[Senate Report 115-344]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 625
115th Congress } { Report
SENATE
2d Session } { 115-344
======================================================================
TO TAKE LANDS IN SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, INTO TRUST AS PART OF THE
RESERVATION OF THE LYTTON RANCHERIA OF CALIFORNIA, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
_______
October 5, 2018.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hoeven, from the Committee on Indian Affairs,
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 Indian Affairs, to which 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, reports favorably thereon without amendment and
recommends that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE
The bill, H.R. 597, provides congressional authorization
for the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) to take land into
trust for the Lytton Rancheria of California (Lytton Rancheria
or Tribe).
BACKGROUND
From the late 1940s to the early 1960s, federal Indian
policy shifted to the purported assimilation of Native
Americans into society, coupled with the termination of the
federal trust relationship with Indian tribes. Consistent with
these policies of assimilation and termination, the 1958
California Rancheria Act, authorized the Secretary to terminate
the federal government's trust supervision of 41 California
reservations, including the Lytton Rancheria.\1\ As a result of
that Act and the land transactions that followed, the Lytton
Rancheria lost all of its traditional homelands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\California Rancheria Act of 1958, Pub. L. No. 85-671, 72 Stat.
619, 619-21 (1958).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the late 1960s, the federal government pivoted to a
policy of self-determination, thereby repudiating its past
policy of termination. As a result of this policy shift,
Congress ``restored'' some Indian tribes, while others were
restored through litigation.\2\ In 1987, the Lytton Rancheria
joined three other Indian tribes in a federal lawsuit that
challenged the termination of the trust relationship. In 1991,
Scotts Valley, Guidiville, and Lytton Rancherias settled the
lawsuit and were restored to federally recognized status under
the stipulated judgment.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\See Amador County, California v. Salazar, 640 F.3d 373, 375
(D.C. Cir. 2011) (discussing the 1983 stipulated order in Hardwick v.
United States, No. C-79-1710 (N.D. Cal.)).
\3\Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Sugar Bowl Rancheria
v. United States of America, No. C-86-3660-WWS (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15,
1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement reached between the parties stated that the
termination of the Lytton Rancheria was illegal and that the
descendants were entitled to the rights and benefits of
individual Indians.\4\ While the settlement provided that the
Tribe could organize under the Indian Reorganization Act, the
stipulation also assured nearby landowners, who intervened in
the suit, that the Lytton Rancheria would not conduct gaming in
Alexander Valley except in conformity with the County's general
plan and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).\5\ Since the
court entered judgment, the DOI has listed Lytton Rancheria as
a recognized Indian tribe in the Federal Register every time
such notices were issued between 1992 and 2018.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\According to the district court in Artichoke Joe's, the 1961
termination was illegal because Public Law 85-671 Sec. 3(c) required
the federal government to ``install or rehabilitate . . . irrigation or
domestic water systems'' before the land was distributed, or within a
reasonable time after the land was distributed. Artichoke Joe's
California Grand Casino v. Norton, 278 F.Supp.2d 1174, 1177 (E.D. Cal.
2003) (detailing the history of litigation and describing the
settlement). The federal government never constructed the required
water system improvements on the Lytton Rancheria's lands, according to
the Tribe. Id.
\5\See Artichoke Joe's, 278 F.Supp.2d at 1177 (detailing the
history of litigation and describing the settlement).
\6\The list is published each year pursuant to the Federally
Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-454, 108
Stat. 4791, codified at 25 U.S.C. Sec. 479a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement and stipulated judgment, however, did not
include the return of any lands to the Lytton Rancheria. In
2000, Congress passed the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act, which
directed the Secretary of the Interior to take 9.5 acres of
land in San Pablo, California into trust for the Tribe,
declared those lands to be part of the Tribe's reservation, and
deemed the land as eligible for gaming under the IGRA. Congress
clarified the following year that the provisions of IGRA, other
than those relating to the land's eligibility for gaming, apply
to gaming on the San Pablo Property.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Section 128 of the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriation Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-63, 115 Stat. 414,
442 (Nov. 5, 2001) (``2001 Amendment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF THE BILL AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The bill, H.R. 597, would place 511 acres of land into
trust for the Lytton Rancheria through a mandatory trust
acquisition by the DOI. This fee land is located adjacent to
the Town of Windsor, near the Tribe's original homelands, and
was purchased with tribal revenues. The land, once it is held
in trust for the Tribe, will reestablish an area for the Lytton
Rancheria to rebuild its homelands by constructing homes and
government facilities, expand economic development, including
viniculture, and provide an area to practice traditional and
religious teachings, all for the tribal community.
The Lytton Rancheria has spent years negotiating with the
County of Sonoma (County), a local school district, and a local
fire department to agree to three memoranda of agreement (MOA)
that provide for the mitigation of any potential off-
reservation impacts from uses of the land by the Tribe. On May
27, 2015, Governor Jerry Brown, Jr. sent a letter to
Representative Huffman supporting the Lytton Rancheria
Homelands Act of 2015, which was a bill similar to the current
H.R. 597. Both the Lytton Rancheria Tribal Council and the
County of Sonoma Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to
support the MOA and federal legislation to take the lands into
trust for the Tribe.
The bill includes a permanent gaming prohibition on the
lands described in section 4 of H.R. 597, specifically those
lands that lie 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. Following the Committee
legislative hearing on H.R. 597, the Lytton Rancheria and
County agreed to further amend the MOA to expand the permanent
prohibition on gaming to cover the entire county, not just the
lands described in the bill. This MOA goes beyond the language
in the Act to ensure that new gaming will not be conducted in
the County by the Lytton Rancheria. On June 16, 2018, Margie
Mejia, Tribal Chairperson, and Larry Stidham, Legal Counsel for
the Tribe, signed the amended MOA. On August 7, 2018, David
Rabbitt, Vice Chair of the County Board of Supervisors, and
Bruce Goldstein, County Counsel, signed the amended MOA.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
On January 20, 2017, Representative Denham introduced H.R.
597, the Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2017, which was
referred to the Subcommittee on Indian, Insular, and Alaska
Native Affairs of the Committee on Natural Resources of the
House of Representatives. The full Committee on Natural
Resources of the House of Representatives favorably reported
the bill on June 27, 2017, without amendment. The House of
Representatives passed the bill on July 11, 2017.
On July 12, 2017, the bill, H.R. 597 was received in the
Senate and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. On
April 25, 2018, the Committee held a legislative hearing on the
bill. On July 11, 2018, the Committee held a duly called
business meeting to consider H.R. 597. The Committee passed
H.R. 597 by voice vote and ordered the bill to be favorably
reported.
During the 114th Congress, the Lytton Rancheria Homelands
Act of 2015, H.R. 2538, was introduced by Representatives
Huffman and Denham on May 21, 2015 and referred to the
Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs of
the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives. Representative Thompson was added as a co-
sponsor on June 9, 2015.
The House Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native
Affairs held a hearing on H.R. 2538 on June 17, 2015. On
February 2, 2016, the House Subcommittee discharged the bill
and the full Committee on Natural Resources considered H.R.
2538 during a mark-up session, at which the bill was ordered to
be reported, as amended, by unanimous consent. On June 21,
2016, H.R. 2538 was placed on the Union Calendar where no
further action was taken on the bill.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title
This section cites the Act as the ``Lytton Rancheria
Homelands Act of 2017.''
Sec. 2. Findings
This section explains the history of Lytton Rancheria, a
federally recognized tribe, and how they lost their trust
status and homelands. Through litigation, the Lytton Rancheria
and other Indian tribes challenged the loss of their trust
status. In a Stipulated Judgement, the court restored the
Lytton Rancheria's trust relationship with the United States
and held that the Tribe would have the ``individual and
collective status and rights'' it had prior to its termination.
The Stipulated Judgement expressly contemplated the acquisition
of trust lands for the Lytton Rancheria.
While the Findings section, specifically (2)(17), states
that future ``gaming restrictions between Sonoma County and the
Tribe will be effective without further review by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs,'' this provision does not furnish the Tribe or
the County with the authority to modify the restrictions set
forth in Sections 5 and 6 of this Act, IGRA's requirements, the
2000 Omnibus, or the subsequent 2001 Amendment.
Sec. 3. Definitions
This section provides for definitions used throughout the
Act, including the term ``County'' to mean the Sonoma County,
California; the term ``Secretary'' to mean the Secretary of the
Interior; and the term ``Tribe'' to mean the Lytton Rancheria
of California, a federally recognized Indian tribe.
Sec. 4. Lands to be taken into trust
This section specifies the land that will be taken into
trust; the land owned by the Tribe and depicted on the map
titled ``Lytton Fee Owned Property to be Taken into Trust,''
dated May 1, 2015. The land to be taken into trust are part of
the Lytton Rancheria'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
This section explains that the lands taken into trust under
this Act within Sonoma County are not eligible for gaming under
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act until after March 15, 2037.
Lands located north of a line that runs east and west, defined
by Highway 12, as it crosses Sonoma County at Highway 101, and
extending to the furthest extent of Sonoma County that are
physically on the ground and used for transportation are
permanently ineligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. Sec. 2710).
This Section does not create a new gaming exception within
IGRA's existing framework (see 25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2719(b)) but
instead limits the Tribe's ability to conduct gaming in
accordance with IGRA's existing requirements. Nothing in this
Section or this Act modifies or supersedes the gaming
limitations set forth in IGRA, and the Tribe must comply with
IGRA's requirements in addition to those set forth in this Act,
the 2000 Omnibus, and the subsequent 2001 Amendment.
Sec. 6. Applicability of certain law
This section states the Memorandum of Agreement entered
into by the Lytton Rancheria and the County concerning the
trust land is not subject to review or approval of the
Secretary in order to be effective, including review or
approval under (25 U.S.C. Sec. 81).
COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS
The following cost estimate, as provided by the
Congressional Budget Office, date August 10, 2018, was prepared
for H.R. 597:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, August 10, 2018.
Hon. John Hoeven,
Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs,
U.S. Senate, 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 Robert Reese.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall,
Director.
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.
Using 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 be well below the threshold
established in UMRA ($80 million in 2018, adjusted annually for
inflation).
H.R. 597 contains no private-sector mandates as defined in
UMRA.
On July 5, 2017, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R.
597, the Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2017, as ordered
reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources on June
27, 2018. The two versions H.R. 597 are similar and CBO's
estimates of their costs are the same.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Robert Reese
(for federal costs) and Rachel Austin (for mandates). The
estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
REGULATORY AND PAPERWORK IMPACT STATEMENT
Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate requires each report accompanying a bill to evaluate the
regulatory and paperwork impact that would be incurred in
carrying out the bill. The Committee believes H.R. 597 will
have minimal impact on regulatory or paperwork requirements.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS
The Committee has received no communications from the
Executive Branch regarding H.R. 597.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In accordance with Committee Rules, subsection 12 of rule
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate is waived. In the
opinion of the Committee, it is necessary to dispense with
subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate
to expedite business of the Senate.
[all]