plant is eventually shut down. Another question that
must be answered is whether it is actually reasonable for us to generate an enormous amount of
energy just to transport water hundreds of miles to a location where life wouldn’t be naturally
supported by the environment.
An article published by EarthJustice illustrates the reasons why we should support the
closing of the Navajo Generating Station. Firstly, the article states that the power plant is
“responsible for frequently polluted air that makes vistas hazy and unhealthy” in areas close to
the station. The article goes on to state that the toxic emissions produced by the plant “harm the
millions of visitors and residents who breathe it.” According to the article, shutting down the
generating station will not only provide health benefits for people who live in close proximity to
the station, but it will also provide the needed catalyst to begin investing in “much-needed
renewable energy projects…that will directly benefit the local communities and tribes.” To
further support the argument that the Navajo Generating Station must be closed due to the health
risks that it poses, the article states that if the coal plant continues to operate at the same pace for
the next several decades, “it will cost between $13 million and $34 million per year in public
health impacts within the state of Arizona alone.” (“Clean Air, National Park Advocates
Challenge EPA Failure to Protect Grand Canyon from Navajo Generating Station Pollution”)
Although the article brought up many supporting points regarding the health impacts
associated with the generating station, it failed to mention how the people who work at the
station would be affected if the plant shut down. In order to fully support the argument that the
plant must be shut down and that doing so will provide benefits for many people, the article
should have mentioned how these people, who depend on the income they receive from working
at the power plant to support their families, will be able to provide for themselves if the plant
does close in the future. The article also failed to discuss the point that even though several
Native American tribes suffer health risks from the toxins produced by the plant, many of them
also receive benefits from its continuous operation since the plant provides them with jobs,
energy, and water to consume and utilize.
In an article released by NMPolitics, it argues that we should be against the closing of the
Navajo Generating Station because it provides “good jobs…and economic independence for
Native Americans… [who] hold nearly 85 percent of its jobs.” The article also cites specific
figures to support this, stating that “The plant and the nearby Kayenta mine, which produces the
plant’s coal, provide jobs for 850 Native Americans. Total wages and benefits to the Native
employees are nearly $100 million a year.” The article also states that the plant generates several
hundred thousand dollars per year in scholarship funds and that it helps to pay local property
taxes which “primarily go to schools in the region.” Lastly, the article further supports the
argument that the jobs provided by the power plant are an essential benefit for the Native
America people since “some 43 percent of people on the Navajo Nation live below the poverty
level, and 42 percent are unemployed.” (Haussamen)
While the article provided a strong argument regarding the economic benefits that the
power plant provides, it did not address the question of whether or not these benefits justify the
large amount of health risks posed by the plant due to the amount of toxins it releases into the air.
Also, the article failed to mention the issue of climate change and how the exorbitant amount of
carbon emissions produced by the power plant contribute to its effects. Even though closing
down the power plant would take away many economic benefits, aren’t the destruction of the
environment and, quite possibly, the annihilation of the entire human race more pressing issues?
The article also refrained from discussing the personal views that the Native Americans have
towards the generating station. Even though they may receive a large number of jobs from the
power plant, many Native Americans are frustrated with the fact that mining the coal causes
toxic pollution in their pure water sources and destroys ancient burial grounds that are sacred to
them.
An article published by the Navajo Times covers both sides of the debate concerning the
Navajo Generating Station. Within the first few paragraphs of the article, it states that
“Eventually, the plant must transition to sustainable technology, preferably solar.” This statement
touches upon the point made in the article supporting the closing of the generating station which
stated that doing so would encourage people to begin investing renewable energy projects that
would provide health benefits for the people that live around the power plant. The article also
mentions the position of Navajo environmental groups concerned with this debate, stating that
“pollution from the plant is responsible for high levels of asthma and respiratory infections in the
area, and the devastation [these groups] say is caused by mining coal from Black Mesa to fuel it
is not worth the jobs it creates.” This, again, supports the argument made by the first article
which stated that the negative health impacts caused by the power plant are a suffice reason to
shut it down. The article later discusses a different view on the issue, stating that
“environmentalists are not fully aware of the importance of Navajo Generation Station to the
tribe…The plant has put a lot of people through college.” This view supports the argument made
in the second article which stated that the Navajo Generating Station cannot be shut down due to
the fact that it provides educational and economic benefits for the tribes that live around to the
plant.