[House Report 115-202]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 115-202
======================================================================
LYTTON RANCHERIA HOMELANDS ACT OF 2017
_______
July 11, 2017.--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. 597]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 597) 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, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend
that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 597 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 220
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, California, was purchased and set aside by
the United States in 1926. 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 by 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 Rancheria property in Healdsburg,
California, to the Rancheria or otherwise provide any land. The
court did, however, recognize that the 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 within the
original Rancheria boundaries. These restrictions included a
use requirement consistent with the Sonoma County General
Plan.\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, Congress enacted
the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act (Public Law 106-568). One
provision 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 Rancheria
tribal headquarters, in San Pablo (Contra Costa County),
California, in trust for the benefit of the Lytton Rancheria.
Section 819 of that 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.''
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 et seq.). 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
did not ratify 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, a bill to amend the Omnibus Indian Advancement
Act to modify the date as of which certain tribal land of the
Lytton Rancheria of California is deemed to be held in trust
and to provide for the conduct of certain activities on the
land).
In recent years, the tribe has used revenues from its
casino to purchase a number of parcels adjacent to the town of
Windsor, California in Sonoma County. 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. 597 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 not to
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 Committee has received a relatively large
number of communications from the residents of Windsor,
California, in opposition to the bill.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\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. 597 was introduced on January 20, 2017, by Congressman
Jeff Denham (R-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 22, 2017,
the Full Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill.
The Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs
was discharged by unanimous consent. No amendments were offered
and the bill was ordered favorably reported to the House of
Representatives by unanimous consent on June 27, 2017.
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 AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT
1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act.
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 5, 2017.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 597, the Lytton
Rancheria Homelands Act of 2017.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan
Carroll.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall.
Enclosure.
H.R. 597--Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2017
H.R. 597 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. 597 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.
Enacting H.R. 597 would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO
estimates that enacting H.R. 597 would not increase net direct
spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive
10-year periods beginning in 2028.
H.R. 597 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 ($78 million in 2017, adjusted annually for
inflation).
H.R. 597 contains no private-sector mandates as defined in
UMRA.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Meghan
Shrewsbury and 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. 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 mandates.
COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5
Directed Rule Making. This bill does not contain any
directed rule makings.
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.