> They have too much power? On their land?

It's not their sovereign land, except in the sense that the entirety of the US is 'their land.' Tribes are sovereign over their own land and BAJAA does not change that. It is common for tribes to litigate things outside of their own lands and administered by/for the public, for instance this landmark case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Nation_v._United_States...

They used Religious Freedom Restoration Act in that case, and didn't even win.

Some cases that have won use RFRA to legally discriminate against minorities by Evangelical Christians. Native Americans bring lawsuits based on their religion over a sacred site and reclaimed water, just like anyone else can, and yet losing "this landmark case" somehow proves they have too much power?

I didn’t say they have too much power, I said that the land at question is not tribal land, it is federal lands.

[delayed]

What about my religious freedom to not give a shit about their primitive superstitions and what land they consider sacred?

[delayed]

No, it does work that way. My freedom of religion means I don't have to respect their bullshit superstitions. They can declare arbitrary pieces of land "sacred" all day long, but they have no right to stop the rest of us from building roads and pipelines right through it anyway.

> No, it does work that way.

It really does though. And you are misattributing the why you don't have to give shit about their "bullshit superstitions". Are you from the US? This is taught in grade school...

My point is that this is not native sovereign land and BAJAA is more about clearing away the numerous types of lawsuits that all sorts of groups can bring that hamstring development in federal lands. The RFRA case is one such type of lawsuit, although not impacted by BAJAA (too bad, the RFRA is a terrible law in my veiw).

> Thats the whole point(major point) of how this country was founded, religious freedom from the government.

I would be very happy if we repealed the RFRA and returned to the well established case law for fundamental 1st amendment protections.

Their lawyers took the religious objection path perhaps because that might carry greater weight than an environmental protection argument might- but at its root this has the look of a watershed issue.

Would you personally be A-OK with tonnes of treated sewerage being dumped upshed from your drinking water extraction point?

Responsible elders / leaders are expected to to do their best to slow roll or stop such changes being made - once it becomes routine its much harder to stop as problems present.