[House Report 114-633]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


114th Congress    }                                      {      Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session       }                                      {     114-633

======================================================================
 
                 LYTTON RANCHERIA HOMELANDS ACT OF 2015

                                _______
                                

 June 21, 2016.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Bishop of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted 
                             the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 2538]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 2538) to take lands in Sonoma County, 
California, into trust as part of the reservation of the Lytton 
Rancheria of California, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 
2015''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

  Congress finds the following:
          (1) The Lytton Rancheria of California is a federally 
        recognized Indian tribe that lost its homeland after it was 
        unjustly and unlawfully terminated in 1958. The Tribe was 
        restored to Federal recognition in 1991, but the conditions of 
        its restoration have prevented it from regaining a homeland on 
        its original lands.
          (2) Congress needs to take action to reverse historic 
        injustices that befell the Tribe and have prevented it from 
        regaining a viable homeland for its people.
          (3) Prior to European contact there were as many as 350,000 
        Indians living in what is now the State of California. By the 
        turn of the 19th century, that number had been reduced to 
        approximately 15,000 individuals, many of them homeless and 
        living in scattered bands and communities.
          (4) The Lytton Rancheria's original homeland was purchased by 
        the United States in 1926 pursuant to congressional authority 
        designed to remedy the unique tragedy that befell the Indians 
        of California and provide them with reservations called 
        Rancherias to be held in trust by the United States.
          (5) After the Lytton Rancheria lands were purchased by the 
        United States, the Tribe settled on the land and sustained 
        itself for several decades by farming and ranching.
          (6) By the mid-1950s, Federal Indian policy had shifted back 
        towards a policy of terminating Indian tribes. In 1958, 
        Congress enacted the Rancheria Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 619), 
        which slated 41 Rancherias in California, including the Lytton 
        Rancheria, for termination after certain conditions were met.
          (7) On August 1, 1961, the Lytton Rancheria was terminated by 
        the Federal Government. This termination was illegal because 
        the conditions for termination under the Rancheria Act had 
        never been met. After termination was implemented, the Tribe 
        lost its lands and was left without any means of supporting 
        itself.
          (8) In 1987, the Tribe joined three other tribes in a lawsuit 
        against the United States challenging the illegal termination 
        of their Rancherias. A Stipulated Judgment in the case, Scotts 
        Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Sugar Bowl Rancheria v. 
        United States, No. C-86-3660 (N.D.Cal. March 22, 1991), 
        restored the Lytton Rancheria to its status as a federally 
        recognized Indian tribe.
          (9) The Stipulated Judgment agreed that the Lytton Rancheria 
        would have the ``individual and collective status and rights'' 
        which it had prior to its termination and expressly 
        contemplated the acquisition of trust lands for the Lytton 
        Rancheria.
          (10) The Stipulated Judgment contains provisions, included at 
        the request of the local county governments and neighboring 
        landowners, that prohibit the Lytton Rancheria from exercising 
        its full Federal rights on its original homeland in the 
        Alexander Valley.
          (11) In 2000, approximately 9.5 acres of land in San Pablo, 
        California, was placed in trust status for the Lytton Rancheria 
        for economic development purposes.
          (12) The Tribe has since acquired, from willing sellers at 
        fair market value, property in Sonoma County near the Tribe's 
        historic Rancheria. This property, which the Tribe holds in fee 
        status, is suitable for a new homeland for the Tribe.
          (13) On a portion of the land to be taken into trust, which 
        portion totals approximately 124.12 acres, the Tribe plans to 
        build housing for its members and governmental and community 
        facilities.
          (14) A portion of the land to be taken into trust is being 
        used for viniculture, and the Tribe intends to develop more of 
        the lands to be taken into trust for viniculture. The Tribe's 
        investment in the ongoing viniculture operation has 
        reinvigorated the vineyards, which are producing high-quality 
        wines. The Tribe is operating its vineyards on a sustainable 
        basis and is working toward certification of sustainability.
          (15) No gaming shall be conducted on the lands to be taken 
        into trust by this Act.
          (16) No gaming shall be conducted on any lands taken into 
        trust on behalf of the Tribe in Sonoma County after the date of 
        the enactment of this Act north of a line that runs in a 
        cardinal east and west direction from the point where Highway 
        Route 12 crosses Highway 101 as they are physically on the 
        ground and used for transportation on January 1, 2016, and 
        extending to the furthest extent of Sonoma County.
          (17) Any agreement, now or in the future, regarding gaming 
        restrictions between Sonoma County and the Tribe will be 
        effective without further review by the Bureau of Indian 
        Affairs.
          (18) By directing that these lands be taken into trust, the 
        United States will ensure that the Lytton Rancheria will 
        finally have a permanently protected homeland on which they can 
        once again live communally and plan for future generations. 
        This action is necessary to fully restore the Tribe to the 
        status it had before it was wrongfully terminated in 1961.
          (19) The Tribe and County of Sonoma have entered into a 
        Memorandum of Agreement in which the County agrees to the lands 
        in the County being taken into trust for the benefit of the 
        Tribe in consideration for commitments made by the Tribe.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

  For the purpose of this Act, the following definitions apply:
          (1) County.--The term ``County'' means Sonoma County, 
        California.
          (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
        the Interior.
          (3) Tribe.--The term ``Tribe'' means the Lytton Rancheria of 
        California.

SEC. 4. LANDS TO BE TAKEN INTO TRUST.

  (a) In General.--The land owned by the Tribe and generally depicted 
on the map titled ``Lytton Fee Owned Property to be Taken into Trust'' 
and dated May 1, 2015, is hereby taken into trust for the benefit of 
the Tribe, subject to valid existing rights, contracts, and management 
agreements related to easements and rights-of-way.
  (b) Lands To Be Made Part of the Reservation.--Lands taken into trust 
under subsection (a) shall be part of the Tribe's reservation and shall 
be administered in accordance with the laws and regulations generally 
applicable to property held in trust by the United States for an Indian 
tribe.

SEC. 5. GAMING.

  (a) Lands Taken Into Trust Under This Act.--Lands taken into trust 
for the benefit of the Tribe under section 4 shall not be eligible for 
gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).
  (b) Other Lands Taken Into Trust.--
          (1) Time-limited prohibition.--Lands taken into trust for the 
        benefit of the Tribe in Sonoma County after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act shall not be eligible for gaming under 
        the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2710 et seq.) until 
        after March 15, 2037.
          (2) Permanent prohibition.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), 
        lands located north of a line that runs in a cardinal east and 
        west direction and is defined by California State Highway Route 
        12 as it crosses through Sonoma County at Highway 101 as they 
        are physically on the ground and used for transportation on 
        January 1, 2016, and extending to the furthest extent of Sonoma 
        County shall not be eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming 
        Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2710 et seq.).

SEC. 6. APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN LAW.

  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Memorandum of 
Agreement entered into by the Tribe and the County concerning taking 
land in the County into trust for the benefit of the Tribe, which was 
approved by the County Board of Supervisors on March 10, 2015, and any 
addenda and supplement thereto, is not subject to review or approval of 
the Secretary in order to be effective, including review or approval 
under section 2103 of the Revised Statutes (25 U.S.C. 81).

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 2538 is to take lands in Sonoma County, 
California, into trust as part of the reservation of the Lytton 
Rancheria of California.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    The Lytton Rancheria is a tribe of approximately 270 
enrolled members near the central California coast, with the 
tribal headquarters located in Santa Rosa, California. The 
original 50-acre Rancheria land, located approximately 20 miles 
north of Santa Rosa, was purchased and set aside by the United 
States in 1926 pursuant to the Landless and Homeless Indian 
Act. From the late 1930s to the late 1950s, the Rancheria was 
composed of two families and their descendants who moved to the 
50-acre tract north of Healdsburg, California. In 1958, federal 
supervision of the Rancheria was terminated by an Act of 
Congress (Public Law 85-671, 72 Stat. 619). This occurred in 
the context of the ``Termination Era'' when Congress determined 
to end its policy of recognizing tribes, holding their lands in 
federal trust, and supervising their efforts. Subsequently, 
title to the Rancheria land was transferred to individual 
members, who subsequently sold the land to non-Indians.
    In 1987, aided by the California Indian Legal Services, the 
Lytton Rancheria joined as plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the 
United States challenging the Congressional termination. In 
1991, the U.S. District Court for Northern California approved 
a settlement negotiated between the federal government and a 
number of terminated Rancherias under which the government 
would recognize the Rancherias as tribes.\1\ The settlement did 
not restore the original Lytton Rancheria property in 
Healdsburg, California, to the Rancheria or otherwise provide 
any land. The court did, however, recognize that the federal 
government and the Rancheria agreed that future lands could be 
placed in federal trust for the Rancheria within Sonoma 
County.\2\ At the insistence of Sonoma County, restrictions 
were placed on land acquired by the Lytton Rancheria in 
Alexander Valley and within the original Rancheria boundaries. 
These restrictions included a use requirement consistent with 
the Sonoma County General Plan within the original Rancheria 
boundary.\3\ Additionally, gambling was expressly prohibited on 
lands within the exterior boundaries of the original Rancheria 
lands in Alexander Valley.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Sugar Bowl Rancheria 
v. United States. No. C-86-3660 (N.D. Cal. 1991), at 3.
    \2\Id. at 4.
    \3\Id. at 5 and Exhibit B.
    \4\Id. at 5 and Exhibit C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the final days of the 106th Congress, the Omnibus Indian 
Advancement Act, was enacted (Public Law 106-568). One 
provision in the Act required the Secretary of the Interior to 
acquire title to a 9.5 acre parcel of land housing the Casino 
San Pablo cardroom, located approximately 60 miles south of the 
Lytton Rancheria tribal headquarters, in San Pablo (Contra 
Costa County), California, in trust for the benefit of the 
Lytton Rancheria. The Act further provided that ``[s]uch land 
shall be deemed to have been held in trust and part of the 
reservation of the Rancheria prior to October 17, 1988.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Id. at Section 819.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The effect of backdating the trust acquisition was to grant 
the Tribe the right to operate a casino pursuant to the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701). The Tribe converted the 
Casino San Pablo cardroom into a class II casino. In 2004, the 
Tribe negotiated a class III gaming compact with the Governor 
of California; however the California Legislature never 
ratified the compact due to strong local concerns. In 2009, 
with the strong support of local officials, a bill to place 
restrictions on the San Pablo casino passed the U.S. Senate (S. 
338, 111th Congress).
    In recent years, the Tribe has used revenues from its 
casino to purchase a number of parcels adjacent to the city 
limits of the town of Windsor, California, in Sonoma County. 
The town of Windsor is approximately 10 miles from the tribal 
headquarters in Santa Rosa, California.
    In 2009, the Tribe applied to the Department of the 
Interior to place title to approximately 127 acres of lands 
acquired in this area in trust. The application is still 
pending with the Department of the Interior. The Tribe has 
testified that it intends to use a portion of the lands for 
tribal housing, while the rest would support a diverse range of 
economic development including plans for a future resort and 
winery. Land held in trust for a tribe is not subject to local 
and state taxation and regulation, including zoning laws.
    H.R. 2538 would place approximately 511 acres of non-
contiguous parcels of land owned by the Rancheria in trust, 
subject to valid and existing rights, contracts, and management 
agreements. Under the bill, gaming under the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act would be prohibited on these lands.
    Additionally, the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated March 
10, 2015, entered into between the Tribe and Sonoma County 
concerning the taking of land into trust, would not be subject 
to review or approval by the Secretary of the Interior. The MOA 
between the Tribe and Sonoma County outlines commitments and 
procedures to mitigate impacts of economic development 
activities by the Tribe. Activities contemplated include a 
residential development project of 147 residential units and a 
winery and/or resort. Also outlined in the document is an 
agreement that the Tribe will pay $6.1 million for one-time 
impacts on the County and pay 30 percent of the property taxes 
on the lands thereafter. The County additionally agrees to not 
oppose or issue negative comments on the Tribe's efforts to 
seek additional trust lands in the future, through the 
administrative or legislative process. The MOA is binding for 
22 years.
    Lastly, the Natural Resources Committee has received a 
relatively large number of communications from the residents of 
Windsor, California, in opposition to the bill.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Rep. Jared Huffman surprised at opposition to Lytton tribe's 
plans near Windsor. The Press Democrat. August 28, 2015. http://
www.pressdemocrat.com/news/4398626-181/rep-jared-huffman-surprised-
at?artslide=0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 2538 was introduced on May 21, 2015, by Congressman 
Jared Huffman (D-CA). The bill was referred to the Committee on 
Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee 
on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs. On June 17, 2015, 
the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On February 2, 
2016, the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. 
The Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent. 
Congressman Jared Huffman offered an amendment designated 132; 
it was adopted by unanimous consent. No additional amendments 
were offered, and the bill, as amended, was ordered favorably 
reported to the House of Representatives by unanimous consent 
on February 3, 2016.

            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

    1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and 
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be 
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) 
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when 
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted 
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 3(c)(3) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 
403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has 
received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

H.R. 2538--Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2015

    H.R. 2538 would take into trust, for the benefit of the 
Lytton Rancheria of California, a federally recognized Indian 
tribe, certain lands located in the County of Sonoma, 
California. The bill would specify certain prohibitions on 
gaming on the affected land, consistent with an existing 
memorandum of understanding between the tribe and the County of 
Sonoma.
    Based on information from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 2538 would have no significant 
effect on the federal budget. CBO estimates that any change in 
the agency's administrative costs under the bill, which would 
be subject to appropriation, would not exceed $500,000 
annually. Because enacting H.R. 2538 would not affect direct 
spending or revenues, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2538 would not increase 
net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027.
    H.R. 2538 would impose an intergovernmental mandate, as 
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), by 
preempting the authority of state and local governments to tax 
land taken into trust for the Lytton Rancheria. CBO estimates 
the costs of the mandate would not exceed the threshold 
established in UMRA ($77 million in 2016, adjusted annually for 
inflation).
    H.R. 2538 contains no private-sector mandates as defined in 
UMRA.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Megan Carroll 
(for federal costs) and Rachel Austin (for intergovernmental 
mandates). The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, 
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
    2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required 
by clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974, this bill does not contain any new budget 
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in 
revenues or tax expenditures. The Congressional Budget Office 
estimates that implementing the bill ``would have no 
significant effect on the federal budget''.
    3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or 
objective of this bill is to take lands in Sonoma County, 
California, into trust as part of the reservation of the Lytton 
Rancheria of California.

                           EARMARK STATEMENT

    This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandate as defined by Public 
Law 104-4.

                       COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5

    Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that 
this bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any 
specific rule-making proceedings.
    Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not 
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government 
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was 
not included in any report from the Government Accountability 
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program 
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law 
98-169) as relating to other programs.

                PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

    This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or 
tribal law.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing 
law.

                                  [all]