[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1157, ``SANTA YNEZ BAND OF CHUMASH MISSION INDIANS LAND TRANSFER
ACT OF 2015''; H.R. 2386, ``UNRECOGNIZED SOUTHEAST ALASKA NATIVE
COMMUNITIES RECOGNITION AND COMPENSATION ACT''; AND H.R. 2538,
``LYTTON RANCHERIA HOMELANDS ACT OF 2015''
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN, INSULAR AND
ALASKA NATIVE AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-11
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
95-136 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Louie Gohmert, TX Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Doug Lamborn, CO Jim Costa, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
John Fleming, LA CNMI
Tom McClintock, CA Niki Tsongas, MA
Glenn Thompson, PA Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Jared Huffman, CA
Dan Benishek, MI Raul Ruiz, CA
Jeff Duncan, SC Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Matt Cartwright, PA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Norma J. Torres, CA
Jeff Denham, CA Debbie Dingell, MI
Paul Cook, CA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Bruce Westerman, AR Lois Capps, CA
Garret Graves, LA Jared Polis, CO
Dan Newhouse, WA Vacancy
Ryan K. Zinke, MT
Jody B. Hice, GA
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Thomas MacArthur, NJ
Alexander X. Mooney, WV
Cresent Hardy, NV
Vacancy
Jason Knox, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
Sarah Parker, Democratic Deputy Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN, INSULAR AND ALASKA NATIVE AFFAIRS
DON YOUNG, AK, Chairman
RAUL RUIZ, CA, Ranking Democratic Member
Dan Benishek, MI Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Doug LaMalfa, CA CNMI
Jeff Denham, CA Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Paul Cook, CA Norma J. Torres, CA
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, June 17, 2015......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Capps, Hon. Lois, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 21
Prepared statement on H.R. 1157.......................... 23
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 6
Prepared statement on H.R. 2538.......................... 20
LaMalfa, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 5
Ruiz, Hon. Raul, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alaska.................................................. 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Armenta, Vincent, Chairman, Santa Ynez Band of Chumash
Mission Indians, Santa Ynez, California.................... 28
Prepared statement on H.R. 1157.......................... 30
Barlow, Leo, Representative for the Community of Wrangell,
Alaska, on behalf of the Southeast Alaska Landless
Corporation, Juneau, Alaska................................ 42
Prepared statement on H.R. 2386.......................... 44
Black, Michael, Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC................. 24
Prepared statement on H.R. 1157, H.R. 2386, and H.R. 2538 26
Lavagnino, Steve, Fifth District County Supervisor, Santa
Barbara County, California................................. 39
Prepared statement on H.R. 1157.......................... 41
Mejia, Margie, Chairperson, Lytton Rancheria, Santa Rosa,
California................................................. 46
Prepared statement on H.R. 2538.......................... 47
Miyasato, Mona, Executive Officer, County of Santa Barbara,
on behalf of the County of Santa Barbara Board of
Supervisors, Santa Barbara, California..................... 32
Prepared statement on H.R. 1157.......................... 33
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 70
Submissions for the Record by Representative Huffman
Memorandum of Understanding between the County of Sonoma
and the Lytton Rancheria of California................. 9
Gorin, Hon. Susan, Sonoma County Board of Supervisors,
Prepared statement of.................................. 10
Memorandum of Understanding between the Windsor Fire
Protection District and the Lytton Rancheria of
California............................................. 11
Windsor Unified School District, Letter in support of
H.R. 2538.............................................. 18
Map of Lytton Fee Owned Property to be Taken into Trust.. 19
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1157, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR TO TAKE LAND INTO TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF CHUMASH MISSION INDIANS, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES, ``SANTA YNEZ BAND OF CHUMASH MISSION INDIANS LAND
TRANSFER ACT OF 2015''; H.R. 2386, TO PROVIDE FOR THE
RECOGNITION OF CERTAIN NATIVE COMMUNITIES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF
CERTAIN CLAIMS UNDER THE ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``UNRECOGNIZED SOUTHEAST ALASKA NATIVE
COMMUNITIES RECOGNITION AND COMPENSATION ACT''; AND H.R. 2538,
TO TAKE LANDS IN SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, INTO TRUST AS PART
OF THE RESERVATION OF THE LYTTON RANCHERIA OF CALIFORNIA, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``LYTTON RANCHERIA HOMELANDS ACT OF 2015''
----------
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:02 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Don Young
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Young, Benishek, Gosar, LaMalfa,
Denham, Cook, Radewagen; Ruiz, and Torres.
Also Present: Representatives Huffman and Capps.
Mr. Young. The committee will come to order.
The subcommittee today is hearing testimony on the
following bills: H.R. 1157, by Doug LaMalfa, the ``Santa Ynez
Band of Chumash Mission Indians Land Transfer Act of 2015'';
H.R. 2386, by myself, the ``Unrecognized Southeast Alaska
Native Communities Recognition and Compensation Act''; and H.R.
2538, by Mr. Huffman from California, the ``Lytton Rancheria
Homelands Act of 2015.''
I would also like to mention that two local governments
were invited to testify on H.R. 2538, the Sonoma County Board
of Supervisors and the Town of Windsor. Both were unable to be
here today. I am somewhat concerned we are unable to have an
open dialog with all local stakeholders. I would like to
continue in an open dialog with the bill's sponsor, as well as
any local stakeholders who may be impacted by the bill.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chairman and Ranking Minority
Member, Vice Chairman, and designee of the Ranking Member. This
will allow us to hear from our witnesses who have traveled to
testify on these legislative packages. Therefore, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members' opening statements will be
made part of the hearing record if they are submitted to the
Subcommittee clerk by 5:00 p.m. today, or at the close of the
hearing, whichever comes first.
[No response.]
Mr. Young. Hearing no objection, so ordered. I also ask
unanimous consent that the gentlelady from California and the
gentleman from California, Mrs. Capps and Mr. Huffman, will be
allowed to join us on the dais to be recognized and participate
in today's hearing.
[No response.]
Mr. Young. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF ALASKA
Mr. Young. As I mentioned, the subcommittee would hear
testimony today on three bills.
H.R. 1157 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
place approximately 1,400 acres of land commonly known as the
Camp 4 Property into trust for the benefit of the Santa Ynez
Band of Chumash Mission Indians with Santa Barbara County. The
bill is sponsored by my colleague, Mr. LaMalfa.
The second bill on our agenda, H.R. 2386, will provide
redress to Alaska Natives from the communities of Haines,
Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell. These natives
were denied an opportunity to establish villages or urban
corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA) in 1971. Natives who enrolled in these communities did
become at-large shareholders in the regional corporation for
Southeast Alaska, but were denied rights to land and local
resources that other villages and urban corporations received
under ANCSA.
ANCSA prohibits these communities from obtaining an
administrative or judicial solution, so legislation is
necessary. My bill will recognize the five communities under
ANCSA, establish urban corporations for the communities, and
provide a process for newly established urban corporations to
negotiate with the Department of the Interior for selection of
surface estates of Federal lands that would be conveyed to the
corporations as compensation--the same amount of land that
other native villages received under ANCSA.
The final bill on our agenda today is H.R. 2538, which
would direct the Interior Secretary to take into trust
approximately 511 acres of non-contiguous fee land owned by the
Lytton Rancheria, adjacent to the Town of Windsor in Sonoma
County, California.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Don Young, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs
As I have mentioned already, the subcommittee will hear testimony
today on three bills: H.R. 1157, H.R. 2386, and H.R. 2538.
H.R. 1157 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to place
approximately 1,400 acres of land, commonly known as the Camp 4
property, into trust for the benefit of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash
Mission Indians within Santa Barbara County. The bill is sponsored by
my colleague, Mr. LaMalfa.
The second bill on our agenda, H.R. 2386, would provide redress to
Alaska Natives from the communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg,
Tenakee, and Wrangell.
These natives were denied the opportunity to establish villages or
urban corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA) process in 1971. Natives who enrolled in these communities did
become at-large shareholders in the regional corporation for Southeast
Alaska, Sealaska, but were denied rights to land and local resources
that other village and urban corporations received under ANCSA.
ANCSA prohibits these communities from obtaining an administrative
or judicial solution, so legislation is necessary.
My bill would recognize the five communities under ANCSA, establish
urban corporations for the communities, and provide a process for the
newly established urban corporations to negotiate with the Department
of the Interior for selecting surface estates of Federal land that
would be conveyed to the corporations as compensation--The same amount
of land that other native villages received under ANCSA.
The final bill on our agenda today, H.R. 2538, would direct the
Interior Secretary to take into trust approximately 511 acres of non-
contiguous fee land owned by the Lytton Rancheria adjacent to the town
of Windsor in Sonoma County, California.
______
Mr. Young. Now I will recognize the Ranking Member for his
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL RUIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Dr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As always, I want to
thank our witnesses here today for taking time to help us
understand your views on these bills.
Today we will hear testimony on three bills: H.R. 1157,
introduced by our colleague, Rep. LaMalfa, will authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to take 1,400 acres of property in
the Santa Ynez Valley in California into trust for the Santa
Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. The Chumash have longstanding
cultural and spiritual ties to the property, which is located
just 2 miles from the current Santa Ynez Reservation.
Currently, only about 17 percent of the Tribe's members are
able to reside on the reservation, due to the fact that the
natural terrain is unsuitable for further housing development.
Therefore, the Chumash would like the 1,400-acre property,
which they already own, to be taken into trust so that they may
construct 143 single family homes for their members. The Tribe
has no intention of using these lands for gaming, and the
legislation includes a specific provision to the effect.
H.R. 2538, introduced by my friend and colleague, Rep.
Huffman, will take approximately 511 acres in Sonoma County,
California, into trust as part of the reservation of the Lytton
Rancheria. Most of us, especially those Members from
California, are aware of the Federal Government's sad history
in dealing with the Rancherias, including the unjust
termination of their status in the late 1950s. With the
exception of a small parcel of land that Congress provided for
gaming in San Pablo, the Lyttons have been left essentially
landless and without a reservation since 1961. The new land,
which the Tribe holds in fee status, will ensure that they will
finally have a permanently protected homeland on which they can
plan for future generations.
Furthermore, I understand the Tribe has worked closely with
Sonoma County to reach an agreement that protects the sovereign
rights of the Tribe, while sharing any burdens of development.
This is a shining example of how tribal government-to-
government relationships can create positive outcomes for all
involved.
The third bill, H.R. 2386, introduced by Chairman Young,
will designate five Alaskan communities as urban corporations
under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), and
grant each corporation 23,040 acres of public lands. While I
empathize with the concerns of the villages, I understand that
there are serious concerns that enactment of these legislations
could have sweeping and harmful impacts to the forest and the
economy of southeastern Alaska. I am looking forward to
listening to have a deeper understanding, so that we can get to
the bottom of this.
In closing, let me again thank our witnesses for appearing,
thank the Members who have come to testify, and thank all the
staff who have worked very hard on these bills. I look forward
to your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ruiz follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Raul Ruiz, Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs
Thank you Mr. Chairman. As always, I want to thank our witnesses
here today for taking time to testify and to help us understand your
views on these bills.
Today, we will hear testimony on three bills. H.R. 1157, introduced
by our colleague Rep. LaMalfa, will authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to take 1,400 acres of property in the Santa Ynez Valley in
California into trust for the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. The
Chumash have long-standing cultural and spiritual ties to the property,
which is located just 2 miles from the current Santa Ynez Reservation.
Currently, only about 17 percent of the Tribe's members are able to
reside on the reservation, due to the fact that the natural terrain is
unsuitable for further housing development. Therefore, the Chumash
would like the 1,400-acre property to be taken into trust so that they
may construct 143 single-family homes for their members. The tribe has
no intention of using these lands for gaming, and the legislation
includes a specific provision to this effect.
H.R. 2538, introduced by my friend and colleague Rep. Huffman, will
take approximately 511 acres in Sonoma County, California, into trust
as part of the reservation of the Lytton Rancheria. Most of us,
especially those Members from California, are aware of the Federal
Government's sad history in dealing with the Rancherias, including the
unjust termination of their status in the late 1950s. With the
exception of a small parcel of land that Congress provided for gaming
in San Pablo, the Lyttons have been left essentially landless and
without a reservation since 1961. The new land, which the Tribe holds
in fee status, will ensure that they will finally have a permanently
protected homeland on which they can plan for future generations.
Furthermore, I understand the Tribe has worked closely with Sonoma
County to reach an agreement that protects the sovereign rights of the
Tribe, while sharing any burdens of development. This is a shining
example of how tribal government-to-government relationships can create
positive outcomes for all involved.
The third bill, H.R. 2386, introduced by Chairman Young, will
designate five Alaskan communities as ``Urban Corporations'' under the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), and grant each corporation
23,040 acres of public lands. While I empathize with the concerns of
the villages, I understand that there are serious concerns that
enactment of this legislation could have sweeping and harmful impacts
to the forest and the economy of southeastern Alaska.
In closing, let me again thank our witnesses for appearing, and I
look forward to your testimony.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
______
Mr. Young. Thank you. I would like to recognize the sponsor
of the legislation, Mr. LaMalfa, if he has an opening
statement.
Mr. LaMalfa. I do.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LaMALFA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members,
and Mr. Ruiz, thank you for your comments on H.R. 1157. I
appreciate the strong support that the committee is showing
here today. So thank you.
I am pleased to present H.R. 1157 with, again, 10
cosponsors, 8 Californians and 4 Californians that are members
of this committee, subcommittee. This will direct the Secretary
of the Interior to take land into trust to enable the Santa
Ynez Band of Chumash to address a shortage of housing for their
members.
The Tribe, to its credit, has used its own resources to
purchase land to meet these housing needs, has a demonstrated
presence in the area dating back to the earliest European
contact with California Indians, and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs recently announced that it would approve the Tribe's
application to take the land into trust, administratively.
Unfortunately, anti-growth obstructionists have already
threatened to stall this process with lawsuits.
The recorded history of the Chumash in the area reaches
back to the earliest arrival of Europeans in California. When
Spanish explorer Cabrillo landed on the shores of California in
1542, it was the Chumash he encountered. Beginning in the early
1800s, the Chumash became wards of the Spanish mission in Santa
Ynez, which included the Camp 4 property, and later the Mexican
Governor granted lands to Chumash members that included the
Camp 4 property.
The Mission Relief Act of 1891 created a commission which
found that the Tribe continued to reside in the Santa Ynez and
Camp 4 area, though only 99 acres, mostly unusable creek bed,
were ultimately taken into trust. The reservation grew through
small additions to about 130 acres today, and is home to 17
percent of tribal members and lineal descendants, lacks any
additional space for homes, lacks safe access and escape,
especially in emergencies--emergency equipment--and is at the
risk of flooding.
Chumash have long worked to provide for the needs of their
members without relying upon outside assistance. In the 1960s
the Tribe raised funds through a number of creative means to
provide the reservation with running water for the first time.
In a continuation of this self-sufficiency, the Tribe purchased
the Camp 4 property in 2010 with the intent of addressing the
housing needs of its members and lineal descendants.
Unfortunately, the Chumash's efforts to secure housing for the
members--efforts, which must again be noted are undertaken with
the Tribe's own resources--have been hindered by anti-growth
extremists and frivolous lawsuits.
One local anti-group has gone so far as to question the
legitimacy of the Tribe's federally-acknowledged status and its
existing reservation, despite records of the Tribe's presence
in the area dating back over 470 years. Though the Tribe has
repeatedly attempted to work with the County to reach a
mutually agreeable arrangement to address any impact to the
local governments, a vocal minority of residents have persuaded
the portions of the county government to refuse to even
negotiate with the Tribe.
Some opponents claim that the trust proposal would reduce
the county property tax revenues, ignoring both the fact that
the County currently receives just $83,000 from the property
annually, and the Tribe's initial offer of $1 million each year
to offset any impacts to infrastructure or services.
Other opposition arguments are equally misleading. Claims
that the proposal would be too densely developed, which ignores
an adjacent housing subdivision, which is actually more dense
than the Chumash proposal.
Despite this continued mistreatment, the Tribe strives to
be a good neighbor and support local governments, funding
multiple full-time firefighter and paramedic positions, and
recently a new ladder fire engine.
Again, the Chumash intend only to build housing for their
members, and the measure includes a prohibition on gaming in
the measure, ensuring that no casino will be built on the
property.
When did it become acceptable to obstruct the efforts of
historically mistreated groups to provide themselves with
housing, one of the most fundamental human needs? Prior
congresses and previous presidents have worked to right the
generations of wrong committed against American Indians. They
would be appalled by the actions of those attempting to prevent
the Chumash from meeting their most basic needs of their
members on lands that their ancestors occupied for millennia.
Additionally, on a very basic level, I firmly believe that
any American family should have the right to build a home for
their own purpose on land that they own, within reason.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, the Constitution
places great responsibility to redress relations with Indian
tribes with the Congress. A number of laws require that tribes
are ceded the support of the Federal Government for education,
health care, and housing. Chumash have strived to address these
needs with their own resources, an effort that every member of
the subcommittee should support.
While the BIA has indicated that it intends to take the
property into trust administratively, opposition groups have
already announced their intent, through the courts, to obstruct
the administrative process indefinitely. It is imperative that
Congress act to ensure that the Tribe is able to address its
needs in a timely fashion, and I urge and appreciate your
support of this bill. Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Young. I thank the gentleman and recognize Mr. Huffman
to make a statement on his legislation.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
start by thanking you and Ranking Member Ruiz for including the
Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2015 in today's hearing. I
also want to welcome the Chairperson of the Lytton Rancheria,
Margie Mejia, who is here to speak in support of the bill
today.
This bill, which I am pleased to introduce with my friend,
Congressman Jeff Denham, takes lands already owned by the
Lytton Tribe in Sonoma County into trust for housing and other
non-gaming purposes, as part of the Lytton Rancheria
Reservation.
In 1958, this tribe, which was federally recognized as a
Pomo Indian Tribe, lost its homeland when it was terminated by
the Federal Government. The Tribe was restored in 1991 by the
courts to federally-recognized status, but the restoration did
not include restoring the Tribe's reservation on its ancestral
homeland.
Now, I represent lots of tribes, about 30, which I think
makes me second only to Chairman Young in terms of the number
of tribes. And many of them have land to trust issues in my
district. One thing I tell them all so that I can be very
consistent is that I need for them to work things out with
their local government partners. I cannot introduce bills that
are at odds with my local government colleagues.
So, an important condition of my introducing this bill was
that the Tribe negotiate agreements with its local government
neighbors to address and mitigate potential concerns, including
the strong opposition to new casinos in Sonoma County. They
have done that. The agreements that have been negotiated--and
in some cases there are some processes still underway--will
provide certainty for all parties, and provide a model for
functional, respectful, productive relationships between local
governments and federally-recognized tribes.
This bill ensures that the Lytton Tribe, after many long
years, can finally return to a homeland, and it does it in a
partnership that works for its local government neighbors. The
County of Sonoma and the Tribe have entered into a Memorandum
of Agreement on March 10, 2015, and Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the resolution signed by the Sonoma
County Board of Supervisors be entered into the record.
[No response.]
Mr. Young. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Huffman. The Chairperson of the Sonoma County Board of
Supervisors, Susan Gorin, has also written a statement for the
record, and I would ask unanimous consent that that be entered
into the record at this time, too.
[No response.]
Mr. Young. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Huffman. I would like to highlight just a few lines
from Supervisor Gorin's statement. She says, ``The Tribe and
the County worked together to accurately identify the off-
reservation impacts and, as the project changed over time, to
build a framework that met the parties' respective interests.''
``Enactment of H.R. 2538 will re-establish an historic
homeland for the Tribe in Sonoma County, while setting a course
for a constructive intergovernmental relationship and
addressing community concerns regarding gaming.''
The town of Windsor is still working through a cooperative
process with the Tribe, which will include some public
proceedings. While that is happening, I am pleased to note that
two of the affected local agencies in Windsor have already
reached agreements with the Tribe covering their interests.
The Lytton Rancheria has entered a separate MOU with the
Windsor Fire Protection District to provide emergency services
to the Tribe.
I ask unanimous consent that that agreement be entered into
the record, Mr. Chairman.
[No response.]
Mr. Young. Without objection.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. And the Tribe has entered a
Memorandum of Agreement with the Windsor Unified School
District to prepare for and mitigate the increase in school-
aged children who would move into the proposal tribal housing.
I also ask unanimous consent that that agreement be entered
into the record.
[No response.]
Mr. Young. How many more are you going to put into the
record?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Young. I mean this is one way to have a long
statement----
Mr. Huffman. I know, but I am done at that point.
Mr. Young. Without objection.
Mr. Huffman. Mr. Ruiz is showing you pictures of his
children, isn't he?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Young. It is a little more interesting.
Mr. Huffman. I hear you.
Last, Mr. Chair--I actually do have one more unanimous
consent request.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Huffman. It is that we enter the pictures of Mr. Ruiz's
children into the record.
No. In seriousness, it is that we enter the map referenced
in my bill into the record.
[No response.]
Mr. Young. Without objection.
[The submissions for the record by Mr. Huffman follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma,
State of
California, Authorizing the Chair to Sign a Memorandum of Agreement
between the County of Sonoma and the Lytton Rancheria of California
Regarding Development of Tribal Homelands in Sonoma County.
Whereas, Sonoma County has a government-to-government relationship
with all five federally recognized tribes in the County, respects their
tribal sovereignty, and understands the significance of their status as
federally recognized tribes; and
Whereas, the County has a long history of advocating for a thorough
environmental review and appropriate mitigation of any environmental
impacts of tribal development projects that otherwise would be borne by
County residents; and
Whereas, Lytton Rancheria of California is a federally-recognized
Indian Tribe whose traditional lands lie within Sonoma County; and
Whereas, the Tribe is currently seeking to have lands placed into
federal trust status to reestablish a Tribal homeland and to diversify
its tribal economy; and
Whereas, the Tribe has proposed that the federal government take
into trust 14 parcels consisting of 124.12 acres of land for the
development of a residential community, a community center and
associated facilities (Residential Development Project); and
Whereas, the Tribe is seeking proposed federal legislation to place
into trust approximately 500 acres of land that includes the
Residential Development Project; and
Whereas, it is anticipated that the Tribe will in the future seek
to place additional lands into federal trust status; and
Whereas, the Tribe and the County have negotiated an agreement to
address issues including gaming, potential off-site environmental
impacts, and possible mitigation measures regarding the Residential
Development Project and other potential Tribal development, consistent
with the Tribe's sovereignty and applicable law; and
Whereas, the Agreement addresses the potential impacts of any
present and future trust land acquisitions by the federal government
for the benefit of the Tribe, while at the same time allowing the Tribe
to reestablish its homeland and exercise its authority as a sovereign
government; and
Whereas, the Residential Development Project and other potential
Tribal development are not County projects and are not subject to the
discretionary approval of the County, and, absent this Agreement, the
County has limited opportunity to influence mitigation measures or seek
compensation for adverse environmental impacts; and
Whereas, the Tribe has reached separate agreements with the Windsor
Unified School District and Windsor Fire Protection District, and is
negotiating with the Town of Windsor toward an agreement regarding
water and sewer services.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Chair is hereby authorized
to sign the Memorandum of Agreement between the County of Sonoma and
the Lytton Rancheria of California labeled Fee to Trust Lands (March
10, 2015).
Be It Further Resolved that entry of the Memorandum of Agreement is
not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. By
approving, executing and performing the Agreement, the County has not
and is not, making any commitment to issue a lease, permit, license,
certificate, or other entitlement for use, or develop, construct or
improve any facilities or cause any other physical change in the
environment.
Be It Further Resolved that the original copy of the Memorandum of
Agreement shall be kept by the Clerk of the Board. This document may be
found at the office of the Clerk of the Board, 575 Administration
Drive, Room 100-A, Santa Rosa, California 95403.
Supervisors:
Rabbitt: Aye Zane: Aye Gore: Aye Carrillo: Aye
Gorin: Aye
Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 0
So Ordered.
______
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Susan Gorin, Chairperson, Sonoma
County Board of Supervisors, Sonoma County, California on H.R. 2538
On behalf of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors I would like to
thank Chairman Young, Ranking Member Ruiz, and members of the
subcommittee for the opportunity to submit this testimony in support of
H.R. 2538--the Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2015. My name is Susan
Gorin, and I serve as the Chairperson of the Sonoma County Board of
Supervisors. This bill, in many ways, exemplifies the type of
relationships between tribes and local governments that should be
promoted not just in individual legislation but as part of reform of
the fee-to-trust process. Several weeks ago my colleague, Sonoma County
Supervisor David Rabbitt, testified before this subcommittee on behalf
of the California State Association of Counties (``CSAC'') at its
oversight hearing on ``Inadequate Standards for Trust Land Acquisition
in the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934.''
A central point of CSAC's testimony was that the fee-to-trust
process is broken due, in part, to the lack of objective standards.
Supervisor Rabbitt urged that perhaps the single most important thing
Congress could do to reform the system would be to require that, in any
decision to take land into trust, there be a determination by the
Department of the Interior, that the off-reservation impacts related to
the acquisition are fully mitigated--both for the short and long term.
This would be demonstrated either by a voluntary intergovernmental
agreement between the tribe and local jurisdictions or a Secretarial
determination, after consultation with local governments, that the
projects would not have a significant off-reservation impact. As part
of his oral testimony Supervisor Rabbitt singled out the Sonoma County
-Lytton Rancheria Tribal Agreement (``MOA'') as an example of the type
of intergovernmental understandings that should be reached on fee-to-
trust projects.
Sonoma County is home to five federally-recognized tribes, two of
which operate casinos. While the County opposes gaming we nonetheless
have intergovernmental agreements with three of the five tribes
including the two who operate gambling facilities. We are also in
conversation with the other two tribes to work toward memorandums of
agreement with respect to pending fee-to-trust requests. We are
grateful for the efforts of Congressman Huffman and the leadership of
the Lytton Rancheria of California to engage in a fee-to-trust
consultation process where we could work together on a government-to-
government basis to insure that the Tribe's objectives were met and
that the off-reservation impacts were mitigated through a judicially
enforceable agreement.
This Agreement is the product of hard work among the parties and
started about 8 years ago with the County working with the Lytton Tribe
to address what was seen as inadequacies in the Environmental
Assessment of its initial trust proposal and community concerns
regarding gaming. The Tribe and County worked together to accurately
identify the off-reservation impacts and, as the project changed over
time, to build a framework that met the parties' respective interests.
We believe the Memorandum of Agreement approved by both the Tribe and
County, and which is supported in the legislation, is now a model for
the type of agreement that should be incentivized as part of much
needed fee-to-trust reform.
the legislation
From the County's perspective, H.R. 2538 has two critical
components. First, Section 5 insures that, in perpetuity, no gaming
will be conducted on the lands taken into trust. While the Lytton Tribe
did not have an intention to acquire the land for gaming purposes, the
legislative provision helps address community and government concern on
the issue for the long term. Second, Section 6 recognizes and protects
the Memorandum of Agreement from any potential interference from the
Department of the Interior. While the Tribe entered into this Agreement
as an exercise of its sovereignty, under 25 U.S.C. Section 81, the
Department of the Interior reserves the ability to substitute its
judgment for the Tribe's and, historically, has not played an active
role in facilitating these types of agreements. The legislation helps
insure that the mutually beneficial MOA will not be disturbed.
the memorandum of agreement
As CSAC stated in its prior testimony, having an intergovernmental
agreement between a county and a tribe to ensure that off-reservation
impacts are addressed is the type of critical demonstration that should
be in place before actions are taken to move land into trust--either
legislatively or administratively. While the Lytton Tribe and County
were in discussions previously, Congressman Huffman played a key role
in ensuring that the County (and CSAC) objectives of mitigating off
reservations impacts were met. The MOA does this in several important
respects by: (1) specifying current development limits and providing
for tailored mitigation; (2) setting land use parameters and providing
for environmental review of future tribal projects (and a conflict
resolution process if there is disagreement over necessary mitigation);
(3) prohibiting gaming (which provision is enhanced by the legislative
ban); (4) ensuring that applicable building and fire code standards are
met; and (5) making the Agreement and compliance with prior NEPA
identified mitigation measures judicially enforceable.
One of the unique provisions of the Agreement addresses another key
component of CSAC's fee-to-trust reform proposal, specifically:
``Changes in use should not be permitted without further reviews,
including environmental impacts, and application of relevant procedures
and limitations.'' As stated above, this was accomplished in the Lytton
Agreement by establishing some broad parameters for future use and
building in a voluntary, tribal driven, environmental review process,
the focus of which would be to determine any off-reservation impacts of
a proposed project. The MOA then put in place a negotiation and binding
dispute resolution process if the parties were not able to agree on
appropriate mitigation. This approach respects sovereignty while also
insuring that off-reservation impacts are adequately addressed.
conclusion
As part of the 1991 judicial settlement agreement which restored
the Lytton Tribe, the County promised to assist it in finding suitable
housing and economic development opportunities. Almost 25 years later
those promises finally can be kept through the passage of H.R. 2538 and
the resulting implementation of the Memorandum of Agreement. Enactment
of H.R. 2538 will reestablish an historic homeland for the Tribe in
Sonoma County while setting a course for a constructive
intergovernmental relationship and addressing community concerns
regarding gaming.
Thank you for the opportunity to share these views.
______
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
This Memorandum of Agreement (hereinafter ``Agreement'') is made
and entered into effective this 22nd day of May, 2012, (hereinafter
``Effective Date'') by and between the Windsor Fire Protection
District, a California Special District authorized by California Health
and Safety Code 13800, et seq. (hereinafter ``Fire District'') and the
Lytton Rancheria of California aka Lytton Band of Pomo Indians
(hereinafter ``Tribe'') (collectively hereinafter ``Parties'').
1. Recitals
1.1 WHEREAS, the Tribe is a federally-recognized Indian tribe
which occupies land within the Windsor Fire Protection District's
geographic boundary that will be held in the future by the federal
government, in trust for the benefit of the Tribe (``the Property'');
and
1.2 WHEREAS, the Tribe intends to develop a community of
residences and related structures on the Property to be occupied and
used by Tribal members (``the Project''); and
1.3 WHEREAS, the Fire District provides fire prevention and
emergency response services (``Services'') on the Property prior to the
Federal government's anticipated acquisition of the Property, in trust,
for the benefit of the Tribe; and
1.4 WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that the development of the
Project, and the increase in population and activity that will exist
when the Project is completed and the residences and other structures
are occupied, will require fire protection and emergency response
services; and
1.5 WHEREAS, the Tribe desires to have the Fire District continue
to provide Services to the Project; and
1.6 WHEREAS, the Parties recognize that the fire protection and
emergency service needs arising from the Project will increase the
burden on the Fire District's resources and that public safety is
enhanced by cooperation between the Tribe and Fire District to
alleviate the increased burden; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties mutually agree on the terms and
conditions as follows:
2. Cooperation Agreement
2.1 The Tribe and Fire District desire to cooperate on an inter-
governmental basis to promote public safety and provide the Tribe with
the opportunity to benefit, on a voluntary, non-jurisdictional basis
from the constructive suggestions Fire District personnel may have with
respect to fire safety and building issues, and to share expertise to
maximize public and emergency personnel safety.
3. Level of Services to be Provided
3.1 The Fire District shall provide the initial response to all
emergency incidents on the Project. Nothing in this Agreement is
intended to provide any special services to the Tribe that are not
provided equally throughout the Fire District's boundaries. The Fire
District, with its own resources and with the mutual aid services
provided to the Fire District under separate contracts, shall provide
the required initial response as outlined in paragraphs 3.2 through
3.6.
3.2 Any reported fire or fire alarm shall have the initial
response of one fire engine and any other additional personnel and
equipment deemed necessary by the Fire District to effectively mitigate
the emergency.
3.3 Any reported medical emergency shall have the initial response
of one vehicle appropriately equipped with medical equipment, supplies
and communications sufficient to render medical care in accordance with
the currently applicable Standard of Care applicable to the Fire
District. When required, the Fire District will request resources
including additional personnel and equipment and ground and/or air
transport to effectively mitigate the emergency.
3.4 Any reported rescue shall have the initial response of one
fire engine or rescue squad and any other additional personnel and
equipment deemed necessary by the Fire District to effectively mitigate
the emergency.
3.5 Any reported hazardous material incident shall have the
initial response deemed necessary by the Fire District to assist in
containing the emergency in accordance with the applicable hazardous
materials response plan, as determined by the Fire District.
3.6 Any reported miscellaneous response shall have a person in a
vehicle with appropriate equipment and communications to handle the
request.
4. Alleviation of Impact on Fire District
4.1 Impact on Fire District: The Parties recognize that the
increased need for Services to the Project will impact the Fire
District's daily operations. These impacts include the additional time
required of the paid and volunteer personnel responding to calls, the
additional wear and tear on equipment, the potential need for
additional part or fulltime fire fighting and clerical personnel, as
well as the possible need for capital improvements to accommodate these
needs.
4.2 Capital Improvement Contribution: The Tribe agrees to make an
annual capital contribution of Fifty-Thousand Dollars ($50,000) to be
used for equipment purchases.
4.3 Payment of Fees and Taxes: The Tribe agrees to pay the Fire
District the following payments that equate in general to the
mitigation fees, special taxes and ad valorem property taxes that would
be applicable to the Project if the Tribe was not a federally
recognized Indian Tribe and the Property was not held by the federal
government, in trust, for the benefit of the Tribe. Said fees may be
deposited in the Fire District's general fund and may be used for any
legitimate Fire District purpose:
4.3.1 The Tribe agrees to pay the Fire District prior to start of
construction of each single family house or cottage a fee of $750.00
per unit.
4.3.2 The Tribe agrees to pay the Fire District prior to the start
of construction of each multi-family unit a fee of $525.00 per multi-
family unit.
4.3.3 The Tribe agrees to pay the Fire District prior to the start
of construction a fee of $340.00 per 1,000 square feet of space for the
construction of the Community Center and Tribal Retreat.
4.3.4 The Tribe agrees to pay the Fire District pursuant to the
following schedule once the Property is taken into trust by the federal
government for the benefit of the Tribe:
First day of the first calendar year following the
date the Property is taken into trust.
$25,000.00
First day of the second calendar year following the
date the Property is taken into trust.
$30,000.00
First day of the third calendar year following the
date the Property is taken into trust.
$35,000.00
First day of the fourth calendar year following the
date the Property is taken into trust.
$40,000.00
First day of the fifth calendar year following the
date the Property is taken into trust.
$45,000.00
First day of the sixth calendar year following the
date the Property is taken into trust.
$50,000.00
First day of the seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth
calendar year following the date the Property is
taken into trust, and each year thereafter
during the term of this agreement.
$50,000.00
4.4 Funding for Additional Firefighter: The Tribe will pay the Fire
District an annual amount equal to $80,000.00, which is estimated to be
the full expense, including benefits, of one full-time paid
firefighter. Said funding will only occur beginning the first day of
the calendar year following the completion of any building structure on
the Property and only if the Town of Windsor has provided public sewer
and water to the Project.
4.5 [Intentionally Deleted]
4.6 Unforeseen Costs: The Parties recognize that during the term of
this Agreement potential significant unforeseen costs may arise which
are not contemplated by this Agreement, including, but not limited to,
expenses which would be necessary in order to respond to an unforeseen
emergency situation, examples include Acts of God, such as earthquake,
or acts of terrorism, among others, that could require specialized
equipment such as cranes, excavators, decontamination facilities,
specialists or other resources required to provide a level of service
above that specified in Section 3 of this Agreement. In such case, the
Fire District is not required to incur such expenses or undertake the
underlying activity. However, the Fire District may agree to incur such
expenses or undertake the underlying activity if the Tribe provides
assurance that it will reimburse the Fire District for such expenses,
and provides resources it has at its disposal for use by the Fire
District to address the situation. Such assurance must be in writing
unless the nature of the situation does not provide sufficient time to
receive written assurance, in which case the assurance may be provided
orally by a representative of the Tribe.
4.7 Accounting for Payments: The Fire District agrees to account
for all monies paid to the Fire District pursuant to this Memorandum of
Agreement, and shall provide the Tribe an annual accounting for all
payments made by the Tribe to the Fire District.
5. Building Design, Modifications and Construction
5.1 Adoption of Current Standards: The Tribe shall comply with the
most current adopted editions of the California Fire Code and the
current Fire Safety Standards Ordinance in effect at the time of
construction for the Project. The Parties acknowledge that the Fire
District does not have fire code enforcement authority on the Property
under Public Law 280 or any other applicable law, and nothing in this
Agreement is intended to or may be interpreted as effecting any change
in this area. Nonetheless, as part of government-to-government
consultations, the Fire District shall be permitted by the Tribe to
inspect and review Tribal plans and the Project, consistent with and
pursuant to the terms specified in this Agreement, provided that Fire
District inspections or review of residential projects shall take place
prior to occupancy.
5.2 Recommendations: Upon the request of the Tribe, the Fire
District shall provide recommendations to the Tribe regarding on-going
design, modifications, and construction of the Project. In order to
protect the safety of Fire District personnel, employees of the Project
and members of the Tribe, the Tribe shall provide the Fire District
reasonable access to the Project so the Fire District may examine the
Project. Pursuant to these examinations, the Fire District shall make
recommendations to the Tribe regarding maintaining or improving the
safety of the Project. The Parties agree that no liability shall be
conferred on either Party based on the fact that any recommendations
have or have not been made pursuant to this Section.
5.3 Non-compliance with Codes: If the Fire District believes the
Project does not meet the provisions of the California Fire Code and
the current Fire Safety Standards Ordinance or is otherwise unsafe, the
Fire District shall raise its concerns with the Tribe. If the Tribe
fails to address these concerns to the Fire District's satisfaction,
the Parties agree that the Fire District may utilize the dispute
resolution provisions of Section 8 of this Agreement or unilaterally
terminate the Agreement immediately.
6. Adequate Water Supply
6.1 The Tribe agrees to provide adequate water at an adequate
pressure to effectively fight fires in and around the Project.
7. Obligations and Immunities
In order to effectuate the implementation of, and ensure the
effectiveness of this Agreement, the Parties recognize and agree to the
following obligations and immunities:
7.1 Indemnification: Each Party agrees to maintain, defend (with
counsel satisfactory to the indemnified Party), protect, hold harmless,
and release the other, its officers, members, agents, representatives,
volunteers and employees, from and against any and all claims, loss,
proceedings, damages, causes of action, liability, costs or expense
(including attorneys' fees and witness costs) arising from or in
connection with, or caused by, any act, omission, or negligence of such
Party, including its members, officers, agents, representatives,
volunteers or employees. This indemnification obligation shall not be
limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages
or compensation payable to or for the indemnifying Party under workers'
compensation acts, disability benefit acts, or other employee benefit
acts. This indemnification obligation shall be subject to the
limitations of the Tribe's waiver of sovereign immunity described in
Section 7.3.
7.2 Insurance: The Tribe agrees to obtain and maintain, at its sole
cost, a policy of commercial general liability insurance with limits
not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence and in
the aggregate covering bodily injury and property damage, including
excess medical coverage. The policy shall contain endorsements for
coverage, which includes but is not limited to: premises liability,
general liability, personal injury, blanket contractual coverage and
contractual indemnity. The policy shall be endorsed to name the Fire
District, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers as an
additional insured. The Fire District shall cooperate in providing any
information reasonably required to obtain such insurance. The Tribe
shall provide a copy of the policy to the Fire District for review and
approval and timely provide proof of such insurance on an annual basis.
Any dispute over the existence of a duty to indemnify or defend shall
be resolved through the dispute resolution process set forth below in
the Agreement. No cancellation or change of coverage of insured shall
be effective until thirty (30) days written notice has been given to
the Fire District.
7.3 Limited Waiver of Sovereign Immunity. The Tribe agrees to be
bound by the terms of this Agreement. The Parties acknowledge that the
Tribe is a federally-recognized Indian tribe and, as such, it possesses
sovereign immunity from suit. Nothing in this Agreement is or shall be
deemed to be a waiver of the Tribe's sovereign immunity from suit,
which immunity is expressly asserted, except that Tribe agrees to waive
its immunity for the limited and sole purpose of effectuating this
Agreement and enforcing the dispute resolution provisions described in
Section 8. The Tribe's limited waiver of its sovereign immunity as
provided herein in favor of the Fire Department extends only to an
arbitration, action to compel arbitration and action to confirm or
enforce arbitration awards by the Fire Department for the Tribe's
breach of this Agreement. The Tribe does not waive its sovereign
immunity for the benefit of any third party.
7.4 Fire District Obligations and Immunities. The Fire District
agrees to be bound by the terms of this Agreement. In order to be so
bound, the Fire District agrees to waive its immunity for the limited
purposes of effectuating this Agreement and enforcing the dispute
resolution provisions described in Section 8. However, notwithstanding
any other provision in this Agreement, the Parties agree that the Fire
District, in response to any claim or action, may assert all of the
statutory immunities and related statutes of California with regard to
fire protection services, rescue services, emergency medical services,
hazardous material emergency response services, ambulance services and
any other service relating to the protection of lives and property and
other matters covered by this Agreement.
8. Dispute Resolution/Mediation/Judicial Review
8.1 Meet and Confer. Prior to pursuing any arbitration, each Party
shall, whenever possible, attempt to resolve any grievances, complaints
or disputes that are brought to its attention by the other Party. Each
Party shall notify the other Party in writing of any material
dissatisfaction with the other Party's performance at that Party's
address of record. Within ten (10) days of receipt of such notice,
unless the problem has been resolved, the Parties shall meet and confer
in good faith to determine what remedial action, if any is necessary;
provided that if the complaining Party believes that the problem
identified creates a significant, imminent threat to public health or
safety or to the Property and Project, the complaining Party may
proceed directly to judicial review as provided in Paragraph 8.5 below.
8.2 Arbitration. In the event of any dispute between the Parties
arising under this Agreement, such dispute shall be submitted to
mandatory binding arbitration pursuant to the Commercial Rules of
American Arbitration Association. Each Party shall initially pay its
own arbitration costs and expenses, but the arbitrator may, in its
discretion, include such costs and expenses, together with reasonable
attorney's fees, as part of the award to the prevailing Party.
8.3 Judicial Review. Any award of the arbitrators may be submitted
for enforcement to a court of competent jurisdiction located in Sonoma
County, California. Such enforcement actions shall be brought in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the
United States Supreme Court. If the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California determines that it lacks
jurisdiction, the Parties shall be entitled to file in the appropriate
trial court for the State of California. The awards of any arbitration
if brought in Federal Court shall be governed by the Federal
Arbitration Act codified in Title 9 of the United States Code except as
the same may be changed or limited by the provisions of this Agreement.
The appropriate Court shall have the authority not only to confirm any
order or decision of the arbitrator, but to issue all orders necessary,
including, but not limited to, the issuance of temporary or permanent
injunctions to prohibit the Parties from engaging in conduct that
violates the provisions of this Agreement; compelling the Parties to
comply with the provisions of this Agreement; requiring the Parties to
pay over any income, or profits subject to attachment or any decision
or order of any arbitrator selected under this Agreement.
8.4. Judicial Remedies. Judicial remedies are specifically limited
to the following:
8.4.1. The enforcement of an award of money damages by arbitration
pursuant to this Agreement; provided that the arbitrator(s) and/or
Court shall have no authority or jurisdiction to execute against its
San Pablo Lytton Casino operations and to award the prevailing Party
the costs of arbitration, court costs to enforce the arbitration
decision and legal fees incurred during arbitration and any subsequent
court proceedings to enforce the arbitration decision.
8.4.2. The enforcement of a determination by an arbitrator
pursuant to this Agreement that mandates either Party to specifically
perform any obligation under this Agreement (other than an obligation
to pay money which is provided for in Paragraph 8.4.1 above).
8.5 Expedited Procedure for Significant, Imminent Threats to Public
Safety: If the Fire District or the Tribe reasonably believes that the
other Party's conduct in violation of this Agreement or applicable law
has caused or will cause a significant, imminent threat to public
health or safety or to the Property or the Project, resolution of which
cannot be delayed for the time periods otherwise specified in this
section, the complaining Party may proceed directly to arbitration as
set forth in Paragraph 8.2 above, without reference to the Meet and
Confer process set forth in Paragraph 8.1 above and seek immediate
equitable relief. At least twenty-four (24) hours before proceeding in
this manner, the complaining Party shall provide to the other a written
request for correction and notice of intent to exercise its rights
under this Paragraph 8.5, setting out the legal and or factual basis
for its reasonable belief that there is a significant, imminent threat
to public health or safety or to the Property or Project.
9. Miscellaneous Provisions
9.1 Notices: Notices and service of process shall be sent to the
contacts listed below or to such other person or address as shall be
provided in writing by the party. Notice or correspondence provided
pursuant to Section 8 of this Agreement shall be by Certified Mail,
return receipt requested, to the addressees below. All other
correspondence under this Agreement, including but not limited to
submission of payments, shall be provided by personal delivery or first
class mail to the first addressees specified below for each Party.
Notice or payment provided by Certified Mail or first class mail
pursuant to this Paragraph shall be deemed given upon deposit in the
United States mail, postage prepaid or otherwise at the time of actual
delivery. Notice of changes in any of the addressees below is to be
given by giving notice pursuant to this Paragraph.
FOR THE TRIBE: FOR THE FIRE DISTRICT:
Lytton Rancheria of
California Windsor Fire Protection District
Margie Mejia Pat McDowell
Tribal Chairperson Board President
437 Aviation Blvd. P.O. Box 530
Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Windsor, CA 95492
Lawrence R. Stidham William J. Arnone, Jr. Esq.
Stidham Law Offices Merrill, Arnone & Jones, LLP
210 5th Street 3554 Round Barn Blvd., Suite 303
Ramona, CA 92065 Santa Rosa, CA 95403
9.2 Applicable Law: This Agreement is not intended to nullify or
reduce the effect of application of any applicable law.
9.3 Amendments: This Agreement may be modified or amended only by
mutual and written agreement of the Parties. The Parties may amend this
Agreement by mutual written consent at any time.
9.4 Third Party Beneficiaries: This Agreement is not intended to,
and shall not be construed to, create any rights in third parties.
9.5 No Waiver of Breach: No covenant, term or condition or the
breach thereof of this Agreement shall be deemed waived, except by
written consent, and any waiver of the breach of any covenant, term or
condition shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding or
succeeding breach of the same or any other covenant, term or condition.
9.6 Assignment and Delegation: Neither Party shall assign, delegate
or transfer any interest in or duty under this Agreement without the
prior written consent of the other, and no such transfer shall be of
any force or effect unless and until the other Party shall have so
consented.
9.7 Force Majeure: In the event of a forced delay in the
performance by either Party of obligations under this Agreement due to
acts of God or of the public enemy, acts or inaction of the other Party
or its employees or agents, strikes, lockouts, unusual delay in
transportation, unavailability of materials, fires (other than those
fires intended to be covered by the Services), floods, catastrophic
weather or other natural disasters, epidemics, riots, insurrection, war
or unavoidable casualties, the time for performance of such obligations
shall be extended for the period of the forced delay.
9.8 Termination: This Agreement shall remain in effect until at
least January 1, 2022, and may not be terminated by either Party
without the other Party's written consent, unless in accordance with
the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement shall continue in effect
after January 1, 2022, until terminated by mutual agreement or until
either Party provides six (6) months written notice indicating its
desire to terminate the Agreement. Any disputes regarding payments to
the Fire District incurred prior to the termination date shall be
resolved through the dispute resolution process outlined in Section 8
above.
9.9 Suspension of Services: If the Tribe fails to make a payment in
accordance with the requirements of this Agreement, then, upon ten (10)
days written notice to the Tribe, the Fire District may suspend
Services and any other obligations to the Tribe under this Agreement
until such payment is made.
9.10 Change in Use of Property: The Parties acknowledge that the
terms of relative duties and obligations in this agreement are based
upon the Project being the development of a residential community on
the Property. The Parties agree that, should the use of the Property
change from residential to another use, this Agreement shall be
reviewed and changed as appropriate.
9.11 Final Agreement: This Agreement is intended both as the final
expression of the agreement between the Parties with respect to the
included terms and as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms
of the agreement and supersedes all prior written and oral agreements,
if any, with respect to the subject matter hereof. No modification of
this Agreement shall be effective unless and until such modification is
evidenced by a writing signed by the Parties.
9.12 Authorized Representatives: The persons executing this
Agreement on behalf of the Parties hereto affirmatively represent that
each has the requisite legal authority to enter into this Agreement on
behalf of their respective Party and to bind their respective Party to
the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The undersigned
representative of each Party agrees to provide written proof of such
authority to the other Party prior to, or at the time of, execution of
this Agreement. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of their
respective Parties understand that both Parties are relying on these
representations in entering into this Agreement.
9.13 Successors in Interest: The terms of this Agreement will be
binding on all successors in interest to each Party.
9.14 Severability and Construction: To the fullest extent allowed
by law, the provisions of this Agreement shall be construed and given
effect in a manner that avoids any violation of applicable law. The
Parties covenant and agree that in the event that any Provision of this
Agreement is determined to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, such
determination shall not affect the validity of any other provision of
this Agreement or the remaining portion of any provisions. In the event
of a dispute between the Parties as to the language of this Agreement
or the construction or meaning of any term hereof, this Agreement will
be deemed to have been drafted by the Parties in equal parts so that no
presumption or inferences concerning its terms or interpretation may be
construed against one Party over the other to this Agreement.
9.15 Governing Law: This Agreement shall be construed according to
applicable federal and California substantive law to the extent not
inconsistent with the express provisions of this Agreement, unless
federal law as to the Tribe or the Fire District, or California law as
to the Fire District, prohibits such Parties from abiding by such
express provision, in which case the provision will be deemed to be
invalid and resolved, if possible, under the severability provisions in
Section 9.15. Notwithstanding the foregoing California rules of
construction shall be applied in interpreting this Agreement.
9.16 Hazardous Materials: The Tribe agrees to maintain information
on hazardous materials used or stored on the Project, including, at a
minimum, information on the types, quantities and location of use or
storage of such materials. Such information shall be available to the
Fire District upon request and shall be maintained so that it is
immediately available in case of emergency. The Parties acknowledge
that, in the event of an emergency involving Hazardous Materials, the
Fire District's responsibility is limited to clearing the impacted
area, if possible, and containing the hazard, if possible; the Tribe is
solely responsible for the clean-up, transportation and disposal of any
hazardous material.
9.17 Mutual Good Faith: Throughout the term of this Agreement, the
Parties agree to exercise good faith and to observe the covenants
contained herein.
WHEREFORE, IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Parties hereby execute and enter
into this Agreement with the intent to be bound thereby through their
authorized representatives whose signatures are affixed below.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Windsor Unified School District,
Windsor, CA,
June 3, 2015.
Hon. Jared Huffman,
1630 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Re: ``Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2015''
Dear Representative Huffman:
On behalf of the Windsor Unified School District (District), Board
of Trustees please accept this letter in support of the introduction
and enactment of H.R. 2538, the ``Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of
2015.''
This past fall, the District has entered into an Agreement with
Lytton Rancheria (the Tribe) applicable to its proposed project to
build housing, governmental and community facilities, for its members
on land to be acquired in trust for the Tribe within the District's
geographic boundaries. Under the Agreement, the Tribe agreed to donate
to the District an amount equal to the developer fees that would be
afforded to the District if the Tribe's project were a standard
residential development.
The District supports the acquisition of the lands in trust for the
Tribe and continues to work with the Tribe for the betterment of our
community.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Steven L. Jorgensen,
Superintendent.
______
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. As evidenced by the documents that
I have just referenced, the Tribe has worked very hard to reach
agreements and address potential concerns from its neighbors
and local governments. I am very thankful for those efforts. An
agreement like this that works for all of the affected parties,
in my opinion, is far preferable to everyone involved than the
black box of the BIA process.
So, I am pleased to introduce this bill, along with my
colleague, Jeff Denham, and I would like to welcome Chairman
Mejia again. We look forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jared Huffman, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
I want to start by thanking Chairman Young and Ranking Member Ruiz
for including the Lytton Rancheria Homeland Act of 2015 in today's
hearing.
I would also like to welcome Chairperson of the Lytton Rancheria
Margie Mejia who is here to speak in support of this bill today.
The Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2015 (H.R. 2538), which I
introduced with my friend Congressman Denham, takes lands already owned
by the Lytton Rancheria in Sonoma County into trust for housing and
other non-gaming purposes as part of the Lytton Rancheria reservation.
In 1958, the Lytton Rancheria, a federally-recognized Pomo Indian
tribe, lost its homeland when it was terminated by the Federal
Government. In 1991, the Tribe was restored by the courts to federally-
recognized status, but the restoration did not include restoring the
Tribe's reservation on its ancestral homeland.
An important condition of my introducing this bill was that the
Tribe negotiate agreements with its local government neighbors to
address and mitigate potential concerns, including the strong
opposition to new casinos in Sonoma County.
The arrangements that have been negotiated--and in some cases are
continuing to be finalized--provide certainty for all parties, and
provide a model for functional, respectful, productive relationships
between local governments and federally-recognized tribes.
This bill ensures that the Lytton Tribe, after many long years, can
finally return to a homeland--and it does it in partnership with the
Tribe's local government neighbors.
The County of Sonoma and the Lytton Rancheria entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement on March 10, 2015 and I ask unanimous consent
that the resolution signed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Sonoma be entered into the record.
The Chairperson of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, Susan
Gorin, has also written a statement for the record, I ask unanimous
consent that it be entered into the record at this time.
I would like to highlight a few lines from Supervisor Gorin's
statement for the subcommittee:
``The Tribe and County worked together to accurately identify the
off-reservation impacts and, as the project changed over time, to build
a framework that met the parties' respective interests.''
``Enactment of H.R. 2538 will reestablish an historic homeland for
the Tribe in Sonoma County while setting a course for a constructive
intergovernmental relationship and addressing community concerns
regarding gaming.''
The town of Windsor is still working cooperatively with the Tribe,
which will include their public process. While that public process is
proceeding, I am pleased to note that two of the affected local
agencies have already reached agreements with the Tribe covering their
shared interests.
Lytton Rancheria has entered into a Memorandum of
Agreement with the Windsor Fire Protection District to
provide emergency services to tribal members located in the
proposed tribal housing area. I ask unanimous consent that
the agreement be entered into the record.
Lytton Rancheria has entered into a Memorandum of
Agreement with the Windsor Unified School District to
prepare for and mitigate an increase in school-aged
children who would move into the proposed tribal housing. I
ask unanimous consent that a letter of support for H.R.
2538 from the Windsor Unified School District be entered
into the record.
Last, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record the map referenced in my bill. This map can be found on my Web
site and it is my understanding that it has been on file for public
review with the town of Windsor since May 28, 2015.
As evidenced by the documents I have just referenced and included
in the record, the Tribe has worked hard to reach agreements and
address potential concerns from its neighbors and local governments,
and I am very thankful for those efforts.
Again I would like to welcome Chairperson Margie Mejia. We look
forward to hearing your testimony.
______
Mr. Young. Mr. Huffman, a little latitude. Thank you for
your kind gesture of the bottle of wine, you know, celebrating
my new bride. Thank you.
So this guy knows how to do the job, you know. I can tell
you right now. He is up there with--thank you.
Mr. Huffman. You are welcome. Congratulations.
Mr. Young. Thank you.
Mrs. Capps, you are recognized to comment on the
legislation. It affects your district.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. LOIS CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the
opportunity to provide a statement on H.R. 1157 today. I want
to congratulate you, as well, in a personal way. And I also do
not have any unanimous consent requests.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Capps. But I also have three constituents who are
witnesses today, and I want to welcome them to this hearing.
H.R. 1157 is a bill that would take 1,400 acres of land
known as Camp 4 in the Santa Ynez Valley into trust for the
Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians. The Santa Ynez
Valley, which is in my congressional district, has a long
history of limited development and there has long been a
concerted effort to retain the undeveloped, rural nature of the
valley.
As the earliest inhabitants of the valley, the Chumash
certainly share the community's commitment to protecting and
preserving the land and the unique qualities of this area. I
have had the pleasure of working with Chairman Armenta and the
Tribe on many occasions over the years, including on their
wonderful Tribal Health Clinic and Education Center. It is
clear the Tribe has legitimate needs for more housing for its
members, a need that must be addressed. That is why I have
worked many years to try to bring the Tribe, local community
members, and county leadership together to work out the
differences and find a way forward.
While I know this has proven to be a difficult process, I
sincerely believe that there can still be, and there is, a path
forward that meets both the needs of the Tribe and addresses
the concerns of the county and local residents. But let me be
clear: H.R. 1157 is not that path, and I oppose it for several
reasons.
First, the issues at the core of this matter are
fundamentally local. This is ultimately about local housing,
zoning, and land use. These are issues best resolved by county
and municipal officials in consultation with local residents
and the Tribe, not in Washington, DC by Members of Congress who
don't even live near the area. These are issues that have
always been worked out locally, because they involve very
localized knowledge of the community and its residents. No
matter how well-intentioned, without the support of the local
community, we here in Congress, in my opinion, should not
intervene in this local issue.
Second, the bill is unnecessary because Camp 4 has already
been taken into trust. While I think we can all agree that the
BIA fee-to-trust process certainly has its flaws, this is the
process that has been put into place to resolve issues like
Camp 4, and that process is moving forward. After roughly a
year-and-a-half of review, the BIA approved the Tribe's
application last year on Christmas Eve. The process may not be
moving as fast as the Tribe would prefer, but the application
was approved in a timely manner and appeals will be considered
under new rules that expedite the process. Legislative action
such as H.R. 1157 should be for circumstances when the BIA
process is clearly failing; this is not one of those
circumstances.
Third, with Camp 4 already taken into trust, the only real
effect of this bill would be to cut off consideration of the
appeals of the BIA decision currently being considered by
Assistant Secretary Kevin Washburn. Again, the BIA appeals
process may not move as quickly as the Tribe would like, but
eliminating the appeals process less than 6 months after it
began hardly seems appropriate. Agree or disagree, my
constituents have the right to be heard and provide input on
this process. This bill would prematurely and needlessly cut
off this right.
Finally, I am deeply troubled by the precedent being set by
the consideration of this bill, and I think my colleagues
should be troubled, as well. The land taken into trust by H.R.
1157, as well as the entirety of Santa Barbara County, is
solely within California's 24th congressional district, which I
happen to represent. The land has no connection to the
districts represented by Mr. LaMalfa, by anyone else on this
committee, or by any other Member of the House. It is my
congressional district. I alone have been elected by the people
of the 24th District to represent them here in Congress.
It is also worth noting that our former Republican
colleague, Elton Gallegly, who also represented the Santa Ynez
Valley in Congress for many years, did not support Federal
legislation on this issue either.
I would hope that my colleagues would take a minute to
consider this and the door being opened by today's hearing and
the committee's consideration of H.R. 1157. Consider the fact
that this committee is moving forward on legislation that is
opposed by both local and Federal representatives of the
communities impacted by this bill. Consider also that the
outcome of this legislation could have a profound impact on the
future of the Santa Ynez Valley, yet valley residents do not
have the opportunity to hold the bill's sponsors accountable at
the ballot box. I find this profoundly troubling, and I urge my
colleagues to consider this carefully.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose H.R. 1157. I
urge you not to advance this bill, and I yield back the
remainder of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Capps follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Lois Capps, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
Thank you Mr. Chairman for giving me the opportunity to provide a
statement on H.R. 1157 today.
I'd also like to welcome my three constituents testifying on the
panel.
H.R. 1157 is a bill that would take 1,400 acres of land known as
``Camp 4'' in the Santa Ynez Valley into trust for the Santa Ynez Band
of Chumash Mission Indians.
The Santa Ynez Valley, which is in my congressional district, has a
long history of limited development and there has long been a concerted
effort to retain the undeveloped, rural nature of the valley.
As the earliest inhabitants of the valley, the Chumash certainly
share the community's commitment to protecting and preserving the land
and the unique qualities of the area. I have had the pleasure of
working with Chairman Armenta and the Tribe on many occasions over the
years, including on the wonderful Tribal Health Clinic and Education
Center. It is clear that the Tribe has a legitimate need for more
housing for its members--a need that must be addressed. And that is why
I have worked to try to bring the Tribe, local community members, and
county leadership together to work out their differences and find a way
forward.
While I know this has proven to be a difficult process, I sincerely
believe that there can still be a path forward that both meets the
needs of the Tribe and addresses the concerns of the county and local
residents. But let me be clear: H.R. 1157 is not that path, and I
oppose it for several reasons.
First, the issues at the core of this matter are fundamentally
local. This is ultimately about local housing, zoning, and land use.
These are issues best resolved by county and municipal officials in
consultation with local residents and the Tribe, not in Washington, DC
by Members of Congress who don't even live near the area. These are
issues that have always been worked out locally because they involve
very localized knowledge of the community and its residents. No matter
how well-intentioned, without the support of the local community, we
here in Congress should not intervene in this local issue.
Second, the bill is unnecessary because Camp 4 has already been
taken into trust. While I think we can all agree that the BIA fee-to-
trust process certainly has its flaws, this is the process that has
been put in place to resolve issues like Camp 4 and that process is
moving forward. After roughly a year-and-a-half of review, the BIA
approved the Tribe's application last year on Christmas Eve.
The process may not be moving as fast as the Tribe would prefer,
but the application was approved in a timely manner and the appeals
will be considered under new rules that expedite the process.
Legislative actions such as H.R. 1157 should be for circumstances when
the BIA process is clearly failing; this is not one of those
circumstances.
Third, with Camp 4 already taken into trust, the only real effect
of this bill would be to cut off consideration of the appeals of the
BIA decision currently being considered by Assistant Secretary Kevin
Washburn. Again, the BIA appeals process may not move as quickly as the
Tribe would like, but eliminating the appeals process less than 6
months after it began hardly seems appropriate. Agree or disagree, my
constituents have a right to be heard and provide input on this
process. This bill would prematurely and needlessly cut off this right.
And finally, I am deeply troubled by the precedent being set by the
consideration of this bill, and I think my colleagues should be
troubled as well. The land taken into trust by H.R. 1157, as well as
the entirety of Santa Barbara County, is solely within California's
24th Congressional District, which I represent. This land has no
connection to the districts represented by Mr. LaMalfa, by anyone on
this committee, or by any other Member of this House. It is in my
congressional district; I alone have been elected by the people of the
24th District to represent them here in Congress.
And it's also worth noting that our former Republican colleague
Elton Gallegly, who also represented the Santa Ynez Valley in Congress
for many years, did not support Federal legislation on this issue
either. I would hope that my colleagues will take a moment to consider
this and the door being opened by today's hearing and the committee's
consideration of H.R. 1157. Consider the fact that this committee is
moving forward on legislation that is opposed by both the local and
Federal representatives of the communities impacted by this bill.
Consider also that the outcome of this legislation could have a
profound impact on the future of the Santa Ynez Valley, yet valley
residents do not have the opportunity to hold the bill's sponsors
accountable at the ballot box. I find this profoundly troubling, and I
urge my colleagues to consider this carefully.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose H.R. 1157 and urge you
not to advance this bill.
______
Mr. Young. I thank the lady for her statement. Now I will
introduce our witnesses.
Mr. Mike Black--again, Mr. Black, welcome. I am not going
to be mean yet, so just keep that in mind. And you are
accompanied by Michael Nedd, Assistant Director, Energy,
Minerals, and Realty Management, Bureau of Land Management. The
Honorable Vincent Armenta, Chairman of the Ynez Chumash Mission
Indians, Santa Ynez, California. Ms. Mona Miyasato, Executive
Officer, County of Santa Barbara, on behalf of the County of
Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors. Mr. Steve Lavagnino, County
Supervisor, Fifth District, Santa Barbara County Board of
Supervisors, Santa Maria, California. Mr. Leo Barlow,
Representative of the Community of Wrangell, Alaska, on behalf
of the Southeast Alaska Corporation. And the Honorable Ms.
Mejia, Chairperson of the Lytton Rancheria, Santa Rosa,
California.
Mr. Black, before you proceed, the committee has received
the Administration's testimony an hour before the hearing. I
would suggest you hire a little bit more efficient clerks,
because we, as a committee, do not appreciate 1 hour. The rules
are 24 hours at the minimum. I just want you to know that. I
have had trouble with every administration and the Department
of the Interior--just not your administration--not recognizing
the rules of the committee, that you have to follow because we
have to have the testimony ahead of time so we can review what
you are going to say, what you are going to do--defend it or
support it. And I think it is inappropriate to have the
committee get it an hour before the hearing. Just want you to
know it doesn't make me happy.
So, Mr. Black, you are up.
I think all of you know you have 5 minutes. And I will,
very frankly--I am pretty lenient in some cases, if you are
making sense. And that is--you have to keep that in mind.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Young. So, we will try to be as generous as we can, and
then the questions.
Mr. Black, you are up.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BLACK, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Black. Chairman Young, Ranking Member Ruiz, and members
of the subcommittee, I am accompanied today, as you stated, by
Michael Nedd, Assistant Director for the Bureau of Land
Management. I want to thank you for the opportunity to present
the Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 1157, a bill to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to place certain lands
located in the unincorporated area of the County of Santa
Barbara, California into trust for the benefit of the Santa
Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians; H.R. 2538, a bill taking
certain lands located in the County of Sonoma, California into
trust for the benefit of the Lytton Rancheria and for other
purposes; and H.R. 2386, the ``Unrecognized Southeast Alaska
Native Communities Recognition and Compensation Act.''
Taking land into trust is one of the most important
functions that the Department undertakes on the behalf of
Indian tribes. Homelands are essential to the health, safety,
and welfare of tribal communities. Thus, the Administration has
made the restoration of tribal homelands a priority, and is
committed to this effort through the Department's acquisition
of land in trust for tribes, where appropriate.
H.R. 1157 authorizes the Secretary for the Department to
place approximately five parcels of land into trust for the
Tribe. H.R. 1157 clearly provides a legal description for the
lands that will be held in trust for the Tribe, and once the
land is placed in trust for the Tribe, removes any restrictions
on the property, pursuant to California State law, but also
provides that the legislation does not terminate any right-of-
way, right-of-use issued, granted, or permitted prior to the
date of the enactment of this legislation.
H.R. 1157 also includes a restriction that the Tribe may
not conduct any gaming activities on any land taken into trust
pursuant to this Act.
The Department supports mandatory fee-to-trust legislation,
but takes no position on H.R. 1157, given that the five parcels
identified in the bill are currently on appeal to the Assistant
Secretary for Indian Affairs.
H.R. 2538 will place approximately 500 acres of land into
trust for the Tribe. H.R. 2538 references a map titled,
``Lytton Fee Owned Property to be Taken Into Trust,'' dated May
1, 2015, for the lands that will be held in trust for the
Tribe. Under H.R. 2538, once the land is in trust for the
Tribe, valid existing rights, contracts, and management
agreements related to the easements and right-of-ways will
remain.
H.R. 2538 also includes a restriction that the Tribe may
not conduct any gaming activities on any land taken into trust
pursuant to this Act.
The Department recommends adding language into H.R. 2538
that does allow the BIA to examine the land for any
environmental issues prior to such lands going into trust. The
Department supports H.R. 2538 with some amendments.
H.R. 2386 would amend ANCSA to authorize the five Southeast
Alaska Native communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg,
Tenakee, and Wrangell to organize as urban corporations,
entitling each, upon incorporation, to receive one township of
land, or approximately 23,040 acres, the local areas of
historical, cultural, traditional, and economic importance. The
bill provides that the establishment of these new urban
corporations does not affect any entitlement to land of any
native corporation established before this Act being proposed.
Although the Department opposes H.R. 2386, we would be glad
to work with the sponsor and committees to address issues with
the proposed legislation, as well as problems with eligible
existing ANCSA communities.
Mr. Nedd and I would be happy to answer any questions that
you may have. Thank you again.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Black follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Black, Director of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior on H.R. 1157, H.R. 2386, and
H.R. 2538
H.R. 1157, ``Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians Land Transfer
Act of 2015''
Chairman Young, Ranking Member Ruiz, and members of the
subcommittee, my name is Michael Black and I am the Director for the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. Thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's (Department) views on H.R. 1157, a bill to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to place certain lands located
in the unincorporated area of the County of Santa Barbara, California
into trust for the benefit of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission
Indians (Tribe), and for other purposes.
Taking land into trust is one of the most important functions that
the Department undertakes on behalf of Indian tribes. Homelands are
essential to the health, safety, and welfare of the tribal communities.
Thus, this Administration has made the restoration of tribal homelands
a priority. This Administration is committed to the restoration of
tribal homelands, through the Department's acquisition of lands in
trust for tribes, where appropriate. The Department supports mandatory
fee-to-trust legislation but takes no position on H.R. 1157 given that
the five parcels identified in the H.R. 1157 are currently on appeal to
the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department.
H.R. 1157 authorizes the Secretary for the Department to place
approximately five parcels of land into trust for the Tribe. H.R. 1157
clearly provides the legal description for the lands that will be held
in trust for the Tribe. H.R. 1157, once the land is placed in trust for
the Tribe, removes any restrictions on the property pursuant to
California state law, but also provides that the legislation does not
terminate any right-of-way, or right-of-use issued, granted or
permitted prior to the date of the enactment of this legislation. H.R.
1157 also includes a restriction that the Tribe may not conduct any
gaming activities on any land taken into trust pursuant to this Act.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department's views on
this legislation. I will be happy to answer any questions the
subcommittee may have.
H.R. 2386, ``Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities
Recognition and Compensation Act''
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of the
Department of the Interior on H.R. 2386, the Unrecognized Southeast
Alaska Native Communities Recognition and Compensation Act. H.R. 2386
would amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) to
authorize the five Southeast Alaska Native communities of Haines,
Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell to organize as urban
corporations, entitling each to receive land in southeastern Alaska.
The Department supports the goals of fulfilling ANCSA entitlements
as soon as possible so that Alaska Native corporations may each have
the full economic benefits of completed land entitlements. In recent
years, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has maintained an
accelerated pace in fulfilling entitlements pursuant to the ANCSA. To
date, the BLM has fulfilled 95 percent of ANCSA and state of Alaska
entitlements by interim conveyance, tentative approval, or patent. The
BLM is committed to improving the Alaska land transfer process wherever
opportunities exist. For example, we have proposed to establish a
faster, more accurate, and more cost-effective method for land
conveyances required by the Alaska Statehood Act, though we continue to
wait for meaningful engagement and feedback from the state of Alaska.
Background
ANCSA effected a final settlement of the aboriginal claims of
Native Americans in Alaska through payment of $962.5 million and
conveyances of more than 44 million acres of Federal land. Although it
was impossible for Congress to have effected total parity among all
villages in the state, there was a distinction made in ANCSA between
the villages in the Southeast and those located elsewhere. Prior to the
passage of ANCSA, natives in the Southeast received payments from the
United States pursuant to court cases in the 1950s and late 1960s, for
the taking of their aboriginal lands. Because natives in the Sealaska
region benefited from an additional cash settlement under ANCSA, the
eligible communities received less acreage than their counterparts
elsewhere in Alaska. Congress specifically named the villages in the
Southeast that were to be recognized in ANCSA; these five communities
were not among those named. Despite this, the five communities applied
to receive benefits under ANCSA and were determined to be ineligible.
Three of the five appealed their status and were denied.
Notwithstanding the ineligibility of some communities for corporate
status under ANCSA, all natives potentially receive benefits from the
ANCSA settlement. Alaska Natives in these five communities are enrolled
as at-large shareholders in the Sealaska Corporation. The enrolled
members of the five communities comprise more than 20 percent of the
enrolled membership of the Sealaska Corporation, and as such, have
received benefits from the original ANCSA settlement.
H.R. 2386
H.R. 2386 would amend ANCSA to authorize the five Southeast Alaska
Native communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and
Wrangell to organize as urban corporations, entitling each, upon
incorporation, to receive one township of land (23,040 acres) from
local areas of historical, cultural, traditional and economic
importance. The bill provides that establishment of these new urban
corporations does not affect any entitlement to land of any native
corporation established before this Act being proposed.
Recognition of these five communities as provided in the bill,
despite the history and requirements of ANCSA, risks setting a
precedent for other similar communities to seek to overturn
administrative finality and re-open their status determinations.
Establishing this de facto new process would contravene the purposes of
ANCSA and could create a continual land transfer cycle in Alaska.
The Department also has concerns with specific provisions in the
bill. For example, in Section 6, new ANCSA Section 43 contains very
open-ended selection language. The provision does not require the new
urban corporations to take lands for ``the township or townships in
which all or part of the native village is located,'' as provided for
in ANCSA. Instead, it requires only that the lands be ``local areas of
historical, cultural, traditional, and economic importance to Alaska
Natives'' from the villages. The bill also appears to require the
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce and
representatives from Sealaska Corporation, to select and offer lands to
the new urban corporations.
Although the Department does not support H.R. 2386, we would be
glad to work with the sponsor and the committee to address these issues
as well as problems with eligible existing ANCSA communities. For
instance, rather than simply addressing the perceived inequities of
five communities formerly deemed to be ineligible under ANCSA, the
Department would like to work with the committee to find solutions to
the existing eligible communities that have no remaining administrative
remedies, such as the villages of Nagamut, Canyon Village and Kaktovik.
Conclusion
The BLM's Alaska Land Transfer program is now in a late stage of
implementation and the Department strongly supports the equitable and
expeditious completion of the remaining Alaska Native entitlements
under ANCSA and other applicable authorities. H.R. 2386 would delay the
Department's goal of sunsetting the Alaska Land Transfer Program, which
is in its final stages. The Department believes that the completion of
the remaining entitlements under ANCSA and the Statehood Act is
necessary to equitably resolve the remaining claims and fulfill an
existing congressional mandate.
H.R. 2538, ``Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2015''
Chairman Young, Ranking Member Ruiz, and members of the
subcommittee, my name is Michael Black and I am the Director of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. Thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's (Department) views on H.R. 2538, a bill
taking certain lands located in the County of Sonoma, California into
trust for the benefit of the Lytton Rancheria of California (Tribe),
and for other purposes.
Taking land into trust is one of the most important functions that
the Department undertakes on behalf of Indian tribes. Homelands are
essential to the health, safety, and welfare of the tribal communities.
Thus, this Administration has made the restoration of tribal homelands
a priority. This Administration is committed to the restoration of
tribal homelands, through the Department's acquisition of lands in
trust for tribes, where appropriate. The Department supports H.R. 2538,
with some amendments.
H.R. 2538 will place approximately 511 acres of land into trust for
the Tribe. H.R. 2538 references a map titled ``Lytton Fee Owned
Property to be Taken into Trust'' dated May 1, 2015 that identifies the
lands to be transferred into trust for the Tribe. Under H.R. 2538, once
the land is in trust for the Tribe, valid existing rights, contracts,
and management agreements related to easements and rights-of-way will
remain. H.R. 2538 includes a restriction that the Tribe may not conduct
any gaming activities on any land taken into trust pursuant to this
Act.
H.R. 2538 also references a Memorandum of Agreement between the
County of Sonoma and the Tribe. The MOA affects not only the trust
acquisition covered in the legislation but also future acquisitions and
subjects the Tribe to the land use/zoning authority of the County for
most of the property identified in the legislation for the term of the
MOA, 22 years, and imposes negotiated restrictions on the Tribe's
residential development.
This Administration is supportive of legislative efforts to take
land into trust for tribes. The Administration is also supportive of
counties and tribes negotiating agreements to resolve their
differences. The decision to compromise principles of tribal
sovereignty is itself an exercise of sovereignty and tribal self-
governance. In that spirit, the Administration defers to the decision
made by the Tribe.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department's views on
this legislation. I will be happy to answer any questions the
subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Black. We have now--let me see.
Vincent, you are up.
STATEMENT OF VINCENT ARMENTA, CHAIRMAN, SANTA YNEZ BAND OF
CHUMASH MISSION INDIANS, SANTA YNEZ, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Armenta. Good afternoon, Chairman Young, Ranking Member
Ruiz, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Vincent
Armenta, and I am the Tribal Chairman for the Santa Ynez Band
of Chumash Indians. On behalf of our tribe, first I would like
to thank you today for allowing me to testify on H.R. 1157.
The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians is located in the
Santa Ynez Reservation in Santa Barbara County, California. Our
tribe was federally recognized in 1901, and remains the only
federally-recognized Chumash Tribe in the Nation. The Chumash
aboriginal territory lies along the California coast, between
Malibu and Paso Robles, as well as the Northern Channel
Islands. Their area was first settled about 13,000 years ago,
and at one time the total population of the Chumash was
approximately 18,000.
Our tribe was eventually relegated to a 99-acre
reservation. For many years, very few tribal members lived on
the reservation. Running water, electricity were not available
to our residents. We did not even have indoor plumbing until
the 1960s.
In the 1970s, the Tribe was able to secure funding for
assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
to build the first modern homes on our reservation. Those homes
are now nearly 50 years old, and insufficient to meet the needs
of our people. In many instances, several generations live
under one roof. Still, only about 17 percent of our members and
descendants live on our reservation.
The HUD homes from the 1970s may have met the basic health
and safety standards, but fire and rescue equipment commonly
used today would be hard-pressed to service many of these homes
as the roads are too narrow and the population density is too
great. Unfortunately, building additional homes on our existing
reservation is not possible. The majority of our reservation
land is already developed and the remaining is in a creek bed
or on a sloped hillside.
Knowing the housing shortage will only worsen, our tribe
purchased 1,400 acres of our ancestral land in 2010, known as
Camp 4. Camp 4 sits just a few miles east of our reservation.
The Department of the Interior has confirmed that Camp 4 is
part of our ancestral land. Shortly after purchasing Camp 4, we
submitted a draft cooperative agreement to the Santa Barbara
County Board of Supervisors, hoping to negotiate a payment in
lieu of taxes in that agreement. Even though the land was
currently only generating $81,000 a year in property taxes, our
tribe offered $1 million a year for a period of 10 years.
For more than 2 years, the Santa Barbara County Board of
Supervisors ignored our offer. On August 20, 2013, the Board
voted 3 to 2 not to enter into a government-to-government
dialog with our tribe, ending any hope we had of resolving this
at the local level. The official position of the Board to this
day is that tribes are not governments and, therefore, the
County need not negotiate with them. One of the supervisors
even went so far as to call for the end of tribal sovereignty.
In spite of the Board's decisions, our tribal government
continues to build partnerships in our community. For instance,
we recently completed a cooperative agreement with both the
sheriff's department and the Santa Barbara County fire
department. We are paying for law enforcement, not just on the
reservation, but for the entire valley. We are providing two
additional positions at two separate fire stations in our
community, for the purpose of protection of our tribal members,
as well as community members.
These agreements demonstrate that the Tribe is willing to
work with the County in a positive and constructive manner, if
we are given the opportunity to do so. Sadly, relations between
the Tribe and the Board of Supervisors and its anti-tribal
allies remain toxic. The Board and its allies blocked us from
acquiring 6.9 acres of trust land for nearly 14 years. After
lawsuits from anti-tribal groups, the BIA finally placed the
land into trust last year.
We are willing to work with the County to resolve these
concerns. For instance, we address fears of gaming, which is in
H.R. 1157.
As witnessed by our lengthy but successful efforts to bring
6.9 acres into trust through the administrative process, we
will eventually prevail on this issue. There are only two
variables, which are timing and restrictions on land use.
Mr. Chairman and Members, thank you again for the
opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Armenta follows:]
Prepared Statement of Vincent Armenta, Tribal Chairman, Santa Ynez Band
of Chumash Indians on H.R. 1157
Good afternoon Chairman Young, Ranking Member Ruiz and members of
the subcommittee. My name is Vincent Armenta and I am the Tribal
Chairman of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians.
On behalf of our tribe, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today about H.R. 1157, the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians
Land Transfer Act of 2015.
I. Brief History of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians/California
Tribes
The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians is located on the Santa Ynez
Reservation in Santa Barbara County, California. Our tribe was
federally recognized in 1901 and remains the only federally-recognized
Chumash Tribe in the Nation.
The Chumash original territory lies along the California coast,
between Malibu and Paso Robles, as well as on the Northern Channel
Islands. The area was first settled about 13,000 years ago and at one
time, the Chumash had a total population of approximately 18,000
people.
II. Need for Housing
Our tribe was eventually relegated to a 99-acre reservation. For
many years, very few tribal members lived on our reservation. Running
water and electricity were not made available to our residents.
Our source of water had been declared unfit for human consumption.
Tribal members living on the reservation at that time had to walk to
the creek to fill buckets of water for use in their homes. Toilets were
open pits that sometimes overflowed into the creek, the very creek that
supplied our members with drinking water.
While it took a few years and many fundraisers, our reservation
eventually secured running water and we finally had indoor plumbing in
the late 1960s.
In the 1970s, our tribe was able to secure funding and assistance
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to build the first
modern homes on our reservation. Those homes are now nearly 50 years
old and are insufficient to meet the needs of our people. In many
instances, multiple generations live under one roof. Still, only about
17 percent of our tribal members and lineal descendants live on our
reservation.
While the subdivision planned by HUD in the 1970s may have met
basic health and safety standards, fire and rescue equipment commonly
used today would be hard pressed to service many of the homes in our
current development as the roads are too narrow and the population
density is too great.
Unfortunately, building additional homes on our existing
reservation is not possible. The majority of our reservation land is
already developed and the remaining is in a creek bed or sloped areas
that are impossible to develop.
Knowing the housing shortage would only worsen, our tribe purchased
1,400 acres of ancestral land in 2010--land known as ``Camp 4.'' One of
our primary goals in purchasing the land is to build homes on it for
our tribal members and their families.
Camp 4 sits just a few miles east of our reservation. By official
action, the Department of Interior has confirmed that Camp 4 is part of
our ancestral lands.
III. Initial Offer to County of SB, Refusal to Meet and Rejection
Shortly after purchasing the Camp 4 property, we submitted a Draft
Cooperative Agreement to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors,
hoping to negotiate a payment in lieu of property taxes agreement. Even
though the land was currently only generating $81,000 in property taxes
per year, we offered the County a million dollars annually, for 10
years.
For more than 2 years, the Board ignored our offer.
On August 20, 2013, the Board voted 3-2 not to enter into a
government-to-government dialog, ending any hope we had of resolving
this at the local level.
The official position of the Board to this day is that tribes are
not governments and therefore the County need not negotiate with them.
One supervisor even went so far as to call for the end of tribal
sovereignty.
Unfortunately, the majority of the Santa Barbara County Board of
Supervisors simply lack a basic understanding of tribes as
governments--an elementary recognition required to work effectively
with tribal nations.
IV. Meetings and Agreements with Sheriff and Fire Department
Notwithstanding the perpetual opposition from the County, our
tribal government continues to build partnerships with those in the
community who are willing to work with us.
For instance, we recently completed cooperative agreements with our
local Sheriff and Fire Departments. Through these agreements, Chumash
is now paying for law enforcement and fire safety services not only on
our reservation, but also mitigating off-reservation impacts and
improving emergency services across the entire Santa Ynez Valley.
As members of the subcommittee will recall, just last month, the
California State Association of Counties testified in support of a
number of reforms for the land into trust process, including providing
for a legal framework to encourage tribes to reach intergovernmental
mitigation agreements. Mr. Chairman, it is not the tribes that need
encouragement, but rather, it is the counties. It is shameful that one
of CSAC's leading members, Santa Barbara County, can't be troubled to
take the advice of its own membership association.
These agreements demonstrate that we are willing to work with the
County in a positive and constructive manner, if we are just given the
opportunity to do so.
We have also built solid relationships in the community with
various organizations. Through our Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians
Foundation, our tribe has played a significant role in the
philanthropic arena, donating millions of dollars to a wide variety of
non-profit organizations and schools. In addition to funding a myriad
of community projects that benefit the entire community, our tribe also
provides volunteers for a number of non-profit organization projects
through our volunteer organization, Team Chumash.
A few of our Foundation's recent donations include donating iPads
to school children in an effort to expand technology access throughout
the largest elementary school in the Lompoc school district, donating
$10,000 to the Legal Aid Foundation of Santa Barbara County to help the
organization continue its efforts to reduce homelessness and donating
annually to the Santa Ynez Valley People Helping People organization to
help with emergency and short-term social services.
For the past decade, our tribe has also hosted its annual Chumash
Charity Golf Classic where the proceeds from the tournament go to well-
deserving local charities. In 2014, the largest amount in the
tournament's history was raised--$150,000--bringing the total amount
raised through the tournament for local nonprofit organizations to $1
million.
Through our Foundation, our tribe has donated more than $19 million
to hundreds of groups, organizations and schools in the community and
across the Nation as part of our tribe's long-standing tradition of
giving.
V. Conclusion
Sadly, relations between the Tribe and the Board of Supervisors and
its anti-tribal allies remain toxic.
The Board and its allies blocked us from acquiring just 6.9 acres
of trust land for nearly 14 years, as lawsuit after lawsuit was filed
then dismissed. The BIA's decision to finally acquire the land last
year came after a process that cost both the Tribe and our neighbors
millions.
But now that the playbook has been written, we are witnessing the
same game play out. The County's allies have once again filed frivolous
lawsuits to stop the Tribe at every turn. And with housing pressures
growing, we are left with passage of H.R. 1157 as the only viable
solution.
Regardless of how we have been treated, the Santa Ynez Chumash
still stand ready to work with the County to resolve concerns. For
instance, we have heard fears about additional gaming--that's why the
legislation takes gaming off the table. And if there are other
reasonable requests, we remain open to finally opening a true
government-to-government dialog with the County of Santa Barbara.
As witnessed by our lengthy but successful efforts to bring the 6.9
acre parcel into trust via the administrative process, we will
eventually prevail on this issue. The only two variables are timing and
restrictions on land use. Your efforts and support of this legislation
can ensure that the land is put in use in a timely manner with
reasonable restrictions; or conversely, the land will eventually be
brought into trust administratively with no restrictions on its use or
additional financial compensation to the County.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I welcome any
questions.
______
Mr. Young. Thank you, Vincent.
Mona Miyasato?
Ms. Miyasato. Yes.
Mr. Young. Mona, you are up.
STATEMENT OF MONA MIYASATO, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COUNTY OF SANTA
BARBARA, ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Miyasato. Thank you, Subcommittee Chairman Young,
Ranking Member Ruiz, and members of the subcommittee, for this
opportunity to testify today. My name is Mona Miyasato, and I
am the County Executive Officer for the County of Santa
Barbara, California. This testimony is submitted on behalf of
the County of Santa Barbara, and reflects the policy position
of the Board of Supervisors.
The County has adopted a legislative policy that recognizes
the role and unique interests of tribes, states, and counties
to protect all members of our community, and to provide
services and infrastructure benefits to all.
H.R. 1157 would take into trust 1,427 acres in the Santa
Ynez Valley, as you have been told. But Camp 4 is over 10 times
larger than the existing 138-acre Chumash Reservation, and this
would have substantial negative impacts on our community.
The County of Santa Barbara respectfully opposes H.R. 1157
for the following reasons: the County has a pending appeal of
the decision by the BIA to accept Camp 4 into trust. The
purpose of the administrative appeal process is to address
concerns of local entities and residents. These concerns
include loss of tax revenue, lack of compliance with NEPA,
insufficient environmental mitigations and conflicts with local
land use regulations. H.R. 1157 would essentially shortcut this
administrative process, and prevent the County and its
residents from addressing these concerns. And finally, H.R.
1157 does not rule out any use of the property other than
gaming, while the BIA's administrative process proposes
residential use and has been more focused.
Therefore, the County of Santa Barbara requests that,
instead of enacting H.R. 1157, Congress allow the regular
administrative process on the appeal to proceed.
I would like to spend a few minutes now to detail some of
the areas of concern we have.
The County of Santa Barbara submitted a timely appeal of
the Christmas Eve, December 24, 2014 BIA decision to accept
Camp 4 into trust. In the appeal, the County thoroughly
discusses the process shortcomings, including the need for
appropriate weighing of factors detailed in the Code of Federal
Regulations, as well as a lack of adequate environmental
review, including the need for an environmental impact
statement, rather than the environmental assessment, and
appropriate mitigation. This bill would bypass that appeal
review.
Also, the County questions the need for and purpose to take
the land into trust, as the present BIA regulations provide
inadequate guidance as to what constitutes legitimate tribal
need for a trust land acquisition. Given the stated need for
only a fraction of the acreage requested to be taken into trust
for housing, the County questions why the 1,400 acres needs to
be taken into trust at this time.
In addition, the County projected that it would lose up to
$311 million in tax revenue over a 50-year period if the land
is taken into trust and developed. The County provides major
public services to the Camp 4 area, including law enforcement,
fire protection, emergency medical response, roadway access and
maintenance. And there will be no property tax compensation or
funding offset required by the County for these services if
Camp 4 is taken into trust into perpetuity.
Also, this permanently exempts it from community land use
processes. The project alternatives, including a proposal for
143 residences and over 12,000 square feet of tribal facility
with parking for 250 cars and possibly up to 800 visitors a
week to the valley, is inconsistent with the surrounding uses.
The development contravenes rural area policy countywide and is
incompatible with the County's General Plan, Santa Ynez
Community Plan, and our land use regulations.
Further, the property has been preserved for agricultural
use by an Ag. preserve contract, a Williamson Act Contract,
since 1971. In August of 2013, the Tribe submitted an
application for non-renewal, meaning that it will expire in
December 2022.
Another primary area of concern relates to environmental
impacts, such as groundwater resources. Santa Barbara County
and the rest of California are in severe drought conditions.
The environmental assessment acknowledged the past designation
of an overdraft in the groundwater basin in which Camp 4
resides, but did not analyze the potential for Camp 4 to
exacerbate that overdraft. The environmental document did not
analyze the long-term water supply.
Finally, the County supports the BIA's administrative
process, although we believe there should be an effort to
reform that process. We strongly support the efforts of the
California State Association of Counties to achieve
comprehensive fee-to-trust reform and improve the role of local
government in this process.
In conclusion, I respectfully urge Members to reject H.R.
1157. As stated, this would bypass the administrative appeal
process, whose purpose is to address concerns of our local
residents and entities, and those concerns include loss of tax
revenue, lack of compliance with NEPA, insufficient
environmental mitigation and conflicts with our local land use
regulations in perpetuity.
Furthermore, I respectfully request that reforms to the
existing process be considered in the future to improve local
government involvement, which can reduce significant impacts on
communities and reduce controversy, delay, and existing
distrust in the process.
Thank you very much for considering my testimony this
morning, and allowing me to appear before you today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Miyasato follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mona Miyasato, Santa Barbara County Executive
Officer on Behalf of the County of Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors
on H.R. 1157
Thank you Subcommittee Chairman Young, Ranking Member Ruiz, and
members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today. My
name is Mona Miyasato and I am the County Executive Officer for the
County of Santa Barbara. This testimony is submitted on behalf of
County of Santa Barbara and reflects the adopted policy position of the
County Board of Supervisors.
The County of Santa Barbara has adopted a legislative policy which
recognizes the role and unique interests of tribes, states, counties
and other local government to protect all members of their communities
and to provide governmental services and infrastructure benefits to
all. In addition, the County recognizes and respects the tribal right
of self-governance, to provide for tribal members and to preserve
traditional tribal culture and heritage. In similar fashion, the County
recognizes and promotes its own self-governance to provide for the
health, safety and general welfare of all residents of our communities.
H.R. 1157 would take into trust five parcels of land totaling
approximately 1,427.78 acres in the Santa Ynez Valley (commonly known
as ``Camp 4'') for the benefit of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash
Indians. Camp 4 is over 10 times larger than the existing 138-acre
Chumash Reservation. This would have substantial, negative impacts on
our community.
The County of Santa Barbara respectfully opposes H.R. 1157 for the
following reasons:
The County has a pending appeal of the decision by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs to accept Camp 4 into trust and
the BIA's related decisions under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);
The purpose of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
administrative appeal process is to address concerns of
local entities and residents, including loss of tax
revenue, lack of compliance with NEPA, insufficient
environmental mitigation and conflicts with local land use
regulations;
H.R. 1157 would short-circuit this administrative process
and prevent the County and its residents from addressing
these concerns; and
H.R. 1157 does not rule out any use of the property other
than gaming, while the BIA's administrative process
proposes residential use and is more focused.
The County of Santa Barbara therefore requests that instead of
enacting H.R. 1157, Congress allow its regular administrative appeal
process to proceed.
pending appeal
On December 24, 2014, the BIA issued a Notice of Decision to accept
Camp 4 into trust. The County of Santa Barbara submitted its appeal on
January 21, 2015. In that appeal, the County discusses the shortcomings
of the BIA's review, which must include appropriate weighing of eight
required factors detailed in the CFR and adequate environmental review
and mitigation. Those eight factors are attached to this testimony.
This bill would bypass that appeal review.
A few areas of significant concern with the fee-to-trust decision
include the following:
Need for the Land and Purposes of Use: The present BIA
regulations provide inadequate guidance as to what
constitutes legitimate tribal need for a trust land
acquisition. Two alternatives have been identified in the
fee-to-trust application, providing housing for tribal
members, the stated purpose of the Fee-to-Trust
application. One alternative requires 793 acres for
residential homes and infrastructure; the other requires
194 acres for homes and infrastructure. Given the stated
need for only a fraction of the acreage requested to be
taken into trust for housing, the County has questioned why
the 1,400 acres need to be taken into trust.
Also, in the second alternative, 30 acres would be dedicated for
Tribal Facilities including a Community Center with Banquet
Hall/Exhibition Facility, resulting in potentially 400
visitors per event, with two events per week, or up to 800
visitors to the Valley each week. The analysis by the BIA
did not discuss the facility structure or the purposes for
which it will be used and therefore, could not fully assess
the land use conflicts.
Impact on County Tax Rolls: The County projected in FY 2012/13
that it would lose up to $311 million in tax revenue over a
50-year period if the land is taken into trust and
developed. In addition, the County would lose mitigation
fees required to be paid by developers for provision of
transportation improvements, parks, fire protection and
other public services. The BIA decision regarded the tax
loss as insignificant given the financial contributions by
the Tribe to the community. However, the County provides
major public services to the Camp 4 area, including law
enforcement, fire protection, emergency medical response
and roadway access and maintenance. The proposed
development will increase the number of residents and
employees in the area that use county parks, schools, roads
and public services. The need for county services would
expand yet the County would not be able to collect property
taxes or other special assessments that would pay for those
additional services.
Jurisdictional and Land Use Conflicts: The development of 143
residences and over 12,000 square feet of tribal facility
with parking for 250 cars would constitute a change in the
current land use that is inconsistent with the surrounding
uses. Essentially, it would be an urban development in the
middle of a rural area. Given that the zoning is currently
AG-II100 (agriculture with a minimum parcel size of 100
acres), housing development at 1 residence per acre, or 1
residence per 5 acres, would result in potentially
increasing density 20 to 100 times what is currently
allowed. The development contravenes rural area policy
countywide and is incompatible with the County's General
Plan, Santa Ynez Community Plan and land use regulations.
Further, the property has been preserved for agricultural
use by a Williamson Act Contract since at least 1971. In
August of 2013 the Tribe submitted an application for non-
renewal meaning the contract will expire on December 31,
2022. On July 1, 2013 the Tribe passed Resolution 931 which
requires compliance with the existing Williamson Act
Contact until the contract expires.
The BIA noted that the Chumash Tribe has consistently been
cooperative with local government and service providers to
mitigate adverse effects and cited agreements with County
Fire and Sheriff's Office. Those agreements, however,
relate to services on the existing reservation and the
ongoing impacts to that development, not Camp 4. The County
is grateful to the Chumash Tribe for their willingness to
work collaboratively to achieve these service agreements.
In the Fire Department agreement, however, the Tribe's
agreement to provide an aerial ladder truck for its planned
12-story tower Casino expansion only came after the County
requested it as mitigation to the project; it was not
included as part of the Tribe's environmental evaluation or
mitigation. In this case, the identification of mitigation
by the county fire personnel resulted in a better outcome
for the Tribe and community members. Other issues raised by
the County regarding the casino expansion, however, were
not addressed by the Tribe.
Compliance with NEPA and Environmental Mitigation: The
fee-to-trust acquisition raises substantial questions about
the environmental impacts of the action as to its context
and intensity. The County identified a need for the
environmental document to be elevated from the current
level proposed by the BIA of an Environmental Assessment
(EA) to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The loss of agricultural land is of great significance to the
state, region and locality as agriculture provides economic
and environmental benefits to the public. The development
will bring more residents, employees and visitors to a
largely agricultural area and change the land use. This
change implicates unique geographic considerations such as
conversion of prime agricultural farmland, threatens land
use and regulatory requirements imposed for the protection
of the environment and the community, impacts public health
and safety concerns, such as the demand for services,
groundwater and wastewater resources, air quality, and
traffic control, impacts threatened or endangered species
habitat and other unique habitat involving oak trees, and
creates controversy as shown by the debate among many
knowledgeable, interested parties as to the environmental
effects of the project.
A particular area of concern relates to Groundwater Resources.
Santa Barbara County and the state of California are in
severe drought conditions. The Environmental Assessment
acknowledged the past designation of an overdraft in the
Santa Ynez Uplands Groundwater Basin but did not analyze
the potential for Camp 4 to exacerbate that overdraft. The
EA did not analyze long-term water supply.
In addition, mitigation measures proposed to date do not
sufficiently minimize or avoid environmental impacts or
adequately protect against significant adverse impacts of
the proposed action. The measures suggested in the EA do
not provide the detail and discussion required to support a
finding of no significant impact.
bypass of administrative process through h.r. 1157
H.R. 1157 would short-circuit the administrative appeal process and
prevent the County and its residents from addressing the concerns just
described. Another example of this relates to the identical real
property descriptions in both H.R. 1157 and the BIA's Notice of
Decision, dated December 24, 2014. These are unclear and do not
adequately address the property interests of the County or nearby
residents in roadway rights-of-way. In its pending appeals with the
Interior Board of Indian Appeals, the County has raised this question
about County rights of way throughout Camp 4 and whether those rights
of way are held in fee or easement. The appeal process provides an
opportunity to resolve these legal questions. If H.R. 1157 is enacted,
though, neither the County nor any county resident would have the
opportunity to clarify their property interests in those roads.
broadness of h.r. 1157 and conflicts with bia process
H.R. 1157 does not rule out any use of the property other than
gaming. The legislative approach is broader than the BIA's process. The
existing process, with its combination of evaluation of factors
specified in 25 CFR Sections 151.10 and 151.11 and NEPA, provides some
comfort to the community of the proposal, given what was studied and
allowed per the BIA process. The legislation only rules out gambling
but does not specify other uses.
reforms to bia process are needed
While the County supports the BIA's administrative process, we also
strongly support the efforts of the California State Association of
Counties, and their extensive work on behalf of all California
counties, to achieve comprehensive fee-to-trust reform and improve the
role of local government in the fee-to-trust process. Therefore, it is
respectfully requested that the following reforms of the existing
process be considered.
Often local governments are afforded limited, and
sometimes late, notice of a pending trust land application.
In our case, the Notice of Decision was issued on Christmas
Eve, December 24, 2014. Our staff resorted to checking the
BIA's Web site daily to ensure notice given the 30-day
appeal period. The notice first came to our attention as a
courtesy from Chumash Tribe members, followed by mailed
notices in subsequent days from the BIA. Improved notice is
needed to ensure adequate time for meaningful input, as
well as reasonably detailed information early on to
affected local governments, as well as the public, about
the proposed uses. Broad notice of trust applications
should allow at least 90 days to respond, compared to the
current 30-day requirement.
There is a lack of standards of any objective criteria in
fee-to-trust decisions, which has been criticized by local
governments. For example, the BIA requests only minimal
information about the impacts of such acquisitions on local
communities and trust land decisions are not governed by a
requirement to balance the benefit to the Tribe against the
impact to the local community. As a result, there are
significant impacts on communities with consequent
controversy, delay and distrust of the process.
Regulations should provide adequate guidance as to what
constitutes legitimate tribal need for trust acquisitions.
There is now the stipulation that the land is necessary to
facilitate tribal self-determination, economic development
or Indian housing. These standards can be met by virtually
any trust land request.
Under Part 151, the BIA does not mention input by third
parties even though individuals or communities as a whole
may experience negative impacts, although it will accept
and review such comments. BIA accepts comments only from
the affected state and local government with legal
jurisdiction over the land and, from those parties, only on
the narrow question of tax revenue loss, government
services currently provided to the subject parcels and
zoning conflicts. The reviews, therefore, do not provide
real consultation or an adequate representation of the
consequences of the decision.
conclusion
In conclusion, I respectfully urge Members to reject H.R. 1157. As
stated, this would bypass the administrative appeal process, whose
purpose is to address concerns of local entities and residents,
including loss of tax revenue, lack of compliance with NEPA,
insufficient environmental mitigation and conflicts with local land use
regulations. Also, H.R. 1157 does not rule out any use of the property
other than gaming, while the BIA's administrative process is less
broad, focusing on the uses of the site, namely residential housing.
Furthermore, I respectfully request that reforms to the existing
process be considered in the future to improve local government
involvement, which can reduce significant impacts on communities and
reduce controversy, delay and distrust of the process.
Thank you for considering my testimony. Should you have questions
regarding my testimony, the policy position of the Santa Barbara County
Board of Supervisors, or if I can be of further assistance, please feel
free to contact me.
Attachments: 25 CFR Sections 151.10, 151.11 and Maps
ATTACHMENTS
TITLE 25--INDIANS
CHAPTER I--BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
SUBCHAPTER H--LAND AND WATER
PART 151--LAND ACQUISITIONS
Sec. 151.10 On-reservation acquisitions.
Upon receipt of a written request to have lands taken in trust, the
Secretary will notify the state and local governments having regulatory
jurisdiction over the land to be acquired, unless the acquisition is
mandated by legislation. The notice will inform the state or local
government that each will be given 30 days in which to provide written
comments as to the acquisition's potential impacts on regulatory
jurisdiction, real property taxes and special assessments. If the state
or local government responds within a 30-day period, a copy of the
comments will be provided to the applicant, who will be given a
reasonable time in which to reply and/or request that the Secretary
issue a decision. The Secretary will consider the following criteria in
evaluating requests for the acquisition of land in trust status when
the land is located within or contiguous to an Indian reservation, and
the acquisition is not mandated:
(a) The existence of statutory authority for the acquisition and any
limitations contained in such authority;
(b) The need of the individual Indian or the tribe for additional land;
(c) The purposes for which the land will be used;
(d) If the land is to be acquired for an individual Indian, the amount
of trust or restricted land already owned by or for that individual and
the degree to which he needs assistance in handling his affairs;
(e) If the land to be acquired is in unrestricted fee status, the
impact on the State and its political subdivisions resulting from the
removal of the land from the tax rolls;
(f) Jurisdictional problems and potential conflicts of land use which
may arise; and
(g) If the land to be acquired is in fee status, whether the Bureau of
Indian Affairs is equipped to discharge the additional responsibilities
resulting from the acquisition of the land in trust status.
(h) The extent to which the applicant has provided information that
allows the Secretary to comply with 516 DM 6, Appendix 4, National
Environmental Policy Act Revised Implementing Procedures, and 602 DM 2,
Land Acquisitions: Hazardous Substances Determinations. (For copies,
write to the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Branch of Environmental Services, 1849 C Street NW, Room 4525 MIB,
Washington, DC 20240.)
Sec. 151.11 Off-reservation acquisitions.
The Secretary shall consider the following requirements in evaluating
tribal requests for the acquisition of lands in trust status, when the
land is located outside of and noncontiguous to the tribe's
reservation, and the acquisition is not mandated:
(a) The criteria listed in Section 151.10 (a) through (c) and (e)
through (h);
(b) The location of the land relative to state boundaries, and its
distance from the boundaries of the tribe's reservation, shall be
considered as follows: as the distance between the tribe's reservation
and the land to be acquired increases, the Secretary shall give greater
scrutiny to the tribe's justification of anticipated benefits from the
acquisition. The Secretary shall give greater weight to the concerns
raised pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section.
(c) Where land is being acquired for business purposes, the tribe shall
provide a plan which specifies the anticipated economic benefits
associated with the proposed use.
(d) Contact with state and local governments pursuant to 151.10 (e) and
(f) shall be completed as follows: upon receipt of a tribe's written
request to have lands taken in trust, the Secretary shall notify the
state and local governments having regulatory jurisdiction over the
land to be acquired. The notice shall inform the state and local
government that each will be given 30 days in which to provide written
comment as to the acquisition's potential impacts on regulatory
jurisdiction, real property taxes and special assessments.
MAPS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Young. Thank you.
Steve Lavagnino. Is that good enough?
Mr. Lavagnino. Very good, Chairman Young.
Mr. Young. All right, thank you.
Mr. Lavagnino. Appreciate it.
STATEMENT OF STEVE LAVAGNINO, FIFTH DISTRICT COUNTY SUPERVISOR,
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Lavagnino. Chairman Young, Mr. Ranking Member, I am
Steve Lavagnino, Fifth District Supervisor for Santa Barbara
County. Members of the committee, good morning. Thank you for
the opportunity to speak before you today regarding H.R. 1157,
the vehicle that would move 1,400 acres known as Camp 4 into
Federal trust for the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians.
In my opinion, I should not be needed here today and this
piece of legislation should have never been necessary. I
believe the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors has
failed to perform its responsibilities as the local
jurisdiction, and I am grateful you have allowed me the
opportunity to provide another perspective.
More than 4 years ago, Tribal Chairman Vincent Armenta
requested that the County of Santa Barbara enter into
government-to-government dialog to discuss the Tribe's plans
for Camp 4, as well as mitigation strategies for those impacts
deemed significant enough to warrant mitigation. On August 20,
2013, our Board held a hearing during which Chairman Armenta
once again reiterated his desires to begin negotiations, and in
order to show his good faith, he made an initial $10 million
offer over 10 years for payments in lieu of property taxes, as
well as an offer to waive the Tribe's sovereign immunity, which
would allow the County to legally enforce the agreement.
Instead of responding to the offer, our Board decided that
the Tribe was not equal to other governments we commonly
negotiate with, including our local cities, Vandenberg Air
Force Base, and the University of California Santa Barbara. On
a 3-2 vote, the decision was made to reject the request for
dialog.
Some would consider Santa Barbara County a progressive
region. It is a leader when it comes to protecting most human
rights, but for some reason those same protections are not
always afforded to the Tribe. During our public hearings,
seemingly educated people still regularly questioned the
heritage of the tribal members and the validity of the Tribe's
sovereign status. While you may expect such comments sometimes
from the public, most alarming are shocking statements from
current and former elected officials.
The County Supervisor who formerly represented the area in
which both Camp 4 and the Tribe's current reservation lie said,
``These are not real sophisticated people.'' She went on to
question their work ethic by stating that they ``get $300,000 a
year for sitting on the couch watching a Lakers game.'' One of
our current board members, whose district is home to more than
800 people employed by the Tribe recently questioned whether or
not the reservation system as a whole should be abolished. This
is the environment in which the Tribe is asked to live and
work.
I share my colleagues' concerns regarding loss of property
tax revenue and loss of local land use control. However, they
have refused to even discuss these matters with the Tribe. I
warned my colleagues that if we failed to acknowledge the Tribe
as a federally-recognized government entity, it would lead to
congressional action such as H.R. 1157. That warning fell on
deaf ears. But it wasn't just my advice--Governor Jerry Brown's
expert on tribal relations indicated the best strategy for
counties in dealing with fee-to-trust applications is to
``negotiate early in the process.''
Opponents will speak about density, even though the Tribe's
plan calls for less density than the neighboring development.
They will speak about a lack of water, even though the Tribe
has proposed a water-neutral development, and they will claim
that CEQA will be ignored, even though any development will
fall under the regulations provided in NEPA. Although they will
claim to be concerned about all of these potential impacts, one
has to question what their true motivation is. Just last year,
6.9 acres of land directly adjacent to the existing reservation
and slated for construction of a cultural center and park was
finally taken into trust after more than 14 years of appeals by
these same opponents.
Finally, the Tribe currently resides in substandard housing
that lies directly in a flood plain. In case of a fire or
emergency, the ingress and egress for those living on the
reservation is extremely limited. The Tribe purchased Camp 4
specifically to remedy the housing situation, and is willing to
negotiate with the County to resolve the concerns that have
been raised. Without negotiations, the County is destined to
incur all of the impacts without any share of the revenue.
Unlike some in Santa Barbara County, I understand that the
process of taking land into trust is wholly a Federal decision,
whether it is through Congress or the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Given that fact, my goal is to work together with the Tribe to
mitigate potential impacts through negotiation. Unfortunately,
I believe the Tribe has thoroughly exhausted all avenues in
search of reaching an agreement with their local government;
and thus, I understand why congressional action is being taken.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lavagnino follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Lavagnino, Fifth District Supervisor, Santa
Barbara County on H.R. 1157
Chairman Young and members of the committee: Good morning and thank
you for the opportunity to speak before you today regarding H.R. 1157,
the vehicle that would move 1,400 acres (Camp 4) into Federal trust for
the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians (Tribe). In my opinion, I should
not be needed here today and this piece of legislation should have
never been necessary. But I believe the Santa Barbara County Board of
Supervisors has failed to perform its responsibilities as the local
jurisdiction and I am grateful that you have allowed me the opportunity
to provide another perspective.
More than 4 years ago, Tribal Chairman Vincent Armenta requested
that the County of Santa Barbara enter into government-to-government
dialog to discuss the Tribe's plans for Camp 4 as well as mitigation
strategies for those impacts deemed significant enough to warrant
mitigation. On August 20, 2013 our Board held a hearing during which
Chairman Armenta once again reiterated his desires to begin
negotiations and in order to show his good faith, he made an initial
$10 million offer for payments in lieu of property taxes as well as an
offer to a waive the Tribe's sovereign immunity, which would allow the
County to legally enforce the agreement. Instead of responding to the
offer, our Board decided that the Tribe was not equal to other
governments we commonly negotiate with, including our local cities,
Vandenberg Air Force Base and the University of California at Santa
Barbara. On a 3-2 vote, the decision was made to reject the request for
dialog.
Some would consider Santa Barbara County a progressive region and
it is a leader when it comes to protecting most human rights, but for
some reason those same protections are not afforded to the Tribe.
During our public hearings, seemingly educated people still regularly
question the heritage of the tribal members and the validity of the
Tribe's sovereign status. While you may expect such comments from the
public, most alarming are shocking statements from current and former
elected officials. The County Supervisor who formerly represented the
area in which both Camp 4 and the Tribe's current reservation lie,
said, ``These are not real sophisticated people.'' She went on to
question their work ethic by stating that they ``get $300,000 a year
for sitting on the couch watching a Lakers game.'' One of our current
Board members, whose district is home to more than 800 people employed
by the Tribe, recently questioned whether or not the reservation system
as a whole should be abolished. This is the environment in which the
Tribe is asked to live and work.
I share my colleagues' concerns regarding loss of property tax
revenue and loss of local land use control; however they have refused
to even discuss these matters with the Tribe. I warned my colleagues
that if we failed to acknowledge the Tribe as a federally-recognized
government entity it would lead to congressional action such as H.R.
1157. That warning fell on deaf ears. But it wasn't just my advice--
Governor Jerry Brown's expert on tribal relations indicated the best
strategy in dealing with fee-to-trust applications is to ``negotiate
early in the process.''
Opponents will speak about density even though the Tribe's plans
call for less density than the neighboring development, they will speak
about a lack of water even though the Tribe has proposed a water
neutral development and they will claim that CEQA will be ignored even
though any development will fall under the regulations provided in
NEPA. Although they will claim to be concerned about all of these
potential impacts, one has to question what their true motivation is.
Just last year, 6.9 acres of land directly adjacent to the existing
reservation and slated for construction of a cultural center and park
was finally taken into trust after more than 14 years of appeals by
these same opponents.
Finally, the Tribe currently resides in substandard housing that
lies directly in a flood plain. In case of a fire emergency, the
ingress and egress for those living on the reservation is extremely
limited. The Tribe has purchased Camp 4 specifically to remedy the
housing situation and is willing to negotiate with the County to
resolve the concerns that have been raised. Without negotiations, the
County is destined to incur all of the impacts without any share of the
revenue.
Unlike some in Santa Barbara County, I understand that the process
of taking land into trust is wholly a Federal decision, whether it is
through Congress or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Given that fact, my
goal is to work together with the Tribe to mitigate potential impacts
through negotiation. Unfortunately, I believe the Tribe has thoroughly
exhausted all avenues in search of reaching an agreement with their
local government and thus I understand why congressional action is
being taken.
______
Mr. Young. Thank you, sir. Now we have Mr. Barlow.
Mr. Barlow, thank you and welcome from where--I believe--
from the free State of Alaska, come down and see me on an issue
that has been on my burner for a long time, and I wish my
colleagues will listen to this testimony, and why we think it
is justifiable, regardless of what the Department says. So, Mr.
Barlow, you are up.
STATEMENT OF LEO BARLOW, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE COMMUNITY OF
WRANGELL, ALASKA, ON BEHALF OF THE SOUTHEAST ALASKA LANDLESS
CORPORATION, JUNEAU, ALASKA
Mr. Barlow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Chairman
Young and subcommittee members.
Mr. Young. Turn the microphone on.
Mr. Barlow. Good morning, Chairman Young and subcommittee
members. I have traveled here today from Alaska to provide
testimony regarding H.R. 2386, a bill to provide for the
recognition of five communities in Southeast Alaska in the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, commonly known as ANCSA.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on this important
issue to several thousand Alaska Natives, and a special thank
you, Congressman Young, for introducing this much-needed
legislation and for once again taking on our worthy cause.
My name is Leo Barlow, and I have the great honor and
responsibility of serving as a representative for the community
of Wrangell on the Southeast Alaska Landless Corporation (SALC)
Board of Directors, which represents Alaska Natives through
ANCSA to the native villages of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg,
Tenakee, and Wrangell. The people I represent today have
suffered an injustice for more than 40 years, an injustice the
legislation currently before this subcommittee would address.
In 1971, Congress enacted ANCSA to recognize and settle the
aboriginal claims of the Alaska Natives to their traditional
homelands. ANCSA provided for establishment of native
corporations to receive and manage funds and lands throughout
Alaska and Southeast Alaska, where recognized and afforded the
opportunity to establish village or urban corporations, and
secure a native land settlement. Our five communities were
denied these benefits of ANCSA and we have been fighting this
injustice since the passage of the Act.
Under ANCSA, as Alaska Natives, we enrolled to 1 of 13
regional corporations, and also to the villages where we lived
or to which we had a historic, cultural, or familial tie. For
example, I enrolled to the region for Southeast Alaska, and
also to the village of Wrangell, my hometown, where our
ancestors have lived for many generations.
A total of 747 Alaska Natives enrolled to the native
village of Wrangell. Other members of our Landless Corporation
enrolled to the four villages of Haines, Petersburg, Tenakee,
and Ketchikan. Those of us who enrolled to these five
communities during the ANCSA process did so because they are
our traditional homelands and places of origin. Our families
and clans originated in these communities and have lived here
for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
In Section 11 of ANCSA, Congress set forth a general
process for determining eligibility for each native village in
Alaska. Native villages throughout the state of Alaska were
listed in this section, and the Secretary of the Interior was
charged with making determinations as to whether the listed
villages met the eligibility requirements. For a number of
reasons, however, there was a different process created for
determining eligibility of Southeast Alaska Native villages in
Section 16 of ANCSA. These reasons included previous Tlingit
and Haida Indian Claims cash settlement, the existence of the
Tongass National Forest, the existence of large timber
contracts secured by powerful pulp companies, and the
significant non-native populations in certain communities.
Another significant difference between Southeast and non-
Southeast Alaska communities in ANCSA was the fact that Section
11 of ANCSA provided an appeal right for communities left off
of the list of eligible villages, while Section 16 of the Act
did not. Three of our coalition's villages--Ketchikan, Haines,
and Tenakee--brought protests of this inequitable treatment to
the Alaska Native Claims Appeal Board of the U.S. Department of
the Interior through appeals in 1974 and 1977. The appeals were
rejected because Section 16 made no provision for the
administrative reconsideration of the eligibility of villages
in Southeast Alaska. Thus, we must appeal directly to Congress
for help. You are our only recourse.
The over-3,500 natives who originally enrolled to the
affected five villages comprised over 20 percent of the
shareholders of Sealaska Corporation in 1972--our regional
corporation. Over the years we have received revenue-sharing
distributions from Sealaska pursuant to Section 7(j) of ANCSA,
but have not enjoyed the social, economic, and cultural
benefits of owning shares in a village, urban, or group
corporation. Many of the village or urban corporations in our
region have brought significant economic benefits to their
communities. Additionally, we have been deprived of the
significant cultural benefit of owning an interest in lands
located within and around our traditional homelands.
The history I am telling today is not based only on the
opinions and conclusions made by landless natives. In 1993,
Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a
report examining the reasons why the unrecognized communities
had been denied eligibility to form native corporations under
the Act.
This report--``A Study of Five Southeast Alaska
Communities,'' referred to as the ISER report--was done by the
University of Alaska and concluded that requirements for
villages eligible to form native corporations were met by the
native villages of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and
Wrangell. The report noted that our communities appeared on
early versions of native village lists in the ANCSA Act, and
the subsequent omission was never clearly explained in any
provision of ANCSA or in the accompanying conference report.
The ISER Report is attached hereto, and I ask that the
subcommittee incorporate this report into the record for this
hearing.
Mr. Young. Mr. Barlow, how much time do you have left?
Mr. Barlow. I will conclude fairly rapidly here, sir.
Mr. Young. OK.
[No response.]
Mr. Young. Are you finished?
Mr. Barlow. Yes, almost.
Mr. Young. OK.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Barlow. The legislation before this subcommittee today
proposes simply to correct a 40-year wrong, and grant rights
that we, the native communities of Haines, Ketchikan,
Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell should have been given in
1971. Unlike other native villages that were recognized under
ANCSA, our communities have not been able to use the tools
provided by the Act to create an economic engine by utilizing
the resources in our lands, and to promote the well-being of
our community members. Sadly, many of our elders have passed
who fought for this legislation. We have seen a generational
change, and we have much interest now by our younger
shareholders who will carry on this battle.
In closing, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
on behalf of the Southeast Alaska communities affected, I want
to once again personally express our extreme gratitude for your
consideration of this important legislation.
With that, we conclude our report and thank you. In our
language, [Speaks native language.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barlow follows:]
Prepared Statement of Leo Barlow, Representative for the Southeast
Alaska Landless Corporation on H.R. 2386
Good Morning, Chairman Young and subcommittee members. I have
traveled here today from Alaska to provide testimony regarding H.R.
2386, a bill to provide for the recognition of five communities in
Southeast Alaska in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on this important issue to
several thousand Alaska Natives; and a special thank you to Congressman
Young for introducing this much needed legislation, and for once again
taking on our worthy cause.
My name is Leo Barlow, and I have the great honor and
responsibility of serving as a representative for the community of
Wrangell on the Southeast Alaska Landless Corporation (SALC), which
represents Alaska Natives enrolled through ANCSA to the native villages
of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and Wrangell. The people I
represent today have suffered an injustice for more than 40 years; an
injustice the legislation currently before this subcommittee would
address.
In 1971, Congress enacted ANCSA to recognize and settle the
aboriginal claims of Alaska Natives to their traditional homelands.
ANCSA provided for establishment of native corporations to receive and
manage funds and lands awarded in settlement of the claims of all
Alaska Natives. While many villages throughout Alaska and Southeast
Alaska were recognized and afforded the opportunity to establish
Village or Urban Corporations and secure a native land settlement, our
five communities were denied these benefits of ANCSA. We have been
fighting this injustice since ANCSA's passage.
Under ANCSA, as Alaska Natives we enrolled to one of 13 Regional
Corporations and also to the villages where we lived or to which we had
a historic, cultural and familial tie. For example, I enrolled to the
region for Southeast Alaska, and also to the village of Wrangell, my
hometown, where my ancestors have lived for many generations. A total
of 747 Alaska Natives enrolled to the native village of Wrangell. Other
members of our Landless Corporation enrolled to the four villages of
Haines, Petersburg, Tenakee and Ketchikan. Those of us who enrolled to
these five communities during the ANCSA process did so because these
are our traditional homelands and places of origin. Our families and
clans originated in these communities.
In Section 11 of ANCSA, Congress set forth a general process for
determining eligibility for each ``native village'' in Alaska. Native
villages throughout the state of Alaska were listed in this section,
and the Secretary of the Interior was charged with making
determinations as to whether the listed villages met the eligibility
requirements. For a number of reasons, however, there was a different
process created for determining eligibility of Southeast Alaska Native
villages in Section 16 of ANCSA. These reasons included the previous
Tlingit and Haida Indian Claims cash settlement, the existence of the
Tongass National Forest, the existence of large timber contracts
secured by powerful pulp companies, and the significant non-native
populations of certain communities.
Another significant difference between Southeast and non-Southeast
Alaska communities in ANCSA was the fact that Section 11 of ANCSA
provided an appeal right for communities left off of the list of
eligible villages, while Section 16 of ANCSA did not. Three of our
Coalition's villages (Ketchikan, Haines and Tenakee) brought protests
of this inequitable treatment to the Alaska Native Claims Appeal Board
of the U.S. Department of the Interior through appeals in 1974 and
1977. The Appeals were rejected because Section 16 made no provision
for administrative reconsideration of the eligibility of villages in
Southeast Alaska. Thus, we must appeal directly to Congress for help.
You are our only recourse.
Southeast Alaska was the first area of Alaska with significant
settlement by non-natives because of the inviting climate and abundant
resources in our homelands. Although we welcome non-natives who have
chosen to live in Southeast Alaska, their presence does not make our
homes any less ``native'' than other villages in Southeast Alaska.
Nonetheless, this was a significant factor in the exclusion of our five
communities from the list of eligible Southeast Native villages in
ANCSA. This occurred despite the clear evidence that each of these
Communities has historic, cultural, and traditional Alaska Native
characteristics.
The 3,425 natives who originally enrolled to Haines, Ketchikan,
Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell comprised over 20 percent of the
shareholders of Sealaska Corporation in 1972--our Regional Corporation
for Southeast Alaska. Over the years we have received revenue-sharing
distributions from Sealaska pursuant to Section 7(j) of ANCSA, but have
not enjoyed the social, economic and cultural benefits of owning shares
in a Village, Urban, or Group Corporation. Many of the Village or Urban
Corporations in our Region have brought significant economic benefits
to their communities. Additionally, we have been deprived of the
significant cultural benefit of owning an interest in lands located
within and around our traditional homelands.
The history I am telling today is not based only on the opinions
and conclusions made by Landless Natives. In 1993, Congress directed
the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a report examining the reasons
why the Unrecognized Communities had been denied eligibility to form
native corporations under the Act. This report--A Study of Five
Southeast Alaska Communities (the ISER Report) \1\ concluded that
requirements for villages eligible to form native corporations were met
by the native villages of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and
Wrangell. The Report noted that, with the exception of Tenakee, our
communities appeared on early versions of native village lists, and the
subsequent omission was never clearly explained in any provision of
ANCSA or in the accompanying conference report. The ISER Report is
attached hereto, and I ask that the subcommittee incorporate this
report into the record for this hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Lee Gorsuch, Steve Colt, Charles W. Smythe, and Bart K. Garber,
Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska
Anchorage, ``A Study of Five Southeast Alaska Communities,'' prepared
for the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of
Indian Affairs (Feb. 1994) available at http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/
Publications/StudyOf5-SE-AK-Communities.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ISER Report also indicated that the populations and percentage
of natives in each of our communities, as well as the historic use and
occupation of the lands, were comparable to those Southeast Alaska
communities recognized under ANCSA's original language. Prior to
passage of ANCSA, each of the Unrecognized Communities had been
involved in advocating for the settlement of the aboriginal claims of
that community.
In short, the ISER report found no meaningful distinction between
the native communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and
Wrangell and other communities listed in Sections 14 or 16 of ANCSA,
and thus no justification for omission from the list of communities
eligible to form Urban or Group Corporations under ANCSA.
Based on the history set forth above, it is clear that those of us
who enrolled to the five Unrecognized Communities--and our heirs--have
been unjustly denied the financial and cultural benefits of enrollment
in a Village, Urban or Group Corporation. The legislation before this
subcommittee today proposes simply to correct a 44-year wrong, and
grant rights that we, the native communities of Haines, Ketchikan,
Petersburg, Tenakee and Wrangell, should have been given in 1971.
In summary, we are Southeast Alaska Natives. These villages
identified in H.R. 2386 are our traditional homelands. All we are
asking is that Congress recognize that fact and provide us with what we
deserve under law and equity: a chance to form ANCSA Corporations for
our people and for future generation with ties to our traditional
communities. Sadly, many of the original shareholders enrolled to these
five communities have passed on and will never see this injustice
resolved. I hope that you will help those of us original landless
shareholders and our descendants finally secure recognition under
ANCSA. It is long overdue.
In closing, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf
of the Southeast Alaska villages of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg,
Tenakee and Wrangell, I want to once again express our extreme
gratitude for your consideration of this important legislation and we
urge you to support our efforts to be included in the benefits that
ANCSA has brought to other Alaska Natives. I hope that this
subcommittee and the House will act quickly to ensure that we finally
receive the recognition we have deserved for more than 44 years.
Gunalcheesh (Thank You).
______
Mr. Young. Thank you. The next witness is Margie?
Ms. Mejia. Yes.
STATEMENT OF MARGIE MEJIA, CHAIRPERSON, LYTTON RANCHERIA, SANTA
ROSA, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Mejia. Good morning, Chairman Young, Ranking Member
Ruiz, and members of the Subcommittee on Indian, Insular, and
Alaska Native Affairs. My name is Margie Mejia, I am the
Chairwoman of the Lytton Rancheria in Santa Rosa, California.
Thank you for allowing me to be here today to speak in strong
support of H.R. 2538, the Lytton Rancheria Homeland Act of
2015.
A special thank you to our Congressman, Jared Huffman, for
working with the Tribe to introduce the bill, and our
neighboring Congressman, Jeff Denham, for supporting us and co-
sponsoring the bill.
The Tribe has provided a written statement for the record,
and I would like to explain why the passage of this bill is so
important for the Lytton Rancheria. Taking this land into trust
will allow the Tribe to construct, with its own funds, housing
and community facilities. This will allow the Tribe to live as
a community for the first time in over 50 years.
The creation of a homeland will allow the Tribe to govern
itself and continue to diversify its economy to provide for
tribal generations to come. The status as a federally-
recognized tribe will fully be restored, and the Tribe will now
be on equal footing with other recognized tribes.
Thank you for your time and your support, and I am
available for any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mejia follows:]
Prepared Statement of Margie Mejia, Lytton Rancheria, Santa Rosa,
California on H.R. 2538
Good morning Chairman Young, Ranking Member Ruiz and members of the
Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs. My name is
Margie Mejia, Chairperson of the Lytton Rancheria in Santa Rosa,
California. Thank you for allowing me to be here today to speak in
strong support of H.R. 2538, the Lytton Rancheria Homeland Act of 2015.
A special thank you to our Congressman Jared Huffman for working with
the Tribe to introduce the bill and to our neighboring Congressman Jeff
Denham for supporting us and co-sponsoring the bill.
If enacted, H.R. 2538 would right a historical wrong and restore a
permanent homeland for the Lytton Rancheria now and for our future
generations. The bill would provide that lands currently owned by the
Tribe in fee be held in Federal trust and have reservation status. On
behalf of the members of the Lytton Rancheria of California, I ask that
you support the Lytton Rancheria Homeland Act of 2015.
background
The Lytton Rancheria is a federally-recognized Pomo Indian Tribe
from California's San Francisco Bay area. Prior to European contact it
is estimated that as many as 350,000 Indians were living in what is now
the state of California. By the end of the 19th century, that number
was reduced by 96 percent to approximately 15,000.
The Pomo people occupied lands in the northern part of California
that spanned an area from the Pacific coast at the northern San
Francisco Bay area to the Lake District in northern California. Their
ancestors were devastated by the Gold Rush and hostile state and
Federal policies toward Indians in the 19th century. By the early 1900s
most Indians and Indian tribes from the area that managed to survive
were poverty stricken, landless and homeless. Because of this
unconscionable state of affairs in California, Congress enacted
legislation to help purchase reservation lands for many of these
Indians and tribes. The Lytton Rancheria is one such tribe which
received reservation lands in Sonoma County from these purchases.
The Tribe resided and flourished on the land sustaining itself by
farming and ranching until it once again fell prey to bad ``Indian
policy'' on the part of the government. Unfortunately, the hostile
attitude toward California tribes soon returned, and with passage of
the Rancheria Act of 1958, Lytton Rancheria, along with dozens of other
California tribes, had its relationship with the Federal Government
terminated. This resulted in the Tribe losing all of its Rancheria
lands as well, and it once again became a destitute, landless Indian
tribe with no means of supporting itself. As has now been widely
accepted, the Rancheria Act was another failed attempt to cause Indian
tribes to disband. Despite the hardships caused to it by continuously
losing its homelands, the Lytton Tribe remained cohesive and strong,
not giving up its claim that it had been wrongfully terminated.
In 1987, the Tribe joined with three other tribes in a lawsuit
against the United States challenging the termination of their
Rancherias. In 1991, a Federal court concluded in ``Scotts Valley Band
of Pomo Indians of the Sugar Bowl Rancheria v. United States of
America'' No. C-86-3660 (N.D.Cal. March 22, 1991), that the termination
of the Lytton Rancheria was indeed unlawful, and Lytton's federally-
recognized tribal status was restored by court order. In part the
Stipulated Judgment reads, ``. . . that the distributees of the Lytton
Rancheria are eligible for all rights and benefits extended to Indians
under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that the
Lytton Indian Community and its members shall be eligible for all
rights and benefits extended to other federally-recognized Indian
tribes and their members . . .''
Lytton's status was restored, but its land base, now owned by non-
Indians, was not returned to them and Lytton remained a landless and
impoverished tribe. The Tribe had no home to return to. The Stipulated
Judgment that ended the case was agreed to by Federal and county
authorities and specifically promised the Tribe a new homeland in
Sonoma County on lands to be held in Federal trust. Twenty-four years
later, the Tribe is still waiting for that promise to be fulfilled.
Almost three generations of our people have not known what it is like
to live in a community on tribal lands.
In 2000, Congress passed Section 819 of P.L. 106-568 which directed
the Secretary of Interior to take certain land into trust for gaming
purposes for the Tribe in San Pablo, California. This action was taken
after due consideration and with strong local support. Lytton has
established a small, successful Class II gaming operation in that
location which is limited by law to electronic bingo games and poker.
The Tribe collects revenues from this facility to pay for tribal needs
including education and health care, as well as purchasing property for
a homeland and area to diversify the Tribe's economic development. The
Tribe's 9.5 acre San Pablo trust parcel is only large enough for the
gaming facility and cannot meet the Tribe's need for tribal homeland.
need for trust land
Indian tribes have long been held to be distinct political
communities. This inherent sovereignty of tribal governments is
acknowledged in the United States Constitution, as well as treaties,
legislation and judicial and administrative decisions. Land is
essential for tribes in order for them to function as governments.
Tribal trust lands are especially important to this advancement. Tribes
need trust lands so that they can provide governmental services for
their members, such as housing, health care, education, economic
development, and in order to protect historic, cultural and religious
ties to the land.
The Indian Reorganization Act (``IRA'') recognized the need for
tribes to have and govern their own lands to provide for the
advancement and self-support of their people. The legislative history
of the IRA clearly shows the intent of Congress to address and
ameliorate the extensive loss of land tribes had suffered.
Specifically, the IRA made a change in Federal Indian policy which
would ``establish machinery whereby Indian tribes would be able to
assume a greater degree of self-government, both politically and
economically.'' This is done through growing their land bases.
Every Indian tribe needs to have a homeland with clearly delineated
authority to provide services to its members and jurisdiction over its
lands to provide the necessary infrastructure and land use planning for
future generations. With the exception of the small parcel Congress
provided it for gaming in San Pablo, which is not large enough for a
tribal homeland, Lytton Rancheria has been left essentially landless
since it was terminated in 1961. For more than 50 years the Tribe has
not been able to provide its members a homeland on which to have
housing, community and governmental facilities, and to follow their
religious practices without interference from outsiders.
Lytton Rancheria has used revenues from the San Pablo Casino to
purchase lands, from willing sellers and at fair market value, near its
former Rancheria in the Alexander Valley of Sonoma County. Lytton
Rancheria has concentrated the purchase of property near the Town of
Windsor and currently holds these lands in fee status. The attached map
entitled, ``Lytton Fee Owned Property to be Taken into Trust--May 1,
2015'' shows the property proposed for trust status under H.R. 2538
which includes 511 acres. There will be no gaming on any of the lands
covered in H.R. 2538. The bill specifically prohibits gaming on any of
the lands.
Of the acreage proposed for trust status, the Tribe proposes to use
approximately 124.12 acres for housing and other governmental and
community facilities. This will allow it to have a homeland for its
members after 50 years in exile. A portion of the land proposed to be
taking into trust is currently being used for economic development
purposes such as viniculture.
The Tribe has purchased a number of vineyards and is operating them
in an environmentally sensitive manner. Vineyards that were in various
stages of disrepair prior to the Tribe's purchase are now being put
back into clean, healthy working order. Small tributaries of the
Russian River that have long been clogged and unusable by fish are
being cleaned out and made ready for use again. Additionally, the Tribe
has installed wind machines to use during frost warnings to keep the
grapes from freezing, rather than using overhead spray from the Russian
River like many ranches in the area. This innovative measure will save
water from being taken from the Russian River at a vital time of the
river's flow. The Tribe's investment in the ongoing viniculture
operations has reinvigorated many previously deteriorating vineyards,
and its grapes are being used to produce high-quality wines. Lytton
operates its vineyards on a fish-friendly and sustainable basis, and is
working toward sustainability certification pursuant to the practices
of the Sonoma County Winegrape Association and the California
Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance.
lytton rancheria is a good neighbor
Lytton Rancheria has prided itself in being a good neighbor to the
communities surrounding its lands. For example, in San Pablo, the Tribe
provides more than 50 percent of the City's operating budget and
donates to many local charities. For instance, the Tribe sponsors a
yearly golf tournament to benefit the Brookside Foundation thus
providing $100,000 a year for healthcare for an impoverished community.
The Tribe has also donated $50,000 to the Boys and Girls Clubs of San
Pablo. In addition, the Tribe contributes $25,000 a year to the
Friendship House in San Francisco to help aid in drug and alcohol
rehabilitation in the Bay Area.
The Tribe is a premier supporter of the Wells Fargo Center for the
Arts in Sonoma County, donating $500,000 a year for children's programs
and musical instruments. Lytton has recently agreed to give $250,000 a
year for 5 years to the Charles Shultz Children's Charities, which
includes three different children's charities in Sonoma County. These
are just a few examples of Lytton Rancheria using its resources to
assist its local communities.
On the Federal level, Lytton Rancheria does not accept any Federal
funding it is eligible for as a tribe except for Indian Health Service
(IHS) funding, which it immediately turns over to the Sonoma Indian
Health Clinic. This Clinic provides healthcare for all Indians,
regardless of tribal affiliation, residing in Sonoma County. On top of
its IHS funding, the Tribe also donates an additional $600,000 per year
to the Sonoma Indian Health Clinic to use for expenses.
memoranda of agreement
Realizing that having land in trust in Sonoma County would change
some of the current uses of the land, the Tribe has spent years meeting
with, negotiating and forming agreements with the County of Sonoma, the
local school district and the local fire department.
windsor fire protection district
Lytton Rancheria has entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with
the Windsor Fire Protection District to provide emergency services to
tribal members located in the proposed tribal housing area, which is
within the District's jurisdiction. Under the Agreement, the Windsor
Fire Protection District will provide the initial response to all
emergency incidents for fire, medical, rescue or other reported
emergency reason.
In return for these services, the Tribe has agreed to make payments
to the fire district including: $50,000 a year for equipment purchases
and $80,000 a year for one full-time firefighter. In addition, the
Tribe has agreed to pay to the District, prior to the start of
construction: $750 per each single family home, $525 per each multi-
family unit, and $340 per every 1,000 square feet of space for a
community center and tribal retreat center. Once property is in trust
status the Tribe has also agreed to pay the District on an escalating
basis yearly. The beginning payment would be $25,000/year and increase
up to $50,000/year for the term of the agreement. Further, the Tribe
has agreed to provide additional funding if necessary in the case of an
emergency such as terrorism, earthquake or other act of God.
The Tribe will comply with California Fire Code and Fire Safety
Standards Ordinance during construction of all housing and tribal
buildings. The Tribe will also be responsible for providing adequate
water and pressure for firefighting.
windsor unified school district
Lytton Rancheria has entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with
the Windsor Unified School District to prepare for and mitigate an
increase in school aged children who would move into the proposed
tribal housing. The Tribe has agreed to pay, based on the Environmental
Assessment for the housing project, the amount of $1 million dollars.
This amount is similar to the amount that would be owed to the School
District if the land were developed by a non-tribal entity.
town of windsor
The Tribe is in talks with the Town of Windsor for water and sewer
support for the tribal housing area since the development would be just
outside the current Town water and sewer boundaries. This decision is
likely to be made through public referendum and the Tribe is prepared
to pay substantially to mitigate any costs required by such services as
well as to assist the Town with other priorities it might have for its
citizens.
county of sonoma
After years of discussion and negotiation, Lytton Rancheria and the
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors have agreed to and signed a binding
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). I am pleased to report that both the
Lytton Tribal Council and the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors voted
unanimously to support the agreement and the legislation to take lands
into trust for the Tribe.
The detailed Agreement with the County initially spans a term of a
generation and covers almost every aspect of land management once the
tribally owned land is taken into trust status. The MOA is too long to
detail in this testimony, but I will cover some of the significant
portions.
An Environmental Assessment was prepared and submitted to
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and circulated regarding the
residential development area for tribal housing. The Bureau
of Indian Affairs issued a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) on June 5, 2012. The MOA contains agreements for
the mitigation of potential impacts from this, or any
future, land being taken into trust status for Lytton
Rancheria.
In the residential development area, the MOA contains
agreements on how many units will be built, the size of the
units and who can reside there. Some oak trees will be cut
in the residential area, however the Tribe has marked and
will protect the larger heritage trees, and is providing
the County with funding to replace, on a 1 to 1 ratio, the
smaller trees that are cut down.
The Tribe has agreed to strict environmental protection
and mitigation efforts for the residential project,
including the community and governmental facilities. The
Tribe has also agreed that for a potential future lodging
facility and winery, it will prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement in compliance with NEPA and negotiate with
the County on mitigating impacts. The Tribe waived its
sovereign immunity in the MOA and agreed to binding
arbitration if there is disagreement on mitigation.
Lytton Rancheria has agreed to provide compensation for
substantial mitigation and other costs to the County. These
include a one time payment of $6 million dollars for
mitigation of, among other things, county roads, native
oaks, woodlands; and a one time payment of $100,000 for
costs incurred by the County to prepare and implement the
MOA.
The Tribe has agreed to a continuous payment to the County
based on the valuation of the land as determined by the
County Assessor's Office. In addition the Tribe has agreed
to pay to the County 9 percent of all rents collected by
the Tribe on hotel rooms and vacation rentals.
governor of california
On May 27, 2015, Governor Jerry Brown, Jr. wrote a letter to
Congressman Jared Huffman expressing his support for the Lytton
Rancheria Homeland Act of 2015. In his letter he stated in part,
``Lytton Rancheria and Sonoma County have concluded an Agreement that
reflects a respectful relationship. The Act and Agreement provide the
framework for mutually beneficial cooperative efforts that protect the
Tribe's sovereignty as well as the vital interests of Sonoma County
residents.''
closing
In closing Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for holding this
hearing addressing the number one priority of my tribe--the re-
establishment of a homeland on which the Lytton people can once again
live communally now and for future generations. We have been fighting
back from losing our lands (the last time) for more than 50 years, and
I do not want another of our tribal elders to pass away without knowing
there once again is tribal land to house our people.
This committee has been there for us in our struggle. Please know
that fact is not lost on us. All people need a homeland and we are no
different. We are not asking for Federal or state lands. We have been
able to purchase our own land and we have done the hard work of getting
agreements with our local non-Indian communities. All we need now is
for the Federal Government to finish what was promised to us when our
status was restored. As an Indian tribe, we need our land to be held by
the Federal Government in trust for the Lytton Rancheria.
Passage of H.R. 2538, the Lytton Rancheria Homeland Act of 2015
will restore my people to where we were before termination. I hope you
will continue to support the Lytton Rancheria and move H.R. 2538 out of
committee and to the House Floor in the near future.
Thank you.
Attachment: Map
MAP
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Young. Thank you. Before I recognize the Ranking
Member, who will ask the first series of questions, Steve, I
will tell you this is not new to me. This issue has been around
for a long time. Thank you for your testimony. And I mean that,
because I have not seen the effort put forth, as you suggest in
your testimony, by the people involved that don't want the bill
to pass. If I thought for a moment there was true negotiation,
government-to-government, I wouldn't be having this bill. I
wouldn't have this hearing. But I don't see that effort. I see
a total lack of consideration. And some of the comments you
made are telling about the character of some people. So we are
going to try to move this piece of legislation.
With that, I will recognize the Ranking Member.
Dr. Ruiz. I am going to go ahead and yield the first round
of questions to Representative Huffman. Go ahead.
Mr. Huffman. I thank the Ranking Member. My question is to
Mr. Black from the BIA.
One of the reasons I introduced this bill is that I
appreciate the detailed agreements that this tribe, the Lytton
Tribe, has reached with county and local agencies. These are
agreements that anticipate and mitigate possible impacts. They
describe how future decisions will be made. And, along with the
legislation, they actually prohibit gaming on the land.
Now, it is my impression that if we think about the
alternative of the BIA process, there are far fewer
opportunities for all of the affected parties to collaborate on
a path forward. Can you give us an idea as to how many
applications the BIA has approved in recent years, including
post-Carcieri, and how much land has been taken into trust
through that process?
Mr. Black. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. Since
about 2009, we have brought in approximately 1,921
applications, totaling a little over 300,000 acres of land into
trust for tribes.
Mr. Huffman. So the perception that Carcieri sort of shut
down the BIA land-to-trust process is incorrect. We hear this
sometimes.
Mr. Black. I wouldn't say it shut down the process. It did
add some complications and length to the process, yes.
Mr. Huffman. Right. As we heard from the Chairperson at the
Tribe, the Lytton Rancheria is a federally-recognized Pomo
Indian Tribe, and these folks have occupied land in California
and entered into treaties with the Federal Government going
back to the 1850s.
I understand that the Tribe has two land-to-trust
applications pending before the BIA. I wonder if you could
speak to the scenario where, if BIA approved those pending
applications, would any of the agreements that have been
reached with local agencies or the County, or the prohibition
on casinos, would any of that necessarily be included in a BIA
decision on those applications?
Mr. Black. Those decisions, or those types of agreements
and stuff, are considered when we are reviewing applications,
but they do not become part of the application process, or the
decision, no.
Mr. Huffman. So there would be no guarantee, for example,
that there would be a no-casino provision in a BIA decision.
Mr. Black. No, generally not, no.
Mr. Huffman. Chairperson Mejia, your written testimony
explains that you have used revenues from San Pablo, the
casino, to buy lands in Sonoma County from willing sellers, and
some of the property that the Tribe has acquired includes
vineyards. The Tribe is now getting into the wine business.
Why is it important for you that the Tribe diversify its
economic holdings?
Ms. Mejia. It is important because you can't put all your
eggs in one basket. And gaming, while it is a viable vehicle
for generating revenue, we can't be guaranteed that that is
going to always be there. As a Senator told me years ago, the
gaming industry is fluid.
Second, it is what IGRA intended, for tribes to be
sovereign. You diversify to make your money work for you and to
be able, for the longevity of the Tribe, to provide for my
members for generations to come--not only for my members, but
for the community, because with the agreements that we have, we
are definitely good neighbors. And I think the signed
agreements show that.
Mr. Huffman. You have agreements with the County of Sonoma,
the local fire district, local school district, the possibility
of an additional agreement with the Town of Windsor. This is a
lot of work. You are not required by law to do any of this. Why
was it important to you to spend months and, actually I think,
even years at the negotiating table to try to work these things
out with your local government partners?
Ms. Mejia. It was important because we want to be good
neighbors. We don't want to be in a community where we are not
wanted and we are a burden. So in doing these agreements, we
gave the local communities the assurance that we were going to
be good neighbors, we were going to be productive citizens in
the community, and it is a mutual respect and a win-win
situation for everyone.
Mr. Huffman. Well, I want to thank you for taking that
approach. This is not how it always works in these land-to-
trust situations around the country, or even everywhere in my
district. So I applaud you for doing the hard work of trying to
work things out with your local government partners.
Ms. Mejia. Thank you.
Mr. Huffman. I appreciate your testimony today. With that,
I yield back.
Dr. Benishek [presiding]. Thank you. I will yield myself 5
minutes, since I was up next.
Ms. Miyasato, you work for the County Board, or the Board
of Supervisors, then. You are the Executive Director. I
listened to your testimony and why you opposed the land-into-
trust thing, and the reasons for it. I guess the question I
have for you is, how do you propose remedying the Tribe's
current need for housing?
Ms. Miyasato. Congressman, thank you for asking that
question. We never said the Tribe didn't need housing. And when
the Board made its decision back in August 2013, which Chairman
Armenta and Mr. Lavagnino referred to, the actual motion was
for the Tribe to--we requested that they begin discussions with
the County regarding their plans to develop housing on Camp 4
and other projects that they would like to see, and they
directed their staff, us, to work with the Tribe on any
potential plans for Camp 4.
So, I just wanted to clarify that that was actually the
Board's direction to staff. There was a meeting, I believe,
with the representative from the Tribe and with our staff, and
there was an explanation of our process, and then no follow-up
from the Tribe.
Dr. Benishek. Well, what about the gentlemen next to you,
both say that the County was unwilling to work with the Tribe
as a government? What is that about?
Ms. Miyasato. Congressman, I think that since I have been
with the County--I have been with the County for a year-and-a-
half as the CEO--I know there have been different stories and
discussions about what had happened. So I went back to look at
the record myself, and all I can tell you is that the actual
direction from the Board of Supervisors at that time and at
that meeting was directing staff to work with the Tribe in
discussions with our planning staff on plans to develop Camp 4.
And that is the information that I have.
And since I have been with the County, the Board of
Supervisors has worked productively with the Tribe. There are
two agreements that Chairman Armenta discussed, which was one
for sheriff services and fire services. So they offered, and
the County voted unanimously to work with them and approve
those agreements. Just as a side note, those agreements for
existing services on the reservations----
Dr. Benishek. Chairman Armenta, now, give me your response
to what she just said here. You know, what is the story? I
mean, like any other landowner, can't you do an application to
put up housing? And why is this not an option for you?
Mr. Armenta. Our request at that meeting was that the
County meet and negotiate with the Tribe on a government-to-
government basis. Instead, the County Board of Supervisors
failed to acknowledge our sovereign status, and pointed us in
the direction of staff, county staff, as a typical landowner,
not as a government. That is the direction we were sent.
Dr. Benishek. So that is not going to work for you, then?
Is that the story?
Mr. Armenta. To address the housing need for our
membership, that does not fall within the Santa Barbara County
or the Santa Ynez Valley community land use plan. No, sir.
Dr. Benishek. I see. So you couldn't build housing there
without it being put into trust?
Mr. Armenta. We could build one house for every 100 acres.
So we could build 14 houses.
Dr. Benishek. I see. OK. Let me ask Mr. Barlow.
Can you discuss a little bit further the economic benefits
that the recognized tribal communities in your area might have
with the passage of this?
Mr. Barlow. Thank you for your question, Congressman. I
would----
Dr. Benishek. You mentioned it, but I need a little more
detail.
Mr. Barlow. Sure. In the case of those communities in our
region that have been recognized, they have been able to form
business operations. We are organized under a corporate
structure in Alaska. And they are into several different
enterprises, including things such as government contracting,
including eco-tourism, cultural tourism. Some have invested in
operating companies all over the United States of America. This
has allowed them to, provided they are profitable, have enough
wherewithal to fund such things as cultural programs,
educational programs, scholarship programs for their
shareowners, as well as to participate in furthering the
political process in the region. So they have much more of a
realized benefit than those of us who have not been recognized.
Dr. Benishek. All right, thank you. I appreciate it. I just
want to ask Chairwoman Mejia a question here.
Can you describe the current status of the land, again,
that is going to be taken into trust? And what is the current
status?
Ms. Mejia. It is held in fee.
Dr. Benishek. Oh, OK. All right.
Ms. Mejia. It is owned by the Tribe, but it is in fee
status, currently.
Dr. Benishek. OK. All right, thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Young [presiding]. Mr. Ruiz.
Dr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Black, I have a clarifying question. I heard today that
the Chumash bill is unnecessary because the land is already
into trust, the Camp 4 land is already into trust. Is it into
trust?
Mr. Black. The decision was made by the Pacific regional
director to bring that land into trust. That decision is
currently under appeal. So it hasn't completed the process. No,
sir.
Dr. Ruiz. OK. So it is not into trust.
Mr. Black. Not officially, no----
Dr. Ruiz. OK.
Mr. Black [continuing]. It is still under appeal.
Dr. Ruiz. Chairman Armenta, I understand, then, in the late
1800s the Tribe lost over 13,000 acres of land. It seems to me
that one of the concerns was that this new land would be 10
times larger than the existing reservation. But yet you lost
your ancestral land that was larger than this 10 times the size
of what your current exists. Can you give me more of that
history, please?
Mr. Armenta. There was a lawsuit filed by the Archdiocese
of the Catholic Church against the Federal Government to remove
the tribes and the tribal member's name off a title, when the
Catholic Church held that land with the tribe on title. And, in
return for that lawsuit, that is when they gave us 99 acres.
For a period of time we were on title for over 13,000 acres.
Dr. Ruiz. So you had 13,000 acres. They put you on 99
acres. And, of those 99 acres, how many of it can you develop
housing on, or do anything with it?
Mr. Armenta. The original 99 acres, about 40 acres of it is
developable.
Dr. Ruiz. So, in other words, they took away your land, put
you on a very small piece, and the majority of that is rocky
hillside, where you can't do anything with it. Is that----
Mr. Armenta. Either rocky hillside, sir, or swamp.
Dr. Ruiz. OK. So, my understanding is that you owned this
piece of land, and it has been determined to be your ancestral
land, and you want members of your tribe to come home to,
basically, live on their land. Is that the premise of this
bill?
Mr. Armenta. Yes, sir. It is.
Dr. Ruiz. OK. And my understanding, from what I have heard
today, is that you have shared any concerns, the burden of any
concerns, in providing for law enforcement, fire department,
and anything else that the local different agencies want you to
address, but that the stalemate here is that the County does
not want to negotiate in a government-to-government level with
the Tribe. Is that my understanding?
Mr. Armenta. That is your understanding. We currently have
two agreements with Santa Barbara County to provide law
enforcement and fire safety of a total of about $2 million a
year.
Dr. Ruiz. So I am wondering. What is the heart of this
issue? So they are concerned about gaming, and you put in the
provision there is no gaming. They are concerned about taxes,
yet you want to give them $1 million a year when they are only
collecting $81,000. So that is 125 years' worth of taxes in the
next 10 years. You are going through the NEPA process. You are
looking at water. There is a development next to yours that is
even more dense in housing than what you are proposing.
So, this question is for Ms. Miyasato. What else--what is
the heart of this issue? What is the matter here?
Ms. Miyasato. Congressman, there are a couple of different
things that you have mentioned, so thank you for mentioning
those things.
One is when you talked about the provision of service. The
provision of service that Chairman Armenta discussed was for
the existing reservation and the casino. And we consider it as
mitigation for those and their casino expansion, which is a
recent project to put in a 12-story tower, and to expand their
casino with that. So, the recent agreements we have agreed to
with the Chairman and the Tribe were really for the existing
reservation, not for the 1,400 acres that we are talking about
today.
In addition, you talked about--and rightfully so--you said
there is other land in the area that is developed. When the
community went through a community planning process, and the
County went through a comprehensive planning process, we said,
``Yes, we agree there are some pockets of development. But
those are not pockets of development we would like to see in
this particular land, which has been zoned for agricultural
use.'' And, as Mr. Armenta said, it is zoned for 100 acres, and
it is because, when we went through this local community
planning process, we said there are areas that are part of the
urban boundary, and areas outside. And we, in Santa Barbara
County, are committed to preserving and encouraging
agricultural viability.
So, some of the land that has been purchased by the Tribe
is in that agricultural zone; so it is really a discussion of
the community's values of maintaining agricultural use, and
confirming the community's desires through our comprehensive
planning process. Then this land being in there, this isn't in-
fill development. We are talking about an area that we have
looked at for rural agricultural use.
And when the Chairman said you couldn't build the houses--
--
Dr. Ruiz. So then, in other words, the point of the matter
is that you don't want housing on this agricultural land.
Because it seems to me that everything else, the Tribe is
bending over backwards to work with you. So then, it not only
becomes an agricultural zoning issue versus whether you want to
build houses on it, but, on the flip side, the other side of
the story is a moral justification for some sense of justice
for a tribe who has lost a large portion of their land, and is
now simply wanting to have their members come home and to have
a homeland of which it was taken away years ago. So, I believe
that is sort of the dilemma that is going on in this.
And one of the things that I want to make very clear is
that they are a government. They are a sovereign nation. And
for any institution in the United States not to recognize that
is backwards. So, we need to make sure that they are respected,
that they have a seat at the table, and that they are in
negotiations with any other government, as a government. I
believe that is another part of the matter for our committee to
make it understood to the County.
Mr. Young. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. And again,
thank you all for your travel here to come all the way to DC,
Chairman and Supervisor, Ms. Miyasato--sorry about that.
Supervisor, I think we may share the same old-country
roots, so I am going to try it the right way. Is it Lavagnino?
Mr. Lavagnino. Lavagnino.
Mr. LaMalfa. Lavagnino. OK, all right. I was trying to
account for the G there. So, anyway, now, as a county
supervisor--and, you know, I represent 11 counties up in the
north, in the first congressional district, and it is pretty
rural--they are always battling, trying to stay funded, trying
to work with the Federal Government for a lot of the Federal
lands that are owned there that we have the PILT, payment in
lieu of taxes, and that is probably fairly important to you in
Santa Barbara, as well.
So, what we are looking at here is kind of a PILT-type
situation. Of course, there were concerns, taking land into
trust. But we have seen where the Chumash Tribe has stepped
forward to more than make up for that. So what do you see that
as being beneficial for your county, which--I would imagine all
counties, you know, having worked with CSAC and RCRC before--
how important is that to you, to see the potential benefit
here?
Mr. Lavagnino. Well, thank you, Congressman. We, as any
county has over the past few years in California, we have
struggled financially, and this was our first year where we
really had a surplus and have been able to restock our surplus
accounts.
But, obviously, when you are talking about an area--if you
are just looking at this from a financial perspective, we have
been receiving somewhere between $80,000 and $85,000 a year,
and now we would be getting $1 million a year. Obviously, that
would have a significant impact to the services that we would
provide.
Mr. LaMalfa. And earlier, Chairman Armenta testified that
they do indeed provide not only their own weight, but above
that with their emergency services and other things they
provide to the area, to the valley. So that has to have a
pretty positive impact already, as well, for----
Mr. Lavagnino. It does, and it is very well received. And
those were actually agreements that the Chairman worked--I
would have to say it is almost offline with the sheriff. The
Board of Supervisors were not involved until we actually
approved the contracts at the end. They brought us the
contracts between the Tribe and the sheriff and our fire
department. And one of them is for a large--forgot how much
they spent--over $1 million on a piece of equipment that is
going to be used all throughout the Santa Ynez Valley.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK, thank you.
Ms. Miyasato, you kind of mentioned earlier that the
legislation, or the effort by the Tribe, would be a shortcut to
getting to their end goal of providing housing, of using their
land as they would perhaps like to see fit.
So they have already owned the land for about 5 years. But,
even more so, you point back to taking into trust recently 6
acres adjacent right to the trust land they have, which was a
14-year lawsuit-filled process. How can you really think that,
at this point, this looks like a shortcut, when they have
waited this long, and past history shows that they have endured
a lot of unnecessary attorneys fees and delay, again, with the
end goal they have members that need housing, would like
housing, would like it in the traditional way, with people they
would like to associate with? How can you justify that?
Ms. Miyasato. Congressman, I think what we are saying in
the County is that we have--you have a process, Congress has a
process for hearing the community and the local residents'
concern through the appeal process, and we would like to see
that through, rather than have this bill preempt that.
And on the 6.9 acres, I am sympathetic to the Tribe in the
length of time. And I just want people to know that the County
did not oppose that, taking that into trust. It was commercial
property for their uses, and we did not oppose that. I think
the issue, here again, is that this----
Mr. LaMalfa. But you have a culture there of people that
will come forward with lawsuits, frivolous in nature--and that
is debatable, I suppose--but the delay there for people trying
to do what they see fit, and do business, and the County is
contributing to that in this scenario here.
Ms. Miyasato. Congressman, I think that there are some
errant voices, and maybe misguided voices in the community, as
you have pointed out. In my time there, in evaluating that and
talking to community members, I think the main concern is just
the change in use and the lack of input through the process.
And as we talked about----
Mr. LaMalfa. There has been plenty of input through the
courts, ma'am, and it looks like there will be more to come
along.
And a disturbing thing, too, is that you didn't acknowledge
that they are already providing emergency services above and
beyond what anybody would expect. Instead you referred that the
County has to do this on the lands that are--as is. So I think
a little more acknowledgment of the cooperation of the Tribe,
it would be very much in order.
I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Young. Thank you.
Mrs. Torres.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a follow-up
question to Ms. Miyasato.
What are your--you were talking about community values. I
happen to value affordable housing. Have you met your numbers?
Ms. Miyasato. For the state? Yes, we did. We just passed
our most recent housing community development plan for the
state of California. So we just approved that, yes.
Mrs. Torres. OK. What is the number of homeless individuals
in your county?
Ms. Miyasato. Congresswoman, I don't have that information,
but I could certainly provide it to you.
Mrs. Torres. When you provide that information, can you
provide tribal members that may be homeless or at risk of
homelessness?
Chairman Armenta, can you give the committee a little bit
more information about the Tribe's current housing stock?
Specifically, can you elaborate on who does and doesn't live on
the reservation?
Mr. Armenta. Yes, Congresswoman. Currently we have 65 homes
on the reservation. There are 143 enrolled tribal members,
there are 500 children. Of those, 17 percent live on the
reservation. They are homes that were built--started being
built in the 1970s by HUD. Most of them are two-, perhaps
three-bedroom homes, that are housing multiple generations.
Mrs. Torres. As a follow-up, if the Tribe is able to
acquire this land, how far would it go toward addressing the
housing situation among tribal members?
Mr. Armenta. It would assure that every enrolled tribal
member would have a home to live in on the reservation and
practice our cultural beliefs, as well.
Mrs. Torres. I read in the reports about all of your
outreach efforts to the community. Can you elaborate for this
hearing today how extensive those efforts have been?
Mr. Armenta. Congresswoman, we have lived within this
community far before it was developed. Even when the first
settlers came in, we felt that it was the responsibility of our
tribe, it was the nature of our membership to be hospitable to
people. But we provide our community, I believe, with items
that are not recognized as well as they should be.
For instance, the fire agreement. This fire agreement that
we have with the County was originally dated back to 2002 that
I personally negotiated, far before any casino expansion. Three
years ago I started negotiations with the county sheriff, well
before we were doing any expansion of any casino.
California is a Public Law 280 state. Santa Barbara County
has the responsibility for providing fire service and public
safety, law enforcement on reservations. We just insist on
helping them, because we know it not only makes our reservation
community a better place to live, but it makes the Santa Ynez
Valley a better place to live.
Mrs. Torres. Right. Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Young. I thank you.
Mr. Gosar.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much.
Director Black, the Tribe has been very forthcoming that
this land taken into trust will not facilitate a casino. Is
that true?
Mr. Black. Yes, sir.
Dr. Gosar. So----
Mr. Black. That legislation has that statement in it.
Dr. Gosar [continuing]. So they have been above board the
whole time.
Mr. Black. That is my understanding, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Well, the reason I bring that up is that we have
a problem in Arizona, that a tribe wasn't very forthcoming,
actually lied to the commission in Arizona in regards to buying
a piece of property and extending casinos in Phoenix. So that
is very important, that they were straightforward.
Chairman Armenta, you have been very forthcoming, as well.
You have been more than polite, extending a hand. Is that true?
Mr. Armenta. Yes, sir.
Dr. Gosar. So do you see this as a win-win situation, the
potential for a win-win situation?
Mr. Armenta. I believe any time two governments work
together it is absolutely a win-win for both parties involved.
Dr. Gosar. Ms. Miyasato--I am probably saying your name
wrong, I am sorry--do you see a position for a win-win
situation in this?
Ms. Miyasato. Congressman, I think there is always a chance
for a win-win, an opportunity----
Dr. Gosar. I don't know--don't like that word, ``chance.''
Because it seems to me like you are on the back burner, and
they should be on the front burner. So tell me that there is a
win-win situation here, because I am about ready to tell you
how it can happen.
Ms. Miyasato. I think there can always be a win-win
situation. And----
Dr. Gosar. And particularly when you have that mind set,
right? When you go in with a positive mind set, there are a lot
of things that you usually----
Ms. Miyasato. There is a lot you can do with a positive
mind set. You are absolutely right, Congressman.
Dr. Gosar. Yes. Well, I see a lot of negativity in this
process.
I have a tribe in my hometown. It is called the Yavapai
Apaches. And what happens, they have an island, and they are
surrounded by the Town of Prescott in Prescott Valley. And so,
a choice came to this entity about collaborating and working
with the tribes, or treating them like what you are doing right
now. And it has turned out to be a magical relationship.
Because when there is a problem for Prescott and Prescott
Valley with the Federal Government, they let the tribes address
it. That is unbelievable. And then, when they have the state
and local aspects, the city councils and the Board of
Supervisors work. They even included them in their economic
plan. Yes, they have a casino up on top of the hill, but they
are very diversified in their applications now.
Why don't we see something like that in this case?
Ms. Miyasato. Congressman, I think that--and, again, I am
going to give from my experience--the relationship has been
inconsistent with the Tribe and the County, so----
Dr. Gosar. And whose fault is that?
Ms. Miyasato. I think there is shared responsibility in
that. And I think Chairman Armenta talked about the great
things that they have done for the County, the sheriff
agreement, the fire agreement. Again, that was a response to
their existing reservation, their existing casino. And the fire
truck that he mentioned, that was brought up by our fire staff,
and not brought up originally by the Tribe, to provide an
aerial fire truck to service a tower that is part of the casino
expansion. Our staff is the one who brought that up, that
wasn't part of the original plans or their mitigation.
And the things that we wanted to continue to talk about,
and we asked the Tribe, ``That is great, and can we continue
talking about these other things that we see as issues,'' they
never came back to us. So I think it is an uneven discussion.
Dr. Gosar. So let me ask you a question. It seems like,
from your standpoint, when I do the background on this, you
have delayed and delayed and delayed from the County's
perspective. Would you agree with that?
Ms. Miyasato. From my existing experience, I don't see that
we have delayed and delayed. I think----
Dr. Gosar. Chairman Armenta, would you agree or disagree
with that comment?
Mr. Armenta. I would have to agree with it, sir.
Dr. Gosar. OK. So, how do you go forward? I mean you want
us to slow this legislation down, and I don't think the
Congress wants to do that, because that is our jurisdiction. So
how do you see the next time frame, or the next, let's say, 6
months?
Ms. Miyasato. Congressman, we would like the appeal to
proceed, and have those discussions about the issues that we do
see with the process and with the fee-to-trust application, and
some of the inadequacies that we saw in the environmental
impact, or the environmental assessment. Some of the issues
that we saw needed to be addressed that weren't addressed. So
we would like that process to proceed, so that we, the county,
the government, and the local communities can have some more
input in discussing those impacts and what we see are issues.
Dr. Gosar. Chairman Armenta, how do you see the next 6
months?
Mr. Armenta. Congressman, I have not seen a change since
1999, when I became Tribal Chairman. I have reached out to the
County many times. I will continue to reach out to the County.
But, to be perfectly honest, I don't know if the County is
going to allow that. So I don't know if I see much change. If
there is an opportunity to meet with the County, I will
absolutely do that.
Dr. Gosar. I see it as a possibility here that Congress
needs to keep the fire on you guys' feet. And I have done this
with the Forest Service in our fire-laden forests in Arizona.
So I actually would applaud the folks here to continue pushing
this legislation. And I ask you to speed up your negotiation
and do it in good faith, because there is a win-win at the end
of this tunnel.
So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Young. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Denham.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Miyasato, in our notes here it says that you are
currently getting $82,000 annual for tax revenue on that
current piece of property.
Ms. Miyasato. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Denham. And the Tribe is offering a million. Those are
correct numbers?
Ms. Miyasato. I am told the Tribe offered a million some
time ago.
Mr. Denham. And in this relationship, this government-to-
government relationship, this negotiation they are having with
the Tribe, what is it you are actually looking for? What are
you asking for?
Ms. Miyasato. The last action of the Board of Supervisors
was to ask the Tribe to engage us in a planning process for
their housing development and other uses that they asked for on
the site.
Mr. Denham. Other uses. So you want a greater say over the
agricultural part of the land use?
Ms. Miyasato. We wanted a greater say into the whole
development, so part of the application, or part of the initial
project alternatives from the Tribe was--one was to have lots
of open space, one was to do a community facility and
exhibition hall and have some visitor serving kind of uses.
Mr. Denham. Do you not want an exhibition hall or another
type of facility there?
Ms. Miyasato. Currently we believe that would have
significant impacts to the residents, if it brought 800
visitors to the valley. So we wanted to have more discussions
with----
Mr. Denham. Well, what impact would it have?
Ms. Miyasato. Well, one could be traffic, one could be
noise, one could be the intersection with the agricultural
area. We have these agricultural buffer areas between the
commercial or residential areas----
Mr. Denham. It is currently in Ag. use now, is it not?
Ms. Miyasato. It currently is. Yes, sir.
Mr. Denham. OK. So further Ag. use is not a problem, is it?
Ms. Miyasato. Further Ag. use is not a problem, currently.
Mr. Denham. OK. And the density of this housing development
is less dense than the current housing unit that is adjacent to
this property. Is it not?
Ms. Miyasato. Congressman, could you repeat that?
Mr. Denham. There is another piece of property adjacent to
this property, where there is a housing development that is
more dense than what is actually being proposed by the Tribe.
Ms. Miyasato. There is a housing development that is one
unit per 5 acres to the east, and that was one of the things
that the Tribe had proposed, would be a 5-acre----
Mr. Denham. I guess what I have continued to not understand
over the years--and I think the committee members of this
committee are failing to understand--is if the housing
development is less dense than the one next to it, if the Ag.
use is currently being used for Ag. use, and they are willing
to offer more than 10 times what you get in property values
today for that tax revenue, what is it you are looking for,
other than just holding this issue up?
Ms. Miyasato. Congressman, some of the issues you raise are
significant issues. And on the money, let's talk about that for
a second. I am told there was a draft agreement some years ago
where that was the offer. That wasn't based on any particular
number. So, in the Lytton agreement, for example, that you are
looking at today, they are looking at a percentage. But, we
don't know what the number of people per household would be.
There is no document that tells us how many new residents are
going to be coming. And the Tribe's environmental review said
you are not going to have an increase in people, because people
who live in the valley will then move----
Mr. Denham. Have you been to their current reservation?
Ms. Miyasato. I am sorry?
Mr. Denham. Have you been to their current reservation?
Ms. Miyasato. Yes.
Mr. Denham. Have you seen the housing?
Ms. Miyasato. I have driven by, yes.
Mr. Denham. The HUD housing that is there. I mean do you
see that as being acceptable housing? Can you see why they are
looking to build new housing elsewhere?
Ms. Miyasato. I can see why they are looking to build new
housing elsewhere, and the County has never said that they
shouldn't build new housing. In fact----
Mr. Denham. They just took the----
Ms. Miyasato [continuing]. We invited them to come talk to
us about it----
Mr. Denham [continuing]. Land into trust through the
government-to-government negotiation.
Ms. Miyasato. I am sorry, Congressman? I am sorry.
Mr. Denham. My time is limited. Do you have issues with the
current development under the current reservation, developing a
larger casino, large hotel, any of their current issues--are
there issues that the County has with the development on the
current reservation?
Ms. Miyasato. We did have issues with their expansion
plans.
Mr. Denham. You did, or do?
Ms. Miyasato. We do, but it is sort of a moot point at this
point.
Mr. Denham. Why is it a moot point? You said something in
your testimony which got my attention. It seems to me that you
are--because we have failed over the years to find any land use
issue with the property that they are trying to develop for
housing for their individuals, but in your testimony you
mentioned that you had concern over the development on their
current reservation.
Now, I imagine you can't do much about their current
reservation, the current developments there. But because you
can hold hostage another piece of property, that gives you
leverage to hold up something that may or may not be happening
on their current----
Ms. Miyasato. Congressman, we are not holding up anything
on their existing reservation.
Mr. Denham. OK. Let me conclude. This is an issue of
government-to-government relationships. The Federal Government
is going to negotiate, just as you would hope the local
government would negotiate in good faith. This is not a
geographic issue, any more than the fine folks of Utah and the
Red Rock bill that continues to come up every year, with no
members of the Utah delegation supporting something that other
members continue to try to push, or, in my community, where we
need water storage, and we have a coalition of members that are
fighting for water storage, and yet there are members outside
of our community that want to stop that water storage.
This is not about a regional issue, as it is about a self-
reliance, or a government-to-government negotiation. You either
believe in tribal sovereignty--which many members in this body
do--or you don't. We believe that we have to make up for the
misdeeds of previous Congresses, and misdeeds that have
happened to Indian Country throughout the country. And this is
one of those ways that, in a government-to-government
relationship, in a fight for self-reliance, that this tribe, as
well as other tribes, should be able to provide housing,
medical facilities, and many other essential necessities to be
able to have self-reliance for their tribe. This isn't about
gaming. It is about being able to help your family, same way
that we want to help our family.
Mr. Young. Thank you.
Mr. Denham. We need to correct an injustice, and this is
one bill to be able to do that.
Mr. Young. Thank you. I thank the gentleman.
Mrs. Capps.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
your testimony--to our witnesses.
Again, I am pleased to have several constituents here,
providing their perspectives on H.R. 1157 and the complex
issues involved. But I believe even our witnesses would admit
that they do not represent the full array of views on this
issue in the Santa Ynez Valley and throughout Santa Barbara
County.
As we know, we locals, there are fierce opponents of this
bill, strong supporters, and many people in between, who are
not necessarily vocal about their views. This diversity of
opinion on this local issue cannot fully be represented
accurately in this setting, which is one of the many reasons
why I oppose the legislation, and oppose it moving forward in
this committee.
As I am sure Supervisor Lavagnino and Ms. Miyasato can
certainly attest, when these types of local land issues and
zoning issues are considered at the county level, the full
array of interested parties can participate in the process--and
they do--and voice their opinions directly to decisionmakers.
Santa Barbara County has heard from hundreds of local
residents in hours and hours of meetings, community forums, and
hearings on these issues, as well as considered hundreds of
pages of letters, legal filings, and environmental studies. But
this diversity of opinion and in-depth debate of the many
issues involved in this matter are not a part of today's
limited hearing.
H.R. 1157, which impacts only my district, and is being
considered today with only the limited views of three witnesses
from the area, and questions from a handful of Members of
Congress who do not represent the region, and consequently do
not fully understand the community or the complexity of the
issues at hand. This restrictive process is not how these
issues should be resolved.
The BIA fee-to-trust is far from perfect, but it at least
does allow for all interested parties to participate and make
their voices heard. As I mentioned in my opening statement, the
BIA has approved Camp 4 property being taken into trust, and
several appeals of this decision have been filed.
Director Black, my understanding is that these appeals of
the Camp 4 decision are being considered under new rules from
2013 that speed up the internal appeals process. Is that true?
Mr. Black. Yes----
Mrs. Capps. Well, would you explain this new process--maybe
some of my colleagues are not familiar with it--under which
this particular Camp 4 appeal is now being considered, and the
expected timeline going forward?
Mr. Black. Yes. The Assistant Secretary, under current
regulations, has the ability to take an appeal from the IBIA
and issue that decision from his office. So he has exercised
that right on this case.
Mrs. Capps. OK. And how does the appeals process for Camp 4
differ from the process used to consider the 6.9 acres that the
Tribe has been trying to take into trust for well over a
decade? Do you expect the Camp 4 appeals to take as long as the
6.9 acres did?
Mr. Black. I don't know how much of that time involved in
the previous one was under the IBIA and how much of it was at
Federal court.
Mrs. Capps. Well, can you----
Mr. Black. Subsequently, you know----
Mrs. Capps. Right.
Mr. Black [continuing]. Upon issuing the decision from the
Assistant Secretary's office, there is the ability to go to
Federal court. That is oftentimes what happens. And, as it was
stated earlier, this went on for 14 years.
Mrs. Capps. Right. But now there is a consolidated appeal.
Mr. Black. There is a consolidated appeal before the
Assistant Secretary, yes.
Mrs. Capps. Have there been examples that this has been a
shorter time frame?
Mr. Black. I can't speak to that, right at the moment, no.
Mrs. Capps. OK. Well, finally, if H.R. 1157 were enacted,
how would it impact the consideration of the pending Camp 4
appeals?
Mr. Black. It is my understanding that if this legislation
was enacted, it would moot those appeals.
Mrs. Capps. So there would be no further opportunity for
any local appeals to be considered.
Mr. Black. Not through our process, no.
Mrs. Capps. I yield back.
Mr. Black. That is my understanding.
Mrs. Capps. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Young. I thank the good lady.
Mr. Black, again, you just hit a time frame on appeals. It
is my understanding, if it goes against the Santa Barbara
County, that that could be appealed to a court ruling?
Mr. Black. Yes, sir.
Mr. Young. And that would be to, what, a local district
court? Or would it be to----
Mr. Black. I believe that goes to Federal court, sir.
Mr. Young. And it would be a Federal court, but at a lower
court.
Mr. Black. I would have to ask my lawyers exactly what
the----
Mr. Young. OK. And then, if that was lost, it could be
appealed again to a higher court of the lower court?
Mr. Black. I have seen that in the past, with----
Mr. Young. So, what we are talking about is 14 years,
right? That is really what we are talking about.
Mr. Black. Yes, sir.
Mr. Young. OK. If I can--and this is a question--it will be
a little short.
Mr. Black, my concern is my bill. We've got a lot about all
these other bills, but the villages or the townships and the
natives in Southeast Alaska--I am going to go to Mr. Barlow
later on--you keep saying, ``Aside from precedent, the issue of
identifying specific lands and administrative difficulty of
conveying lands''--does the Department find any good reason to
deny the aboriginal land claims for the five Alaska Native
communities?
Mr. Black. [No response.]
Mr. Young. What is the precedent? That is what I want to
know.
Mr. Black. Sir, I am going to defer that question to Mr.
Nedd, if that is OK with you.
Mr. Young. You are on the hot seat, bud.
Mr. Black. Well, I am sorry, I don't have a----
Mr. Young. No, he can do it.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Nedd. Thank you, Congressman. I am sorry, I didn't get
your full question.
Mr. Young. The testimony we have from you is precedent. And
I always like that we are in the precedent. There is no such a
thing as precedent as the law. We make the law. So, the
question is, you use the word ``precedent,'' but is there any
good reason to deny the aboriginal land claims of these five
native communities?
Mr. Nedd. Well, Congressman, it is my understanding that
these five communities previously were found ineligible, and
appealed--and three of them appealed that. So, therefore, what
the Department is saying, if Congress was to move ahead and
determine eligibility when they were ineligible, it would set a
precedent, and open it for any other community----
Mr. Young. Only we can open it up.
Mr. Nedd. Well----
Mr. Young. You know, you can see there is no precedent.
Only the Congress can do it. And this is not an attempt to open
up ANCSA at all. What we are trying to say here is there are
reasons why they were not recognized, and why they were denied
that recognition through the appeals process, because the law
was written in 1971.
But in 1971, when this law was written--and go back and
read a little bit of history--the communities involved here all
had large, lumbering timbering operations. There was effort put
into this Congress at that time not to recognize them because
it might have affected the long-term leases of that timber.
They were still aboriginal people, they still had a right under
the Lands Claims Act, as far as being an aboriginal settlement.
And I am suggesting respectfully, is there any other reason,
other than precedent? Don't you recognize them as aboriginals?
Mr. Nedd. Congressman, again, right now what we have is the
1971 law that was passed----
Mr. Young. That is right. And we passed that. OK? You admit
that. And what we passed, we can rectify. That is our role, as
this committee. And they were excluded by Members of Congress
at that time because there was an undue pressure put upon those
that are not to be recognized that would have affected the
leases from the Federal Government--you guys remember, from the
Federal Government. It wasn't from the state of Alaska. So they
were excluded. What I am trying to do is rectify that.
Now, let's see. Five times--what is it, 27, Mr. Barlow? How
many acres by township?
Mr. Barlow. Congressman, that would be 23,040 acres per
township.
Mr. Young. Twenty-three thousand. So we are talking about
five. How many acres in the Tongass National Forest, Mr. Black,
do you know?
Mr. Black. I have it somewhere here----
Mr. Young. It is 17 million.
Mr. Black. OK.
Mr. Young. So we are talking about little itty bits to
justify the aboriginal right to those lands. And I always worry
about this, because there is this--``It is mine.'' This is the
Forest Service, these are the other agencies--``Ours.'' It was
theirs, before. And to take and be this small, and not say it
is their right, is wrong. And they are not asking for the barn
or the farm. Every other community in the Southeast, every
other village, got these lands. But they didn't have this
timber interest.
Now we turn around and ruin the timber industry, because
you reneged on the--you didn't, but my administration reneged
on the long-term leases. And now we have these five communities
without land. It just bothers me.
Mr. Barlow--just a moment, I am going to get you right--why
did--I think I hit it, but why do you think they didn't give
you guys land? And, by the way, most of these Native Land
Claims Act started in Wrangell, way back when in 1903. And this
was the hotbed of the natives in Southeast Alaska. They were
leading forward the brotherhood, and et cetera, and they were
left out.
But go ahead, Mr. Barlow.
Mr. Barlow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There has been much
speculation over the years, and there certainly is no record of
why there was not a conveyance to the five affected
communities. There are a lot of suspicions. Of course, the
timber contracts that you mentioned, as well as activities by
the Forest Service and, in some respects, by the state of
Alaska, which didn't view native land ownership in the
Southeast as a good thing. Frankly, there was a lot of
prejudice in the communities at times, too.
But we really do not know why we were not included. All we
know is that the University of Alaska report confirms this,
there was nothing on the record. So, therefore, we will
continue to pursue resolution of this issue, because the battle
isn't over yet.
Mr. Young. All right. I thank you. I can tell you in that
period of time a lot of things weren't on the record. Probably
some of it should have been.
I just want to thank you. As you know, I have been pursuing
this legislation for a long time. And I just wish my
administration would--excuse me, not my administration--I wish
the Administration would start looking at the amounts of land
we are talking about. We had the veterans--``Can't do it. Oh,
it is awful.'' And we have these communities, these small
pieces of land. I do not believe in precedent; we set, if there
is such a thing, the rules. And don't refer as your lawyer,
going back and saying the precedent has been set, because only
we can change that, this Congress.
On the issue of the question of Santa Barbara, I am just--I
don't know. I just want you to know one thing, young lady. You
go back and tell your people this is not new to me. Mrs. Capps
mentioned the idea of Elton Gallegly was against it. And we do
have a responsibility. And I don't see any effort by anybody--
and those Board of Supervisors, other than one--that wants to
solve this problem.
I just asked Mr. Black. You are going to appeal it again.
Are you not going to appeal it, if you lose?
Ms. Miyasato. Congressman, I can't presuppose what the
Board is going to be doing.
Mr. Young. Well, I can tell you, you are. Like right now.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Young. You probably won't have a job, as CEO. So I am
suggesting that either you tell them they better sit down with
this chief, or I am moving this bill. It is that simple.
Injustice does not pander to those that have, and deprive those
that do not have. The right of housing, the right of being able
to live under good shelter, is a basic right of every American.
And we provided all kinds of public housing for everybody else,
and yet this group that wants to build their own housing in the
scenic area of a backyard of a lot of other people, this
bothers me.
So, you had better tell them that. Because I suggested this
to them 5 years ago, 5 years ago. And, as a courtesy, I said,
``No, I haven't seen any progress.'' And I listened to Mr.
Seymour there--is it Seymour? Is that his name? What is his
name? You know, the supervisor, next to the chief. And it is a
pretty damning case. So you better go back and tell your
friends that we will, if they don't. It is that simple.
Anybody want to ask any other questions?
[No response.]
Mr. Young. If not, Mr. Denham.
Mr. Denham. Just one final question for Mr. Armenta. There
is a safety issue I am concerned about, as well. I was
surprised to learn that there could be severe fire hazards
faced by some of the HUD housing that is currently on the
reservation. It is not something that has been talked about yet
today.
Mr. Armenta. Congressman, when that housing development was
designed, it wasn't designed in a manner that would allow for
safety equipment to access the streets. They are narrower than
a typical street. The housing, where there is multiple housing
on one lot, is denser than anywhere else, and it wouldn't allow
for public safety departments to access our reservation in a
timely manner.
The county-owned road that enters the reservation is even
below substandard, when it comes to ingress and egress for
emergency vehicles.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Young. Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I have
toured the area. My son went to college down in the general
area, as I did years ago, as well. So, we have a connection.
But more so, it is important that we in Congress back up,
basically, our oath to preserve constitutional ideals. And that
would be freedom, that would be property rights, and that would
be the ability to exercise your ability to use your land and do
things as you see fit. So we know we have constraints with
planning and local government, and I respect that, I greatly
respect that.
But we hear, again, an unyielding roadblock by the local
government to have a dialog, really. So, Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate your stern suggestion to the County that they step
up here, that we do have a piece of legislation that we will
continue to be pursuing in this process.
But I think what everybody needs to recognize here is that
the County actually will do better under this legislation than
the open-endedness of what a BIA decision would do. The
legislation provides for certain aspects that the County can
predict, whereas the Tribe wouldn't necessarily have to do
certain things under a BIA decision. So there is really not a
downside for the County, other than maybe they enjoy being a
roadblock, for whatever reason. And that is not right, because
I work very well with my counties up in the north, and they are
by and large very willing to come together and have great
relationships with the tribes, and see that there is a mutual
benefit. Mr. Gosar mentioned that a little bit ago, as well.
So, I don't know that that is the direction CSAC likes to
go, but this seems to be unique. So I appreciate the attitude
and the direction that Supervisor Lavagnino wanted to take
this, as well. And, again, for your travel, Chairman Armenta,
for your patience and the patience of the people you represent
to get here, to be here, and to work.
And for Ms. Miyasato, I hope you really have heard loud and
clear what the attitude of this subcommittee is today, and that
you will take that back, along with your supervisor, and if
there is something to be done locally, really reflect upon that
and show that there has been a wrong done for a long time here
with delays that are unnecessary, and do the right thing. Your
county will come out better with our legislative process than
by what could happen in an open-ended one.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I will yield back.
Mr. Young. Thank you. I have one question to the Chairman
again.
When did you buy this land?
Mr. Armenta. We bought this land 5 years ago.
Mr. Young. Five years ago. Was it up for public auction?
Mr. Armenta. No, sir, it wasn't.
Mr. Young. Did you have an inroad, or--I mean how did this
work out?
Mr. Armenta. The previous owner was Mr. Fess Parker, who
was a personal friend of mine and a personal acquaintance,
along with his son. On his death bed, he told his children he
wants this land to go back to the Tribe.
Mr. Young. So it was Fess Parker who did this.
Mr. Armenta. Yes, sir.
Mr. Young. OK. I think that is good. That is good to know.
Fess Parker, I like that idea. He had a good idea about
culture. He had a good idea about justice. So--never mind, I
won't go into it.
Any other questions?
[No response.]
Mr. Young. If not, the committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:51 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
H.R. 1157
August 20, 2013, Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors,
Minutes from Board of Supervisors meeting. 35 pages.
June 6, 2015, Santa Barbara County GIS Data, Exhibit
A--Aerial Vicinity Parcel Map, Santa Ynez Camp 4. 1
page.
June 11, 2015, Mr. Brian Kramer, Santa Ynez, CA,
Letter to Chairman Young. 3 pages.
June 12, 2015, C. David and M. Andriette Culbertson,
Letter to Chairman Young in regards to proposed
legislation. 3 pages.
June 12, 2015, Mr. Thomas P. Walters, County of
Santa Barbara, Board of Supervisors, Comments in
opposition to proposed legislation. 1 page.
June 30, 2015, Mr. Brian Kramer, Santa Ynez, CA,
Letter to Chairman Young. 2 pages.
July 1, 2015, Cappello & Noel LLP, A. Barry
Cappello, Comments on proposed legislation. 47 pages.
H.R. 2386
April 18-21, 2012, Central Council of Tlingit and
Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, Seventy-Seventh Annual
Tribal Assembly, Juneau, Alaska, Resolution TA/12-41,
``Support for `Landless' Alaska Native Communities.'' 2
pages.
April 17-20, 2013, Central Council of Tlingit and
Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska. Seventy-Eighth Annual
Tribal Assembly, Juneau, Alaska, Resolution TA/13-40,
``Support of the Landless Southeast Alaska Native
Communities Seeking Legislation to Form Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA) Corporations and Receive
ANCSA Benefits.'' 2 pages.
April 9-12, 2014, Central Council of Tlingit and
Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska. Seventy-Ninth Annual
Tribal Assembly, Juneau, Alaska, Resolution TA/14-32,
``Support of the Landless Southeast Alaska Native
Communities to Form Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANSCA) Corporations.'' 3 pages.
October 8-11, 2014, Alaska Native Brotherhood &
Alaska Native Sisterhood Grand Camp, Resolution No. 14-
08, ``Support all Southeast Alaska Native Communities
and their Descendants from the failures of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) to include Land
Selection Rights and Compensation.'' 2 pages.
April 15-17, 2015, Central Council of Tlingit and
Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, Eightieth Annual Tribal
Assembly, Juneau, Alaska, Resolution TA/15--19,
``Support of the Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native
Communities Seeking Legislation to Allow Them to Form
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)
Corporations and Receive ANCSA Benefits.'' 2 pages.
June 16, 2015, Southeast Alaska Conservation
Council, Statement for the record on H.R. 2386. 4
pages.
June 16, 2015, Various letters to the Chairman from
residents of Tenakee, Alaska in opposition to H.R.
2386. 8 pages.
June 18, 2015, Christie Lee (Dailey) Jamieson,
Wrangell Landless Tribal Member, Letter to Chairman
Young in support of H.R. 2386. 1 page.
June 19, 2015, Ms. Joyce Ruth Freiberg, Letter to
Chairman Young in support of H.R. 2386. 1 page.
June 24, 2015, Sealaska Corporation, Mr. Anthony
Mallott, President & CEO, Statement for the record in
support of H.R. 2386. 3 pages.
June 25, 2015, Richard `Tashee' Rinehart, Letter to
Chairman Young. 6 pages.
June 30, 2015, Grand Camp Alaska Native Brotherhood,
Mr. Bradley J. Fluetsch, CFA, ANB Executive Committee,
Chair Landless Committee, Letter to Chairman Young in
support of H.R. 2386. 1 page.
July 1, 2015, Central Council of Tlingit and Haida
Indian Tribes of Alaska, Mr. Richard J. Peterson,
President, Letter to Chairman Young in support of H.R.
2386. 3 pages.
July 1, 2015, National Congress of American Indians,
Letter to Chairman Young in support of H.R. 2386. 4
pages.
July 24, 2015, Senator Bert K. Stedman, Alaska State
Legislature, Letter to Chairman Young in support of
H.R. 2386. 2 pages.
H.R. 2538
May 27, 2015, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Office
of the Governor of California, Letter to Congressman
Jared Huffman expressing support for H.R. 2538. 1 page.
June 14, 2015, Michael Robinson and Eric Wee,
Testimony submitted to Chairman Young in opposition of
H.R. 2538. 18 pages.
June 15, 2015, Thane Young, Vice President, Van
Scoyoc Associates, Letter to Chairman Young in support
of H.R. 2538. 1 page.
June 16, 2015, Craig Curreri, Vice President of the
Board, Windsor Fire Protection District, Letter to
Representative Jared Huffman in support of H.R. 2538. 1
page.
June 26, 2015, Brent Gudzus, Letter to Chairman
Young in opposition of H.R. 2538. 1 page.
June 27, 2015, Margaret Rouse, Letter to Chairman
Young in opposition of H.R. 2538. 2 pages.
June 27, 2015, C. Stan Shusda, Letter to Chairman
Young in opposition of H.R. 2538. 1 page.
June 28, 2015, Robert E. Hopkins, Letter to Chairman
Young in opposition of H.R. 2538. 2 pages.
June 28, 2015, Richard Mendelsohn, Letter to the
Chairman in opposition of H.R. 2538. 2 pages.
June 28, 2015, Debbie Paulsen, Letter to the
Chairman in opposition of H.R. 2538. 2 pages.
June 28, 2015, Jenny Whalen, Letter to the Chairman
in opposition of H.R. 2538. 1 page.
June 29, 2015, Ms. Candise Alvarez, Letter to
Chairman Young in opposition of H.R. 2538. 2 pages.
June 29, 2015, Mariela P. Au and the Au Family,
Letter to Chairman Young in opposition of H.R. 2538. 1
page.
June 29, 2015, Whitney Hopkins, Letter to Chairman
Young in opposition of H.R. 2538. 3 pages.
June 29, 2015, Janice Mascadri, Letter to Chairman
Young in opposition of H.R. 2538. 3 pages.
June 29, 2015, Barbara Mendelsohn, Letter to the
Chairman in opposition of H.R. 2538. 2 pages.
June 30, 2015, Peg Champion, Letter to the Chairman
in opposition of H.R. 2538. 2 page.
June 30, 2015, Karen Dubrule, Ed. D., Letter to the
Chairman in opposition of H.R. 2538. 2 pages.
June 30, 2015, Jennifer Ramirez, Letter to the
Chairman in opposition of H.R. 2538. 1 page.
July 1, 2015, Sheri R. Greene, Letter to Chairman
Young in opposition of H.R. 2538. 2 pages.
July 1, 2015, Robb & Ross, Testimony for the Record
on H.R. 2538. 19 pages.
July 1, 2015, John Stayton, Letter to Chairman Young
in opposition of H.R. 2538. 1 page.
[all]