Kayenta Pumped Storage Hydropower, more risks than rewards
By Adrian Herder, Community Organizer, Tó Nizhóní Ání
KAYENTA, AZ – On Tuesday, March 17, 2026, members of Tó Nizhóní Ání (TNA) traveled to Kayenta, AZ to learn about the latest proposed Kayenta Pumped Storage Hydropower (Kayenta PSH) project.
Nature and People First (NPF) are the developers pushing pumped storage hydropower (PSH) on the Navajo Nation, particularly in the Black Mesa region. Pumped storage pumps water uphill during low electricity prices and then release it back downhill through generators when electricity prices are high, generating both electricity and revenue. This project is not to be confused with Hydrogen, which is a fuel and is also being pushed elsewhere on the Navajo Nation.
This public meeting will be the fourth presentation Tó Nizhóní Ání has witnessed from NPF and the biggest difference is, instead of presenting a proposed 6 reservoirs, they have broken down their massive project into what looks like 3 separate projects of 2 reservoirs each. Probably to make it easier to imagine by the public. Otherwise, very little has changed in terms of tactics used to gain support. What was troublesome was that the developers don’t seem to grasp the complex history of the area and the drastic impacts extractive industry has had on the groundwater.
As the presentation concluded, impacted community members were left with more questions than answers for the proposed project. While the concept of generating power by moving water up and down was straightforward enough, the developer muddled up the project mentioning things like, they will only take a very small percentage from the total Coconino Aquifer (c-aquifer), and they will have water for times of forest fires, this project will prevent broken families, and they will make the land more productive than it is now. In addition, the developer failed to inform the communities where this energy is going and why. One impacted community member asked, “Who would purchase that power, do you have a purchase agreement?” Another question “This energy that’s created, it has to be put on a transmission line, where would the substation be, have you identified it yet?”
Transmission lines are critical for energy development; most energy projects today are developed in close proximity to existing lines. For the proposed hydropower projects on Black Mesa, they are far from any existing lines. The bottom line is, transmission lines are not cheap, and this developer will need transmission lines that don’t exist.
The c-aquifer was mentioned as the water source for this project for its “low quality.” Nature and People First developer, Denis Payre stated that there would be 10 wells drilled to supply the water for this project. What he did not mention was where the pumps/wells were going to be located and the rate of withdrawal for the project.
To get to the c-aquifer, the company would have to drill past the Navajo Aquifer (n-aquifer). Constant pumping of groundwater was a key concern for impacted community members, but Mr. Payre stated during his presentation that there is a vast quantity of c-aquifer available and proceeded to show data that illustrated the average contributions of runoff to the Little Colorado River, which was unrelated data.
The c-aquifer recharge data Mr. Payre shared was misleading as it did not reflect the recharge in the project location but instead showed recharge to the entire aquifer. The developer also failed to include the groundwater use of his Chilchinbeto project. These projects would put further stress on the c-aquifer, detrimental to the surrounding communities and other aquifers.
Mr. Payre was bold to offer water from the reservoirs to help with wildfires in the area. Investors and utilities would not sacrifice a few days of energy production for wildfire suppression. Especially during the hottest times of the year, when AC is needed, is also when wildfires are most prominent.
Grazing permit holders shared valuable concerns for the need to continue ranching; those needs , unfortunately, did not translate to the developer’s needs. Whether they realized that or not, the end goal for this project is to generate power and revenue. How much is this developer willing to spend on the community and grazing permit holders?
Over a million dollars was being proposed to benefit the permit holders who would relinquish their grazing rights for this project. Mr. Payre constantly reiterate “We’re going to go beyond our obligation.” It wasn’t clear who he was talking about, obligation to his buyer, obligation to the community, who? For a Nation that is still working through their water rights, and a community recovering from groundwater mining, it just sounded trivial.
While Denis thinks he is getting all the support he needs from grazing permit holders, the fact of the matter is the water that will be used for this project can’t be negotiated by permit holders alone. Everyone on and around Black Mesa relies on the stability of the groundwater. The layers of aquifers make up one hydrologic system and contrary to what people think when one gets overdrawn or depressurized, this has impacts to aquifers above and below.
Lastly, in the developer’s presentation and event flyer, they made it known that the Kayenta PSH project was “not another Peabody.” While we can all agree that this project will not be extracting coal. It will defiantly be a continuation of extracting something far more precious, nihito’ (our water).
During the meeting, members of Tó Nizhóní Ání heard two statements that brought back memories of engaging with Peabody Coal Company. The first was that the land would be returned in better condition than it was received. Secondly, the water used for this project will be mere cups in comparison to a large lake.
Black Mesa communities understand the resources and impacts by industry. Any project that proposes to use groundwater when it has been heavily impacted and is in a state of recovery should not be considered for continued industry use.
The Kayenta Chapter may be holding another Public Meeting in Kayenta, AZ, or they may go directly to a land withdraw resolution for this project. Either way, we as impacted communities need to band together for the protection of our groundwater.
