[Senate Hearing 114-260]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-260
S. 817, S. 818, S. 1436, S. 1761, S. 1822, S. 1986, AND H.R. 387
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 7, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-036 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
JON TESTER, Montana, Vice Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
STEVE DAINES, Montana HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
T. Michael Andrews, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Anthony Walters, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 7, 2015.................................. 1
Statement of Senator Barrasso.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Lankford.................................... 27
Statement of Senator Tester...................................... 2
Witnesses
Casamassa, Glen, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System,
U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture............ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Daboda, Hon. Darren, Chairman, Moapa Band of Paiute Indians...... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Martin, Hon. Robert, Chairman, Morongo Band of Mission Indians... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Melendez, Hon. Arlan, Chairman, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony........ 10
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Smith, Michael, Deputy Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S.
Department of the Interior..................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Appendix
Day, Hon. Kevin, Chairman, Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians,
prepared statement............................................. 40
DeSoto, Hon. Randi, Chairwoman, Summit Lake Paiute Tribal
Council, prepared statement.................................... 39
Dixon, Hon. Stacy, Chairman, Tribal Business Council, Susanville
Indian Rancheria, prepared statement........................... 65
Hawley, Hon. Vinton, Chairman, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribal
Council, prepared statement.................................... 37
Ike, Leona A., Member of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs,
prepared statement............................................. 71
Leno, Hon. Reyn, Tribal Council Chair, Confederated Tribes of the
Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, prepared statement............ 45
Manning, Hon. Lindsey, Chairman, Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the
Duck Valley Indian Reservation, prepared statement............. 57
Pigsley, Hon. Delores, Chairman, Confederated Tribes of Siletz
Indians of Oregon, prepared statement.......................... 58
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada, prepared statement... 35
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to
Michael Smith.................................................. 72
Thompson, Hon. Perline, Chairman, Duckwater Shoshone Tribe,
prepared statement............................................. 36
S. 817, S. 818, S. 1436, S. 1761, S. 1822, S. 1986, AND H.R. 387
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Indian Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:52 p.m. in room
628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
The Chairman. Good afternoon. I call this hearing to order.
Today the Committee will examine seven different bills. All
the bills being considered today pertain to taking land into
trust for a federally-recognized tribe.
On March 1, 2015, Senators Wyden and Merkley introduced two
bills, S. 817 and S. 818. S. 817 would allow the Secretary of
the Interior, when considering trust land acquisitions for the
Siletz tribe, to treat the applications as on-reservation
acquisitions.
S. 818 would allow the Secretary of the Interior, when
considering trust land acquisitions for the Grand Ronde tribe,
to treat the applications as on-reservation acquisitions.
Senator Reid and Senator Heller introduced S. 1436 on May
21 of this year. The bill is similar to past bills and would
place 77,177 acres of land in Nevada into trust for six Nevada
tribes to allow the tribes to carry out landscape restoration
and fuel reduction activities.
Senators Boxer and Feinstein introduced S. 1761 on July 14,
2015. There is a companion bill, H.R. 2212, which was
introduced by Representative LaMalfa on May 1.
The bill transfers approximately 301 acres located in
Lassen County, California from the Bureau of Land Management to
the Department of the Interior to be placed into trust for the
Susanville Rancheria Tribe for cultural purposes and a sports
recreation center.
Senators Boxer and Feinstein introduced S. 1822 on July 21,
2015. This bill transfers approximately 80 acres from the
Forest Service to the Department of the Interior to be placed
into trust for the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians in order to
carry out a fuel reduction plan.
Senator Reid introduced S. 1986 on August 8, 2015. The bill
transfer 25,977 acres from the Bureau of Land Management to the
Department of the Interior to place the land in trust for the
Moapa Band of Paiutes.
Lastly, we will consider H.R. 387, which was introduced on
January 14, 2015 by Representative Ruiz and introduced in the
House. The bill is a multi-parcel land transfer between the
Morongo Band of Mission Indians, a private land owner, a city,
and a county.
Before we move to the witnesses, I would like to ask Vice
Chairman Tester if he has an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for
holding this legislative hearing on a number of tribal lands
bills.
I want to welcome the witnesses who are here to testify
today.
We all know how important land is to tribal communities.
Through the seven lands bills we will hear about today, tribes
will be better able to develop housing for their tribal
members, create economic development opportunities for the
communities, protect cultural and traditional uses for future
generations or simply preserve lands within tribal communities.
For too many years, the United States promoted policies
designed to take lands away from Indians, even while making
promises to tribes that they would have a reservation for their
community in perpetuity.
For the most part, these policies have been reversed. I
want to commend the Committee members, the sponsors of today's
bills and the Federal agencies committed to restoring homelands
and recognizing tribal reservations and boundaries.
Decades of policies going back and forth on restoring
tribal lands have led to a checkerboard of land ownership by
tribes, individual Indians and non-Indians. This complicates
the delivery of all kinds of services in tribal communities
from law enforcement and road maintenance to utilities and
water rights.
Tribal land bills often serve to correct these issues by
consolidating tribal lands into contiguous parcels to allow for
better development and growth of tribal communities.
I would also like to thank the tribes themselves for their
work on restoring their homelands. Often tribes are forced to
buy back land that was originally taken from them or to go
through a lengthy and expensive process of getting bills
through Congress to recognize their reservation or add
additional lands.
After the hearing today, I hope we can quickly move these
bills. Each of these bills by themselves may be small but they
have the highest importance to the tribes they affect.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, both
from the agencies for their testimony and support for these
bills and from tribal leaders who have come to Washington to
discuss how their bills will impact and benefit their
communities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Tester.
We will now hear from our witnesses. First to testify is
Mr. Michael Smith, Deputy Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Smith, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SMITH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Mr. Smith. Good afternoon, Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman
Tester and members of the Committee.
My name is Michael R. Smith. I am the Deputy Director for
the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior.
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony for the
Department on these bills related to BIA and the Bureau of Land
Management. All of these are for placing lands into trust for
tribes.
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 governments. Thus, the Department has
made restoration of tribal homelands a priority.
The Department supports H.R. 387, the Economic Development
through Tribal Land Exchange Act. The Department recognizes
that the land exchanges contemplated in this bill would reduce
so-called checker boarding of Indian land and produce more
consolidated land holdings for the tribe.
The tribe and the city of Banning, California are to be
congratulated for working out an exchange that benefits both
the tribe and local government.
S. 818, a bill to amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act to
make technical corrections and for other purposes, amends an
Act to establish a reservation with the Confederated Tribes of
the Grand Ronde community of Oregon and to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to place in trust approximately 1,038
acres of real property located within the boundaries of the
original 1857 reservation of the Confederated Tribes of the
Grand Ronde community if the real property is conveyed or
otherwise transferred to the United States by or on behalf of
the tribe.
Furthermore, the bill provides that the Secretary is to
treat all applications to take land into trust within the
boundaries of the original 1857 reservation as on-reservation
trust acquisition and that all real property taken into trust
within those boundaries after September 9, 1988 are to be
considered part of the tribe's reservation.
S. 817 would amend the Siletz Tribe Indian Restoration Act,
25 U.S.C., Section 711(e), to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to place land into trust for the Siletz Tribe. The
lands lie within the original 1855 Siletz Coast Reservation and
are located in the counties of Benton, Douglas, Lane, Lincoln,
Tillamook and Yamhill, all located within the State of Oregon.
S. 817 will also provide that such land would be considered
and evaluated as on-reservation acquisition under 25 CFR,
Section 151.10 and become part of the tribe's reservation. The
bill does not make the original Siletz Reservation into a
reservation for the Siletz Tribe or create tribal jurisdiction
over the original Siletz Reservation.
Additionally, S. 817 clarifies that nothing in this Act or
amendment made by this Act shall prioritize for any purpose the
claims of any federally-recognized Indian tribe over the claims
of any other federally-recognized Indian tribe. The Department
supports S. 817.
S. 1986, the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians Land Conveyance
Act, declares that approximately 26,000 acres of public land in
southern Nevada shall be held in trust for the benefit of the
Moapa Band of Paiutes.
The bill also declares that approximately 90 acres of land
currently held in fee by the tribe shall be held in trust as
part of the reservation of the tribe.
The Department supports S. 1986 and would like to work with
the sponsor and the Committee on modifications concerning
energy transmission corridors, recreational opportunities and
protection of sensitive species.
S. 1436, the Nevada Native Nations Land Act, would be
revised for the Secretary of the Interior to hold in trust for
the benefit of a number of federally-recognized tribes over
71,000 acres of federal lands in Nevada managed by the Bureau
of Land Management and the United States Forest Service.
The Department of the Interior welcomes opportunities to
work with Congress on lands to be held in trust. We appreciate
efforts to address some of the BLM's concerns with previous
versions of the bill and we generally support S. 1436 if
amended to address a few concerns explained in our written
testimony.
The Department knows that some of the parcels identified in
this legislation contain lands that are general or priority
habitat management areas for the Greater Sage-Grouse which are
identified for retention in the final Greater Sage-Grouse Plan
for Nevada and northeastern California.
Accordingly, we would like to work with the sponsor and the
Committee on boundary modifications to avoid Greater Sage-
Grouse habitat on language that would ensure appropriate
conservation measures in the Greater Sage-Grouse.
S. 1761 directs that approximately 300 acres of BLM-managed
land located in Lassen County, California be held in trust for
the benefit of the Susanville Indian Rancheria. The Department
supports S. 1761 and would like to work with the sponsor
concerning the treatment of rights-of-way and improvements
under the bill as well as minor technical corrections.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department's
views on these bills. I will be happy to answer any questions
the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Smith, Deputy Director, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
H.R. 387
Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester, and Members of the
Committee, my name is Michael Smith and I am the Deputy Director for
the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior
(Department). Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony for
the Department on H.R. 387, the ``Economic Development Through Tribal
Land Exchange Act.'' The Department supports H.R. 387.
The Morongo Band of Mission Indians (the Tribe), located
approximately 20 miles west of Palm Springs, CA, along with the City of
Banning (the City) and Lloyd L. Fields (Mr. Fields), a private property
owner who resides in California, have asked Congress to enact
legislation providing for the exchange of certain lands within or
adjacent to the Morongo Reservation (1) to promote the consolidation of
the Tribe's reservation lands, (2) to resolve a land-use dispute among
Mr. Fields, the City and the Tribe, and (3) to facilitate commercial
development on lands adjacent to the Tribe's reservation that will be
beneficial for the City and the Tribe, as well as Mr. Fields. A map
depicting the property to be exchanged is referenced in the bill. The
parcels are identified as Parcels A, B, C and D.
Background
Among the parcels of land the United States currently holds in
trust on behalf of the Tribe is a parcel of 41.15 acres (Parcel B), a
portion of which is adjacent to lands outside the Tribe's reservation
that are owned by Mr. Fields. This parcel has no currently existing
access to any public road and has little economic value to the Tribe.
In 1995, through transactions with other private non-Indian
landholders, Mr. Fields acquired a similarly sized parcel (Parcel A)
that at the time also was outside the Tribe's reservation. Parcel A has
since become encircled by lands acquired by the Tribe and now held in
trust for the Tribe by the United States as part of the Tribe's
residential area, largely precluding Mr. Fields from commercial
development of Parcel A. In an effort to relieve the City from the
continued maintenance and upkeep of certain lands which it owns, the
City is interested in conveying to the Tribe approximately 1.21 acres
of land (Parcel C) that is within the Tribe's reservation and that is
used for a roadway, in return the Tribe would grant the City an
easement over other tribal trust lands (Parcel D) adjacent to Parcel B,
which the City intends to use as a roadway and for electrical, sewer,
water, and related utility lines in order to enable future commercial
development that the City believes will be beneficial to the City.
H.R. 387
First, H.R. 387 authorizes and directs the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary) to accept title to Parcel A to be held in trust
for the Tribe. Second, H.R. 387 authorizes and directs the Secretary to
convey Parcel B to Mr. Fields, thus removing Parcel B from trust
status. Third, the bill authorizes and directs the Secretary to grant
an easement to the City for use of Parcel D as a roadway and for
electrical, sewer, water, and related utility lines owned by the City.
All three of these conveyances would be done simultaneously. Fourth,
H.R. 387 directs the Secretary to accept title to Parcel C to be held
in trust for the Tribe after the City has vacated its interest in
Parcel C pursuant to applicable state law.
Anticipated Use of Lands
The lands the Tribe is requesting be placed into trust on its
behalf will assist the Tribe with its land consolidation efforts. The
Tribe already has a hotel and casino in a different section of its
Reservation that the Tribe has designated for entertainment and
hospitality uses; thus, the Tribe is unlikely to use Parcel A for any
commercial use other than grazing or other ranch or farming related
activities. Parcel C will continue to be used by the Tribe as a roadway
providing access to the Tribe's residential area. We would be happy to
work with the Subcommittee to add legal descriptions of the parcels
into the bill.
The Department recognizes that the land exchanges contemplated in
this bill would reduce so-called checkerboarding of Indian land and
produce more consolidated land holdings for the Tribe. The Tribe and
the City of Banning are to be congratulated for working out an exchange
that benefits both the Tribe and local government. The Department
supports this bill.
S. 817, A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADDITION OF CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY TO THE RESERVATION OF THE SILETZ TRIBE IN THE STATE OF OREGON
Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester, and Members of the
Committee, my name is Michael Smith and I am the Deputy Director for
the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior. Thank
you for the opportunity to present the Department of the Interior's
(Department) views on S. 817, a bill to provide for the addition of
certain real property to the reservation of the Siletz Tribe.
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 governments.
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. While the Department acknowledges
that tribes near the Siletz Tribe oppose S. 817, the Department
supports S. 817.
S. 817 would amend the Siletz Tribe Indian Restoration Act, 25
U.S.C. 711e, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to place land
into trust for the Siletz Tribe. The lands lie within the original 1855
Siletz Coast Reservation and are located in the counties of Benton,
Douglas, Lane, Lincoln, Tillamook, and Yamhill, which are all located
within the State of Oregon. S. 817 would also provide that such land
would be considered and evaluated as an on-reservation acquisition
under 25 C.F.R. 151.10 and become part of the Tribe's reservation.
The bill does not make the original Siletz Reservation into a
reservation for the Siletz Tribe or create tribal jurisdiction over the
original Siletz Reservation. Additionally, S. 817 clarifies that
nothing in this Act or amendment made by this Act shall prioritize for
any purpose the claims of any federally-recognized Indian tribe over
the claims of any other federally-recognized Indian tribe.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department's views on
this legislation. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
S. 818, TO AMEND THE GRAND RONDE RESERVATION ACT
Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester, and Members of the
Committee, my name is Michael Smith and I am the Deputy Director of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior
(Department). Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department's
views on S. 818, a bill to amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act to
make technical corrections, and for other purposes. The Department
supports S. 818.
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 governments.
Thus, the Department has made the restoration of tribal homelands a
priority.
S. 818 amends an Act to establish a reservation for the
Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, Pub. L. No.
100-425 (Sept. 9, 1988), to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
place in trust approximately 1,038 acres of real property located
within the boundaries of the original 1857 reservation of the
Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon if the real
property is conveyed or otherwise transferred to the United States by
or on behalf of the Tribe. Furthermore, the bill provides that the
Secretary is to treat all applications to take land into trust within
the boundaries of the original 1857 reservation as an on-reservation
trust acquisition, and that all real property taken into trust within
those boundaries after September 9, 1988, are to be considered part of
the Tribe's reservation.
Again, the Department supports S. 818. Thank you for the
opportunity to present testimony on S. 818.
This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any
questions the Committee may have.
Attachment
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Next, we will hear from Mr. Glen Casamassa, Associate
Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S. Forest Service,
Washington, D.C.
STATEMENT OF GLEN CASAMASSA, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL
FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Casamassa. Chairman Barrasso and Vice Chairman Tester,
thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
United States Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service.
I am Glen Casamassa, Associate Deputy Chief of the National
Forest System. There are two bills that I have been asked to
address. I have provided written testimony for the record.
S. 1436, the Nevada Native Nations Land Act, directs the
conveyance of approximately 82 acres of land administered by
the Forest Service to be held in trust for the Shoshone Paiute
Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation.
The parcel is located within the Humboldt-Toyaibe National
Forest. This 82-acre Mountain City Ranger Station
Administrative Site is within a larger 750-acre admin and
recreation site.
The Department supports the bill. We have several
recommendations for your consideration that we would like to
work with the Committee and sponsor to address. We recommend
the bill address the Forest Service continued need to use roads
located on the parcel for administrative purposes.
S. 1822, a bill to take certain Federal land located in
Tuolumne County, California into trust for the benefit of the
Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians, would transfer approximately
80 acres of National Forest System lands administered by the
Forest Service located within the boundaries of the Stanislaus
National Forest to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to be held in
trust by the United States for the benefit of the Tuolumne Band
of Me-Wuk Indians.
The two National Forest System parcels are surrounded by
private property with no legal access for the Forest Service.
The private property parcels are the Murphy Ranch owned by the
Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians and the Edward Ingalls Trust.
Mr. Craig Ingalls has written a letter on behalf of the Trust
in support of the proposed land transfer.
The Department supports the positive and cooperative
relationship between the Forest Service and the Stanislaus
National Forest and the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians and
their desire to manage these lands for fuels reduction and
other conservation purposes.
The Department does not oppose the land transfer to the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. However, we would like to work with
the Committee in correcting the parcels' legal description
described and based in the legislation.
This concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Casamassa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Glen Casamassa, Associate Deputy Chief, National
Forest System, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
S. 1436, the Nevada Native Nations Land Act
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to present the views of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) regarding S.1436, the Nevada Native Nations
Land Act. To Senator Reid, Senator Heller and other members of
the Nevada delegation, we wish to thank you for your work on
this bill.
The Department supports the bill as it applies to lands
managed by the Forest Service. We defer to the Department of
the Interior for matters concerning land administered by the
Bureau of Land Management.
Section 3(b) of the bill would transfer approximately 82
acres of land administered by the Forest Service to be held in
trust by the United States for the benefit of the Shoshone
Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. The parcel
is located within the Humboldt-Toyaibe National Forest.
The 82-acre Mountain City Ranger Station Administrative
Site identified for conveyance is within a larger 750 acre
withdrawal established in 1959 by Public Land Order (PLO) 1796,
which reserved the withdrawn lands for numerous administrative
and recreation sites. The Mountain City Ranger Station
Administrative Site contains a hay shed and corral constructed
in 1940 on the east side of the highway; a water well, water
and wastewater systems, and a wastewater treatment lagoon, two
houses, the oldest originally being constructed in 1958 are
still on the subject site. Later buildings constructed on the
site that are still there include a duplex, one modular single-
family home, a double-wide barrack, a double-wide single-family
home with detached garage, and a single-wide mobile home. A
second water well was constructed in 1992.
A total of 11 structures, including the 1940 hay shed, and
two water wells are included in the proposed acquisition.
We have several recommendations for your consideration that
we would like to work with the Committee and sponsor to
address. We recommend that the bill address the Forest
Service's continued need to use roads located on the parcel for
administrative purposes.
We also recommend that the bill specify that all facilities
and other infrastructure on the 82-acre parcel transfer to the
Tribe.
S. 1822, a bill to take certain Federal land located in Tuolumne
County, California, into trust for the benefit of the Tuolumne Band of
Me-Wuk Indians
Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Tester and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to provide the U.S. Department of Agriculture's views
regarding S. 1822, a bill to take certain Federal land located
in Tuolumne County, California, into trust for the benefit of
the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians, and for other purposes.
S. 1822 would transfer approximately 80 acres of National
Forest System (NFS) lands administered by the U.S. Forest
Service located within the boundaries of the Stanislaus
National Forest to be held in trust by the United States for
the benefit of the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians.
The Department does not oppose the transfer of this land to
be held in trust for the benefit of the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk
Indians. The two National Forest System parcels comprising the
80 acres are surrounded by private property with no legal
access for the Forest Service. The private properties
surrounding the two parcels are the Murphy Ranch, owned by the
Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians, and the Edward Ingalls Trust.
Mr. Craig Ingalls has written a letter on behalf of the Trust
in support of this proposed land transfer.
A search of Forest records and a brief site visit indicate
that there are no distinctive Forest uses or special resources
connected to or located on these parcels. There are no special
use authorizations associated with these parcels. There is,
however, a grazing permit that covers these parcels. However,
the forage on these allotments is minimal, and there is no
range infrastructure on the properties. Discussions with the
range permittee and the tribe related to future range use are
taking place with the anticipation of reaching a workable
solution for both parties.
The Department supports the positive and cooperative
relationship between the Forest Service on Stanislaus National
Forest and the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians and their desire
to manage these lands for fuels reduction and other
conservation purposes.
The Department would like to work with the Committee to
make one important technical correction to the legal
description as described in the legislation. Please add to the
legal description the base and meridian, Mt. Diablo Meridian.
This is needed to distinguish between the Mt. Diablo, San
Bernardino and Humboldt meridians.
This concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer any
questions. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. We appreciate your being
here.
Next, we will hear from the Honorable Arlan Melendez,
Chairman of the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony of Reno, Nevada.
Thank you for being with us.
STATEMENT OF HON. ARLAN MELENDEZ, CHAIRMAN, RENO-SPARKS INDIAN
COLONY
Mr. Melendez. Good afternoon, Chairman Barrasso, Vice
Chairman Tester and distinguished members of the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs.
My name is Arlan Melendez. I have been the Chairman of the
Reno-Sparks Indian Colony for the past 24 years.
I am honored to be speaking today, not only for my tribe,
but for the other tribes in this bill who comprise the Nevada
Tribal Land Coalition. I would like to express our heartfelt
thanks to Senators Reid and Heller for introducing the bill and
to you, Chairman Barrasso and Vice Chairman Tester, for
supporting the bill last year and agreeing to schedule today's
hearing.
The membership numbers of our tribes are growing. The
current capacity of our current lands is very limited. With the
exception of a few, the majority of tribes in Nevada have very
small land bases. Some are so small they do not even show up on
State maps. The comparison to large land bases of other tribes
in many western States is dramatic.
It is unrealistic that we can thrive, provide housing and
encourage economic development on so little land. It is only by
being able to expand and consolidate our land that our tribes
and cultural practices can thrive.
Each of our tribes has specific reasons for seeking to
expand our lands. We are united in our need for better
management and effective use of these lands. The other tribes
may be submitting statements for the record but let me
summarize their situations.
On behalf of Chairman Smart of the Fort McDermitt Paiute
Shoshone Tribe, the bill would transfer BLM land to resolve
checkerboard land issues. This would address law enforcement
and emergency personnel jurisdictional questions as well as
enable housing development. Planned land use and development of
natural resources will also ensure environmental biodiversity
and ensure better public health and safety.
On behalf of Chairman Manning of the Shoshone Paiute Tribe
of Duck Valley Reservation, the bill would transfer a small
parcel of Forest Service land, a longstanding goal.
When the Forest Service relocated its district
headquarters, housing units were abandoned. The tribes would
like to renovate these units to address chronic housing
shortages and to help recruit medical professionals, law
enforcement and conservation personnel.
On behalf of Chairman Desoto of the Summit Lake Paiute
Tribe, the bill would accomplish a long sought transfer of BLM
land for protection and management of Summit Lake's natural
resources and fish population and unify the reservation.
Reservation lands surround the lake except in one area.
Summit Lake is the home of the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout which
was integral to the tribe's cultural and vital food source. The
transfer will allow for improved management and trout habitat
restoration.
On behalf of Chairman Holley of the Pyramid Lake Paiute
Tribe, the bill would transfer BLM land to fully incorporate
the watershed of the Pyramid Lake so the tribe could better
manage its natural resources and protect Pyramid Lake and its
fish population thereby achieving cultural, economic and
environmental benefits.
On behalf of Chairman Thompson of the Duckwater Shoshone
Tribe, the bill would allow the tribe to utilize added lands
for economic development and community growth. The additional
lands will allow the tribe to expand agricultural operations,
plan for renewable energy projects, additional housing and
facility development and protection of cultural and spiritual
sites as well as wildlife.
The tribe's plan for the lands are spiritual, cultural,
natural resource management and economic heritage with a goal
of self sufficiency.
For my tribe, the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, the bill would
transfer BLM land because the current capacity of our
reservation is strained as we need additional land for housing,
cultural preservation and development.
The Colony members were residing on just a small 28-acre
reservation in Reno. In 1986, due to overcrowding, then-Nevada
Congresswoman Barbara Vucanovich assisted the tribe in
acquiring a parcel of land in Hungry Valley near Reno. She said
if we needed more land in the future, we should come back and
ask for it.
We have made the best use of this limited parcel. We have
constructed housing, a water system with production wells and
other facilities such as a community center. We have purchased
mining claims within the area proposed to be transferred by S.
1436 and the wells serving Hungry Valley community are off-
reservation but also within the same proposed transfer.
In closing, the BLM has also told us that they simply do
not have enough staff to cover Hungry Valley. Our tribes are
fully capable of being effective stewards of the land
identified in S. 1436.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify. I
would be happy to answer any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Melendez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Arlan Melendez, Chairman, Reno-Sparks Indian
Colony
Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester and distinguished Members
of the Committee on Indian Affairs. I am pleased to submit this
testimony in support of S. 1436, the Nevada Native Nations Land Act,
legislation introduced by Nevada Senators Harry Reid and Dean Heller.
We are also pleased that identical legislation (H.R. 2733), has been
introduced in the House by Congressmen Mark Amodei and Cresent Hardy of
Nevada. The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and
Alaska Native Affairs held a hearing on H.R. 2733 on July 15, 2015, at
which I testified.
Thank you for inviting me to testify on S. 1436 and for considering
our views. I have been acting as the leader of the Nevada Tribal Lands
Coalition, which consists of the following tribes:
Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe
Shoshone Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley
Summit Lake Paiute Tribe
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe
Duckwater Shoshone Tribe
Reno-Sparks Indian Colony
As I will be the only Nevada tribal leader testifying from this
coalition, my oral testimony will describe the needs of each of the
tribes requesting a land transfer and I am honored to speak on their
behalf. Each of the other tribes will likely also be submitting a
written statement for the record and their statements should be relied
upon for the specifics of their pending land transfer requests.
Therefore in this written testimony for the record my remarks are
mostly specific to the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony's land expansion needs
but I will include the following as a brief summary of each of the
tribes' requests for the land transfer:
Fort McDermitt Paiute Shoshone Tribe
The bill would transfer BLM land to resolve checkerboard lands
issues. This would address law enforcement and emergency personnel
jurisdictional questions, as well as enable housing development.
Planned land use and development of natural resources will also ensure
environmental biodiversity and ensure better public health and safety.
Shoshone Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley Reservation
The bill would transfer a small parcel of Forest Service land, a
longstanding goal. When the Forest Service relocated its District
headquarters, housing units were abandoned. The tribes would like to
renovate these units to address chronic housing shortages and to help
recruit medical professionals, law enforcement and conservation
personnel.
Summit Lake Paiute Tribe
The bill would accomplish a long-sought transfer of BLM land for
protection and management of Summit Lake's natural resources and fish
population and to unify the reservation. Reservation lands surround the
lake except in one area. Summit Lake is home to the Lahontan cutthroat
trout, which was integral to the Tribe's culture and a vital food
source. The transfer will allow for improved management and trout
habitat restoration.
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe
The bill would transfer BLM land to expand the reservation boundary
to fully incorporate the watershed of Pyramid Lake. Other sections near
the lake would be used for potential economic development and
management efficiency.
Duckwater Shoshone Tribe
The Duckwater Shoshone Tribe plans to utilize added lands for
economic development and community growth. The additional lands will
allow the Tribe to expand agricultural operations, plan for renewable
energy projects, additional housing & facilities development, and
protection of cultural and spiritual sites, as well as wildlife. The
Tribe's plan for the lands incorporates our spiritual, cultural,
natural resource management, and economic heritage with a goal of self-
sufficiency.
Common Themes Amongst Nevada Native Nations Land Act (S. 1436) Tribes
Our tribes' membership numbers are growing and the carrying
capacity of our current lands is very limited. It is only by being able
to expand and consolidate our lands for housing, development, and
preservation that our tribes and cultural practices can continue to
thrive. Each tribe in S. 1436 has specific reasons for seeking to
expand the lands of our reservations and we are united in our need for
better management and more effective use of these lands. We are fully
capable of assuming these responsibilities. With the exception of a
small parcel owned by the Forest Service, the lands in question are
presently owned by BLM so transferring title to a different Interior
agency (BIA) is not going to, for instance, affect the tax base. In a
number of instances, upon acquiring land, Indian tribes have been able
to undertake economic activities that have generated jobs and benefited
both reservation and off-reservation economies and helped create jobs.
We ask that you examine almost any map of Indian reservations in
this country and you will see that through historic quirks of fate, the
majority of land bases of the tribes in Nevada, particularly when
compared to the land bases of many other tribes, are so small as to
border on being non-workable. There are numerous million plus acre
reservations in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington, Utah,
Wyoming, Arizona and New Mexico and many more reservations that are
hundreds of thousands of acres in size yet the majority of Paiute and
Shoshone tribes of the Great Basin ended up with almost nothing. In
many instances our existing homelands are so small they don't even show
up on many state maps. S. 1436 would put to effective use by tribes
lands that are underutilized and not being adequately managed.
Background on Reno-Sparks Indian Colony
The historical context for how our current reservation came to be
is as follows:
In the 1880s, an urban Indian settlement made up of landless
Indians from the regional Washoe, Shoshone and Paiute tribes started
along the Truckee River next to the City of Reno. A land base of 20
acres was purchased in 1917 by the Federal government to provide a
permanent home for this urban settlement. The Colony population grew
along with the City of Reno. In 1934, the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony
(the RSIC) was established as a federally recognized Tribal government
under the Indian Reorganization Act. By the mid-1980's, the City of
Reno had grown to the point of engulfing the undersized lands of the
RSIC. The land base of the Reno Colony, near downtown Reno, is just 28
acres of densely packed homes. The majority of the land uses that
surround the Colony today consist of industrial development,
warehouses, freeways, and storage lots. With this legislation, our hope
is to avoid a repeat of what we have experienced the last 100 years of
encroachment of incompatible uses at our front door. Less than 3
percent of the land base is designated as park and open space. The
residential area is totally built out and could not accommodate another
home.
In 1986, pursuant to a bill introduced by former Representative
Barbara Vucanovich (R-NV), Congress transferred three sections of land
north of Reno from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the RSIC (and
to BIA to be held in trust) to address the need for additional
community housing. Currently, this area, known as the Hungry Valley
community, houses approximately half the RSIC's population. The Hungry
Valley community is seven miles west of the Spanish Springs community
and 17 miles north of the City of Reno. The RSIC has spent millions of
dollars in public improvements and community development, for example
building homes; water and sewer system; community buildings and
construction of Eagle Canyon Road from Pyramid Lake Highway to the
Hungry Valley community. We also created a tribal utility district to
supply water and sanitary sewer service to residents. The water system
includes production wells, water tanks and a water treatment facility.
Our primary production wells are located over a mile away on BLM lands
within the area requested in S. 1436. The community sewer system
provides for the treatment of all wastewater. The Hungry Valley
Community Center we built is the primary public facility serving
residents, with a volunteer fire department, offices for Housing
Department, Utility District, Head Start Program, a gym, and meeting
rooms. When Congresswoman Vucanovich was successful in the passage of
the bill (public law 99-389) establishing the Hungry Valley Reservation
she told us that if at some point in the future we needed to supplement
the Hungry Valley land, that we should make such a request of the
Congress. Here we are today making such a request and greatly
appreciative of Senator Reid, Senator Heller and Congressman Amodei's
leadership and support on this matter.
Further Need for this Legislation to Benefit the Hungry Valley
Residential Community
The Hungry Valley community is surrounded by BLM public lands to
the west, north, and east. Directly to the south and southeast is an
active open aggregate mining pit which conducts blasting on a regular
basis. In 2000, a large scale clay mining operation with two open pits
was proposed on BLM land directly adjacent to the Hungry Valley
community. The mine was never put into operation. The Colony eventually
purchased the 6,000 acres of mining claims and currently pays a $41,000
annual maintenance fee to the BLM. The 6,000 acres of mining claims are
totally located within the lands requested in S. 1436. Many adverse
activities are routinely occurring (in some cases permitted by the BLM,
in other cases in violation of BLM regulations) on the lands adjacent
to our residents' homes in Hungry Valley including:
Unlimited off highway vehicle (OHV) recreation area.
Loud and disruptive motorcycle events.
Gun Shooting events & recreational shooting--with assault
weapons--near residential areas.
Illegal dumping.
Unauthorized creation of motorcycle race tracks.
Military practice operation with simulated explosive
devices. (Hopefully an activity that won't be repeated.)
Initial target shooting involved rifles. More recently it has
escalated to assault weapons including apparent efforts at cutting
trees down by shooting streams of bullets via such high powered guns.
These are not activities anyone would want to see in proximity to a
residential area. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of lands in
Nevada not adjacent to a residential community where such activities
can readily take place.
Proposed Land Transfer from BLM to BIA
The RSIC is proposing to acquire through a Congressional transfer
approximately 13,434 acres from the BLM to the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) in trust for the RSIC in order to better manage and preserve the
cultural and natural resources at the Hungry Valley residential
community. Both BLM and BIA are agencies of the Department of the
Interior. These 13,434 acres represent 0.028 percent of the 47 million
acres of BLM lands in Nevada, lands that were once the exclusive domain
of Paiute, Washoe and Shoshone tribes of Nevada.
The local BLM staff are overwhelmed and readily admit they cannot
enforce their own regulations and ordinances in Hungry Valley. We
believe that transferring this land to the BIA's jurisdiction to be
held in trust for the RSIC is important for the citizens of our Tribe
and for the surrounding communities. We are pleased to have the support
of the Washoe County Commissioners who, on December 13, 2013,
unanimously supported our BLM land transfer request.
In addition to public safety concerns, there are important cultural
reasons why Hungry Valley is of great significance to us. We seek to
manage this land so as to ensure for future generations that the open
natural landscape that provides essential spiritual and traditional
cultural support for our people will continue to be accessible and be
properly managed. It is the intention of the Tribe to preserve and
manage these scenic, cultural and natural resources. In the past, the
Hungry Valley region was a traditional link between Pyramid Lake and
the Truckee Meadows. Many camps and cultural resources have been
identified by past archaeological studies. Many elders and residents
continue to use Hungry Valley for spiritual and traditional activities.
Several prominent landscape features in the Hungry Valley area are used
for traditional religious practices and are a source of medicinal
plants.
We are very proud of the many cooperative efforts we have entered
into with the State of Nevada and with the governments that surround
our downtown reservation as well as our existing Hungry Valley lands.
We assure the Congress that this spirit of good will and cooperation
will continue and that all parties in the surrounding areas will
benefit by this proposal.
Thank you for your consideration of this bill. We greatly
appreciated this Committee's bi-partisan support for this bill last
year when it was reported out to the full Senate, and we of course hope
you will move it to the Senate floor and final passage this year. I
would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Melendez. I appreciate
your being here.
Next, we will hear from the Honorable Robert Martin,
Chairman, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Banning, California.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MARTIN, CHAIRMAN, MORONGO BAND OF
MISSION INDIANS
Mr. Martin. Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester and
members of the Committee, I am Robert Martin. I serve as the
Tribal Chairman of the Morongo Band of Indians. Our reservation
straddles Interstate 10 just west of Palm Springs in southern
California.
I appreciate the chance to provide testimony on this
important issue and thank you for your willingness to consider
H.R. 387, a land exchange bill introduced by Dr. Ruiz and
Colonel Cook.
In summary, this bill is intended to address a series of
issue pertaining to lands within the Morongo Tribe's
reservation impacting the tribe, the City of Banning and the
non-Indian landowner.
The bill itself addresses three land management problems in
our area. First, Mr. Fields, a non-Indian, California-based
businessman, owns a 41-acre parcel of fee land that is
encircled by the tribal trust lands that he would like to
develop to its highest and best use which requires improved
access.
In an effort to address this problem, the bill seeks to
have the Fields' lands exchanged with an identical sized 41-
acre parcel of tribal trust land adjacent to other nearby lands
already owned by Mr. Fields.
The exchange of these lands will accomplish two objectives.
It provides Mr. Fields with superior access to his existing
lands, potentially opening the entire parcel to new economic
development opportunities and at the same time, the parcel
exchange consolidates our reservation's trust lands by
eliminating the checkerboard effect in that area. The
topography, physicality and values of the parcels of land to be
exchanged are virtually identical in every respect.
Second, the bill would address a pair of land use issues
between the Morongo Tribe and the City of Banning. The primary
access route to the reservation, a controlled entrance, is
situated near the beginning of Malki Road and a road that
extends near the reservation for approximately two miles.
However, when Riverside County abandoned the roadway years
ago because the section line runs down the middle of the road,
approximately the first half mile of the western side of this
road became owned by the City of Banning while the east side is
held in trust by the United States. However, the City of
Banning does not perform any maintenance on the roads. The
tribe is interested in having the Banning land placed in tribal
trust so as to allow for better maintenance and management of
Malki Road in its entirety.
Finally, the legislation addresses a desire by the City of
Banning to locate a road and related utilities such as water
and sewer that enable development of property on the city's
eastern edge. The lands on which the city is interested in
locating this road are held in trust by the United States on
behalf of the tribe. An easement for the city to use the land
must be approved by the Federal Government.
Under the terms of the bill, the Secretary of the Interior
would be directed to execute a number of changes. The lands
currently held in trust status for the tribe would revert to
fee simple status and would be transferred to Mr. Fields and
the Fields' embedded lands would be placed into Federal trust
status.
Finally, the easement to Banning would be effectuated.
We have provided the Committee with letters of support from
all three parties and we have worked with the Bureau of Land
Management to secure a land exchange map as referenced in H.R.
387.
With the enactment of this bill, Congress would help to
resolve a series of issues that have evolved over a number of
years which can only be resolved with the involvement of the
Federal Government.
From my tribe's perspective, the consolidation of our land
is vitally important. From the perspective of Mr. Fields, he
will secure direct access to lands that are currently non-
performing. With this bill, the City of Banning will now have
the opportunity to extend a critically important road and
related utilities to properties within the city limits that are
currently under served thus making commercial development of
those properties possible.
This legislation is a true win-win for our entire community
and will provide for future economic development opportunities
that will create jobs, housing and revenues for the region.
Finally, I want to thank Senator Boxer and Senator Moran
for their willingness to work in a bipartisan spirit to help
our entire community by introducing a companion bill in the
Senate, S. 175.
While we are grateful that the Committee has decided to
take up the bill already approved by the House, we are
nonetheless thankful for their efforts.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert Martin, Chairman, Morongo Band of
Mission Indians
H.R. 387 The Economic Development Through Tribal Land Exchange Act
Chairman Barrasso, Vice-Chairman Tester and members of the
committee, I am Robert Martin and I serve as the Tribal Chairman of the
Morongo Band of Mission Indians. Our reservation straddles Interstate
10, just west of Palm Springs in Southern California. I appreciate the
chance to provide testimony on this important issue and thank you for
your willingness to consider H.R. 387, a land exchange bill that has
been introduced by Dr. Ruiz and Col. Cook. In summary, this bill is
intended to address a series of issues pertaining to lands within the
Morongo Tribe's reservation, impacting the Tribe, the City of Banning
and a non-Indian landowner.
The bill itself addresses three land management problems in our
area. First, Mr. Fields, a non-Indian California based businessman,
owns a 41-acre parcel of fee land (Parcel A--Fields Lands) that is
encircled by tribal trust lands that he would like to develop to its
highest and best use, which requires improved access. In an effort to
address this problem the bill seeks to have the Fields Lands exchanged
with an identically sized 41-acre parcel of tribal trust land (Parcel
B--Morongo Lands) adjacent to other nearby lands already owned by Mr.
Fields. The exchange of these lands will accomplish two objectives: It
provides Mr. Fields with superior access to his existing lands,
potentially opening up the entire parcel for new economic development
opportunities; at the same time, the parcel exchange consolidates our
reservation's trust lands by eliminating the checkerboard effect in
that area. The topography, physicality and value of the parcels of land
to be exchanged are virtually identical in every respect.
Second, the bill would address a pair of land use issues between
the Morongo Tribe and the City of Banning. The primary access route to
the Reservation, a controlled entrance, is situated near the beginning
of Malki Road, a road that extends into the Reservation for
approximately two miles. However, when Riverside County abandoned that
roadway years ago, because the section line runs down the middle of the
road approximately the first half mile of the western side of this road
became owned by the City of Banning (Parcel C--Banning Lands) while the
east side is held in tribal trust by the United States. However, the
City of Banning does not perform any maintenance on the road. The Tribe
is interested in having the Banning Lands placed into tribal trust so
as to allow for better maintenance and management of the Malki Road in
its entirety.
Finally, the legislation addresses a desire by the City of Banning
to locate a road and related utilities, such as water and sewer lines,
that would enable development of property on the City's eastern edge.
As the lands in which the City is interested in locating this road
(Parcel D--Easement to Banning) are held in trust by the United States
on behalf of the Tribe, an easement for the City to use the land must
be approved by the Federal Government.
Under the terms of the bill, the Secretary of Interior would be
directed to execute a number of changes: the Morongo Lands, currently
held in trust status for the tribe, would revert to fee simple status
and would be transferred to Mr. Fields; the Fields Lands and Banning
Lands would be placed into federal trust status; and finally, the
easement to Banning would be effectuated.
We have provided the Committee with letters of support from all
three of the parties and we have worked with the Bureau of Land
Management to secure a land exchange map, as referenced in H.R. 387.
With the enactment of this bill, Congress will help to resolve a
series of issues that have evolved over a number of years and which can
only be resolved with the involvement of the Federal Government. From
my Tribe's perspective, the consolidation of our lands is vitally
important. From the perspective of Mr. Fields, he will secure direct
access to lands that are currently non-performing. And with this bill,
the City of Banning will now have the opportunity to extend a
critically important road and related utilities to properties within
the city limits that are currently underserved, thus making commercial
development of those properties possible. This legislation is a true
win-win-win for our entire community, and will provide for future
private economic development opportunities that will create jobs,
housing and revenues for the region.
Finally, I want to thank Senator Boxer and Senator Moran for their
willingness to work in a bi-partisan spirit to help our entire
community by introducing a companion bill in the Senate, S. 175. While
we are grateful the Committee has decided to take up the bill already
approved by the House, we are nonetheless thankful for their efforts.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have regarding
my testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Chairman Martin, for
your testimony.
Next, we will hear from the Honorable Darren Daboda,
Chairman of the Moapa Band of the Paiute Indians of Moapa,
Nevada.
Chairman Daboda.
STATEMENT OF HON. DARREN DABODA, CHAIRMAN, MOAPA BAND OF PAIUTE
INDIANS
Mr. Daboda. Good afternoon, Chairman Barrasso and Committee
members.
I am Darren Daboda, Chairman of the Moapa Band of Paiutes
Business Council which is the governing body of our tribe. This
is my third term as chairman and my seventh year on the tribal
council.
I am pleased to be here today to testify on behalf of the
Moapa Band of Paiutes in strong support of S. 1986, the Moapa
Land Conveyance Act. I thank Senator Reid for introducing the
bill and thank Senator Barrasso and the Committee for holding
this hearing.
I ask that my written testimony be included in the hearing
record.
S. 1986 would restore 26,000 acres to our reservation.
These are desert lands adjacent to our reservation that are
managed by BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation.
In addition to restoring the lands to our tribe that were
taken years ago, the tribe believes that this bill provides an
opportunity for the tribe to increase its self sufficiency and
to add to southern Nevada's economic and recreational growth by
returning these lands to local control.
The Clark County Water Commissioners support this bill and
the economic opportunity it presents.
The Moapa Reservation is located in the heart of southern
Paiute traditional lands. Our reservation was originally 2.2
million acres in 1873. In 1875, Congress reduced the
reservation to 1,000 acres to satisfy non-Indian settlers. We
made the most of the 1,000 acres by building housing and
community resources for tribal members and developing a
successful farm.
In 1980, Congress introduced 70,000 acres to the
reservation. We have worked to create economic opportunities
for the benefit of the tribe and our neighbors by introducing
our tribal plaza at Interstate I-15's Valley of Fire exit and
our leadership in utility scale solar development.
If this bill becomes law, the tribe stands ready to make
the most of the additional lands for the benefit of the tribe
and the local community in several ways.
First, the tribe desperately needs additional land to
construct housing within the reservation. Our existing lands
are generally not good for housing because the lands are too
far from infrastructure or the lands are off limits for
environmental reasons. Some of the lands included in this bill
would be ideal for housing.
Second, some of the lands have potential for economic
development, particularly solar energy. Our solar projects are
leading the way in southern Nevada for creating clean energy in
ways that respect the natural environment and create jobs for
local community members.
We have one project nearing completion of construction that
currently employs 500 local workers. We have two other projects
in the works that will support similar opportunities.
Third, some of the lands are of great location for outdoor
recreation and economic development in support of recreation.
The tribe supports responsible outdoor recreation and economic
opportunities it brings to the local community.
Fourth, some of the lands have been managed for flood
control. The reservation saw a thousand year flood event
September 8, 2014 that breached earthen dams on the
reservation. The tribe has received FEMA funding to rebuild
these reservation dams but there are other dams on BLM lands
that need to be fixed. S. 1986 would transfer some of the BLM
lands to the tribe and allow the tribe to take control of the
dams and their repair.
Fifth, some of the lands contain Paiute cultural resources.
The tribe would like to manage those lands to preserve the
cultural resources and natural environment where necessary.
Finally, Section 4 of the bill would transfer 88 acres of
fee land within the reservation into trust. The tribe has owned
this land in fee since 1979. It is vacant land and we intend to
leave it that way for now but we may use it in the future for
agriculture or housing.
In closing, I thank Senator Reid, Senator Barrasso and the
Committee for their work on S. 1986 and the tribe looks forward
to working with the Committee to move the bill forward.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Daboda follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Darren Daboda, Chairman, Moapa Band of
Paiute Indians
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Chairman Daboda.
I appreciate the testimony of each and every one of you.
I also want to thank Senator Lankford. He was actually the
very first person to arrive at the Committee in terms of the
members today. We had originally scheduled a business meeting
to start at 2:15 p.m. but it was temporarily delayed while we
were voting on the floor. We had a couple roll call votes. I
appreciate your efforts to be here so promptly, Senator
Lankford.
We did get to H.R. 487, an Act to allow the Miami Tribe of
Oklahoma to lease or transfer certain lands. You are welcome if
you would like to make comments regarding that. It has passed
the Committee in the business meeting. Then please join in the
questioning.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES LANKFORD,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA
Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do appreciate the cooperation of the Committee in passing
the bill to remove the Federal constraints that prevent the
Miami Tribe of Oklahoma from freely buying and selling land
they own but do not hold in trust.
That is a great asset to them for economic development and
allows them to be able to diversify their tribe and also expand
without the outdated, burdensome, antiquated belief that tribes
need the Federal Government to give them permission to move on
anything. I do appreciate that very much.
We have done this before as a Committee for tribes in
Mississippi, Florida and Texas. I appreciate the help in being
able to allow this Oklahoma tribe to be able to continue its
economic development.
I have just a couple questions as well.
Mr. Smith, let me ask you a little bit about some Oklahoma
items and where BIA is coming in, in the coming days, in the
plans.
As you are very aware, the Interior has just settled an
agreement with the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations for $186
million for the mismanagement over the years and the lack of
paperwork and processing on timber resources. We just had a
settlement not long ago with the Osage Nation on energy
resources.
My question is, what is an efficient way, moving forward
from here, to manage resources for which the Federal Government
has responsibility but the tribes actually have that control
and that management? Where do we go, what is the future path on
this, to allow the tribes to be able to have greater access and
control of the resources they have so we do not have these
multimillion dollar settlements by the Federal taxpayer?
Mr. Smith. I think that is a pretty broad question. In
general, we take our direction from the tribes. We work with
the tribes as partners. They set the priorities and where we
can, we fall in with our funding, support and technical
assistance.
We have programs that the tribes have taken on under
contract or compact. They administer those programs, manage
those programs and we provide the funding in general but it is
a partnership.
We have listened to the tribes and taken a look at their
plans. Many of them have IRMPs or resource management plans. We
follow their lead.
Senator Lankford. So how can we improve the process of
compacting or contracting with the tribes for these Federal
responsibilities so they have a greater sense of lead on that?
Mr. Smith. I think just provide more technical assistance.
Again, the tribes are way ahead of us in most cases because
they are hiring professional people, technical people that we
do not have anymore.
Our population, as far as our staff, has gone down because
of either lack of funding, reductions in force or I guess you
would call it buyouts. Some people call it that but it is an
opportunity for early retirement for some people.
In general, most of those funds transfer to the tribes and
they are able to hire people with those funds.
Senator Lankford. I guess the question is, given the
transition out of D.C. into tribal leadership, they are able to
make more of those decisions, how do you feel that is moving at
this point? How long is the backlog to be able to make some of
those decisions?
As I have chatted with some of the tribes, the decision-
making is so slow. They want the ability to be able to make the
decision on some of these aspects. Where are we missing each
other?
Mr. Smith. I am not sure I agree with that. We have
regional directors in all 12 of our regions throughout the
United States. They are senior executives. I supervise those
regional directors and they work very closely with the tribes
in their jurisdiction.
They work hand in hand with the tribes. They follow their
lead. Whatever enactments under tribal law are applicable, they
fall in line with the tribes' wishes. I think they work closely
together. I do not know that we a large backlog of things to
do. The tribes operate at their level and at their pace. We
coordinate our activities with them.
Senator Lankford. We will follow up on this. I will share
some individual examples with you and maybe we can work through
this. We are at the same spot you are. We are trying to be able
to serve individuals, be able to work through that process and
make sure we have the maximum amount of efficiency. Let us walk
through that in the days ahead.
Let me ask just on the issue of off-reservation gaming, has
anything changed as far as the Bureau's position on that? Has
anything been altered on off-reservation gaming at all in the
perspective?
Mr. Smith. Not that I am aware of. I think things are
generally the way they have been for several years.
Senator Lankford. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Lankford. Senator Tester?
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank all of you for your testimony. I want to
start with you, Mike.
These bills today deal with transfers of Federal land. They
can be deemed surplus locations, it just makes sense to make
the transfer, whatever the reason is. We deal with these bills
with some regularity.
The question I have for you is has there been conversation
around the Interior that we should add statutory mechanisms to
allow Federal agencies to transfer the lands when it is kind of
a no-brainer rather than forcing the tribes to go through
Congress?
Mr. Smith. The transfers that I am aware of are usually
administrative in nature from one Federal agency to another. It
seems like it is fairly simple and maybe we do need some laws
that would strengthen that transfer so that at the local level,
anyway, when lands are available for disposal, tribes nearby
would have the first opportunity to acquire those.
Senator Tester. It might be something to think about going
forward. I am never much in favor of ceding authority to the
Executive Branch but in this particular case, it may make
sense.
I want to talk about tribal opposition to the Siletz land
bill and your testimony with you, Mike. In your testimony on S.
817, you noted there is some tribal opposition to the Siletz
Tribe lands bill. Can you tell me, are there historical reasons
for the tribal opposition to this bill?
Mr. Smith. The only thing I am aware of is that there were
many tribes within that general area. Some became federally-
recognized and others did not. That may be the rub. I am not
sure of anything else.
Senator Tester. You are now aware of the reason for
opposition?
Mr. Smith. No.
Senator Tester. You know there is opposition?
Mr. Smith. There was an original reservation that was
supposed to have been established for a number of tribes and
the Confederacy of Siletz was reduced down to eight or nine
tribes so there were a larger number. I think the other tribes
that were not included are probably the ones that would object.
Senator Tester. Glen, your testimony mentioned an existing
grazing permit that covers the parcels to be transferred to the
Tuolumne Band. Given S. 1822 provides that the transfer is
subject to valid existing rights, would the bill affect the
permit holder's rights when it comes to grazing.
Mr. Casamassa. Given the fact there is a limited number of
AUMs on that small parcel of land, we feel we have the
opportunity to mitigate any of the impacts to the livestock
grazing permittee.
I think there is going to be some level of agreement made
between various entities to ensure that those AUMs still remain
whole for the permittee.
Senator Tester. I want to back up a bit to hear what you
just said. Are you saying that those rights do transfer and
that you would be buying those out or are you saying those
rights do transfer and there would be an agreement to give
those up?
Mr. Casamassa. Vice Chairman Tester, I am saying that the
amount of AUMs associated with that small conveyance can be
absorbed into the existing permits outside of that particular
area.
It is my understanding that there is some level of
agreement made amongst the various parties to ensure that those
AUMs are maintained.
Senator Tester. That is good. That could be a sticking
point if it is not. Let us put it that way.
The next question is for you, Arlan. You are here on behalf
of several tribes from Nevada. You noted that the land bases
are very small and are often unworkable in your State of
Nevada.
What would this bill's additional lands mean for the well-
being of individual tribal members in Nevada?
Mr. Melendez. I believe it would be helpful for cultural
activities and economic development. I think it is a positive
bill.
I think we do have a concern though about the concerns the
Bureau of Land Management may have. As you know, it means a lot
to us. When we look at the maps of the Bureau of Land
Management, they are mile squares.
The concern we have heard on the House side and here today
is that they want us to basically take a complete square. Some
of these do not match up with, say, a mountain range where we
are trying to just go to the mountain top. If you go on the
other side of the mountain, you come into conflict.
There is one situation in our reservation where it is an
airport owned by someone else. They are not going to be in
support of the tribe taking that square, if you try to square
it up.
At some point, if we went to the Nevada tribes and asked
them, has the Bureau of Land Management actually contacted you
for each one of these concerns the Interior has, I would
guarantee you those tribes in Nevada would say they have not
been really contacted one on one to try to resolve some of
these issues.
We heard it before in the hearing with the House side and
now we are hearing it again. I hope that one of the directives
that comes out of here is that the Bureau of Land Management or
the Interior actually contacts these tribes and actually works
out these situations because I think the tribes do not want to
keep hearing this is a concern but nothing is really resolved
on it.
That could basically be an impediment to the passage of
this bill. That is my concern as I head the Interior's position
on some of these issues. I do not think that some of the tribes
in Nevada actually really know about some of these things that
are the concerns of the Interior.
Senator Tester. Mike, have you reached out to the tribes on
this stuff? Has Interior reached out to the tribes?
Mr. Smith. I thought we had. In general, when the
information gets to us, we pass it on to the tribes. I try to
work with them toward whatever benefit it would be.
Senator Tester. I did not plan on going down this line of
questioning but if it is a problem, it needs to be fixed so
that we know what we are getting into on the land transfers. We
want to make sure that we do not do it halfway.
Mr. Smith. I do agree. One of the issues with Nevada and
the location the chairman is in is it is quite a ways to the
regional office and their agency has been watered down some.
They have split in half. Again, we do not have the technical
people that we used to have.
Senator Tester. I gotcha, and we will fight to make sure
you have the staffing to be able to meet the needs of Indian
country. In the meantime, figure out if you can meet halfway
between. Figure out some way to get it done because you have to
make sure the communication is there, that the consulting is
done and all that stuff.
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. Go ahead, Arlan. I am way over time.
Mr. Melendez. One last thought is in the concerns, you see
the Sage-Grouse issue. Even a tribe like mine does not have the
Sage-Grouse issue. There is no Sage-Grouse up in Hungry Valley
and the land we are talking about.
I would think that most of the tribes are probably in
agreement with protecting the Sage-Grouse. Native tribes are
probably the best environmentalists; they are probably the best
conservation people. I do not see it being a problem with
taking this land into trust.
I think the tribes would do everything they can to protect
the Sage-Grouse but we see it coming up constantly as a finding
or at a hearing. I hope we can get beyond that and not have it
continually being an impediment to the passage of this bill.
Senator Tester. Okay. I have one quick question. I did not
want to leave you out, Robert. You just got lucky. I do have a
question for Darren real quick because the Chairman has been so
kind with the time.
From your written testimony, it sounds like the tribes have
reasonable success with renewable energy and other economic
development initiatives. You need to be congratulated on that.
How has the tribe's energy and economic development
activities affected the demand for tribal housing? Would the
tribe be able to meet the housing needs if this passes?
Mr. Daboda. Yes, this would give us an opportunity because
where the community is located right now is in a floodplain
zone. That would be our first issue, looking for housing. It
would be from the Valley of Fire to one of the areas we are
looking at because it is higher ground and out of the flood
zone.
In the late 1990s, our tribe did not get mapped when FEMA
came there for tribes to get surveyed. When it reaches the
reservation boundaries, there is no floodplain zone at all.
Around the Clark County area, you see a lot of the tributaries
have the flood zones and all the washes except for our tribe.
Our tribe, at the time, did not know what the FEMA mapping was
and got impacted.
Senator Tester. But the point is, if you are successful
with energy and economic development, as you have been in the
past, does the tribe have the capacity to meet the housing
needs?
Mr. Daboda. Yes.
Senator Tester. This land transfer is going to give you
more opportunity. That is the plan in my head anyway. For
economic development, you guys have the capacity? That is the
question.
Mr. Daboda. Yes. We do have the capacity. Like I said, we
have two other programs on the way.
Senator Tester. Thank you very much.
Thank you all for your testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Tester.
Mr. Smith, following up on Senator Tester's question,
specifically with S. 817, I may have some additional written
questions for you related to some of the opposition expressed
by some of the other tribes you mention in your written
testimony. I may have some written questions on that.
I did want to go to the recommendation on S. 1436, the
Nevada Native Nations Land Act. Your recommendation was it be
changed to adjust the time frames for some of the surveys which
were insufficient.
The GAO noted in the June 2015 report on Indian Energy
Development that the surveys could not be found or were
outdated. It should not be a systemic problem, I believe,
within the department.
How does your department intend to improve surveying issues
and availability so it will not delay development or frustrate
the purpose of this bill?
Mr. Smith. Thank you for the question.
I think probably that is a question that would better be
answered by the BLM. We rely on them for cadastral surveys. The
timelines and the funding kind of go hand in hand. They control
that.
The Chairman. You can see where the concern is. It could
have an impact on the issues.
Mr. Smith. Yes.
The Chairman. There are currently three existing rights-of-
way on the land proposed to be taken into trust on the
Susanville Rancheria. Under S. 1761, BLM administers those
rights-of-way. If S. 1761 is enacted, what role would the BIA
have in administering those rights-of-way, do you know?
Mr. Smith. I do not believe there would be any change. I
think it will stay the same as it is now.
The Chairman. Mr. Casamassa, your written testimony states
that a grazing permit covers the parcels proposed to be taken
into trust, S. 1822, for the Tuolumne Band of the Me-Wuk
Indians. You further state that the forage is minimal and there
is no range infrastructure on the properties. Can you explain
what revenues and activities are existing for these permits?
Mr. Casamassa. In terms of the minimization of the forage,
they do generate to some degree overall some revenues for the
treasury but in terms of the revenue for the individual
permittee, it is, to a degree, minimal.
We believe that based on the minimal AUMs, we could absorb
that administratively into the existing permit and the lands
that are now grazed to compensate for that level of AUMs lost
through the conveyance.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Melendez, with regard to S. 1436, your testimony
stated that the tribes impacted by this legislation expanding
and consolidating your lands for housing, economic development
and preservation will enable cultural practices to continue to
thrive.
Other potential land use benefits highlighted in your
testimony were energy development and resolving jurisdictional
disputes. In addition, how will these land transfers also
benefit the surrounding local communities?
Mr. Melendez. I think working together with the county, we
have support from Washoe County, in going to them first and
talking about some of the land issues. As you know, out in our
rural reservation, it is 1,900 acres, a little more than that,
1,960 acres, we have a lot of things happening out there.
We have off-road vehicles that are destroying some of the
vegetation. We have people cutting their own racetracks out
there. We have target practices near to our housing out there.
We have people dumping trash out there from the cities.
As you know, the Bureau of Land Management has about one
ranger trying to patrol not just that land but most of the
northern area around Reno, Sparks and Washoe County. We have a
lot of support that the tribe could basically patrol that area
a lot better than the BLM.
That is one of the supported reasons why the county
supports us and the City of Reno about taking over this land.
The Chairman. Chairman Martin, I want to ask you about some
of the cooperative efforts that we have seen. When you take a
look at the land-into-trust transfer under H.R. 387, local
communities joined together to develop a solution that works
for everyone. It seems that way to me.
This example of local cooperation, I think, could be a
model for other communities, not just for trust land
acquisition but other developmental opportunities. Could you
talk a little bit about how these joint cooperative efforts
arose and how it came into being?
Mr. Martin. We worked closely with the City of Banning and
the county for mitigation of our casino, of impacts. It has
carried over into other things we have done. We have a great
relationship with the city and the county and also Cabazon, the
nearest local community. Outlying from that is Beaumont. There
are a couple others that we worked closely with for the last 15
or 20 years.
It is not something that we just developed but it is
something we have worked with for the last 15 to 20 years. It
has been a good relationship.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Daboda, current uses of the BLM land described in
S. 1986 include recreational uses. In addition to the Moapa
Valley Water District that provides domestic and commercial
water services to the region involved in the bill, the district
also has agreements with Federal and State entities which
govern various conservation efforts.
How would this bill address current public land use and the
Moapa Valley Water District uses?
Mr. Daboda. For the recreational aspect of it, we are
working with Partners in Conservation. We just allowed them
access to a hump-n-bump race event. Recently in the last month,
we granted them access, they needed the vehicles walked down.
Hunters for Big Horn sheep, historically, they are the only
ones that really contact the reservation. We have never denied
them access. We give them a temporary permit, get their
driver's license and their data, if they are coming out or
scouting the site for Big Horn sheep.
Regarding the Moapa Water District, we have partnerships
with them right now currently with an MOU for lease agreement
for water because we do not have Federal adjudicated water
rights yet. We have worked with them in the last seven years on
water issues.
That is something that came up recently, so we will
probably have to be in further discussion with the Moapa Water
Authority on what they are looking at because they are looking
at potentially wells on one of the parcels we are looking at. I
guess it is proposed wells because there are no existing wells
right now.
The Chairman. Very well.
I want to thank all of you for being here, for testifying,
for sharing your knowledge and support of this legislation with
the Committee. Thank you for answering the questions. Some of
the other Committee members may want to send questions to you
in writing. We ask that you respond quickly.
The hearing record will remain open for ten days.
Thank you.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:44 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Harry Reid,
U.S. Senator From Nevada
Thank you Chairman Barrasso and Vice-Chairman Tester for the
opportunity to submit testimony on these two bills that would transfer
land into trust for a total of seven Indian tribes in Nevada.
Nevada's Great Basin has always been home to the Washoe, Paiute and
Western Shoshone People. The first Nevadans have long been a voice for
protecting our wild landscapes and enriching our state through their
language and cultural heritage. I take the many obligations that the
United States has to tribal nations seriously. Land is lifeblood to
Native Americans and these bills provide space for housing, economic
and community development, traditional uses and cultural protection. I
would like to commend the tribes, whose immense work and collaboration
made these bills possible, and I look forward to continuing to work
with our First Nevadans on protecting their homelands.
S. 1436, The Nevada Native Nations Land Act
The Nevada Native Nations Land Act, S. 1436, would transfer land
into trust for six northern Nevada tribes--the Fort McDermitt Paiute
and Shoshone Tribe, the Duck Valley Shoshone Paiute Tribes, the Summit
Lake Paiute Tribe, the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, the Pyramid Lake
Paiute Tribe and the Duckwater Shoshone Tribe. The Nevada Native
Nations Land Act would allow these six tribes to build housing for
their members, preserve their cultural heritage and traditions, and
provide opportunities for economic development.
The Northern Paiutes have always made their homes throughout what
is now Idaho, California, Utah and Nevada. The Western Shoshones have
been living in what is now southern Idaho, central Nevada, northwestern
Utah, and the Death Valley region of southern California. Due to
westward expansion, our government pushed some Western Shoshones and
Northern Paiutes into the same tribe and onto the same reservation
where their descendants remain.
The Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe now make their home
along the Nevada-Oregon border. Starting as a military fort in 1865,
the military reservation was turned into an Indian Agency in 1889 and
then established as an Indian reservation in 1936. The reservation is
currently made up of 16,354 acres in Nevada and 19,000 acres in Oregon.
The Nevada Native Nations Land Act would add 19,094 acres now managed
by the BLM in Nevada to the lands already held in trust for the tribe.
The Duck Valley Indian Reservation is the home of the Shoshone-
Paiute Tribes who live along the state line between Nevada and Idaho.
The reservation is 289,819 acres, including 22,231 acres of wetlands.
The tribes have limited economic opportunities and tribal members have
made their way farming and ranching. This bill would place 82 acres of
U.S. Forest Service land into trust for the tribes. The tribes plan to
rehabilitate structures that were used by Forest Service employees into
much-needed housing on the parcel.
The Summit Lake Reservation is one of the most rural and remote
reservations in Nevada along the Oregon and California borders.
Established in 1913 for the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, the reservation
today is 12,573 acres. The tribe seeks land to maintain the integrity
of its reservation, protect Summit Lake and restore the Lahontan
Cutthroat Trout. S. 1436 would transfer 941 acres of BLM-managed land
into trust for the tribe.
The Reno-Sparks Indian Colony has a very small 28-acre reservation
in Reno, Nevada, established in 1917. Established as an Indian tribe
under the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934, the colony now has 1,100
Paiute, Shoshone and Washoe tribal members. A newer 1,920 acre
reservation in Hungry Valley, 19 miles north of Reno, was created by
federal legislation in 1986. While the Hungry Valley Reservation
provided the colony more space for residential and community
development, the colony has experienced continual encroachment from the
growing city of Reno and increased public land use. Tribal members
requested additional lands to ensure their safety, allow them to
continue cultural practices and enhance their quality of life. The
legislation would transfer 13,434 acres of BLM land into trust for the
tribe.
The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe have made their homelands around
Pyramid Lake, a unique desert terminal lake. Pyramid Lake is one of the
most valuable assets of the tribe and is entirely enclosed within the
boundaries of the reservation. S. 1436 would expand the reservation
with an additional 6,357 acres of BLM-managed land.
The Duckwater Shoshone Tribe make their home on the Duckwater
Shoshone Reservation in Nye County, Nevada. The tribe has 385 members
and their reservation consists of 3,785 acres. The tribe has grazing
rights to an additional 442,000 acres known as the Duckwater Historic
Grazing Area. This bill would convey 31,269 acres of BLM administered
land to the tribe.
S. 1986, The Moapa Band of Paiutes Land Conveyance Act
The Moapa Band of Paiute Indians have been in Nevada and the West
since time immemorial and suffered great land losses through federal
Indian policy. When the Moapa River Reservation was established in the
late 1800s, it consisted of over two million acres. In its lust to
settle the West, Congress drastically reduced the reservation to just
1,000 acres in 1875. It wasn't until 1980 that Congress restored 70,500
acres to the reservation. Today the reservation is approximately 71,954
acres.
The Moapa Band of Paiutes Land Conveyance Act, S. 1986, would
direct the Secretary of the Interior to take 25,977 acres of land
currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Bureau
of Reclamation into trust for the Moapa People who live outside of Las
Vegas, Nevada. This legislation would provide much needed land for the
band's housing, economic development and cultural preservation.
Located on I-15, the band owns the Moapa Paiute Travel Plaza. The
band is the first in Indian Country to develop utility-scale solar
projects on tribal lands. Since southern Nevada has critical habitat
for the desert tortoise, a species listed as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act, the band works closely with federal, state, and
local partners, members of the conservation community and interested
stakeholders to develop their community in an environmentally
responsible manner.
This bill would also direct the Secretary of the Interior to take
88 acres that the band owns in fee into trust. The 88 acres are
currently undeveloped and adjacent to the reservation. The band does
not intend to conduct gaming on these lands as they have more lucrative
lands along I-15.
Lands legislation is important to me and the Indian tribes in
Nevada. Throughout the history of our country, Native Americans have
been removed and disenfranchised from their homelands. They have been
treated so poorly. One of the first pieces of legislation I worked on
when I came to Congress was the historic Pyramid Lake/Truckee-Carson
Water Rights Settlement. This historic settlement involved two states,
several cities, a lake, a river, endangered species, and two Indian
tribes. These Indian water rights needed to be protected, just as
tribal lands need to be restored especially in Nevada where tribal
landbases are smaller and more rural and remote than in any other parts
of Indian Country. I will continue to do what I can to right some of
the many wrongs and help tribes restore their homelands.
I greatly appreciate that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman have made
time for this hearing and I look forward to working with the Committee
to advance these bills.
I request that my statement be included in the record.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Perline Thompson, Chairman, Duckwater
Shoshone Tribe
S. 1436, ``Nevada Native Nations Lands Act''
On behalf of the Duckwater Shoshone Tribe, I would like to submit
this statement in support of S. 1436, the ``Nevada Native Nations Lands
Act.'' Our tribe is a member of the Nevada Tribal Land Coalition, which
is seeking to expand land bases for tribes in Nevada to provide for
sufficient housing, economic development and other essential tribal
services.
The Duckwater Shoshone Reservation, consisting of 3,785 acres of
tribal land held in trust by the United States, is located in Nye
County, Nevada, about 200 miles northwest of Las Vegas and 70 miles
southwest of Ely. The Reservation consists of three ranches purchased
in 1940-43 by the Interior Department under the 1934 Indian
Reorganization Act, plus grazing and water rights that were appurtenant
to the ranches when purchased covering an additional 442,000 acres
(Duckwater Historic Grazing Area).
With enactment of S. 1436, approximately 31,269 acres of land
administered by the Bureau of Land Management would be conveyed to be
held in trust for the benefit of the Duckwater Shoshone Tribe.
The Duckwater Tribe desperately needs a larger land base. As of
July 10, 2015, there were 393 enrolled members of the Duckwater
Shoshone Tribe. The Duckwater Reservation is so small that more than
three-fourths of the Tribe's members have been forced to leave to find
jobs and housing. Only 88 tribally enrolled members live on the
Reservation. Of the additional 63 people living on the Reservation,
most are members of neighboring Tribes and/or spouses of Tribal
members. The ranches that comprise the Reservation and originally
supported three non-Indian families must now support 74 Indian
families. Ten tribal members are currently running livestock on the
Reservation and the Duckwater BLM Grazing Area.
The BLM has reduced the Tribe's allowable Animal Unit Months (AUMs)
of grazing by 62 percent to the current level of 4,619 since the
Reservation was created. The Tribe sold the tribal herd in 2003 because
there is insufficient forage for both the Tribe and individual tribal
cattlemen, who presently run 534 head of livestock. The Tribe is very
anxious to acquire another herd if sufficient forage were available.
The Tribe cannot maintain even existing livestock operations because of
lack of sufficient grazing lands, and further economic development is
impossible. The tribal economy consists entirely of tribal government
operations, including the tribal headquarters, the tribal school and
the tribal health clinic, plus very limited livestock grazing.
The Duckwater Shoshone Tribe plans to utilize the additional lands
to be convened under S. 1436 for economic development and community
growth. These lands will allow the Tribe to expand agricultural
operations, plan for renewable energy projects, additional housing &
facilities development, and protection of cultural and spiritual sites,
as well as wildlife. The Tribe's plan for the lands incorporates our
spiritual, cultural, natural resource management, and economic heritage
with a goal of self-sufficiency.
The Tribe has obtained resolutions and letters of support for
Duckwater Reservation expansion and tribal economic development plans
from the following:
1. Nye County Commission
2. Eureka County Commission
3. National Congress of American Indians
4. Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada
5. Barrick Gold of North America
6. Mount Wheeler Power Company
7. General Moly Company
8. Carole Hanks, Owner Blue Eagle Ranch
9. David Weaver, Owner Angleworm Ranch
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony in support
of S. 1436.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Vinton Hawley, Chairman, Pyramid Lake Paiute
Tribal Council
Senate Bill 1436 the ``Nevada Native Nations Lands Act''
On behalf of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribal Council, the governing
body of the Pyramid Lake Tribe and pursuant to the Council's resolution
dated May 21, 2014, I respectfully offer the following testimony in
support of S. 1436, the Nevada Native Nations Lands Act.
The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe is a federally recognized Indian
Tribe and has a government-to-government relationship with the United
States of America.
The Pyramid Lake Reservation lies approximately 35 miles northeast
of Reno, Nevada in northwestern Nevada. It lies almost entirely in
Washoe County. The Reservation has 742.2 square miles in land area and
includes all of Pyramid Lake, and all of the Truckee River from the Big
Bend north. The Reservation is centered on Pyramid Lake, and the lake
itself comprises 25 percent of the reservation's area. The Reservation
includes most of the Lake Mountain Range, portions of the Virginia
Mountains and Pah Rah Range and the southern end of the Smoke Creek
Desert. There are three communities on the Reservation. Sutcliffe is
located on the western shore of the Lake, Nixon is at the southern end
of the Lake, and Wadsworth, the largest, is located near the Big Bend
of the Truckee at the southern end of the reservation, just north of
the non-reservation town of Fernley.
The reservation land was first set aside for the Northern Paiute at
request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1859. The Reservation was
not surveyed until 1865. President Ulysses S. Grant subsequently
affirmed the Reservation's existence by executive order dated March 23,
1874.
Our Tribe has a long history of repatriating ancestral lands within
and contiguous to the reservation to Tribal ownership to protect,
conserve, and enhance the cultural and natural resources of the Pyramid
Lake Paiute Reservation.
The Tribe has long sought the ancestral lands set forth in S. 1436
for inclusion within the legal boundaries of the Reservation. In 1990,
President George H. W. Bush signed Public Law 101-618 which included a
provision to allow private lands within or contiguous to the
Reservation to be acquired by means of a Federal Land Exchange and then
be incorporated within the Reservation. Subsequently, a number of land
exchanges authorized by PL 101-618 were successfully completed enabling
the Tribe to acquire certain lands in the Pah Rah Mountain Range on the
southwest border of the reservation. Unfortunately, almost 8,000 acres
of private land acquired in the Pah Rah Range under PL 101-618 were
conveyed to the United States under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) rather than into Trust status. The Tribe has long
held that these properties should have been put into Trust status. The
proposed legislation would help address this by providing for the
transfer of some of these as lands in the Pah Range that lie in Pyramid
Lake's watershed to Trust status.
Additionally, in 2008 the Tribe acquired private lands contiguous
to the eastern boundary of the Reservation in the Mud Slough area which
lands are intermingled with isolated parcels of BLM land. S. 1436 would
unify the land ownership pattern allowing for better, more
comprehensive Tribal land management of this area.
Incorporation of the federal land that is contiguous to the
Reservation will help protect the Pyramid Lake watershed, and the
lake's world-renowned fishery. Transfer of these lands would also allow
the Tribe to better manage the watershed of Pyramid Lake, the central
feature of the Reservation.
Pyramid Lake is home to the cui-ui, Chasmistes cujus, a large
sucker fish endemic to Pyramid Lake. The cui-ui is not only a
critically endangered species, but is also one of the few surviving
members of its genus. As suggested by the translation of the Tribe's
name--``Cui ui Ticutta''--the ``Cui ui Eaters''--these fish were and
remain integral to the Tribe's culture and were a vital subsistence
food source. Following the construction of Derby Dam in 1905 and
diversion of much of the Truckee River's flow, the Pyramid Lake fishery
declined and by 1930 it was no longer capable of supplying even
subsistence food.
Pyramid Lake is also home to the federally listed Lahontan
cutthroat trout. The trout were and remain integral to the Tribe's
culture and are central to the Tribe's economy and remain a vital food
source for Tribal members. Lahontan cutthroat trout were plentiful in
the mid-1880's. But as more people moved to the area and began to use
the natural resources, what was once plentiful became depleted.
Overfishing of the lake's population, introduction of exotic fish and
habitat degradation caused the collapse of the commercial Lahontan
cutthroat in Pyramid Lake by 1944. Pyramid Lake was restocked with fish
captured from Summit Lake (Nevada). However, in the 1970s, fish,
believed to have been stocked almost a century ago, from the Pyramid
Lake strain were discovered in a small stream along the Pilot Peak area
of western Utah border, and are a genetic match to the original strain.
This Pilot Peak strain is now integral to the reintroduction and
planting programs maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
Lahontan cutthroat trout were classified as an endangered species
between 1970 and 1975, then the classification was relaxed to
threatened species in 1975, and reaffirmed as threatened in 2008.
As stated above, transfer of these lands will allow the Tribe to
better manage its natural resources and protect Pyramid Lake and its
fish population thereby achieving cultural, economic and environmental
benefits.
Finally, the historic range of the Pyramid Lake Paiute people was
far greater than the current boundary of the Pyramid Lake Paiute
Reservation, and transfer of federal lands that are contiguous to the
current boundary of the Reservation would allow the Pyramid Lake Paiute
people to expand their present day Reservation to include additional
lands that they occupied in the past.
Early on representatives of the Pyramid Lake Tribe reached out to
nearby stakeholders in an effort to address concerns they may have. We
have in good faith attempted to address all legitimate concerns that
have been brought to our attention. And, even though the proposed
legislation is clearly subject to honoring any and all valid existing
rights, in an effort to accommodate concerns expressed by mining
interests and recreationists, the Tribe acquiesced to requests to
remove over 10,000 acres from the bill as originally proposed. After
doing so, the Tribe agreed to remove an additional approximately 3,500
acres to accommodate concerns that were only brought to the Tribe's
attention on July 22, 2014. I believe the Pyramid Lake Tribe has been
extremely willing to compromise in order to make this bill a reality
and on behalf of the Pyramid Lake Tribal Council and all our members, I
wish to thank Senators Reid and Heller for their support of this
legislation and respectfully ask that you and your colleagues support
S. 1436.
Thank you for your consideration of the preceding testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Randi DeSoto, Chairwoman, Summit Lake Paiute
Tribal Council
On behalf of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, I wish to thank you for
the opportunity to offer testimony in support of S. 1436, the Nevada
Native Nations Lands Act.
Background
The Summit Lake Paiute Tribe is a federally recognized Indian Tribe
and has a government-to-government relationship with the Federal
Government.
By election on October 24, 1964, the members of the Agai Panina
Ticutta (Summit Lake Fish Eaters) Tribe of the Northern Paiute Nation
gave up their traditional form of government and conditionally adopted
the form of government that was set forth by the Indian Reorganization
Act of 1934 (see Articles of Association (Constitution) and changed the
name of the Tribe to the ``Summit Lake Paiute Tribe.''
The Tribe's Articles of Association were approved by John A. Carver
Jr., Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior on January
8, 1965.
The Tribe's Reservation is in a very remote location in
northwestern Nevada about 50 miles south of the Oregon state line, and
about 50 miles east of the California state line and 5 hours by road
from Reno, Nevada.
Prior to contact with Europeans and Euro-Americans, the Agai Panina
Ticutta controlled at least 2,800 square miles of land including land
that is now in the states of Oregon and California.
At one time, the Reservation was part of a military reservation,
known as Camp McGarry that was established by Executive order in 1867.
The military reservation was abandoned in 1871 and transferred from the
War Department to the Department of the Interior.
The Reservation was established on January 14, 1913 by a
President's Executive Order, number 1681. The Executive Order set aside
about 5,026 acres in trust for the Tribe. Successive actions have added
additional acreage to the Reservation. Today, the total acreage of the
Reservation is about 12,573 acres. The total surface of the lake
fluctuates between 900 and over 600 acres between the run off of snow
melt in spring and dry summer conditions. Reservation lands surround
Summit Lake except in one area on the west side of Summit Lake. Senate
Bill 1436 would incorporate these public domain lands into the
Reservation thereby restoring the integrity of the Reservation and
allowing for better, more comprehensive management of the Lake and its
fish population.
Summit Lake is home to the federally listed Lahontan cutthroat
trout. As suggested by the translation of the Tribe's name--``Agai
Panina Ticutta''--the ``Summit Lake Fish Eaters'', the trout were and
remain integral to the Tribe's culture and are a vital food source.
Lahontan cutthroat trout were plentiful in the mid-1880s. But as
more people moved to the area and began to use the natural resources,
what was once plentiful became depleted. Overfishing of the lake
populations, introduction of exotic fish and habitat degradation caused
the collapse of the commercial Lahontan cutthroat from nearby lakes
such as Lake Tahoe in 1939 and Pyramid Lake five years later in 1944.
Cooperative efforts to improve the status of Lahontan cutthroat
trout began as early as the 1940's. Habitat improvement projects and
livestock grazing enclosures were initiated as early as 1969.
S. 1436 presents an opportunity to continue efforts to restore
Summit Lake and its fishery. Transfer of the 941 acres of public domain
lands in Township 42 North, Range 25 East, Sections 35 & 36 to the
Summit Lake Paiute Tribe for inclusion in the Summit Lake Reservation--
the only lands that surround Summit Lake which are not a part of the
Reservation--will allow for significantly improved management and
habitat restoration for existing and future Lahontan cutthroat trout
populations.
The Summit Lake Tribe has long sought these lands which lands
should have been a part of the Reservation from the Reservation's
inception a century ago.
Transfer of these lands will unify the Reservation, allow the Tribe
to better manage its natural resources and protect Summit Lake and its
fish population thereby achieving cultural, economic and environmental
benefits.
Thank you for your consideration of this bill. On behalf of the
Summit Lake Tribe I respectfully and strongly urge your support.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kevin Day, Chairman, Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk
Indians
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Attachments
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Reyn Leno, Tribal Council Chair,
Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon
Chairman Barrasso, Vice-Chair Tester, Members of the Committee:
My name is Reyn Leno. I am the Tribal Council Chair of the
Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde in Oregon. I am proud to present
testimony today on behalf of over 5,000 tribal members and appreciate
the opportunity to provide views on S. 818, a bill to amend the Grand
Ronde Reservation Act to make technical corrections, and S. 817, a bill
to provide for the addition of certain real property to the reservation
of the Siletz Tribe in the State of Oregon.
I ask that my complete written testimony, which includes An
Administrative History of the Coast Reservation authored by Dr. David
G. Lewis and Dr. Daniel L. Boxberger; supporting resolutions from Polk
and Yamhill County Commissioners; and correspondence pertaining to both
bills from Representative Kurt Schrader, affected Indian Tribes and
Counties be included in the record.
Grand Ronde has worked tirelessly for over six years to pass
legislation to rectify a problem created solely by the Federal
Government's termination of the Tribe in 1954. This legislation has the
bipartisan support of the entire Oregon Congressional Delegation and
the unanimous support of the two affected Counties; and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. No opposition or concerns have been raised by other
Tribes or affected interests.
This simple and straightforward legislation has been the subject of
four congressional hearings and was passed as a standalone bill by the
House of Representatives under suspension of the rules on January 13,
2014. Despite all of our efforts and the overwhelming support for the
legislation, it failed to pass the Senate in the last Congress.
S. 818 is a consensus-based legislative proposal to assist the
Tribe in reacquiring lands within its original reservation. Based on
the universal support of S. 818 and the importance of the legislation
to the Tribe, I request passage of the legislation be a top priority of
the Committee and the Senate.
As a result of the Federal Government's allotment and termination
policies, Grand Ronde lost both its federal recognition and its
original reservation of more than 60,000 acres. Following the Tribe's
termination in 1954, Tribal members and the Tribal government worked
tirelessly to rebuild the Grand Ronde community.
In 1983, these efforts resulted in the Grand Ronde Restoration Act,
followed by the Grand Ronde Reservation Act in 1988, which restored
9,811 acres of the Tribe's original reservation to the Grand Ronde
people. The United States Congress itself recognized Grand Ronde's deep
connection to Yamhill, Tillamook and Polk Counties in the 1983 Grand
Ronde Restoration Act by expressly providing that Grand Ronde may take
land into trust within these three counties for the purpose of
establishing a Reservation. 25 U.S.C. 713(c) (3). Since 1988, the
Tribe has pursued the goal of securing its sovereignty by acquiring
additional parcels of its original reservation and providing on-
reservation jobs and services to Tribal members.
The Tribe's restored reservation is located in the heart of the
original Grand Ronde Reservation. Today, the Tribe owns a total of
13,474 acres of land, of which 11,539 have reservation or trust status.
Of the reservation/trust acres, 10,722 are forested timber land and the
remaining 817 acres accommodate the Tribe's headquarters, housing
projects, casino complex, and supporting infrastructure. Approximately
1,934 remain in fee.
The Tribe is hampered in its efforts to restore land within its
original reservation by a lengthy and cumbersome Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) process. After it acquires a parcel in fee, the Tribe
must prepare a fee-to-trust application package for the BIA. The BIA
then processes the application as either an ``on-reservation
acquisition'' or an ``off-reservation acquisition.'' Because the BIA
Pacific Regional Office does not recognize that the Tribe has exterior
reservation boundaries (instead, it has distinct parcels deemed
reservation through legislation), all parcels are processed under the
more extensive off-reservation acquisition regulations--even if the
parcel is located within the boundaries of the Tribe's original
reservation.
After the land is accepted into trust, the Tribe must take an
additional step of amending its Reservation Act through federal
legislation to include the trust parcels in order for the land to be
deemed reservation land. Grand Ronde has been forced to come to the
United States Congress six times in the last 20 years to amend its
Reservation Act to secure Reservation status for its trust lands. This
process is unduly time consuming, expensive, bureaucratic, and often
takes years to complete.
In order to make both the fee-to-trust and reservation designation
process less burdensome, Senator Wyden reintroduced S. 818, which
would: (1) establish that real property located within the boundaries
of the Tribe's original 1857 Executive Order reservation shall be (i)
treated as on reservation land by the BIA, for the purpose of
processing acquisitions of real property into trust, and (ii) deemed a
part of the Tribe's reservation, once taken into trust; (2) establish
that the Tribe's lands held in trust on the date of the legislation
will automatically become part of the Tribe's reservation; and (3)
correct technical errors in the legal descriptions of the parcels
included in the Reservation Act.
S. 818 does not authorize the transfer of any land to the Grand
Ronde.
S. 818 would not only save Grand Ronde time and money which could
be better utilized serving its membership, but would also streamline
the Interior Department's land-into-trust responsibilities to Grand
Ronde, thus saving taxpayer money. At a time when federal financial
support for Indian Country is dramatically decreasing, Grand Ronde
should be afforded the tools necessary to reduce its costs and maximize
savings.
I would now like to provide Grand Ronde's views on S. 817.
While Grand Ronde is opposed to S. 817 as currently drafted, we
again reiterate our support for the legislation if it is amended to
limit its scope to Lincoln County, consistent with the Siletz Indian
Tribe Restoration Act. The legislation is materially different from
Grand Ronde's bill and would significantly infringe on the rights of
Grand Ronde and other tribes in western Oregon.
S. 817, too, has been the subject of four congressional hearings.
However, unlike Grand Ronde's legislation, significant opposition to S.
817 has been raised by Members of Congress, as well as counties and
Indian Tribes directly impacted by the legislation.
S. 817 is opposed by three of the six counties affected by the
legislation (Yamhill, Tillamook, and Lane County), two Indian Tribes
(Grand Ronde and Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw
Indians), and Representative Suzanne Bonamici, who represents Grand
Ronde and Yamhill County, has expressed concerns with it.
It should also be noted, Representative Peter DeFazio, then ranking
member of the House Resources Committee, who represents Lane County and
the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians
Tribe, both of whom are opposed to S. 817, made the following comments
regarding the Siletz legislation in the House Resources Committee last
year; ``There have been concerns expressed to me by commissioners in
six counties about this legislation and by other Representatives from
Oregon who represent some of those six counties have also echoed those
concerns. I'm not exactly certain how we satisfy the concerns of the
counties but again that needs some work before this bill can move to
the floor. So, I appreciate what the gentleman has done to accommodate
me today, I appreciate the Chairman's work on this but more needs to be
done before we would want to see this bill on the Floor of the House.''
As a result of erroneous claims made by the Siletz Tribe regarding
their historical connection to Yamhill and Tillamook Counties, each of
the counties invited both Tribes to appear simultaneously before an
open and public commission meeting to provide their tribe's legal,
historical and cultural connections to each county. As a result of
these meetings, Tillamook County and Yamhill County unanimously opposed
the Siletz Tribe's asserted connections and primacy to their counties
and both reaffirmed their opposition to the Siletz legislation.
Enclosed are letters of opposition from Yamhill County, Tillamook
County, Lane County, Grand Ronde and the Confederated Tribes of Coos,
Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians to the Siletz legislation.
Unlike Grand Ronde's bill--which seeks to improve the process of
acquiring lands in trust and return to reservation status those lands
the Tribe reacquires within its original reservation--we believe the
purpose of the Siletz legislation is to eliminate the historic claims
of other tribes to the former Coast Reservation (which was set aside
for all tribes in western Oregon) by equating the boundaries of the
Siletz Reservation (established 1875) with the boundaries of the Coast
Reservation (established 1855).
The Coast Reservation, as described in the Executive Order dated
November 9, 1855, was never designated exclusively for the Siletz. It
was set aside for Indians throughout western Oregon, including the
antecedent tribes and bands of the Grand Ronde, such as the tribes of
the Willamette Valley, Umpqua Valley, and Rogue River Valley. The
Siletz are aware that Grand Ronde has made its own historic claims to
the Coast Reservation. Their proposed legislation is nothing more than
a veiled attempt to eradicate the claims of Grand Ronde and other
western Oregon tribes to the Coast Reservation.
The Federal Government has not supported the Siletz's expansive
view of its reservation boundaries, holding that the Tribe's 1977
Restoration Act and its 1980 Reservation Act define its reservation
boundaries. For example, a 1994 opinion issued by the Assistant
Regional Solicitor of the Department of the Interior stated the
following:
. . . Congress made clear in the [Siletz] Tribe's 1977
Restoration Act that 'any reservation' for the Tribe is that
established pursuant to 711e of the Act. Thus, the
reservation established pursuant to the 1980 Act adopting the
reservation plan constitutes the Tribe's reservation for
purposes of the land acquisition regulations in 25 C.F.R. Part
151. \1\ (citations omitted)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Definition of ``On-Reservation'' for Land Acquisition Purposes
at Siletz Reservation, Memorandum Opinion by the Assistant Regional
Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior, June 1, 1994.
In subsequent litigation by the Siletz, challenging the BIA's
interpretation of its land acquisition regulations, the Department of
Justice supported the 1994 opinion by the Regional Solicitor. In a
response brief filed on behalf of the Federal Government, the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Justice stated:
[The 1994 opinion] analyzed the regulatory provision and
concluded that it would not be consistent with the intent
behind the regulations to consider all land located within the
boundaries of the former Siletz or Coast Reservation to be
within the Tribe's reservation. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Brief of U.S. Department of the Interior at 4, City of Lincoln
v, Us. Dept. of the Interior and Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians
of Oregon, No. 99-330 (D. Or. June 23,2000).
S. 817 is inconsistent with Section 7(d) of the Siletz Indian Tribe
Restoration Act (25 U.S.C. 711e(d)), which provides that ``the
Secretary shall not accept any real property in trust for the benefit
of the tribe or its members unless such real property is located within
Lincoln County, State of Oregon.'' The property described in the S. 817
is much more expansive, covering Lincoln, Lane, Tillamook, Yamhill,
Benton, and Douglas Counties.
Moreover, since the legislation includes property in Tillamook and
Yamhill Counties, the legislation infringes on sovereign interests of
Grand Ronde. Specifically, Section 8 of the Grand Ronde Restoration Act
(25 U.S.c. 713f(c)), provides that ``the Secretary shall not accept
any real property in trust for the benefit of the tribe or its members
which is not located within the political boundaries of Polk, Yamhill,
or Tillamook County, Oregon.''
Neither the authors of the Siletz legislation or the Siletz Tribe
has ever been able to answer this fundamental question: What legal,
historical or treaty obligation provides the authority for the Siletz
Tribe to take land into trust under an expedited application process in
counties specifically designated by Congress for the Grand Ronde
Reservation in 1983?
Yamhill County includes a significant portion of the Grand Ronde
Reservation. While S. 817 allows for the easing of requirements to take
land into trust for the Siletz in Yamhill County, no part of the Siletz
Tribe's reservation, however, is located in Yamhill County, nor to my
knowledge, has the Siletz Tribe ever attempted to take land into trust
in Yamhill County.
Additionally, Tillamook County is also included in S. 817. Many
members of the Tillamook tribes (Nestucca, Nehalem, Salmon River and
Tillamook) married into families living at the Grand Ronde Reservation,
while continuing to hunt, fish and reside along the Oregon coast. The
Siletz Tribe does not have the sole claim to the entire Tillamook
Territory of the Oregon coast, and it would be inappropriate to allow
them to assert such a claim today. Also, Grand Ronde owns land in
Tillamook County, one of the counties identified by Congress in the
Grand Ronde Restoration Act as an area where the Tribe can acquire
trust land to re-establish its Reservation.
S. 817 is also opposed by the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower
Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians, as it infringes on their historic lands.
Even though the Coos are separately recognized by the United States as
an independent sovereign, the Siletz Tribe takes the position that it
is the legal successor in interest to this tribal confederation. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Letter from Delores Pigsley, Tribal Chairwoman,
Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, to The Honorable Ron Wyden,
United States Senator, at 2, April 17, 2013 (The Siletz Tribe is the
legal successor in interest to the historical Coos, Siuslaw and Lower
Umpqua Tribes of Indians.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Grand Ronde, Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and
Siuslaw Indian and others opposed to the legislation can agree to
disagree with the Siletz Tribe's claim of primacy to the Coast
Reservation, the simple facts are that S. 817 is (1) is opposed by two
Oregon Tribes with legitimate cultural and historical claims to the
areas involved; (2) is opposed by three of the six counties affected by
the legislation; and (3) Representative Bonamici who represents Grand
Ronde and Yamhill County has expressed concerns with it.
In conclusion, it has been insinuated the Grand Ronde and Siletz
legislation are paired and that the Grand Ronde's legislation cannot
advance without an agreement to accept the Siletz legislation.
If true, I find this to be an affront to our sovereignty and
government-to-government relationship. Forcing Grand Ronde to have
accept the Siletz Tribe's rewriting of history and encroachment of its
ceded and historical lands in order to rectify a serious wrong is
inappropriate, violates tribal sovereignty and is plain just bad public
policy.
Representative Kurt Schrader, who represents both the Grand Ronde
and Siletz Tribe and who has introduced both bills in the House of
Representatives made it clear in his March 2013 letter to the House
Resources Committee stating, ``Whereas H.R. 841 and H.R. 931 were
introduced to address the individual needs of each Tribe, I feel it is
important that each bill be considered by the committee on its own
merits and support and should not be considered paired.''
For these reasons, we urge the Committee not to proceed with
further consideration of S. 817 in its current form.
I thank you for your time and consideration today.
Attachments
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lindsey Manning, Chairman, Shoshone-Paiute
Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation
On behalf of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian
Reservation (the ``Tribes''), I am pleased to submit testimony to the
Committee on S. 1436, the ``Nevada Native Nations Lands Act.'' I thank
Chairman Barasso and Vice Chairman Tester for convening a hearing, and
I want to especially thank Senators Reid and Heller for their
leadership in introducing S. 1436.
I join the other Nevada Indian Tribes covered under S. 1436 in
supporting this bill and I urge the Committee and the Senate to approve
it. Similar legislation, S. 2480, was reported out of this Committee in
2014, and H.R. 2455 passed the House of Representatives and was pending
on the floor of the Senate at the end of the last session.
The lands we seek to have conveyed to us in trust for our benefit--
approximately 82 acres--are currently managed by the United States
Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture. The parcel is
located approximately three miles south of our Reservation and near
Mountain City, Nevada. We seek this parcel of land for the 11
outbuildings, including housing units, detached garages, a corral and
hay shed, for our use and management. The site was abandoned by the
Forest Service in 2008 when the Service moved its District headquarters
to Elko, Nevada.
The Forest Service parcel constitutes a tiny portion of the 71,000
acres of mostly Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands that would be
transferred to tribal control under the bill. The modest acquisition we
seek will allow us to renovate some nine homes in close proximity to
our Reservation and help us provide much needed housing, assist us
recruit public safety, health professionals and other personnel to work
on the Duck Valley Reservation and provide construction jobs to our
members.
The land transfer is supported by both local and national Forest
Service officials and is not controversial. We, along with the Nevada
Tribal Land Coalition Tribes, fully support S. 1436. The Shoshone-
Paiute Tribes' provision to S. 1436 (Sec. 3(b)) is required because the
Service has limited statutory and regulatory authority to convey lands
it manages to an Indian tribe and have such lands be held in trust by
the United States for our benefit. The Service's primary authority for
conveying land to non-federal parties comes from the Forest Service
Facility Realignment and Enhancement Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-54, 119
Stat. 559, as amended (16 U.S.C. 580d), and legislation authorizing
land exchanges. See 43 U.S.C. 1716 (Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976, as amended).
Restrictions in both laws limit the quantity of land the Service
may transfer, impose other conditions on the Service's conveyances and
do not clearly provide that conveyance of Forest Service lands when
made to a federally recognized Indian tribe are held in trust by the
United States for the Indian tribe's benefit. Section 3(b) of S. 1436
resolves this issue by providing that an approximately 82 acre parcel
of U.S. Forest Service land in Elko County, Nevada is hereby declared
to be held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the
Shoshone-Paiute Tribes and made part of the Duck Valley Indian
Reservation. We believe that the provision is entirely consistent with
the government-to-government relationship that exists between the
Shoshone-Paiute Tribes and the United States.
The Duck Valley Indian Reservation is a remote, rural reservation
that straddles the IdahoNevada border along the Owyhee River. The
Reservation was established in 1877 and expanded in 1886 and 1910.
Today, the Reservation encompasses 450 square miles in Elko County,
Nevada and Owhyee County, Idaho.
Over 1,700 tribal members, out of a population of just over 2,000
enrolled members, reside on the Reservation. Tribal members make their
living as farmers and ranchers, though many are employed by the Tribes.
We are quite proud of the fact that for nearly two decades we have
assumed the duties of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary
of the Department of Health and Human Services under Indian Self-
Determination Act Self-Governance compacts. We also carry out federal
programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the
Federal Highway Administration under agreements with those agencies.
While we employ many tribal members, we also employ non-members who
require affordable housing. Unfortunately, infrastructure on the Duck
Valley Indian Reservation is in short supply, especially affordable
housing.
The closest communities to Owyhee with suitable housing are in
Elko, Nevada, with a population of 51,000, located 98 miles to the
south and Mountain Home, Idaho, with a population of 14,000, located 95
miles to the north. With abandoned improvements less than 20 miles from
Owyhee that we can renovate, the Forest Service property would help us
address our housing needs, provide construction and training jobs,
strengthen our governmental services and programs by assisting us
retain health care professionals, law enforcement and conservation
officers and other first responders and personnel and establish a
presence on the site that has been absent for the last five years.
Acquisition of the Forest Service parcel, located less than 20
miles from our tribal headquarters, elementary and high schools, health
clinic, fire department, tribal court and public safety offices, would
provide us with additional housing units close to the Duck Valley
Indian Reservation. Many of our members live in homes that require
major renovation and repairs and we cannot house many health care
providers, law enforcement personnel or other first responders.
The Forest Service property we seek to have placed in trust
comprises a small portion of the Service's Mountain City Ranger Station
Administrative Site which the Service abandoned in 2008, when the
Service relocated its District headquarters to Elko, Nevada, about 80
miles to the south. The improvements require repairs that we are eager
to make to ensure that they can be used safely to house members and
tribal personnel we need to recruit.
The land transfer authorized by S. 1436 will permit us to
administer this site, renovate and utilize the improvements for our
benefit. The improvements we plan to make would provide an opportunity
to put our local people to work and held reduce the near 75 percent
unemployment rate on our Reservation. We plan to utilize the renovation
work as a training exercise through our Tribal Employment Rights
Ordinance (TERO). We also plan to implement a youth employment training
program to assist in the renovation of the units and other buildings.
The work and training will benefit our members, as will the required
routine maintenance of the property and improvements. The close
proximity of the property to our Reservation and administrative offices
will better ensure that we properly operate and maintain the site.
In conclusion, for the reasons detailed above, conveyance of the
Forest Service parcel in trust for our benefit will assist the
Shoshone-Paiute Tribes address our housing shortage, strengthen our
tribal government programs by helping us retain personnel who require
affordable housing only miles from the Duck Valley Indian Reservation
and create construction work and job training opportunities for our
members.
We look forward to working with Senators Reid and Heller and the
Committee to see S. 1436 enacted into law and to then work with the
Forest Service, BLM and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to survey
the property and place it in trust for our benefit.
The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes would be pleased to answer any questions
that the Committee may have concerning S. 1436, or provide additional
information regarding the Forest Service parcel. We again thank
Senators Reid and Heller for introducing the bill and including the
Forest Service land transfer in the legislation.
Thank you for affording the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes the opportunity
to submit testimony to the Committee concerning S. 1436.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Delores Pigsley, Chairman, Confederated
Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon
Need for This Legislation
The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon (``Siletz
Tribe'') is seeking federal legislation to recognize the boundaries of
the Tribe's original 1855 reservation, for the purpose of being able to
put former Siletz Reservation land to which the Tribe has re-acquired
fee title, back into trust through the ``on-reservation'' process. It
will put the Siletz Tribe on equal footing with other tribes in
relation to their respective reservations. Our reservation was
established by Executive Order of Franklin Pierce on November 9, 1855,
pursuant to stipulations of several treaties of western Oregon Tribes.
Because of our history of having been a terminated Tribe which has
been ``Restored'' this legislation is needed in order to clarify the
Secretary of Interior's authority to take land into trust for the
Siletz Tribe under the Interior Department's fee-to-trust regulations
at 25 C.F.R. Part 151. Enactment of this legislation will not create a
reservation for the Siletz Tribe, and will not affect the jurisdiction
or authority of state or local governments. Enactment of this
legislation will also not affect the legal rights of any other Indian
tribe.
The purpose of the legislation is to allow for more timely
processing of the Siletz Tribe's fee-to-trust applications by allowing
those applications to be approved at the Bureau of Indian Affairs'
regional level. Defining a geographic boundary for a tribe that lacks a
recognized exterior reservation boundary provides an historical
reference point for the Bureau to process those applications under the
Department's on-reservation rather than off-reservation criteria in 25
C.F.R,. Part 151. No land acquired in trust by the Siletz Tribe under
the proposed legislation may be used for gaming purposes.
The Siletz Tribe's modern situation is a product of a number of
federal policies, laws and history that, have, adversely affected the
Tribe over the last 175 years. Most Indian tribes have reservations
with well-defined exterior reservation boundaries where the Tribe owns
all or a large portion of the land within that boundary. While land
within that boundary may have transferred to non-Indian ownership
because of federal policies such as the Allotment Act, the reservation
boundary remains intact for most federal purposes and for purposes of
exercising tribal sovereign authority e.g.: if the Tribe reacquires fee
title to a parcel within that boundary, it is treated as on-reservation
fee to trust acquisition. The definition of ``Indian country'' under
federal law, which defines the outer extent of tribal territorial
authority, includes all land within the boundaries of an Indian
Reservation. See 18 U.S.C. 1151. While this is a criminal statute,
the definition has been applied by the U.S. Supreme Court in civil
contexts also.
The Siletz Tribe's 1855 original 1.1 million acre reservation was
reduced over time by Executive Order, statute, the Allotment Act, and
was finally, was completely lost by the Tribe's termination by federal
legislation in 1954 (finalized 1956).
When the Siletz Tribe was restored to federally recognized status
in 1977 by federal statute, 25 U.S.C. 711 et seq., no lands were
restored to the Tribe although the Act called for the future
establishment of a reservation. 25 U.S.C. 711e. Congress created the
new Siletz Reservation in 1980 and added to that reservation in 1994.
Pub.L. No. 96-340, Sept. 4, 1980, 94 Stat. 1072; Pub.L. No. 103-435,
Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4566. Only a small percentage of the Tribe's
original reservation lands were restored to the Tribe. The Siletz
Tribe's reservation consists of approximately 50 separate, scattered
parcels of reservation land. Each parcel has its own ``exterior''
boundary; there is no overall reservation boundary currently recognized
by the BIA.
The Indian Reorganization Act at 25 U.S.C. 465 authorizes the
Secretary of Interior to acquire land in trust for Indian tribes. This
provision was enacted as part of the IRA, to reverse the devastating
loss of lands suffered by Indian tribes between 1887 and 1934 (over 90
million acres) and to restore a minimally adequate land base for those
tribes. The Siletz Restoration Act expressly applies this Section to
the Siletz Tribe. 25 U.S.C. 711a(a). Federal regulations implementing
this Section appear at 25 C.F.R. Part 151. These regulations
distinguish between on-reservation and off-reservation trust
acquisitions for purposes of processing tribal applications to take
land into trust. These regulations do not establish or create a
reservation or reservation boundary for land taken into trust. Because
of the language in these federal regulations and the Siletz Tribe's
history, any additional land the Siletz Tribe currently seeks to have
placed in trust status under federal law is considered to be ``off-
reservation'' because the land is located outside the boundaries of
what is recognized as the Siletz Tribe's current reservation (each of
the 50 scattered parcels of reservation land).
There are no geographic limitations on the Secretary of Interior's
authority to take land into trust for an Indian tribe in under Section
465. No regulations implementing this provision of the 1934 IRA were
enacted until 1980. See 45 Federal Register 62036 (Sept. 18, 1980). No
distinction between on and off reservation fee-to-trust requests by
Tribes was included in the original regulations. It was not until
passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988 and the subsequent
requests from some tribes to place off-reservation land in trust for
gaming purposes that changes to the regulations were considered. The
Department began enforcing an internal on-reservation/off-reservation
fee-to-trust policy in 1991, and in 1995 added this distinction into
the fee-to-trust regulations. See 60 Federal Register 32879 (June 23,
1995). No consideration or discussion of the disadvantaged situation or
needs of terminated and restored tribes like the Siletz Tribe's factual
situation was included in making these regulatory changes.
The current fee-to-trust regulations distinguish between on-
reservation trust acquisitions (25 C.F.R. 151.10) and off-reservation
trust acquisitions (25 C.F.R. 151.11). The requirements for a Tribe
obtaining land in trust off-reservation are more restrictive, more
costly and time- consuming, and require additional justification.
Because of the Siletz Tribe's unique history, all fee-to-trust requests
by the Tribe are currently reviewed under the off- reservation process,
even within the boundaries of the Tribe's historical reservation. This
application of federal law and regulations discriminates against the
Siletz Tribe in relation to treatment of other Indian tribes that can
have fee-to-trust applications processed under the on-reservation
provisions of the regulations within the boundaries of their historical
reservations.
S. 817 will place the Siletz Tribe on the same footing as all other
federally- recognized Indian tribes who did not suffer through the
tragedy of termination or the complete loss of their reservations. It
will treat the Siletz Tribe's fee-to-trust requests within its
historical reservation the same as fee-to-trust requests from other
tribes within their historical reservations. It will facilitate the
gradual re-acquisition of a tribal land base for the Siletz Tribe so
the Tribe can meet the needs of its members. It will reduce cost, time
and bureaucratic obstacles to the Tribe obtaining approval of its land
into trust requests. The legislation is consistent with the definition
of on- reservation as set out in the current fee-to-trust regulations
at 25 C.F.R. 151.2(f).
The Siletz Tribe has an ongoing critical need to acquire additional
lands in trust to meet the needs of the Tribe and its members. The
Tribe received a modest approximately 3630 acres in trust as a
Reservation in 1980, comprised of 37 scattered parcels. This land was
primarily former BLM timber lands, and was calculated at the time to
allow the Tribe to generate revenue to provide limited services to its
members and to support tribal government. The revenue generated from
these parcels has been insufficient to meet growing tribal needs. The
Reservation Act also returned a tribal cemetery and Pow-Wow grounds to
the Tribe. Since 1980 the Tribe has obtained additional 804 acres of
land in trust to meet some of the Tribe's needs for housing, health and
social services, natural resources, and economic development including
a gaming operation. Currently the Tribe has a total of 63 separate
trust properties, for a total acreage of 4434.01 acres.
Tribal needs have not been met, however, and the Tribe has a
continuing need to re-acquire former reservation lands and have them
held in trust. This is a long-term objective of the Tribe because of
the Tribe's limited financial resources, which only allow it to
purchase land a little at a time. S. 817 is identical to legislation
introduced in House of Representatives by Congressman Kurt Schrader of
Oregon. This legislation was also introduced in the 112th and 113th
Congresses, where it received legislative hearings in the House
Subcommittee on Indian & Alaska Native Affairs and the Senate Committee
on Indian Affairs.
The Administration testified in support of the Siletz bill in July
2012. In responses to questions for the record from the Subcommittee on
Indian & Alaska Native Affairs, the Bureau of Indian Affairs put to
rest allegations against the bill made by the Confederated Tribes of
Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians, and the Confederated Tribes of
the Grand Ronde Community. The Bureau confirmed that the Siletz Tribe
has always been the only recognized tribal governing body over the
original 1855 Siletz Coast Reservation.
In addition, at mark-up in June 2013, the House Natural Resources
Committee amended the Siletz legislation to state that ``nothing in
this Act or the amendment made by this Act, shall prioritize for any
purpose the claims of any federally recognized Indian tribe over the
claims of any other federally recognized Indian tribe.'' This amended
legislative language was later included in H.R. 5701 (the Western
Oregon Indian Tribal Lands Act), which passed the House of
Representatives by Voice Vote in December 2014. This legislation lays
to rest the spurious claims of other tribes that this Siletz
legislation would somehow adversely affect alleged legal claims they
have to the original Siletz Reservation.
The legislative language in S. 817 is identical that passed by the
House last year, and would have passed by unanimous consent in the
Senate, if it had not been for an unfortunate, unrelated political
situation in the final seconds of the Congress.
Historical and Legal Background
Numerous bands and tribes of Indians held territories in what
became Western Oregon, from the crest of the Cascade Mountains to the
Pacific Ocean. Early federal Indian policy was to enter into treaties
with Indian tribes to obtain the cession of their aboriginal lands to
clear title for non-Indian settlement. A ``reservation policy'' evolved
to place the Indians who entered into these treaties on small remnants
of their aboriginal lands, but to open most of those lands for future
development and settlement by non-Indian settlers. In most cases each
tribe that entered into a treaty had a small reservation confirmed
somewhere within its aboriginal territory. Beginning in the 1850s, a
new reservation policy was established, particularly along the west
coast, to place as many tribes as possible on one reservation. This
freed up additional land for settlement and simplified administration
of the remaining Indians. See Charles F. Wilkinson, The People Are
Dancing Again: A History of the Siletz Tribe (U. of Washington Press
2010).
Treaties negotiated with western Oregon Indian tribes in the early
1850s by Anson Dart were rejected by the Senate because they did not
implement this new policy and instead provided for individual
reservations within a tribe's historical territory. The subsequent
Indian Superintendent in Oregon in the 1850s, Joel Palmer, was given
the task of negotiating treaties with all of the tribes in western
Oregon and finding one permanent reservation where as many tribes and
bands as possible could all be settled. Superintendent Palmer first
considered moving all the western Oregon tribes east of the Cascade
Mountains to the Klamath Reservation, but none of those tribes would
agree to go there. In early 1855, Palmer unilaterally withdrew from
non-Indian settlement what would become the Siletz or Coast
Reservation, and communicated its suitability as the permanent
reservation for all the western Oregon tribes to his superiors in
Washington, D.C. Because of the long time lag in communication between
the east and west Coasts in the 1850s, Palmer's provisional set-aside
of the Siletz Coast Reservation on his own authority on April 17, 1855
was not approved by the Department of Interior until July of that year.
After further review and discussion, the Secretary of Interior
recommended that this area of land be permanently set aside as a
reservation for these tribes and bands, and this recommendation was
confirmed by Executive Order on November 9, 1855.
There was no single method or procedure by which the tribes and
bands that are part of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians
entered into treaties or came to the Siletz Coast Reservation. The
Siletz Tribe is a legal successor in interest to tribes and bands of
Indians that are parties to seven ratified treaties (Treaty with the
Rogue River, Sept. 10, 1853, 10 Stat. 1018; Treaty with the Umpqua-Cow
Creek Band, Sept. 19, 1853, 10 Stat. 1027; Treaty with the Rogue River,
Nov. 15, 1854, 10 Stat. 1119; Treaty with the Chasta, Nov. 18, 1854, 10
Stat. 1122; Treaty with the Umpqua and Kalapuya, Nov. 29, 1854, 10
Stat. 1125; Treaty with the Molala, Dec. 21, 1855, 12 Stat. 981; Treaty
with the Kalapuya, Jan. 22, 1855, 10 Stat. 4 1143), and one unratified
treaty (Treaty with the Tilamooks and other confederated tribes and
bands residing along the coast, Aug. 11,1855 (``Coast Treaty'')) , and
who, in whole or in part, were subsequently removed to the Siletz Coast
Reservation as their permanent treaty reservation. To complicate things
further, there are also several additional unratified treaties
negotiated in 1851 with the northern Oregon coastal tribes and bands,
known as the Anson Dart treaties. Indians from all of these tribes and
bands were also removed or ended up on the Siletz Coast Reservation
over time.
In some of these treaties, such as the 1854 Rogue River Treaty and
the unratified Coast Treaty, all of the signatory tribes were
``confederated'' by the federal government into one new composite
tribe. These confederated tribes became the tribal governing authority
on the Siletz Coast Reservation. The federal government treated other
tribes that were settled on the Siletz Coast Reservation as becoming
confederated with this new tribal reservation-based confederation. The
Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians is the federally-recognized Tribe
that is the legal and political successor to all of these original,
historical tribes. See United States v. Oregon, 29 F.3d 481, 485-86
(9th Cir.1994)(Yakama Nation comprised of all the bands and tribes of
Indians who moved to the reservation under the Yakama Treaty; Nez Perce
Tribe comprised of all Nez Perce Bands who signed Nez Perce Treaty and
moved to diminished Nez Perce Reservation).
Movement of the tribes, bands and Indians to the Siletz Reservation
was also not clean or uniform. Some tribes moved in several waves to
the Siletz Reservation, at different times. In some cases only parts of
the tribe ended up on the Reservation. In other cases individuals or
small groups who were moved to the Siletz Reservation sometimes left
the Reservation and returned to their aboriginal areas; other (few)
individuals hid and were never moved. Some of the individuals who left
the Siletz Reservation and returned to their aboriginal areas were
rounded up and returned to the Siletz Reservation. For example,
individual members of Coos and Lower Umpqua ancestry who left the
Siletz Reservation and returned to their aboriginal area were
subsequently forcibly returned to the Reservation in round-ups
conducted by the Interior Department with military assistance.
In all of these cases and under all of these treaties, both
ratified and unratified, the tribes and bands in question were moved to
the Siletz Coast Reservation and became part of the Confederated Tribes
of Siletz Indians. This early history of the Siletz Tribe and Siletz
Reservation is set out in various federal court decisions, including
Rogue River Tribe v. United States, 64 F.Supp. 339, 341 (Ct.Cl. 1946);
Alcea Band of Tillamooks v. United States, 59 F.Supp. 934, 942 (Ct.Cl.
1945); Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indian Tribes v. United States,
87 Ct. Cl. 143 (1938); and Tillamook Tribe of Indians v. United States,
4 Ind. Cl. Comm'n 31-65 (1955).
The settlement of various tribes on the Siletz Reservation is also
documented in various academic publications such as a report prepared
by Historian Dr. Stephen Dow Beckham. See ``The Hatch Tract: A
Traditional Siuslaw Village Within the Siletz Reservation, 1855-75,''
prepared by Dr. Stephen Dow Beckham for the Confederated Tribes of
Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw, Dec. 4, 2000, pp.12-14 (``On July 20,
1862, Linus Brooks, Sub-Agent, confirmed that the removal of the Coos,
Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians onto the Siletz Reservation was
complete,'' and ``On July 21, 1864, Sub-Agent George W. Collins
confirmed the presence of the tribes on the Siletz Reservation''.).
The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians was recognized as the
governing body and tribe representing all of the tribes and bands
settled on the Siletz Reservation as early as 1859. Traders License
issued by the Siletz Indian Agent on June 16, 1859, to trade with ``The
Confederated Tribes of Indians . . . within the boundary of the Siletz
Indian agency district Coast Reservation.''; Tillamook Tribe of
Indians, supra, 4 Ind. Cl. Comm'n at 31 (``Confederated Tribes of
Siletz Indians, . . . a duly confederated and organized group of
Indians having a tribal organization and recognized by the Secretary of
the Interior of the United States'' is the only entity with standing to
prosecute claims against the United States involving the Siletz
Reservation).
It has consistently been recognized by the Interior Department as
the only tribe representing the original Siletz or Coast Reservation
since that time. As such it is the legal and political successor to all
of the tribes and bands of Indians settled on or represented on the
Siletz Reservation. This legal principle was established and has been
repeatedly confirmed in the U.S. v. Washington Puget Sound off-
reservation treaty fishing rights litigation. See, e.g., United States
v. Washington, 593 F.3d 790, 800 at n.12 (9th Cir. 2010)(``Samish''),
citing to U.S. v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312, 360 (W.D.Wash.
1974)(Lummi) and to U.S. v. Washington, 459 F.Supp. 1020, 1039 (W.D.
Wash. 1978)(Swinomish)(Lummi and Swinomish successors in interest to
tribes and bands settled on their reservations under Treaty of Point
Elliott; both tribes successors in interest to the Samish Indian
Tribe); Evans v. Salazar, 604 F.3d 1120, 1122 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2010),
citing U.S. v. Washington, 459 F.Supp. 1020, 1039 (W.D.Wash.
1978)(Tulalip Tribes recognized governing body and successor to tribes
and bands settled on the Tulalip Reservation under the Treaty of Point
Elliott); U.S. v. Washington, 520 F.2d 676, 692 (9th Cir.
1975)(Muckleshoot Tribe, which did not exist at the time of the Treaty
of Point Elliott and Treaty of Medicine Creek, recognized as a tribe by
the United States and is a successor in interest to its constituent
tribes which were settled on the Muckleshoot Reservation under the two
treaties).
Two other legal principles, confirmed by Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals decisions, also confirm the Confederated Tribes of Siletz
Indians as the only federally-recognized Indian tribe representing the
tribes and bands who were settled on the Siletz Reservation, and as the
only Indian tribe with a legal interest in and title to the original
1855 Siletz or Coast Reservation. The first legal principle involves
groups or bands of Indians who either refused or did not move to the
reservation designated for them under a treaty or other federal action,
or who subsequently left that reservation or refused to move to a
reconfigured reservation. In U.S. v. Oregon, 29 F.3d 481, 484-85 (9th
Cir. 1994), the Ninth Circuit rejected the claim of the Colville
Confederated Tribes to have treaty and successorship rights under the
Yakama and Nez Perce Treaties of 1855 because bands of the tribes that
had signed those treaties had refused to move to the reservations
established under those treaties, or had subsequently left those
reservations, and instead had ended up settling on the Colville
Reservation. The Ninth Circuit concluded that those bands, by refusing
to move to the treaty reservations or subsequently leaving those
reservations, had abandoned their right to treaty status and had lost
their right of successorship to the original tribes. The confederated
tribes created by the United States and settled on a reservation
acquired the successorship rights to all of those original tribes and
bands of Indians.
Like the situation of Lummi and Swinomish, whose reservations were
set aside for all the Indians who signed the Point Elliott Treaty, both
the Siletz and Grand Ronde Reservations were expressly set aside for
settlement of the Willamette Valley Tribes, and members of those tribes
settled on both the Siletz and Grand Ronde Reservations. Under the
Ninth Circuit's decisions in U.S. v. Washington, both the Siletz and
Grand Ronde Tribes are successors to the historical Willamette Valley
Tribes and the three ratified treaties signed by those tribes. There is
no dispute in the federal case law on this point.
This legal principle also applies to and refutes the alleged claims
of the modern day Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw
Indians (comprised of individual Indians from those tribes who either
refused to move to the Siletz Coast Reservation or who subsequently
left the Siletz Reservation and moved back to the Coos Bay area) to
have legal claim to the original Siletz Coast Reservation. It also
applies to and refutes the claim of the Confederated Tribes of the
Grand Ronde Community of Oregon to be a successor to the Rogue River
Tribe (a remnant band or small group of the larger Rogue River Tribe
refused in 1857 to move to the Siletz Coast Reservation, designated as
the permanent reservation for that Tribe, and stayed instead on what
later became the Grand Ronde Reservation; federal officials confirmed
in correspondence that the Rogue River ``tribe'' moved to the Siletz
Reservation in 1857), and the Siletz Tribe has a claim, through
successorship to that tribe, to the Siletz Coast Reservation.
The second additional legal principle that applies to the Siletz
Tribe's factual situation involves where one tribe is not originally
settled on a reservation under a treaty, but individual members of that
``unaffiliated'' tribe end up on the reservation of another tribe,
either by obtaining allotments on that reservation or for other
reasons. This was the situation in United States v. Suquamish Indian
Tribe, 901 F.2d 772, 777 (9th Cir. 1990), where the Ninth Circuit
rejected the Suquamish Tribe's claim to be the successor to the
Duwamish Tribe on the grounds that ``individual Duwamish had moved to
and settled at'' the Suquamish Reservation, obtaining allotments there.
The court found that no group or band of Duwamish moved there. Id.2
This test was clarified in United States v. Oregon, supra, where the
Ninth Circuit concluded that for one tribe to be able to claim
successorship to another tribe, the first tribe would have to show ``a
cohesive communal decision by the Duwamish to unite with the
Suqamish,'' otherwise the Suquamish ``could not successfully claim that
it was a `political successor' to the treaty time Duwamish Tribe.'' 29
F.3d at 484. Movement and settlement of individual Indians does not
automatically result in successorship, under settled principles of law.
This legal principle applies to and settles the claims of the Grand
Ronde Tribe that it has an interest in the original Siletz Coast
Reservation through its asserted successorship to the Nehalem Tribe,
for example. Case law to which the Grand Ronde Tribe was a party and is
therefore bound concluded that the Nehalem Tribe had moved as a tribe
to the Siletz Coast Reservation, and that the Siletz Tribe is the
successor to the Nehalem Tribe: ``Plaintiffs Chinook, Clatsop and the
Ne-ha-lum tribes were placed on the Coast Reservation.'' Alcea Band of
Tillamooks, supra, 59 F.Supp. at 954. Grand Ronde claims successorship
to the Nehalum Tribe only because a few individual Nehalem Indians
allegedly moved at some point to the Grand Ronde Reservation and
married Indians residing there. Under established federal precedent,
the fact that some individual Nehalem Indians moved to the Grand Ronde
Reservation does not make the Grand Ronde Tribe a successor to the
Nehalem Tribe. Grand Ronde claims that the Nehalems and some others
coastal Indians were counted under the Grand Ronde Agency's census of
Indians in the 1860s and 70s and therefore must have resided on the
Grand Ronde Reservation, but the historical documentation shows
conclusively that these Indians actually resided on the Siletz Coast
Reservation or close by along the Coast, that they subsequently moved
to the Siletz Reservation and were supervised by the Siletz Indian
Agency, and that the Grand Ronde Indian Agency improperly attempted to
assert jurisdiction over them, an assertion that was expressly rejected
several times by his superiors, including Special Inspectors (after
investigation) and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Censuses of
Indians on the Grand Ronde Reservation in the early 1900s that list
tribal affiliation show no Nehalem, Tillamook or other coastal Indians.
The Court in U.S. v. Oregon contrasted the factual situation of the
Suquamish and Duwamish Tribes with that of the Muckleshoot and Tulalip
Tribes, who were not tribes at the time of the treaty but became tribes
recognized by the federal government comprised of small bands of
Indians who signed the treaties and moved as bands to the designated
reservation. 901 F.2d at 776. Those bands who resided together on the
same reservation then ``became known as the Tulalip and Muckleshoot
Indians.,'' Id., and were recognized by the federal government as their
own Indian tribes with authority over their reservations.
The Siletz Reservation has been referred to by the federal
government between its establishment in 1855 and diminishment in 1875
as the Siletz or Siletz Coast Reservation. The appellation ``Coast''
Reservation was associated with the original reservation because it was
located along the Oregon Coast and the original reservation was set
aside in part for the Indian tribes and bands who were signatories to
the unratified 1855 treaty, which was negotiated with the ``chiefs and
headmen of the confederated tribes and bands of Indians residing along
the coast.''
After official establishment by Executive Order on November 9,
1855, it was referred to variously as the Siletz, Siletz or Coast, or
Siletz/Coast Reservation. Use of the term Siletz Reservation by itself
was common, see, e.g., Letter dated July 20, 1857 (Annual Report of
Grand Ronde Indian Agency)(``Early in the month of May the greater
portion of the Rogue River and all of the Shasta Indians were removed,
with their own consent, to the Siletz coast reservation . . . In
consequence of the removal of the majority of these tribes to the
Siletz reservation'') , and Congress formally referred to the
Reservation as the Siletz Reservation in legislation enacted in 1868
and 1875. Act of July 27, 1868, 15 Stat. 198, 219(``For Indians upon
the Siletz reservation . . . to compensate them for losses sustained by
reason of executive proclamation taking from them that portion of their
reservation called Yaquina Bay''); Act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 420,
446(``Secretary of the Interior . . . is authorized to remove all bands
of Indians now located upon the Alsea and Siletz Reservation, set apart
for them by Executive order dated November ninth, eighteen hundred and
fifty-five''[and place them within the remaining portion]). After 1875,
the reservation was referred to exclusively as the Siletz Reservation.
The Siletz Coast Reservation was established by Executive Order on
November 9, 1855 as a permanent homeland for all the Tribes and Bands
of Indians in western Oregon, who pursuant to the unratified August
1855 treaty were to be confederated together and settled upon it. That
treaty's purpose was to make the remaining land in Oregon west of the
Cascades available for non-Indian settlement. The original Siletz Coast
Reservation stretched for over 100 miles along the central Oregon
Coast, from the ocean to the western boundary of the 8th Range, west of
the Willamette Meridian, around 1.1 million acres.
Tribes with ratified treaties such as the Rogue Rivers, Shastas and
Umpquas were moved to the Siletz Coast Reservation by May 1857 in
fulfillment of the terms of their treaties to settle them on a
permanent reservation. The Siletz Coast Reservation, under well-
established case law, became a formal treaty reservation at that time.
Portions of the Siletz Reservation were then opened to settlement over
the coming years by various federal actions--an Executive Order in
1865, a federal statute in 1875, and an Agreement and legislation
implementing allotment and surplusing of the remaining reservation in
1892, confirmed by Congress in 1894.
Various Court of Claims and Indian Claims Commission cases have
addressed whether the tribes and bands that were located on the Siletz
Coast Reservation were entitled to compensation for the taking of their
aboriginal lands or for the various diminishments of the Reservation.
These cases--examples include the Rogue River, Alcea Band of
Tillamooks, Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indian Tribes, and Tillamook
Tribe of Indians, are cited above. These cases document the connection
of the Siletz Tribe to the original Siletz Coast Reservation. As such,
they also show that the original Siletz Coast Reservation meets the
definition of on-reservation as set out in the fee-to-trust regulations
at 25 C.F.R. 151.2(f): ``[W]here there has been a final judicial
determination that a reservation has been disestablished or diminished,
Indian reservation means that area of land constituting the former
reservation of the tribe.'' See Citizen Band Potawatomi Indians v.
Collier, 17 F.3d 1325 (10th Cir. 1998)(processing fee-to-trust request
within former reservation of Potawatomi Tribe). Enacting S.817 will
allow the Siletz Tribe to request fee-to-trust transfers on the same
basis as other Indian tribes within their former reservations.
Response to Specific Issues
Some questions have been raised before this hearing about specific
aspects of the proposed legislation. I want to address some of those
issues here.
1. Does this bill make the original Siletz Reservation into a
reservation for the Siletz Tribe, or create tribal jurisdiction or
authority over the original Siletz Reservation area?
Answer. No. All S.817 does is to designate a geographic area within
which the Siletz Tribe's fee-to-trust requests will be processed under
the BIA's on-reservation rather than off- reservation fee-to-trust
criteria. The jurisdictional status of individual fee-to-trust parcels
changes once those parcels go into trust status, but that happens
whether or not this bill passes, and whether or not the on-reservation
or off-reservation criteria are used.
The existing jurisdictional status of the original Siletz Coast
Reservation is not affected by this legislation. This issue was
addressed by the federal courts in Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky,
606 F.3d 994, 1013 (8th Cir. 2010)(``While it is true that the original
1858 [reservation] boundaries are no longer markers dividing
jurisdiction between the Tribe and the state, that does not mean they
have lost their historical relevance for the Secretary's discretionary
acts [of taking land into trust pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 465]).''
Under S. 817, the original 1855 Siletz Reservation will become an
historical reference point for the BIA in deciding whether to process a
Siletz fee-to-trust application as on- reservation or off-reservation
under the fee-to-trust regulations at 25 C.F.R. Part 151. The bill does
nothing more.
2. Does the Siletz Restoration Act limit the Siletz Tribe to taking
land into trust only within Lincoln County?
Answer. No. The original Siletz Reservation extends into six
current Oregon counties, although the headquarters of the original
Siletz Reservation ws located in what became Lincoln County when that
portion of the Reservation's settlers broke off from Benton County in
1893. A map overlaying the original reservation boundary with current
jurisdictions shows that two of the counties have barely any land
involved. Some parties have alleged that federal law--the Siletz
Restoration Act--limits the Siletz Tribe to taking land into trust only
within Lincoln County. The section of the Restoration Act in question,
at 25 U.S.C. 711e(d), is addressed only to the original reservation
plan called for by the Restoration Act. It limits any land designated
under that reservation plan to Lincoln County. This plan was finalized
in 1979.
The question of whether this provision of the Siletz Restoration
Act, 25 USC 711e(d), limits the BIA permanently from taking land in
trust for the Siletz Tribe beyond Lincoln County was addressed
immediately after passage of the Siletz Restoration Act by the Office
of the Solicitor for the Department of Interior, in 1978 and 1979.
Those opinions concluded that the statutory restriction at 711e(d)
applied only to the original Siletz Reservation Plan, and did not limit
the authority of the Secretary from taking land in trust for the Siletz
Tribe elsewhere. This conclusion was reached in part because the Siletz
Restoration Act expressly makes 25 U.S.C. 465--Section 5 of the IRA--
applicable to the Siletz Tribe, without restriction. There is no
geographic restriction under that statute to taking land into trust.
This is not true of any other restored/recognized tribe in Oregon; the
other Oregon Restoration/Recognition Acts do not contain this express
language. In its response to questions from the 2012 hearing on
Siletz's legislation, supra, the BIA reaffirmed its position on this
issue.
The Siletz Tribe has acquired land in trust outside of Lincoln
County since Restoration. For example, the Tribe has a 20-acre parcel
of land in trust in Salem, Marion County, Oregon, within the Tribe's
historical territory/ceded lands.
3. Will H.R.6141 allow the Siletz Tribe to acquire land in trust
and use that land for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act?
Answer. No. There is an express prohibition in S. 817 on using land
acquired in trust under the bill for gaming. The Siletz Tribe already
has a successful gaming operation at Chinook Winds Casino Resort on its
current reservation. The Tribe does not need to acquire land in trust
for a gaming operation within its original reservation boundaries.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Stacy Dixon, Chairman, Tribal Business
Council, Susanville Indian Rancheria
On behalf of the Susanville Indian Rancheria (``Rancheria'' or
``Tribe''), I am pleased to submit the statement below on S. 1761, a
bill that would place approximately 301 acres of federal land,
comprised of rugged, rocky terrain, located in the Hidden Valley area
in California into trust for the benefit of the Rancheria. This land,
defined as the area in the ``Conveyance Boundary'' in S. 1761, is
adjacent to existing Rancheria trust lands upon which tribal housing is
located. Years ago, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) identified the
area in the Conveyance Boundary as suitable for disposal under the
Federal Land Management and Policy Act because it is an isolated parcel
of BLM land, making it difficult to manage.
We thank Chairman John Barrasso and Vice Chairman Jon Tester for
holding this legislative hearing on S. 1761. Further, we deeply
appreciate the efforts of Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator Dianne
Feinstein, our Senators, for introducing S. 1761, which is the
companion bill to H.R. 2212, introduced by Rep. Doug LaMalfa, our
Representative in the House of Representatives.
Background on Susanville Indian Rancheria
The Rancheria is a federally recognized Indian tribe in rural
Northeastern California with aboriginal ties to four distinct tribes:
Mountain Maidu, Northern Paiute, Pit River and Washoe. These tribes'
treaties were among the 18 treaties negotiated with the U.S. between
1851-52 that would have created reservations in California totaling
11,700 square miles. However, with the discovery of gold in California
in 1848 and the interest of California lawmakers in accommodating the
interests of large landowners, new settlers, and miners, none of these
treaties were ratified by the U.S. Senate. On July 8, 1852, the U.S.
Senate voted in executive session to reject the 18 treaties--a fact
that would remain undisclosed until the U.S. Senate removed the
injunction of secrecy in 1905.
As a result of the unratified treaties and the Land Claims Act of
1851, our lands were taken from us. Our people became homeless and
experienced extreme suffering, torture, and starvation through
indentured servitude of Native Americans legalized in California in
1850. After 70 years of severe hardship, on August 15, 1923, the
federal government purchased and put into trust 30 acres for the
Rancheria under the Landless and Homeless Indian Act. Subsequently, on
October 14, 1978, Congress enacted Public Law 95-459, which transferred
120 acres of BLM land into trust for the Rancheria, which forms a
portion of our Upper Rancheria. Tribal residential housing and our
water storage tanks are located on the Upper Rancheria. The area in the
Conveyance Boundary that would be placed into trust for the benefit of
the Rancheria under S. 1761 is adjacent to our Upper Rancheria trust
lands.
Accompanying this statement are attachments that contain the map of
the Conveyance Boundary referenced in S. 1761 and pictures of our Upper
Rancheria and the area in the Conveyance Boundary.
Susanville Indian Rancheria's Connections to Area in Conveyance
Boundary in S. 1761
In 1887, Congress passed the General Allotment Act that divided
lands into parcels for individual Indians. The Act forced the division
of tribal government-held lands into individual Indian-owned parcels
and opened ``surplus'' lands to non-Indian settlement. The area in the
Conveyance Boundary and much of the land adjacent to it was tribally
held land that was then allotted to individual Indians. The Peconom and
Streshley families, whose direct descendants are Rancheria members, had
allotments adjacent to the area in the Conveyance Boundary. Other
ancestors of Rancheria tribal members that had allotments nearby
included Alfred Foxey, Eliza Norman, Nettie Norman, Edith Buckskin,
George Evans, Fred Wilson, Sally Norman, Charlie Jackson, Billy
Harrison, Kitty Harrison, Birdie Norman, Will Norman, Cora Cook,
Charley Norman, and William Taylor. Unfortunately, the land granted to
most allottees in this region was not viable for grazing or farming,
and division of land between heirs upon the allottees' deaths resulted
in land fractionalization and loss of land. Further, many Indian
allotments were seized over time by predatory tax collectors for back
taxes and sold to others. The Rancheria is committed to reacquiring
aboriginal lands taken from us, including the land set forth in S. 1761
due to ill-conceived federal and state laws, forced relocation,
massacre, starvation, and other atrocities.
As you can see from the pictures in the attachments, the terrain of
the area in the Conveyance Boundary is very rugged and hilly with large
volcanic rock deposits. However, this land contains numerous cultural,
historical, and archeological sites of great significance to the
Rancheria. We seek to protect these sites and restore the natural
ecological conditions of the land. The land and vegetation in area
consist primarily of volcanic rock, juniper, sagebrush, bitterbrush,
great basin wild rye and other herbaceous plants, bulbs, corms and
roots that are important to the Rancheria for food, medicine, and
basket-making. Some of the best Indian medicine grows in this vicinity,
such as lokbom, an Indian tea that is boiled for stomach ailments and
bukom, or ``wild sunflower,'' which is eaten to heal sore throats as
well as Sego Lily, Wild Carrot, Camas, and Brodiaea. The area contains
mortar rocks that were once used by Rancheria ancestors to grind seeds
and medicine.
Further, the area is an important traditional hunting ground for
pronghorn antelope, deer, marmots, and groundhogs--traditional foods of
Rancheria tribal members. Many historical hunting blinds and
petroglyphs consisting of light inscriptions on rocks are located in
the area in the Conveyance Boundary and other parts of Hidden Valley as
well as deer and pronghorn trails. The area contains an ancient Native
American trail with a rock alter used to pray for good hunting as well
as projectile points and hammerstone used to make these projectiles
along with obsidian, chert, and basalt chips. Rancheria tribal members
continue to hunt in this area. Since time immemorial, Rancheria
ancestors and members have conducted traditional ceremonies, including
the Bear Dance, in this area. In addition, the remains of a historic
Native American village, which the Maidu referred to as Supom, or
``Groundhog,'' were located in this area.
The Rancheria's long-term vision for the area in the Conveyance
Boundary is to build a recreational area (soccer fields, softball and
baseball fields, and outdoor basketball courts), Pow Wow grounds, and a
cultural center and museum. However, because the terrain is very rocky
and hilly, use of the land will be very limited. Please find in the
attachments accompanying this statement a letter to Rep. Doug LaMalfa
discussing the Rancheria's goals for use of the area in the Conveyance
Boundary.
The Rancheria has no intention of conducting gaming activities on
this land, and the proposed legislation contains a gaming prohibition
provision.
Provisions of S. 1761
S. 1761 is modeled after Public Law 113-127, which Congress passed
in the 113th Congress to take certain BLM land in California into trust
for the benefit of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians. We were
very encouraged to see passage of Public Law 113-127 last year as it
evidenced congressional support for taking certain BLM parcels into
trust for Indian tribes.
Like Public Law 113-127, S. 1761 would take certain BLM land in
California into trust for the Susanville Indian Rancheria. Further,
similar to Public Law 113-127, S. 1761 contains a gaming prohibition,
as mentioned above.
The BLM Eagle Lake Field Office wrote a letter dated October 3,
2014, to the Rancheria, which is included in our attachments,
expressing support for having the land set forth in the Conveyance
Boundary taken into trust for the Rancheria. We very much appreciate
BLM's support, efforts, and collaboration with us on this bill.
S. 1761 is slightly different from H.R. 2212 to make a minor
technical change requested by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),
Department of the Interior, when Mr. Mike Black, Director, BIA,
testified at a hearing on H.R. 2212 before the House Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Indian, Insular, and Alaska Native Affairs on June 10,
2015. The only other difference between S. 1761 and H.R. 2212 is the
insertion of the date of the map of December 31, 2014, which
accompanies S. 1761 and which is included in our attachments to this
statement. Our goal is for these two minor changes to be made when H.R.
2212 is marked up in the House Natural Resources Committee so that H.R.
2212 and S. 1761 can be identical. We understand that the House Natural
Resources Committee anticipates including H.R. 2212 in its mark up
scheduled for later this afternoon and tomorrow morning.
Conclusion
S. 1761 would allow the Rancheria to reacquire ancestral homelands
taken from us due to misguided historical federal and state policies
and allow us to protect areas of cultural, archeological, and
historical importance to us. The Rancheria is thankful for the
Committee's efforts to hold this important hearing on S. 1761. We
respectfully urge swift enactment of this bill.
Attachments
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Prepared Statement of Leona A. Ike, Member of the Confederated Tribes
of Warm Springs
I am Leona A. Ike of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs in the
great state of Oregon. I am a direct descendant of the Treaty Chiefs of
Warm Springs and Yakama Nation who originate from the Columbia River.
My father was head chief of the Mid-Columbia River until his death in
2003.
I must relay a concern over this bill and I am obligated under our
Covenant with our Creator to pass this on to you. Our tribal people
have had this governed Covenant since the Creation of our peoples:
``Tribes gave their eternal spiritual promise to our Creator to
always protect our Sacred Water and our lands and all that dwell within
or reside upon our water and lands that includes our salmon and fish,
small and big game, roots, medicines, rivers, small streams and all
other natural resources and other life. We are governed by our Covenant
to protect our people, from the oldest elder to the newest conceived
child and all those who passed on to eternal life.''
These words or words to this reference can be found in Treaties.
Chiefs, like my father, advocated for the protection of our Covenant
always. In President Clinton's second term and at the inauguration
hosted by Tribal Leaders, my father Chief Frederick Ike Sr. was asked
to sing the ceremonial song to honor our President.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to
Michael Smith
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]