[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]