U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

90–791 PDF 2014

S. HRG. 113–419 

S. 2442, S. 2465, S. 2479, S. 2480, AND S. 

2503 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 9, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

JON TESTER, Montana, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MARY J. PAVEL, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

RHONDA HARJO, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 9, 2014 ................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Barrasso ............................................................................... 2 

Statement of Senator Crapo ................................................................................... 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Statement of Senator Flake .................................................................................... 43 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Statement of Senator McCain ................................................................................. 46 

Statement of Senator Tester ................................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 18 

Statement of Senator Walsh ................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

WITNESSES

Black, Michael S., Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of 

the Interior ........................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Canfield, Michael, President/CEO, Indian Pueblos Marketing, Indian Pueblo 

Cultural Center .................................................................................................... 57 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58 

Counts, Hon. Sherry J., Chairwoman, Hualapai Tribe ........................................ 53 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55 

Fisher, Hon. Llevando, President, Northern Cheyenne Tribe ............................. 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Melendez, Hon. Arlan, Chairman, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony .......................... 48 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Tom, Hon. Aletha, Chairwoman, Moapa Band of Paiute Indians ....................... 47 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

APPENDIX

Board of Supervisors of Mohave County, Arizona, prepared statement ............. 71 

Charter, Steve, Northern Plains Resource Council, prepared statement ........... 76 

DeSoto, Randi, Chairwoman, Summit Lake Paiute Council, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 77 

Graham, Patrick J., State Director, The Nature Conservancy, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 86 

La Paz County Board of Supervisors, prepared statement .................................. 80 

Letters for the record ............................................................................................... 87–92 

Lowery, Hon. Elwood, Chairman, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 78 

Manning, Hon. Lindsey, Chairman, Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation, prepared statement ..................................................... 73 

McAllister, Francis, Vice President of Land & Water, Freeport Minerals Corporation, prepared statement .............................................................................. 82 

Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada, prepared statement .................... 69 

Resolution No. 40-2014 ........................................................................................... 93 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to Hon. Arlan 

Melendez ............................................................................................................... 94 

Temoke, Gerald, Chairman, Elko Band Council, prepared statement ................ 75 

(1) 

S. 2442, S. 2465, S. 2479, S. 2480, AND S. 2503 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 

628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jon Tester, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

The CHAIRMAN. The Senate Indian Affairs Committee will come 

to order. 

This afternoon the Committee is going to be holding a legislative 

hearing on five bills affecting land and water resources in Indian 

Country. We are going to first discuss S. 2442, the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act. The bill would primarily exchange mineral rights 

between the Tribe and a private company. In the early 1900s, the 

United States was supposed to provide the Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe the full subsurface estate within the boundaries of its reservation. However, the United States failed to include approximately 5,000 acres of subsurface rights which are now owned by 

Great Northern Properties. This bill would address that past mistake. The company is willing to transfer its mineral interests within the reservation to the tribe. In return, the Secretary of Interior 

will give the company mineral interests off-reservation that are 

currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management. 

This transfer would give the tribe full ownership of the subsurface estate within its reservation boundaries. The tribe would 

release all claims it has against the United States for failure to 

provide these interests to the tribe more than a century ago. 

S. 2442 was introduced by Senator Walsh and myself. Senator 

Walsh has joined us here today to talk about the bill as well as 

Northern Cheyenne Tribal President Llevando Fisher. We will hear 

from Llevando a little bit later. 

We are also going to hear testimony about S. 2479 and S. 2480, 

which are two bills affecting tribes in Nevada. S. 2479 and S. 2480 

would convey lands to eight tribes in Nevada for housing, economic 

development, conservation and cultural purposes. 

We are also going to discuss S. 2503, the Bill Williams River 

Water Rights Settlement Act of 2014. This bill is a result of the 

Hualapai Tribe and its neighbors working together in a positive 

manner to work out their issues. I have seen a good number of 

2 

water settlements in Montana and I know how much easier it is 

that these settlements can be accomplished if everyone is working 

together to find solutions to reach common goals. Senator Flake 

will be joining us shortly, I hope, to talk about this bill and the 

benefits it will provide to all the parties involved. 

And finally, we will discuss S. 2465, the Albuquerque Indian 

School Land Transfer Act. The Albuquerque Indian School provided 

education to Indian students for nearly a century. After closing 

down in the 1960s, sections of the property have been transferred 

to 19 Pueblos which own the land jointly. Together, the Pueblos 

have used this property for economic development activities including a hotel and an Indian Pueblo cultural center. The cultural center has become a tourist attraction in Albuquerque and provides 

education and cultural activities related to the Pueblos. S. 2465 

would transfer a few more acres of land jointly to the Pueblos. 

I want to thank everybody for being here, everybody who is going 

to be testifying today. And with that, I would ask Senator Barrasso 

if he has an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 

holding today’s hearing. I want to welcome my friends to the Committee, Senator Walsh, and I understand Senator Flake will be 

joining us shortly. 

For Indian tribes, natural resources provide significant economic, 

cultural and social benefits to the communities. As I have stated 

in prior hearings, on some reservations, oil and gas or coal reserves 

represent by far the number one best opportunity for prosperity. So 

we should be asking, what can Congress and the Administration do 

to help tribes and their members make use of these resources, if 

in fact that is what they want to do. For that reason, I have introduced S. 2132, the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 2014. That is a bill, Mr. Chairman, that we can get signed into law this year and kick start tribal 

energy development. 

Reducing excessive and unnecessary regulations, reforming outdated approval processes and working with, not against, tribes that 

want to develop their resources I believe is a good starting point. 

We must also be sensitive to the barriers that the energy-producing 

tribes face getting the resources to viable markets, both domestic 

and foreign. Access to pipelines, to rails, to refiners and shipping 

ports is critical. Congress can and will need to play a role to ensure 

that tribes not only have the ability to make their resources and 

develop their resources but also have access to the markets. 

So I welcome the witnesses and look forward to the testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

We are going to now hear testimony from Senator Walsh and 

hopefully before you get done, Senator Walsh, Senator Flake will 

be here to explain the Bill Williams Water Rights Act. 

But for now, Senator Walsh, my colleague from Montana, who is 

the chief sponsor of S. 2442, the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act, the 

floor is yours to talk about this bill. Senator Walsh. 

3 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. WALSH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator WALSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Tester, 

Vice Chairman Barrasso, for the honor of testifying before this illustrious Committee. 

I am here today to provide testimony in support of S. 2442, the 

Northern Cheyenne Lands Act. This is an important bill for the 

Northern Cheyenne, a tribe in southeast Montana. I appreciate 

Chairman Tester’s co-sponsorship of this legislation. 

I also want to thank Northern Cheyenne President Fisher for his 

leadership on this issue and look forward to his testimony. 

In my second week as a United States Senator, I traveled to the 

Northern Cheyenne Reservation and heard directly from tribal 

leadership about the importance of fixing a century-old wrong that 

has significantly reduced the tribe’s ability to pursue economic development opportunities on their reservation. I also heard about a 

variety of land consolidation challenges and trust responsibilities 

on the reservation that could be improved. 

In 1900, when the original boundaries of the Northern Cheyenne 

Reservation were expanded, the Federal Government failed to acquire the underlying mineral rights for the tribe. Approximately 

5,000 acres of coal and other mineral rights were lost to the tribe. 

Currently, Great Northern Properties holds these mineral rights 

underlying the tribe’s land. This bill provides a long-overdue solution. The Northern Cheyenne Lands Act conveys to the tribe 117 

million tons of coal under about 5,000 acres held by Great Northern Properties. Once the conveyance is completed, these mineral 

rights will be held in trust on behalf of the tribe. In exchange, 

Great Northern Properties will receive 112 million tons of federally-owned coal on the Bull Mountains and the East Fork area. 

Our bill keeps surface owners in the Bull Mountains whole under 

current law. This bill also clears the way for a revenue sharing 

agreement where the tribe will receive royalty payments from 

Great Northern Properties on any revenues the company earns 

through the development of Federal coal tracts conveyed in this 

legislation. 

Senate Bill 2442 also directs the Secretary of the Interior to take 

into trust 1,567 acres of land for the tribe. These lands hold significant cultural value for the Northern Cheyenne. This is a simple fix 

that will allow the tribe to consolidate more of its land for its members, promote tribal self-governance and protect culturally-important sites. 

This bill also transfers important trust funds to the tribe and 

aims to reduce fractionation on the reservation, including through 

the Interior Department’s land buyback program. 

In conclusion, I strongly urge the Committee to support the 

Northern Cheyenne Lands Act in order to consolidate land ownership, correct a century-old wrong, create jobs and revenue and promote tribal self-governance. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for 

this opportunity. I appreciate your support. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Walsh follows:] 

4 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. WALSH, U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

Thank you Chairman Tester and Vice Chairman Barrasso for the honor of testifying in front of this illustrious committee. I am here today to provide testimony 

in support of Senate Bill 2442, the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act. This is an important bill for the Northern Cheyenne Tribe in southeast Montana and I appreciate 

Chairman Tester’s co-sponsorship of this legislation. 

I also want to thank Northern Cheyenne President Fisher for his leadership on 

this issue and look forward to his testimony. 

In my second week as a United States Senator, I travelled to the Northern Cheyenne Reservation and heard directly from tribal leadership about the importance of 

fixing a century old wrong that has significantly reduced the tribe’s ability to pursue 

economic development opportunities on their reservation. I also heard about a variety of land consolidation challenges and trust responsibilities on the reservation 

that could be improved. 

In 1900, when the original boundaries of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation 

were expanded, the federal government failed to acquire the underlying mineral 

rights for the tribe. Approximately 5,000 acres of coal and other mineral rights were 

lost to the tribe. Currently, Great Northern Properties holds these mineral rights 

underlying the tribe’s land. 

This bill provides a long overdue solution. The Northern Cheyenne Lands Act conveys to the Tribe 117 million tons of coal under about 5,000 acres held by Great 

Northern Properties. Once the conveyance is completed, these mineral rights will be 

held in trust on behalf of the Tribe. In exchange, Great Northern Properties will 

receive 112 million tons of federally-owned coal in the Bull Mountains and the East 

Fork area. Our bill keeps surface owners in the Bull Mountains whole under current 

law. 

This bill also clears the way for a revenue sharing agreement, where the Tribe 

will receive royalty payments from Great Northern Properties on any revenues the 

company earns through the development of federal coal tracts conveyed in this legislation. 

Senate Bill 2442 also directs the Secretary of the Interior to take into trust 1,567 

acres of land for the tribe. These lands hold significant cultural value for the Northern Cheyenne. This is a simple fix that will allow the tribe to consolidate more land 

for its members, promote tribal self-governance, and protect culturally important 

sites. 

The bill also transfers an important trust fund to the Tribe and aims to reduce 

fractionation on the reservation, including through the Interior Department’s Land 

Buy-Back Program. 

In conclusion, I strongly urge the Committee to support the Northern Cheyenne 

Lands Act in order to consolidate land ownership, correct a century-old wrong, create jobs and revenue, and promote tribal self-governance. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Walsh, thank you for your testimony. 

We appreciate your leadership on this bill. Thank you for taking 

time out of what I know is a very busy schedule to come introduce 

this bill to the Indian Affairs Committee. 

As they would say in elementary school, you are dismissed and 

we will bring up the next panel. Thank you very much, Senator 

Walsh. 

Our next panel is going to be Mike Black, and what we are going 

to do, Mike, we have five bills up here today. We are going to give 

you ten minutes, if you need all ten, use all ten. If you need a little 

more, we will give you a little bit of flexibility. Typically we hold 

people to five minutes for their full testimony but I don’t think you 

can get through these bills in that amount of time. Because we 

want to hear the Department’s opinion. 

What we are going to do is, we will let you get started here in 

a moment. If Senator Flake shows up, we will find out how busy 

he is, we might kick it over to him and then back to you again. 

5 

With that, we have Mike Black, who is the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of Interior. Your entire 

written statement will be a part of the record. 

With that, I appreciate your coming up. I know you are busy. But 

I appreciate your coming up to visit with us about these five bills. 

With that, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL S. BLACK, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF 

INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. BLACK. Good afternoon, Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman 

Barrasso and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony for the Department of Interior on the 

five bills that are the subject of this legislative hearing. 

Regarding S. 2442, the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act, the Department of Interior appreciates the diligent work of the entire 

Montana Congressional delegation to seek an equitable solution to 

a vexing and complex situation regarding ownership of the mineral 

estate underlying Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation. The Department supports the goals of the legislation and would like to 

work with the sponsor and the Committee on modifications to the 

bill. 

The issues in this bill are complex. The Department recognizes 

the unique role Congress can play in arbitrating difficult situations. The department recognizes that we have a unique trust responsibility to the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and therefore we are 

committed to finding an equitable solution consistent with the Federal Land Policy Management Act and departmental policy. 

S. 2442 reflects the dedication of the Montana delegation and the 

stakeholders to resolve this complex situation. First, by directing 

the Secretary of Interior to take approximately 1,567 acres of tribally-owned fee lands into trust for the tribe. Second, the bill conveys 5,007 acres of subsurface coal and iron mineral estate currently held by Great Northern Properties within the reservation to 

the tribe, while transferring federally-held coal interests to GNP in 

compensation. The mineral estates conveyed to the tribe would be 

held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the tribe. 

S. 2465, the Albuquerque Indian School Land Transfer Act, directs the Secretary for the Department of Interior to transfer four 

parcels of land, or approximately 11.11 acres of federally-owned 

lands located in Albuquerque, New Mexico into trust for the benefit 

of the 19 Pueblos in New Mexico. S. 2465 also provides that these 

lands, once transferred into trust, shall be used by the 19 Pueblos 

for the educational, health, cultural, business and economic development of the Pueblos and any private or municipal encumbrance, 

right-of-way restriction, easement of record or utility record or utility service agreement in effect on the enactment of this bill shall 

remain. 

The bill also prohibits Class I, Class II and Class III gaming. 

The Department supports S. 2465, but has concerns regarding 

the bill as it is currently drafted. While the bill does provide a definition of the property in Section 3, the Department has a map and 

legal description of the land referred to in the bill that is more speVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:58 Oct 14, 2014 Jkt 090791 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\90791.TXT JACK
6 

cific, and we recommend that the language be inserted into the bill 

to reflect this map and legal description. 

Also, the Department is concerned that the limitations and conditions language in Section 3(e) of the bill is not specific enough and 

we would like to work with the Committee and sponsor and others 

to ensure that we have access to certain parcels of those lands 

which are currently used by the Southern Pueblos Agency for a 

warehouse and equipment storage yard. 

S. 2479, the Moapa Band of Paiutes Land Conveyance Act, directs that approximately 26,000 acres of public land in southern 

Nevada be held in trust for the Moapa Band of Paiutes. The Department supports S. 2479 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. 2480, the Nevada Native Nations Lands Act, provides for the 

Secretary of Interior to hold various lands in trust for the benefit 

of a number of federally-recognized tribes in Nevada subject to 

valid and existing rights. These lands, totaling nearly 93,000 acres, 

are currently primarily managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The bill also includes a conveyance of BLM-managed lands 

to Elko County, Nevada for public purposes. 

Placing land into trust for tribes is a top priority of this Administration. The Department of Interior supports S. 2480 with a few 

concerns explained in my written testimony. In particular, we 

would like to work with the sponsor and the Committee on amendments which would address concerns about mineral development as 

well as a few boundary modifications. 

S. 2503, the Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act of 

2014, would authorize, ratify and confirm two agreements which 

together result in a number of issues in the Bill Williams River 

Basin, including issues relating to a southern transfer of water 

rights to serve Freeport Minerals Corporation mining operation in 

the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program, as 

well as resolving certain water rights issues among Freeport, the 

United States and the Hualapai Tribe. While the Administration 

supports the goals of the bill, we have significant concerns about 

the waiver of sovereign immunity provisions that must be resolved 

before the Administration can fully support the bill. We look forward to working with the parties, the bill’s sponsors and this Committee to address the issue. 

This concludes my statement and I will be happy to answer any 

questions the Committee may have. I assumed I only had five minutes. 

[Laughter.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Black follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL S. BLACK, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

S. 2442, NORTHERN CHEYENNE LANDS ACT

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to provide testimony on S. 2442, the Northern 

Cheyenne Lands Act. The Department of the Interior appreciates the diligent work 

of the entire Montana congressional delegation to seek an equitable solution to a 

7 

vexing and complex situation regarding the ownership of the mineral estate underlying the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation. The Department supports the 

goals of the legislation and would like to work with the sponsor and the Committee 

on modifications to the bill. 

S. 2442 includes significant improvements over an earlier version of the proposal 

on which we testified during the 112th Congress. We appreciate the efforts of the 

delegation to address many of the issues previously highlighted by the Department. 

The issues in this bill are complex and the Department recognizes the unique role 

Congress can play in arbitrating difficult issues. The Department recognizes that we 

have a unique trust responsibility to the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and therefore we 

are committed to finding an equitable solution consistent with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and Department policy. 

Background 

The Northern Cheyenne’s relationship to these lands is without dispute. Despite 

the Tribe’s forced relocation from this area to Oklahoma in 1877, the Northern 

Cheyenne walked back to southeastern Montana to reclaim their ancestral lands, 

and the reservation was established a few years later in 1884. Today, the tribe has 

approximately 10,000 enrolled members; about 5,000 of those members live on the 

reservation. Beyond some agriculture pursuits such as cattle ranching, there are few 

economic opportunities for Tribal members. 

In 1900, approximately 5,000 acres of the mineral estate underlying eight sections 

of land remained in private ownership when the boundaries of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation were expanded. Great Northern Properties (GNP) is the 

holder of this mineral estate underlying tribal lands, which was acquired from the 

Northern Pacific Railway. All other mineral interests underlying the Reservation 

are held by the Federal Government in trust for the Tribe. 

S. 2442 

S. 2442 reflects the dedication of the Montana delegation and the stakeholders to 

resolve this complex situation. First, S. 2442 directs the Secretary of the Interior 

to take approximately 1,567 acres of Tribal-owned fee-lands into trust for the Tribe. 

Second, the bill conveys 5,007 acres of subsurface coal and iron mineral estate currently held by GNP within the Reservation to the Tribe, while transferring Federally-held coal interests underlying 7,952 acres in the ‘‘Bull Mountains’’ tracts and 

1,420 acres in the ‘‘East Fork’’ tracts to GNP in compensation. The mineral estates 

conveyed to the Tribe would be held in trust by the United States for the benefit 

of the Tribe. The bill also includes provisions for revenue sharing and waiver of 

legal claims and precludes mining except by underground techniques on the ‘‘Bull 

Mountains’’ and ‘‘East Fork’’ tracts until written consent of the surface owner is obtained and except as determined in the BLM’s Billings Resource Area Resource 

Management Plan. Finally, the bill authorizes transfer of the Northern Cheyenne 

Trust Fund to the Tribe’s Permanent Fund. 

As the Committee is aware, restoring tribal homelands is one of this Administration’s highest priorities. S. 2442, Section 4, directs the Secretary of the Interior to 

take approximately 1,567 acres of land into trust for the Tribe. A portion of these 

lands are within the Tribe’s current reservation, but two other locations are outside 

the Tribe’s current reservation and are located in the state of South Dakota. The 

Department supports taking these lands into trust. S. 2442 refers to two maps, the 

‘‘Northern Cheyenne Land Act—Fee-to-Trust Lands,’’ dated April 22, 2014, and the 

‘‘Northern Cheyenne Land Act—Fee-to-Trust Lands—Lame Deer Townsite,’’ dated 

April 22, 2014, evidencing the lands to be taken into trust for the Tribe by the Secretary of the Interior. While the legislation references the maps by title, the Department highly recommends the use of legal descriptions to describe the property to 

be taken into trust for the Tribe. 

In accordance with FLPMA and Department policy, we require equal value exchanges and completion of an appraisal consistent with Uniform Appraisal Standards when the Department enters into exchanges of land or interests in lands. S. 

2442 seeks to address equalization based on estimated coal tonnage without standard appraisal practices or a mechanism for adjusting the acreage to achieve equal 

value. While the Department understands that S. 2442 seeks to address tribal settlement issues that are beyond the scope of FLPMA and Department of Justice regulations on equal value exchanges, we would like to work with the sponsors to ensure that the principle of equal value is maintained, and appraisals are consistent 

with Uniform Appraisal Standards. 

The Department notes that the Federal coal interests referred to as the ‘‘East 

Fork’’ tracts may encompass part of an alluvial valley floor which may complicate 

the conveyance and the future development of these tracts. Under the Surface MinVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:58 Oct 14, 2014 Jkt 090791 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\90791.TXT JACK
8 

ing Control and Reclamation Act, coal parcels occurring under or near an alluvial 

valley floor qualify for an exchange of the affected fee coal for unleased Federal coal 

if certain conditions are met. Alluvial valley floor exchanges would be processed pursuant to FLPMA. Completing such an exchange can be a lengthy and complicated 

process. 

It should also be noted that the 60-day deadline for conveyance of mineral rights 

is not sufficient to complete the necessary analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Department suggests changing this to a minimum of 120 

days. Additionally, the Department suggests rephrasing Sec. 5(a)(1)(A) to avoid directing a private entity to complete a conveyance, and instead ensure that any exchange is optional on the part of the private party. 

Finally, Section 7 of the bill directs the Secretary, in consultation with the Tribe, 

to prepare and submit to the Committee an inventory of fractionated land interests 

held by the United States in trust for the benefit of the Tribe or individual Indians 

on the Reservation, and to provide periodic reports regarding obstacles to consolidating trust land ownership on the Reservation. 

The Department, through the BIA, currently inventories the fractionated lands 

held in trust for the Tribe and held in trust for individual Indians of the Tribe. The 

BIA has provided such inventory to the Department’s Land Buy Back Program for 

Tribal Nations (Buy-Back-Program), the Northern Cheyenne Agency Superintendent 

and the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Outreach Coordinator. The inventory identifies 

the lands that are suitable for agriculture on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation. 

The majority of the trust lands suitable for agriculture, which include allotted and 

Tribal owned lands, are currently leased and if the lands are not leased then they 

are being used by their owners primarily for agriculture. 

The Buy-Back-Program has been collaborating with the Tribe to address the land 

fractionation issue on the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation (Reservation). The 

Buy-Back Program purchases fractional interests in trust or restricted land from 

willing sellers at fair market value for immediate transfer and consolidation of those 

interests for the tribe with jurisdiction over those interests. The Buy-Back Program, 

which was created as a result of the Cobell Settlement and authorized by the 

Claims Resolution Act of 2010, has been working closely with the Tribe since the 

fall of 2013 and has completed extensive mapping of the Reservation, land valuation 

work, and has entered into a cooperative agreement with the Tribe for the Tribe 

to perform educational outreach to Northern Cheyenne landowners. The Buy-Back 

Program intends to begin purchasing fractional interests at the Reservation in the 

fall of 2014. The work being done, in consultation with the Tribe, already includes 

preparing some form of an inventory of fractionated land interests, especially for 

those lands that potentially may be bought by the Tribe through the Buy-Back Program from willing sellers. The Department would like to work with the Sponsor, the 

Committee, and the Tribe on ways to achieve the goals of Section 7 of the bill without duplicating efforts already underway. 

Conclusion 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on the Northern Cheyenne Lands 

Act. The Department strongly supports efforts to find a fair and equitable solution 

to the long-standing issues facing the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and is committed 

to continuing to work cooperatively towards this end. The Department welcomes the 

opportunity to resolve these issues for the benefit of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. 

S. 2465 

Good afternoon Chairman Tester and Vice Chairman Barrasso, and Members of 

the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the 

Department on S. 2465, a bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to take into 

trust four (4) parcels of Federal land for the benefit of certain Indian Pueblos in the 

State of New Mexico. 

S. 2465 deals with the status of certain lands as they directly relate to the Secretary of the Department’s authority to receive through a transfer of federal lands 

and take such lands into trust for federally recognized Indian tribes. President 

Obama committed to work with the federally recognized Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis on matters that affect such federally recognized Indian 

tribes. It is in the spirit of this commitment that the Department looks forward to 

the opportunity to work with this Committee and members of Congress, the nineteen (19) Pueblos in New Mexico, as identified in S. 2465 to achieve the goals of 

S. 2465. 

S. 2465 directs the Secretary for the Department of the Interior to transfer four 

(4) parcels of land into trust for the benefit of the nineteen (19) Pueblos in New 

9 

Mexico, as defined in the bill, comprising approximately 11.11 acres of Federal land 

located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. S. 2465 also provides that these lands, once 

transferred into trust, shall be used by the nineteen (19) Pueblos for the educational, health, cultural, business, and economic development of the nineteen (19) 

Pueblos, and any private or municipal encumbrance, right-of-way, restriction, easement of record, or utility service agreement in effect on the date of enactment of 

S. 2465, shall remain. The bill also prohibits Class I gaming, Class II gaming, or 

Class III gaming. The Department supports S. 2465, but has several concerns regarding the bill as it is currently drafted. 

The nineteen (19) Pueblos, as defined in the bill, were previously transferred similar parcels of federal land, approximately 8.4 acres, in trust for their benefit in 

2008. Public Law 110–453. While S. 2465 does provide a definition of the property 

in Sec. 3, the Department does have a map and legal description of the land referred 

to in S. 2465 that is more specific and recommends that language be inserted into 

S. 2465 to reflect this map and legal description. The Department appreciates the 

opportunity, provided in the bill, to conduct a survey satisfactory to the Secretary 

of the Department to determine the exact acreage and legal description of the land. 

The Department is concerned that the ‘‘limitations and conditions’’ language in 

Sec. 3(e) of S. 2465 is not specific enough for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 

to continue utilizing those parcels while the parcels are held in trust for the nine 

(19) Pueblos. The BIA currently utilizes one parcel to house the fire program for the 

Southern Pueblos Agency and the other parcel has a warehouse and an equipment 

storage yard, again for the Southern Pueblos Agency. The warehouse and yard store 

construction and transportation equipment for the BIA Roads Program and Natural 

Resources Program in the BIA Southwest Regional Office. The Department recommends inserting language that allows the BIA to continue to utilize these parcels 

for current BIA purposes. 

S. 2479, MOAPA BAND OF PAIUTES LAND CONVEYANCE ACT

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 2479, which directs that approximately 26,565 acres of public land in southern Nevada be held in trust for the 

Moapa Band of Paiutes. The Department supports S. 2479 and would like to work 

with the Sponsor and the Committee on modifications concerning energy transmission corridors, recreational opportunities, and protection of sensitive species. 

Background 

The Moapa Band of Paiute Indians (Tribe) is a federally recognized Indian tribe 

that resides on the Moapa River Reservation (Reservation). The Reservation was 

initially set aside in 1874, and is currently comprised of approximately 71,954 acres 

in southern Nevada. 

The lands proposed in S. 2479 to be held in trust for the Tribe are adjacent to 

the existing Reservation. Most of the lands are currently managed by the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) Las Vegas Field Office under its 1998 Las Vegas Resource Management Plan (RMP). This RMP is under revision to address renewable 

energy development, energy transmission, sensitive species, cultural resource protection, and recreation issues. The draft RMP is currently expected to be available 

for public review later this year and a Record of Decision is expected by early 2016. 

S. 2479 

Subject to valid existing rights, S. 2479 transfers approximately 26,565 acres of 

public land currently administered by the BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation to 

be held by the United States in trust for the Tribe. Under the bill, the Secretary 

of the Interior would be required within 180 days of enactment to complete a survey 

to establish the boundaries of the land to be held in trust. S. 2479 provides that 

this land shall not be used for class II or III gaming, and can be used only for traditional and customary uses, stewardship conservation for the benefit of the Tribe, 

residential or recreational development, or renewable energy development. Any 

other use would require the Tribe to pay to the Secretary the fair market value of 

the lands, as determined by standard appraisal practices. Application of this process 

to land taken into trust is not a familiar approach, and the Department would need 

to conduct additional review and analysis before taking a position on this portion 

of the legislation. 

Currently, several important rights-of-way cross the lands proposed to be held in 

trust in S. 2479, including the West Wide Energy Corridor which crosses the western portion of the proposed lands. The Old Spanish Trail, a national historic trail, 

crosses the southern portion of the proposed lands, and many of the lands identified 

are also important recreation areas. The southern portion of the proposed lands is 

10 

also habitat for the three-corner milkvetch, a BLM-sensitive plant species, listed by 

the State of Nevada as ‘‘critically endangered.’’ All of these matters are being addressed in the RMP revision, which will cover 3.1 million acres in southern Nevada, 

including all of the acreage identified to be held in trust in S. 2479. 

The Department supports S. 2479, and recommends it be amended to address the 

land management concerns identified above regarding energy transmission. To ensure that this area continues to be an important corridor for renewable energy development and transmission in the future, we recommend that energy transmission 

be an identified use of the lands under the bill. 

The Department would also like to have further discussions with the Sponsor and 

Committee regarding the fair market value provisions in Sec. 3(d)(2)(B). We would 

be glad to work with the Sponsor and the Committee on proposed amendments to 

the bill. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this legislation which will 

provide important benefits to the Tribe. 

S. 2480, NEVADA NATIVE NATIONS LANDS ACT

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of the Department of the Interior (Department) on S. 2480, the Nevada Native Nations Lands Act. S. 2480 is a 

bill that provides for the Secretary of the Interior to hold in trust for the benefit 

of a number of Federally-recognized tribes nearly 93,000 acres of Federal lands 

managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States Forest 

Service in Nevada. The bill also provides for the conveyance of about 275 acres of 

BLM-managed lands to Elko County for public purposes. Placing land into trust for 

tribes is a top priority for this Administration. The Department of the Interior welcomes opportunities to work with Congress on lands to be held in trust and supports 

S. 2480, with a few concerns noted below. The Department defers to the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding National Forest System Lands. 

Some of the parcels identified in this legislation contain lands that are Preliminary General or Preliminary Priority Habitat for the Greater Sage-Grouse. The potential listing of the Greater Sage-Grouse under the Endangered Species Act is a 

serious concern of the Federal Government. That decision by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service is expected in 2015. Additionally, most of the lands proposed to be 

held in trust occur within existing grazing allotments, and transfer of jurisdiction 

over these lands would likely affect the current permittees. 

S. 2480 

Following is a discussion of the provisions of the bill by title with an explanation 

of the Department’s views as they relate to each contemplated transfer. 

Elko Motocross Land Conveyance, Title I 

Title I of S. 2480 would convey approximately 275 acres of BLM-managed lands 

to Elko County, Nevada, for a public motocross park. The conveyance would be subject to valid existing rights. The land is to be used only for purposes consistent with 

the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act and includes a reversionary clause 

if the lands are used for other purposes. The bill requires the county to pay all administrative costs associated with the transfer. The BLM regularly works with local 

governments and non-profits to lease or convey public lands for recreational and 

other public purposes at very low cost. The BLM supports the transfer of this parcel 

of land to Elko County for a motocross park. 

We recommend the addition of a clause allowing the Secretary to add reasonable 

terms and conditions to the transfer. For example, it might be necessary to include 

in the conveyance documents a provision for maintenance access by a right-of-way 

holder to an existing oil and gas pipeline in the lands to be conveyed. A ‘‘terms and 

conditions’’ clause would allow us to address this and similar situations. Additionally, the Department of Justice recommends that Section 102(a) of the bill be revised to make absolutely clear that the city or county would have to agree to the 

proposed conveyance, which is what we understand the sponsor intends. Finally, we 

recommend clarifying that the conveyance is subject to compliance with other federal laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Conveyance of Land to Indian Tribes, Title II 

Title II of S. 2480 provides that seven areas of public lands are held in trust for 

specific Native American Tribes in Nevada. The bill includes a provision requiring 

surveys of the lands within 180 days of enactment. S. 2480 also provides that land 

shall not be used for Class II or III gaming, and can be used only for traditional 

11 

and customary uses, stewardship conservation for the benefit of the Tribe, residential or recreational development, renewable energy development, or mineral development. Any other use would require the Tribe to pay to the Secretary the fair market 

value of the land, as determined by standard appraisal practices. Application of this 

process to land taken into trust is not a familiar approach, and the Department 

would need to conduct additional review and analysis before taking a position on 

this portion of the legislation. 

The Department and the BLM strongly believe that open communication between 

the BLM and tribes is essential in maintaining effective government-to-government 

relationships. In this spirit, the BLM has had a cooperative working relationship 

with the Tribes and the Department is pleased to support the provisions concerning 

lands to be held in trust for the benefit of these Tribes. In general, the Department 

would like to discuss further with the sponsor and Committee the fair market value 

provisions in Sec. 202(b)(2)(B) and (C). We would be glad to work with the sponsor 

and the Committee on proposed amendments to the bill. Specific comments about 

each proposed area follow. 

(a) Trust Land for Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada (Elko 

Band) 

Section 201(a) provides that approximately 373 acres of BLM-managed lands are 

to be held in trust for the benefit of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians, Elko Band, subject to valid existing rights. These lands are adjacent to an existing parcel held in trust for the Elko Band and are identified in the BLM’s Elko 

Resource Management Plan as suitable for disposal. The Department supports holding these lands in trust for the Elko Band. 

(b) Trust Land for Fort McDermitt Paiute & Shoshone Tribe 

Section 201(b) provides that approximately 19,094 acres of BLM-managed lands 

are to be held in trust for the benefit of the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone 

Tribe of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, subject to valid existing rights. 

These lands are adjacent to and surrounding the existing Fort McDermitt Indian 

Reservation. The BLM notes that this area contains Preliminary General Habitat 

for the Greater Sage-Grouse. The Department supports holding these lands in trust 

for the benefit of the Tribe, but would like to work with the sponsor on minor technical and boundary amendments. 

(c) Trust Land for Shoshone Paiute Tribes 

Section 201(c) provides that approximately 82 acres of land are to be held in trust 

for the benefit of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation, 

subject to valid existing rights. The lands to be held in trust under this section are 

currently managed by the United States Forest Service, and the Department of the 

Interior defers to the Forest Service on the current management of those lands. 

(d) Trust Land for Summit Lake Paiute Tribe 

Section 201(d) provides that, subject to valid existing rights, approximately 941 

acres of BLM-managed lands are to be held in trust for the benefit of the Summit 

Lake Paiute Tribe. These lands would expand the existing Summit Lake Indian Reservation to entirely surround Summit Lake. The Department supports holding these 

lands in trust for the benefit of the Tribe. 

(e) Trust Land for Reno-Sparks Indian Colony 

Section 201(e) provides that approximately 13,434 acres of BLM-managed lands 

are to be held in trust for the benefit of the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, subject to 

valid existing rights. The lands are adjacent to the current reservation. The Department supports the proposed land transfer in Section 201(e), but would like to work 

with the sponsor to address boundary modifications to ensure manageability. In particular, the BLM notes that the proposed configuration would isolate some BLMmanaged land. Isolated, irregularly shaped parcels like these are difficult to manage, especially in terms of public safety, recreation, energy development or transmission, grazing, and fire suppression. 

(f) Trust Lands for Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe Land 

Section 201(f) provides that three areas comprising approximately 30,669 acres of 

BLM-managed land are to be held in trust for the benefit of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, subject to valid existing rights. The three areas to be held in trust are 

adjacent to the current reservation, which surrounds the southeast portion of Pyramid Lake. Section 201(f) would consolidate land-administration. The Department 

supports holding these lands in trust for the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe. 

12 

(g) Trust Land for Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone (South Fork Band) 

Section 201 (g) provides that three areas totaling approximately 28,162 acres of 

BLM-managed land are held in trust for the benefit of the South Fork Band. The 

two northern areas identified for transfer are near or adjacent to portions of the existing reservation. The third parcel is primarily composed of the Red Spring Wilderness Study Area, which would be released by the bill. 

The Department supports holding these lands in trust, especially the interspersed 

lands in the northern parcels, where the proposal would consolidate checkerboard 

lands, improving land management. We note, however, that there is currently great 

interest in oil and gas development on and near the southern parcel, and the impact 

of the exception provided in Section 201(g)(2)B(ii) on future development is unclear. 

We would like to further discuss these provisions with the sponsor and Committee. 

Conclusion 

The Department of the Interior welcomes opportunities to work with Congress 

and tribes on holding lands in trust. We support the intent of the legislation and 

look forward to working with the Sponsor and the Committee to address the issues 

we have outlined in this testimony. 

S. 2503, BILL WILLIAMS RIVER WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT OF 2014 

Good afternoon, Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and Members of the 

Committee, I am Michael Black, Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior. I am pleased to provide the Department of the Interior’s 

views on S. 2503, the Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2014. S. 

2503 would authorize, ratify and confirm two agreements which together resolve a 

number of issues in the Bill Williams River basin, including issues related to a sever 

and transfer of water rights to serve Freeport Minerals Corporation’s mining operation and the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program as well as 

resolving certain water rights issues among Freeport Minerals Corporation (Freeport), the United States and the Hualapai Tribe. While the Administration supports 

the goals of the bill, we have significant concerns about the waiver of sovereign immunity provision in S. 2503 that must be resolved before the Administration can 

support the bill. We look forward to working with the parties, the bill’s sponsors, 

and this Committee to address this issue. 

Background 

The Hualapai Tribe’s main Reservation of approximately 1 million acres is located 

on the south side of the Colorado River and includes Grand Canyon lands. The main 

Hualapai Reservation is the home of the famous Grand Canyon West Skywalk and 

other tourist facilities that are a significant source of the Tribe’s economic development. In addition to its main Reservation, the Tribe has a smaller Executive Order 

Reservation of approximately 60 acres along the Big Sandy River, located in the Bill 

Williams River basin. 

The Hualapai Tribe claims water rights in the Colorado, Verde, and Bill Williams 

River basins. Negotiations regarding potential settlement of the water rights claims 

of the Hualapai Tribe in Arizona have been ongoing since 2011, when the United 

States established a negotiating team to negotiate a comprehensive settlement of all 

of the Tribe’s water rights within the State of Arizona One matter addressed in the 

negotiations has concerned applications filed in 2010 by Freeport to sever and transfer certain water rights in the Bill Williams River basin for the benefit of mining 

operations at its Bagdad Copper Mine. The Department of the Interior protested 

those applications to protect federally reserved water rights, including water rights 

that the Department holds in trust for the Hualapai Tribe and rights associated 

with lands held by the Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM). 

S. 2503 would approve two agreements in which, among other things, Freeport 

agrees to confirm the Tribe’s water rights claims related to the small Executive 

Order Reservation. Initially, the Tribe’s primary objective was to negotiate a comprehensive settlement for both its main Reservation and its smaller Executive Order 

Reservation. Early in the negotiations, however, serious technical issues were identified with respect to water infrastructure projects proposed for the main Hualapai 

Reservation that required the investigation of additional alternatives before the 

Tribe’s water rights in the Colorado River basin could be resolved. At the same time, 

the Hualapai Tribe, Freeport, and the United States decided that negotiations over 

certain time sensitive issues related to Freeport’s sever-and-transfer application 

should proceed. 

13 

As a result, the originally contemplated comprehensive settlement was split into 

two phases. The first phase, which is the subject of S. 2503, focuses on resolution 

of certain water rights issues in the Bill Williams River basin involving the Tribe, 

the Department of the Interior, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, and Freeport. It is expected that future negotiations, to which all the parties, including Freeport, have committed, will address additional water rights of the non-tribal parties 

in the Bill Williams River basin, as well as a comprehensive settlement of all the 

Tribe’s water rights claims for its main Reservation. 

Legislation and Agreements 

S. 2503 would authorize, ratify, and confirm two agreements, the Big Sandy 

River-Planet Ranch Water Rights Settlement Agreement and Hualapai Tribe Bill 

Williams River Water Rights Settlement Agreement and direct the Secretary of the 

Interior to execute both agreements. These Agreements would waive the objections 

of the settling parties to Freeport’s sever-and-transfer application in return for securing various benefits to the Tribe and the United States. There is no on-going general water rights adjudication in this basin to provide a mechanism by which all 

of the water rights users in the basin could be bound. Consequently, the Agreements 

are settlements among only some of the water users in the Bill Williams River 

basin, including most importantly Freeport, which claims significant, if not the largest, water rights in the basin. I will summarize the key features of each of these 

two agreements. 

First, the Big Sandy River-Planet Ranch Water Rights Settlement Agreement 

would facilitate the severance and transfer of certain water rights owned by Freeport on property known as ‘‘Planet Ranch’’ along the Bill Williams River. The Agreement would resolve pending objections by Interior Department bureaus and the Arizona Game & Fish Commission, enabling a portion of Freeport’s water rights on 

Planet Ranch to be moved upstream to a well field owned by Freeport along the 

Big Sandy River, a tributary to the Bill Williams River. Freeport pumps water from 

the well field and transports it to Freeport’s Bagdad Mine located approximately 25 

miles from the Big Sandy River. Under the Agreement, Freeport would agree to a 

‘‘diversion limitation’’ or cap on its withdrawals from the well field and other specified groundwater wells at its historic maximum pumping level of 10,055 acre-feet 

per year. This cap would provide an important measure of predictability regarding 

future flows in the Big Sandy River, where downstream federal interests include 

wilderness areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the Bill Williams National Wildlife Refuge administered by the Fish & Wildlife Service. Importantly, water that is not transferred to the well field would remain at Planet Ranch. 

The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) would lease some of that water along 

with Planet Ranch lands for the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation 

Program (MSCP). The leased water rights and land would provide important environmental protection in furtherance of the MSCP. Under the Agreement, the lands 

leased by Reclamation would be permanently donated by Freeport to the Arizona 

Game and Fish Commission. 

Next, the Hualapai Tribe Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Agreement 

would secure a number of benefits and protections for the Tribe, including non-Federal funding of certain measures that could lay groundwork for a later comprehensive settlement of all of the Tribe’s water rights in the State of Arizona. This Agreement provides that Freeport will agree to reserved water rights of 694 acre-feet per 

year for the approximately 60 acres of land that the Department holds in trust for 

the Tribe and 560 acres it holds in trust for allottees in the Bill Williams River 

basin. Freeport would also implement certain protections for the Tribe’s water uses 

on culturally significant lands that the Tribe holds in fee. Finally, the Tribe would 

receive a substantial contribution from Freeport into the Tribe’s Economic Development Fund, which would be used to help meet water related needs on the Tribe’s 

main Reservation on the Colorado River. Freeport would contribute an additional 

$1 million to enable completion of the ongoing study of water supply alternatives 

for the main Reservation, which is an important pre-requisite to, and a key step facilitating, the Tribe’s goal of reaching a final settlement of its Colorado River claims 

in the future. 

Remaining Concerns and Conclusion 

S. 2503 provides a number of benefits for all of the parties—the Hualapai Tribe, 

the Interior Department, the Arizona Game & Fish Commission, and Freeport Minerals Corporation—as well as the many parties that are participants in the Lower 

Colorado River Multi-species Conservation Program. The parties have negotiated intensively within the last year to reach agreement on the two settlement agreements 

addressed in S. 2503 and have resolved many issues. However, there is still one imVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:58 Oct 14, 2014 Jkt 090791 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\90791.TXT JACK
14 

portant issue and a few smaller matters to be worked out with respect to both these 

agreements. As a result, the Administration cannot support the legislation as introduced, but we would support an amended bill that adequately addresses our concerns. 

Most significantly, we oppose the bill’s inclusion of a new, ad hoc waiver of the 

sovereign immunity of the United States. These Agreements, like other settlements 

that the United States enters into, can be enforced against the United States 

through existing avenues, including general waivers of sovereign immunity, such as 

those provided in the Tucker Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the 

McCarran Amendment. 

Piecemeal waivers of sovereign immunity for particular matters do not aid in the 

uniform resolution of underlying disputes but tend to promote wasteful litigation 

and may lead to conflicting outcomes. There are few standards to guide the application of such waivers, creating the prospect of resource-intensive litigation over procedural and other matters that are well-established in the context of existing sovereign immunity waivers. Nor is it clear how various state or federal forums will 

understand such waivers in relation to existing administrative and judicial review 

processes, creating the possibility of conflicting results. 

While several Indian water rights settlement acts include sovereign immunity 

waivers, those settlements comprehensively quantified and resolved tribal water 

rights claims with finality. In 

contrast, this bill resolves no tribal water rights with finality and will not result 

in a court-approved water decree determining basin-wide water rights. Moreover, 

the bill does not reach all trust or other federally reserved claims in the basin and 

otherwise lacks the hallmarks of a traditional Indian water rights settlement. In addition, the waiver of sovereign immunity in S. 2503 is in some ways broader than 

any waiver to date in an Indian water rights settlement, for the first time expressly 

extending to suits filed in state court against the United States relating to particular settlements. 

The United States has repeatedly communicated its concerns about the waiver of 

sovereign immunity to the parties, and proposed alternative ways to address the 

parties’ enforcement concerns. Although the parties and the United States have not 

reached agreement on an alternative to the proposed waiver of sovereign immunity 

as of this time, we are committed to continue working with the parties and the 

Committee to find solutions to this issue. 

In addition, the Department has concerns about the language and scope of the 

proposed waivers of claims. Language in the waivers and in other provisions concerning the ‘‘capacity’’ in which the United States is acting in various instances 

must be refined. The two agreements include different water rights confirmations, 

waivers, and reservations of rights, which apply differently to the United States depending on the capacity it is acting in, so it is important that this it be accurately 

described. We are currently working with the parties to revise language to address 

our concerns regarding the various capacities in which the United States is participating in the agreements. Finally, the waivers do not expressly specify that the 

United States is not waiving claims concerning impacts to water quality as opposed 

to water rights injury, as we believe is necessary. There are also some additional 

important technical changes in the agreements and bill that must be resolved. 

The Department looks forward to working with the parties, the sponsors, and the 

Committee to fix the one remaining significant issue in the legislation so that the 

United States can support the bill. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is pretty efficient. I hope the next panel 

takes note of how efficient you were. That is good. You got through 

those five bills pretty well, and I appreciate your testimony. 

I have some questions on each one. I understand the reasoning 

behind the Administration’s reluctance to endorse S. 2442, Senator 

Walsh’s bill, without an appraisal of the value of coal located on 

the parcels that we are talking about. Such an appraisal could be 

lengthy, it could be cumbersome. And as the Administration notes 

in the testimony, we have been dealing with this issue for some 

time. This is not a new issue. 

Is the Department taking the efforts to assess the value of the 

mineral interests since the mineral conveyance was first contemplated about a decade ago? 

15 

Mr. BLACK. I don’t believe there has been a full evaluation and 

appraisal at this point. I do understand there has been a contractor 

that worked with GNP and the tribe to evaluate the actual tonnage 

that is involved here. There are a lot of other factors, including the 

value of the actual coal in the different areas as well as the marketability and other things that would require a lot more analysis 

on our part at this point. 

The CHAIRMAN. How long do you think that analysis would take 

if you were to start? 

Mr. BLACK. That I don’t have a good feel for right now. I will be 

happy to get back to you on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. And just curious, it is not like this issue 

is going to go away, 100 years ago, as Senator Walsh said, promises were made but not fulfilled. Why isn’t the Department being 

a little more proactive on the appraisal? 

Mr. BLACK. I think at this point there hasn’t been anything necessarily for us to appraise. There were some other parcels that 

were included in previous bills, it has been changed somewhat over 

the last year or two. So I think undertaking a fully extensive and 

expensive process at that point would not necessarily best serve the 

process. 

The CHAIRMAN. In your opinion, does appraisal have to happen 

for this bill to move forward? 

Mr. BLACK. In accordance with departmental policy and the Federal Land Policy Management Act, yes, we would be required to do 

that. We are required to do a value for value type transaction. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is Congress required to do that? 

Mr. BLACK. I think if Congress, whatever Congress puts in the 

bill, that is what we are going to have to do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. On S. 2479 and S. 2480, your testimony 

that you submitted states that the Administration would like to see 

some small changes in the Nevada transfer bill, mostly making 

sure that the boundaries are correct and that certain Federal conservation efforts or access rights are maintained. I don’t want to 

put words in your mouth but that is about what we read. Does the 

Administration have draft language that it has prepared to be able 

to share with us, the Committee, or do you have a time frame? If 

you don’t have the language, do you have a time frame on when 

that language might be ready? 

Mr. BLACK. I don’t have an exact time frame right now. But we 

can have that to you fairly quickly. I do know our staff has been 

working with the various Congressional offices to ensure that we 

are working through some of these. I don’t think anything is a 

major issue. There are some boundary issues and survey issues 

that we need to address, as well as some of the other things you 

mentioned, energy corridors, et cetera. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Well, what I would just ask, I don’t know 

what a reasonable time is. We are dealing with five bills today, we 

are going to have a markup on a number of bills at the end of this 

month if they are ready to be moved. So if you have language that 

would be pretty easy to get done, if you would get it to us and we 

could get agreement from the bill sponsors, then we might be able 

to move this bill out at the end of the month. 

16 

On S. 2480, the Nevada Land Transfer Act, transfers 93,000 

acres out of your control. Are there other departments or agencies 

that you would suggest that the tribes look to for assistance in 

planning and using these lands, the Office of Indian Energy at the 

Department of Energy, as an example? 

Mr. BLACK. I think all of the above would be worthwhile for the 

tribes to look at for assistance as they move forward with how they 

are going to manage those lands. The lands wouldn’t come out of 

our control, they basically come from BLM ownership over to Bureau of Indian Affairs ownership, on behalf of the tribe. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is the BIA prepared to assist the tribes? 

Mr. BLACK. Certainly. 

The CHAIRMAN. And S. 2480 would release the Red Spring Wilderness Study Area from further study. Give us some more information on the details of that release and what that means for the 

land being transferred to the tribe. 

Mr. BLACK. Basically that would take the land out of that WSA, 

or I forget the exact term, but it takes it out of that WSA. The only 

people that can do that is Congress. So if Congress does that, and 

we are supportive of that at this point, there is another WSA right 

there in the area that we would continue to work with. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, that is good. On the Albuquerque conveyance, your statement on S. 2465 mentions a concern with the restrictions in 3(e) that may prevent the BIA from continuing its operations on the land. Section 3(e) does say that any existing restrictions already in effect shall remain in effect. So I am a little bit 

confused by the concern. 

Mr. BLACK. Our concern there primarily is that it is addressing 

rights-of-way and other easements and encumbrances. Right now 

we currently use those two parcels that I mentioned in my testimony for Southern Pueblo Agency. We just want some assurance, 

or maybe language that will give us a little more comfort. Talking 

with the Pueblos and others, I don’t think that is going to be a 

problem. It is just something we wanted to make sure we noted. 

The CHAIRMAN. Have you talked to Senator Udall about this? 

Mr. BLACK. No, not at this point, but we certainly will. 

The CHAIRMAN. That would be good. 

Mr. BLACK. It is a very simple thing. 

The CHAIRMAN. You don’t see this as a major blockage? 

Mr. BLACK. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is just a simple fix. Good. 

Mr. BLACK. We look forward to being able to transfer the remainder of those lands over to the Pueblos. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is perfect. I think this is another one, all 

five of these, frankly, if we can work out the problems that are 

there, we might be able to get something done, hopefully in this 

Congress. 

On the sovereign immunity provisions in S. 2503, the Water 

Rights Settlement, your testimony states concerns with the sovereign immunity and claims waiver provisions in S. 2503. Can you 

tell us how these issues could be resolved? 

Mr. BLACK. Honestly, I can’t, sir, I am an engineer, not a lawyer. 

That is a question I am definitely going to have to defer to our soVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:58 Oct 14, 2014 Jkt 090791 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\90791.TXT JACK
17 

licitors in DOJ to provide a written response to you. And we are 

happy to do that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are discussions currently going on at this point? 

Mr. BLACK. Yes, they are. 

The CHAIRMAN. So this is not new to them? 

Mr. BLACK. No, not at all. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. So the same kind of deal as the previous 

question, if you can get us that information it will enable us to 

move forward. 

Mr. BLACK. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. And if you want a time lines, I could say have 

it here in two weeks or three weeks, or one week, or tomorrow. But 

I won’t do that to you because I know you, Mike, and I know you 

will get them here as quickly as possible. 

Mr. BLACK. Yes. I will do everything I can. 

The CHAIRMAN. Your testimony also recognizes that this is 

unique settlement and that the Administration is insisting on specific sovereign immunity language more consistent with past water 

rights settlements. Your testimony refers to these provisions as ad 

hoc provisions. But if this is a unique settlement, can we really use 

the standard boilerplate language that has been used in past settlements? 

Mr. BLACK. Again, I am going to have to get back to you on a 

more specific answer for that, as it relates to the water rights settlement and the sovereign immunity provisions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, that sounds good. That is all I have, but 

since we have two members here, I will defer to them to see if they 

have any questions. Senator Crapo, do you have questions for Mr. 

Black? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO 

Senator CRAPO. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman, I just want to 

thank you for holding this hearing and I have a statement that I 

will just put into the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Crapo follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing today. 

S. 2503 is a particularly innovative approach to Indian water rights settlements. 

Similar to the 2004 Snake River Act that approved Idaho’s Nez Perce Agreement 

in the Snake River Basin Adjudication, this Phase One Indian water rights settlement brought together the Federal Government, an Indian Tribe, the State and nonfederal water users to advance interests on all sides. 

Both are pioneering examples of collaboration that illustrate how Indian water 

rights can secure long-term future relationships between the Federal Government, 

Indian country, the State and non-federal water users. 

I am encouraged to see these types of negotiations succeed in Idaho and now Arizona. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for being here, Senator Crapo. 

Senator Udall, do you have anything? I just got done thoroughly 

grilling Mike Black on your bill. Do you have any questions you 

would like to ask him? 

18 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, first of all, Chairman Tester, for 

thoroughly grilling him and asking him all about it. I understand 

he has some concerns and we look forward to working with him to 

resolving those and making the Committee comfortable with the 

bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. So then you know, he looks forward to working 

with you, too. 

Senator UDALL. Good. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is good. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. So with that, Mike, thank you very much for 

being here. We very much appreciate the time that you spent in 

front of the Committee. We will be working with you to get the 

issues on your concerns on your concerns and with all these issues. 

Mr. BLACK. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. You bet. 

Now we are going to ask the third panel to come to the table. 

We are going to hear from Northern Cheyenne President Llevando 

Fisher, then we are going to hear from Chairwoman Aletha Tom 

of the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians, Chairman Arlan Melendez 

of the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, both from Nevada. Chairwoman 

Sherry Counts of the Hualapai Tribe has joined us from Arizona, 

and finally, Mike Canfield, President of the Indian Pueblos Cultural Center has come to us from New Mexico. Each witness today 

will discuss the bills that are impacting their tribes. We have five 

bills, we have five witnesses and we have five minutes per witness. 

I would ask that you try to stay as close to that five minutes as 

you possibly can. The reason is because if you do that, it will give 

us more time for questions, which are always very beneficial. I 

want to thank you all for traveling, for the most part, a long distance to get here. We thank you for being willing to testify in front 

of this Committee. 

Before we start with you, President Fisher, I would kick it over 

to Senator Udall, if he would like to introduce Mr. Canfield. 

Senator UDALL. Chairman Tester, thank you very much. I would 

like to introduce Mr. Canfield and say a few words about the bill, 

too. 

I am pleased to see Mike Canfield here testifying on behalf of S. 

2465. He is a member of the Laguna Pueblo. Mike has more than 

35 years of experience working in Indian Country and providing 

leadership and organization development expertise to tribal governments and tribally-owned organizations across the Country. I think 

he has done a very good job there. 

Mike became involved with the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center in 

Albuquerque almost 20 years ago as a board member. He 

transitioned into the CEO role in 2011. The corporation currently 

employs 180 people and is responsible for over $30 million in annual revenue. The bill Mike is testifying on behalf of is a small, yet 

important land transfer to the 19 Pueblos of New Mexico. In 1884, 

a tract of land in New Mexico was set aside for the construction 

of what became the Albuquerque Indian School. The school provided an education to Pueblo and other Indian students until the 

19 

1960s when the United States determined land was no longer needed for Federal Indian school purposes. In 1969, the United States 

began a long process of transferring the land into the jurisdiction 

and control of the 19 Pueblos of New Mexico. S. 2465 finalizes that 

process with the transfer of 11 acres consolidating several small 

parcels of contiguous land with the 44 acre tract that has been held 

in trust for the Pueblos since 1993. The Indian Pueblo Cultural 

Center property itself has been held in trust for the Pueblos since 

1978. 

The Indian Pueblo Cultural Center is a real jewel and Chairman 

Tester, I would invite you out to the North Valley in Albuquerque 

to see that. It is on the development of the former Albuquerque and 

Indian School Reserve. It is instrumental for the economic development, and Mike knows this very well, the economic development of 

the 19 Pueblos. Mike has stated that the vision of the Albuquerque 

Indian School District is to become a self-sustaining district that 

they can manage as a micro-economy, a district where the Pueblo 

can conduct government-to-government relations, a central location 

for celebrating Pueblo arts and culture and a district that will provide significant economic development opportunities for the local 

community, including the 19 Pueblos of New Mexico. So I am proud 

to support the legislation and proud to have Mike as a friend and 

look forward, as we move through this, to asking him some questions. 

Thank you very much for letting me introduce him. 

The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

Before we get to President Fisher, I would like to introduce a 

couple folks who came with President Fisher from the great State 

of Montana, Tracey Robinson and William Walks Along, welcome 

to both of you, to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. 

With that, President Fisher, you are up. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LLEVANDO FISHER, PRESIDENT, 

NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE 

Mr. FISHER. Chairman Tester and Committee members, I am 

Llevando Fisher, President of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of 

Montana. It is my second term as president and I have served 

many terms on the council. 

I would like to thank Senator Walsh for introducing S. 2442 and 

thank the Committee for holding the hearing. I ask that my written statement be included in the record. 

Land is everything to the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. It is vital 

to us culturally, spiritually and to provide food and shelter. Our 

reservation is about 450,000 acres. Thanks to the courage and sacrifice that has been made, the tribe controls 95 percent of its surface and all but 5,000 acres of the subsurface on the reservation. 

At the same time, the tribe has many economic and social challenges. The Northern Cheyenne Lands Act is designed to address 

these challenges by giving the tribe more control over the land, 

mineral and trust fund. This bill is a tribal bill. Over 20 years ago, 

during my first term as tribal president, I approached Great Northern Properties about the possibility of GNP transferring the rights 

to the tribe. Since then, many times, our resources have been dedicated to reaching agreement. 

20 

Section 4 of the bill transfers the fee land to the United States 

in trust, north of the land or on our reservation. The reservation 

is good economic development for truck stop business facilities to 

support our program. The rest of the land is in South Dakota, adjacent to Bear Butte, a land that is sacred to our tribe, where our 

prophet Sweet Medicine received the sacred arrows from Bear 

Butte, along with the cultural ways of our people. Placing that land 

into trust will protect the land from commercial development and 

preserve its spiritual uses for our tribe and other Indian tribes who 

worship there. 

Section 5 will correct the error that over 114 years ago a Federal 

agent followed to follow the direction of Congress to acquire ownership of 5,000 subsurface acres within the reservation to the tribe. 

To correct the error, the Great Northern Properties will transfer 

these coal tracts to the tribe, a total of 117 million ton of coal. In 

return, the United States will transfer tracts containing 112 million tons of Federal coal to GNP. The tribe would waive all claims 

against the United States for the failure to acquire the 5,000 acres 

for the tribe before. 

The tribe and GNP have agreed that the tribe would get 40 percent of any revenue that GNP receives from the development of 

coal. This would be the first time the tribe has received any funds 

from coal mining surrounding our homeland. 

Section 6, transfer of $5 million of trust fund, was created by the 

tribe in 1992 water settlement to the tribe. The tribe can get a better transfer of the investment than the Office of Special Trust with 

a government fund that has been successful for many years. The 

principal of the funds will be invested in revenue and used for tribal programs such as education, heating bills and burial services. In 

exchange, the tribe will waive claims against the United States for 

misfunding the trust fund. 

Section 7 concerns land consolidation and agriculture. There is 

very little farm land on the reservation to do our tribal farm. A 

large area with suitable conditions must be in place. We have not 

been able to identify the place because our land is too fractionated. 

Section 7 would require Secretary of Interior to report to the Committee about the nature of the land consolidation on the Northern 

Cheyenne where agriculture is a possibility there. The tribe has 

worked with the Montana delegation introducing bills in previous 

Congresses to accomplish some of the goals in the current bill. This 

bill is 35 percent different than the other bills incorporated in 

many other tribal compromises. The bill does not provide the tribe 

with the $7 million of funds addressed in the mineral development 

where our reservation is the primary recipient. The current bill 

does not include Federal coal that is about to be mined by the previous resident. 

The current bill involves Federal tracts near existing mines that 

are not controversial on more [indiscernible] that are identified in 

the [indiscernible]. This bill kind of protects the surface rights 

owner of that Federal tract for the first time. However, the tribe 

would like to work with the Committee on the language of Section 

5 of S. 2442 that prevents surface mining in the tract subject to 

a 1984 BLM resources management plan. We believe that the curVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:58 Oct 14, 2014 Jkt 090791 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\90791.TXT JACK
21 

rent language will limit the tribe’s income from these tracts if it 

was developed. 

In conclusion, S. 2442 is a tribal bill supported by the National 

Congress of American Indians, Montana tribal leaders, and the 

State land board. It will address many of the longstanding unjust 

suffering from the tribe at the hands of the Federal Government 

and give the tribe additional tools to enhance self-governance and 

economic development opportunities. 

We look forward to working with the Committee. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fisher follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LLEVANDO FISHER, PRESIDENT, NORTHERN

CHEYENNE TRIBE

Chairman Tester and Committee Members, I am Llevando Fisher, President of 

the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of Montana. Some people call me ‘‘Cowboy.’’ I was 

elected as President by vote of our Tribal membership and my term expires in November 2016. Prior to that, I was elected by the people to serve as President in 1992 

and to multiple terms on our Tribal governing body, the 11-person Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council. I am pleased to be here today to testify on behalf of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe in strong support of S. 2442, the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act. 

Today, I am accompanied by Tribal Councilmembers Eloise Snow and Tracy Robinson and Tribal Administrator William Walksalong. I want to thank Senator Walsh 

for introducing S. 2442 and thank the Committee for holding this hearing. 

If S. 2442 is enacted, several long-standing paramount issues for the Northern 

Cheyenne will finally be resolved and the Tribe’s ability to control its land, mineral 

resources, and trust funds will be greatly enhanced. This will improve the Tribe’s 

ability to self-govern and control its own destiny and will provide sorely needed economic development opportunities. I want to stress that the Northern Cheyenne 

Lands Act is a Tribal bill. The bill has four key elements. 

Summary of S. 2442 

First, S. 2442 directs the Secretary of the Interior to take certain fee lands owned 

by the Tribe into trust. As authorized by Section 4, certain land that the Tribe has 

acquired in fee over the years with its very limited resources would be transferred 

into trust status. Most of the land is on-Reservation, with two of the parcels adjacent to other land near the Reservation already held in Trust for the Tribe. The remaining land is located very close to our most precious sacred site, Bear Butte in 

South Dakota. By transferring those lands into trust status, the Tribe would 

strengthen the permanency of its land holdings, eliminate jurisdictional ambiguities, 

increase economic development opportunities, and protect an important sacred site. 

On the lands in Montana, the Tribe would attempt to engage in economic development, such as a convenience store and truck stop, and build facilities for important 

social programs. For the sacred lands in South Dakota, trust status will ensure 

their protection from commercial development. 

Second, Section 5 of the bill directs the Secretary to accept eight subsurface sections owned by Great Northern Properties (GNP) and located within the Reservation 

into trust for the Tribe. The Secretary is directed to transfer sections of federal coal 

to GNP as compensation for the on-Reservation tracts. Our Reservation will finally 

be made whole by rectifying an error made by the United States over a century ago. 

Congress directed the acquisition of land to expand the Reservation and the federal 

agent charged with this responsibility failed to acquire 5,000 subsurface acres of 

prime coal on our Reservation. Those subsurface acres would be transferred to the 

Tribe by the private company that currently owns them, GNP. This would fulfill 

commitments made to the Tribe in 2002 by the Montana Congressional delegation, 

other federal officials, and the State of Montana when the Tribe dismissed a lawsuit 

against the United States. GNP would receive coal from the United States and the 

Tribe would be granted a 40 percent interest in any revenue GNP receives from that 

coal if it is ever developed. This would be a badly needed revenue stream which 

would help mitigate the many impacts of the mineral development that has encircled our Reservation and our people for many years. 

Third, the Secretary is directed to transfer to the Tribe a trust fund that was created for the Tribe and is currently held by the United States Office of Special Trustee (OST). As authorized by Section 6, a fund that originated from the Northern 

Cheyenne Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act of 1992 would be transferred to 

22 

the Tribe’s permanent fund and held in perpetuity to fund important basic services 

such as educational programs, home energy bills, elderly needs and burials, all of 

which often go unfunded due to lack of resources. The fund is currently held for the 

Tribe’s benefit as the ‘‘Northern Cheyenne Trust Fund’’ by OST and its earnings are 

credited to the Tribe. 

Fourth, Section 7 directs the Secretary to prepare an inventory of fractionated 

lands within the Northern Cheyenne Reservation that the United States holds in 

trust for the Tribe or individual Indians and to provide information about the suitability of those fractionated lands for agricultural purposes. The Tribe believes that 

agriculture could be an important source of income, employment, and pride to Tribal 

members in the future; however, there is very little farming on the Reservation 

today. The inventory called for by Section 7 will help the Tribe direct its land consolidation efforts toward creating Tribal-owned tracts suitable for agriculture, which 

would create another source of income and employment for the Tribe and its members. Section 7 also directs the Secretary to periodically report the Tribe’s progress 

toward land consolidation and economical agricultural use of trust land, including 

‘‘lessons learned’’ in the process, to this Committee and the House Committee on 

Natural Resources no less than once per year for the next five years. 

Attached to my written statement is a document that summarizes the Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe’s dramatic struggles over the past 40 years with coal-related development, which provides perspective on why the enactment of the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act is just and appropriate. I also attached copies of a letter signed by 

each member of the State of Montana’s Board of Land Commissioners (consisting 

of the State’s five top elected officials), a resolution of the Montana-Wyoming Tribal 

Leader’s Council, and a resolution of the National Congress of American Indians, 

each supporting S. 2442 and urging its passage. Finally, I have included two maps— 

one showing how our Reservation has been encircled by coal-related development 

projects, and another showing our Reservation, its communities and the network of 

on-Reservation roads serving those off-Reservation projects. As discussed in greater 

detail herein, these projects force extensive unmitigated impacts onto our Reservation and people, while the Tribe and its members are excluded from the compensating benefits (impact funding, employment, and commercial opportunity) of such 

development. I request that all these documents be included in the hearing record. 

Preserving and Protecting Tribal Land is of Paramount Importance to the 

Northern Cheyenne 

We Northern Cheyenne cherish our land. To us, our land is everything. It has provided for our families for centuries. After we were forcibly relocated to the Oklahoma Territory in 1878 as retribution for our resistance to non-Indian domination 

and our participation in the Battle of the Little Bighorn (the Custer Battle), we 

(uniquely among all other tribes so relocated) trekked back to our historic homeland 

in Montana. This journey came at great cost to the Tribe—death, imprisonment and 

other deprivations—as we were hounded along the way by thousands of hostile U.S. 

military soldiers and settlers. We eventually made it back to Montana to reclaim 

our homeland and the Northern Cheyenne Reservation was later formally established by Presidential Executive Order in 1884. 

Today, the Northern Cheyenne Reservation is bordered on the west by the much 

larger Crow Indian Reservation and on the east by the Tongue River. Our Reservation is truly the homeland of the Northern Cheyenne. The Reservation population 

is approximately 90 percent Northern Cheyenne. Non-Indian presence on the Reservation is minimal. A majority of our approximately 10,000 Tribal members reside 

on the Reservation. Traditional Cheyenne values and culture still thrive on the Reservation and the Cheyenne language is still spoken. The Reservation remains culturally distinct from the surrounding land and communities. 

Of its 447,000 acres, over 95 percent of the Reservation surface is owned, controlled and used by the Tribe and its members. The primary land uses are cattle 

grazing, some timber harvesting, and ceremonial and subsistence use. Non-Indian 

use of Reservation lands is minimal. Despite the Tribe’s success in controlling much 

of the Reservation, there are a few areas where the Tribe strongly desires to shore 

up control and ownership, and those areas are addressed in the Northern Cheyenne 

Lands Act. 

Despite extremely limited resources, the Tribe has continued to prioritize land acquisition within the Reservation and purchased approximately 1600 acres of land 

it now owns in fee. Section 4 of S. 2442 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

transfer that fee land into trust status. Much of that land is located in areas that 

could be commercially developed in our population center of Lame Deer. By transferring the Reservation lands into trust, the Tribe’s jurisdiction to regulate those 

lands would never be questioned and Tribal beneficial ownership of that land would 

23 

be essentially permanent for future generations because it is more difficult to convey 

trust land than fee land. 

The legislation also authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to take into trust 635 

acres adjacent to the Bear Butte State Park in South Dakota which the Tribe purchased. Bear Butte is on the National Register of Historic Places and a National 

Historic Landmark. Bear Butte is considered by many Native Americans, including 

members of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, as a sacred place. Bear Butte is our 

Mount Sinai. It is where our prophet Sweet Medicine received the Sacred Arrows 

along with the ceremonies and cultural ways of our people. The Sacred Arrows remain protected by our traditional leaders to this day. These lands also serve as a 

base for tribal pilgrimages. By placing the lands in trust, the United States would 

be furthering the Tribal goal of protecting Bear Butte from commercial development 

that is inconsistent with its spiritual importance. Placing the lands into trust will 

preserve their spiritual use by our Tribe and other Indians who worship there. 

The Tribe’s Ownership of the Reservation Mineral Estate is Plagued by a 

Century-Old Federal Error 

The entire Reservation mineral estate—except for the eight sections that are the 

subject of Section 5 of S. 2442—is owned by the Tribe as a single entity. Because 

of the paramount importance to us of our land, we have a sacred duty to pursue 

ownership of the eight sections. Securing ownership of those eight sections has been 

a priority of the Northern Cheyenne for decades, including when I served as Tribal 

President 20 years ago, and S. 2442 will finally accomplish that goal. 

The eight sections of subsurface are also of great commercial value. The coal is 

very high quality and relatively easy to mine economically. Several decades ago, 

those subsurface rights were leased to Peabody Coal Company for valuable consideration by the then-owner, Burlington Northern Railroad. Although those leases are 

no longer in force, we don’t want to repeat that experience again. But, without ownership of that subsurface, we at best have limited power over, and would suffer impacts and gain scant benefits from, the development of the coal. 

We have been continuously deprived of ownership of the eight subsurface sections 

since 1900 because of a federal error. In 1900, because of hostilities and violence 

between Northern Cheyenne, non-Indian settlers and illegal squatters on or adjacent to the Tribe’s 1884 Reservation, Congress directed Indian Inspector James 

McLaughlin to purchase the legal and illegal non-Indian interests on and near the 

Reservation so that the Reservation could be enlarged eastward to the middle of 

Tongue River. Inspector McLaughlin proceeded to do so, paying the legal and illegal 

settlers between $1500 and $2000 per claim. In contrast, Inspector McLaughlin paid 

only $25 per family to Northern Cheyennes then living on federal land previously 

allocated to them east of the Tongue River. The Reservation was then expanded 

eastward to mid-channel of the Tongue River by Presidential Executive Order in 

1900. 

In performing his duties, Inspector McLaughlin made a critical error. Although 

he purchased all lands within the Reservation (as expanded) then owned by Northern Pacific Railway, Inspector McLaughlin missed eight sections of subsurface 

owned by the Railway. For 114 years, the United States has failed to remedy this 

error by not acquiring this valuable mineral estate for the Tribe. Approximately 20 

years ago, Great Northern Properties purchased the entire inventory of railroad subsurface in Montana, including the eight sections within the Northern Cheyenne Reservation. If the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act is passed, the Tribe would waive all 

claims related to this error. 

A Tribal Initiative to Rectify the Federal Error Which Could Result 

in Much-Needed Tribal Income from Off-Reservation Mineral 

Development 

The Tribe, on its own initiative, approached GNP with a proposal to resolve by 

agreement the 114-year old federal error which deprived the Tribe of ownership of 

the eight sections of Reservation subsurface now owned by GNP. The beginning of 

this process is documented in a 1993 letter from the Tribe’s mineral consultant to 

the Tribe’s attorney reflecting a conversation with GNP’s President, who was receptive to the idea. A copy of that letter is attached and I request that it be included 

in the hearing record. The Tribe successfully negotiated and drafted a written agreement with GNP committing GNP to deed its eight sections of Reservation subsurface to the Tribe if GNP receives off-Reservation federal coal reserves in Montana as compensation for the transfer. An updated version of that agreement is near 

completion. With the willing cooperation of GNP and the Tribe, the United States 

is now in a position to remedy an ongoing federal mistake that greatly impacts the 

24 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe. The Northern Cheyenne have waited many decades for 

this opportunity. 

The Tribe—GNP agreement also provides that the Tribe will receive 40 percent 

of the net revenue from the off-Reservation coal that is subbituminous and 24 percent of the net revenue from the off-Reservation coal that is lignite. The federal coal 

tracts, which have been identified for the transfer and are depicted in maps referenced in S. 2442, consist of tracts in the vicinity of the Bull Mountains and East 

Fork mine areas. Despite their relative proximity to those mine areas, current development plans are such that the coal in this sections would not be mined for at 

least 10 to 15 years. The Tribe’s royalty interest in the Bull Mountains and East 

Fork tracts would provide desperately-needed revenue to the impoverished Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe. Those Tribal royalty interests would, if the tracts were ever mined, 

yield the only source of funding available to the Tribe to deal with the impacts of 

the mining of those tracts near the Reservation. All of these tracts contain subbituminous coal and the Tribe would therefore hold a 40 percent interest in the royalties 

derived from the future development. 

The royalty revenue would help redress continued economic imbalances and burdens imposed on the Tribe by off-Reservation coal development. The Northern Cheyenne Reservation lies in the heart of Montana’s Powder River coal region. As shown 

in the attached maps, the Reservation is surrounded on all sides by major existing 

and proposed coal-related projects and includes a network of roads used by these 

offReservation projects to travel through the reservation and the region. This pattern of development produces major influxes of newcomers to the area and leads to 

undesirable socioeconomic effects on the Tribe, including on-Reservation crime, traffic and accidents. Because our Tribal government lacks adequate legal authority and 

resources to deal with these non-Indian incursions, there are heightened tensions 

between Tribal members and non-Indian visitors. 

Public services and facilities on the Reservation have long been grossly inadequate, both in absolute terms and in marked contrast to off-Reservation communities. The surrounding development increases pressures on those public services 

and facilities. Severe deficits have been documented in Reservation housing, water 

and sewer, solid waste, education, health care, law enforcement, fire protection, and 

transportation. Those deficits increase as on-and offReservation populations increase 

with development. 

With no tax base and minimal on-Reservation economic development, the Tribe 

thoroughly lacks the financial resources to address these socio-economic impacts and 

respond to the increased demands caused by the off-reservation coal development. 

In contrast, the surrounding development produces tremendous public revenues 

(lease bonuses, rents and royalties, state production taxes, real and personal property taxes, and other exactions) for the United States, the State of Montana and the 

counties and municipalities that adjoin the Reservation. The Tribe is privy to none 

of these public revenues. We suffer the impacts of development but receive no revenues that would allow us to minimize the ills inflicted by this development. 

Also, while the Northern Cheyenne suffer chronic unemployment rates averaging 

over 60 percent, very few Northern Cheyenne are employed in these off-Reservation 

projects. Indeed, Reservation unemployment rates have not improved during the 

course of the development of coal mines and power plants in the vicinity of the Reservation. Historically, Native American employment in Montana’s Powder River 

Basin mines has averaged approximately 3.5 percent of the total labor force, absent 

any special hiring-agreement mandates. State law does not authorize the holders of 

State mining leases to offer any employment preference to local Native Americans. 

The bottom line is that average per-capita income on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation is a minor fraction of that in surrounding communities, and the Tribal unemployment rate is many multiples of the off-Reservation rate. 

In summary, because of the very weak economic ties between the Reservation and 

surrounding off-Reservation communities, the Northern Cheyenne have not shared 

in the economic gains from regional coal development. The Reservation does not 

benefit significantly in terms of jobs, construction contracts, general business activity, or increases in Tribal governmental revenues from the regional increase in economic activity generated by additional off-Reservation coal development. Thus, the 

Northern Cheyenne suffer an array of major adverse impacts from the off-Reservation (largely federally-sponsored or facilitated) coal-related development and enjoy 

few, if any, of the compensating benefits enjoyed by the United States, the State 

and surrounding communities and residents. However, the Tribe may be able to 

share in those compensating benefits someday via a revenue sharing agreement that 

will only be possible if the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act becomes law. 

25 

The Tribe Settled its Claims Over the Otter Creek Coal Transfer in 

Exchange for Promises to Support the Goals Contained in S. 2442 

The Congressionally-directed transfer of the massive federal Otter Creek Coal 

Tracts to the State of Montana in 2002 perpetuates and exacerbates the existing 

economic and social inequities between the Reservation and surrounding communities. The Otter Creek Tracts comprise about 8,000 acres of coal lands along both 

sides of Otter Creek south of Ashland, Montana, and just east of the Northern 

Cheyenne Reservation. The Tracts are estimated to contain 533 million tons of recoverable coal reserves checkerboarded with more than 700 million tons of private 

and other State coal. The result is the single largest block of currently available, 

developable coal reserves in Montana. Those resources have now been entirely 

leased to a wholly-owned subsidiary of Arch Coal, Inc., the Nation’s second largest 

coal mining company, and Arch is aggressively proceeding toward development. The 

surface rights to the Otter Creek Tracts are held by private landowners, the State 

of Montana and the Bureau of Land Management. Otter Creek is a tributary to the 

Tongue River, which forms the eastern boundary of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation. 

The Tribe, in extensive correspondence and meetings with all major interests, 

strongly and repeatedly expressed opposition to the proposed transfer of the Otter 

Creek tracts by the Secretary of the Interior to the State without accompanying 

measures to mitigate the enormous negative economic and social impacts that development of the Otter Creek tracts would have on the Reservation. The Tribe filed 

a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Washington, D.C. to enjoin the Secretary’s 

transfer of the Otter Creek Tracts to the State. 

In an effort to achieve a settlement of its claims, the Tribe met with members 

of Congress, the Governor, the other top elected officials of the State, the Secretary 

of the Interior, BLM, BIA, industry and other interested parties. As a result, the 

Montana State Land Board agreed to support the enactment of Federal legislation 

providing impact funding to the Tribe, directing the transfer of the GNP-owned subsurface tracts within the Reservation to the United States and compensating GNP 

with a transfer of federal coal, and providing the Tribe with an economic interest 

in the development of the coal received by GNP. In return for the foregoing State 

commitments, the Tribe agreed to, and did, dismiss with prejudice its federal lawsuit. Features of that settlement are in the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act; namely, 

the provisions related to clearing title to the 5,000 subsurface acres currently held 

by GNP and the accompanying revenue sharing opportunity for the Tribe in revenue 

generated from the tracts to be transferred to GNP. 

In negotiating its Otter Creek settlement with all parties from beginning to end, 

the Tribe worked closely and with the encouragement of the Montana Congressional 

delegation and BLM’s Montana State Office. The understanding reached was that 

federal impact funding of $10 million per year for seven years would be sought 

through legislation, structured in a way to assure that that financial resource would 

be a permanent resource, available to the Tribe to fund on-Reservation public services, facilities and other governmental matters, as new development projects proceeded within 25 miles of the Reservation. In fact, $70 million of impact funding 

was included in a 2004 iteration of the bill. 

The Tribe, in good faith, relied on all of these commitments in consummating the 

Otter Creek settlement and dismissing its litigation against the Otter Creek transfer. However, the impact funding has not been included in S. 2442 in light of the 

current difficulties in securing any direct funding from Congress. Someday, we hope 

to secure such funding. As things currently stand, therefore, the proceeds of the proposed Tribal 40 percent interest in the GNP royalties stand as the only potential 

source of impact funding available to the Tribe to cope with the accrued and future 

impacts of surrounding coal-related development, including the massive development envisioned for the Otter Creek tracts. 

In addition to foregoing tens of millions of dollars of impact funding, the Tribe 

has addressed several concerns raised in prior versions of the bill. First, the location 

of the federal tracts GNP would receive is in proximity to existing mines. Prior 

iterations of the bill included tracts in pristine and highly controversial areas, such 

as the Otter Creek area. Second, in contrast to other tracts in prior bills, the tracts 

GNP would receive are not within any mine plan or scheduled for development. Currently, the tracts would not be developed for at least 10–15 years. It is entirely possible the tracts are never mined given current coal market conditions. Third, the 

concerns of the owners of the surface lands over the federal minerals are addressed. 

The bill includes a provision retaining the federal right of surface owners to control 

whether mining occurs below their lands even after the federal tracts are transferred to GNP. Prior iterations of the bill did not include this element either. 

26 

However, for several reasons, the Tribe would like to work with the Committee 

to address the inclusion of Section 5(a)(2)(A)(ii) in S. 2442, which prohibits surface 

mining on federal tracts conveyed to GNP if those tracts were not ‘‘determined to 

be acceptable for further consideration for leasing’’ in the 1984 BLM Billings Resource Management Plan (RMP). First, as mentioned above, Section 5(a)(2)(A)(i) already protects the rights of surface owners by retaining the federal right of surface 

owners to control whether mining occurs below their lands even after the federal 

tracts are transferred to GNP. Second, prohibiting surface mining on tracts based 

on the 1984 RMP could limit the Tribe’s ability to earn income on these tracts if 

they are ever developed. As part of the exchange agreement between the Tribe and 

GNP, the Tribe will receive a significant income derived from the royalties paid 

from the mining of coal underneath the tracts affected by the 1984 RMP provision. 

In the future, if it is determined that those tracts could be surface mined, appropriate mining permits are issued and surface owner consent is obtained, the RMP 

provision would limit the Tribe and GNP from monetizing the resources they own 

under the affected tracts. As discussed above, the Tribe has already compromised 

by agreeing to forgo $70 million in impact aid at this time. Thus, the Tribe’s royalty 

interest in the Bull Mountains and East Fork tracts is the only funding in the bill 

available to assist the Tribe in dealing with the impacts of off-Reservation coal development. Therefore, it is important to the Tribe that it receive the maximum return possible on its royalty interest to provide desperately-needed income. 

The Tribe is Entitled to Manage its Own Water Rights Trust Fund 

Section 6 of S. 2442 concerns a $5 million trust fund account, referred to as the 

‘‘Northern Cheyenne Trust Fund,’’ which is currently held on behalf of the Tribe by 

the OST. The earnings are applied for the benefit of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. 

The principal amount in the Fund originated from the 1991 Water Rights Compact 

between the United States, State of Montana, and the Tribe. 

These same parties reached a settlement agreement in 1999 which states that the 

principal of the Fund shall remain in perpetuity, that the earnings of the Fund are 

to be paid to the Tribe, and that the Tribe may transfer the Fund from federal to 

private management. OST has paid the earnings from the Fund to the Tribe, including over the last few years. However, in 2008, OST took a position inconsistent with 

the settlement agreement: because the appropriation could only be used for purposes expressly authorized by Congress, the principal account balance must remain 

under federal control. The Tribe strongly disagrees and believes that it is entitled 

to transfer the funds to private management, as originally agreed upon by the parties. This issue would be resolved if Congress directed OST to transfer the funds 

to the Tribe’s permanent fund for private management. 

The Tribe’s Permanent Fund Plan states that the principal must be held in perpetuity and only a certain percentage of the earnings may be used each year, specifically: 5 percent of the average quarterly market value of the Permanent Fund 

during the immediately preceding four fiscal years. The earnings can be used for 

a limited number of uses: law enforcement, education, youth or elderly programs, 

burial, public services, culture, land acquisition, natural resources, economic development, Reservation district allocations, and governmental services. By directing 

the Secretary to transfer the fund to the Tribe’s Permanent Fund, the funds would 

be held in perpetuity and the earnings would be used for these vital services. 

The Permanent Fund is a very secure vehicle for these funds. The Permanent 

Fund plan cannot change without a vote of the Tribe’s membership and the membership has repeatedly shown that it is reluctant to make any changes to this fund. 

The fund has grown by several millions of dollars in its almost two decades of existence. 

The United States has failed to manage the Northern Cheyenne Trust Fund in 

compliance with its fiduciary responsibilities, resulting in a very low rate of return. 

This gives rise to claims against the United States for trust fund mismanagement. 

Such claims would be waived by the Tribe under S. 2442. 

The Tribe Would Benefit from Consolidating Fractionated Trust Lands 

That Are Suitable for Agriculture 

The final section of S. 2442, Section 7 directs the Secretary to prepare an inventory of fractionated lands within the Northern Cheyenne Reservation that the 

United States holds in trust for the Tribe or individual Indians and to provide information about the suitability of those fractionated lands for agricultural purposes. 

The Secretary is also directed to submit the land inventory to this Committee, as 

well as the House Committee on Natural Resources, within 180 days of enactment. 

The Tribe is interested in creating additional income and employment opportunities 

on the Reservation through agriculture. The Tribe hired a consultant several years 

27 

ago to examine the Reservation’s potential for agriculture. The consultant determined that the Tribe would need at least 6,000 contiguous acres under Tribal ownership, with the correct conditions to operate a Tribal farm within the Reservation. 

We have not been able to identify locations on the Reservation that could support 

a farm because many tracts suitable for agriculture are highly fractionated. Obtaining leases from the individual owners of fractionated lands is hindered by the often 

extreme number of heirs who must consent to a lease. The inventory called for by 

Section 7 of the bill would help the Secretary and the Tribe identify the extent of 

fractionation as it relates to agricultural lands, which will help the Tribe determine 

how to consolidate fractionated interests into Tribal ownership to create tracts suitable for agriculture. 

Section 7 of the bill directs the Secretary to prepare periodic reports regarding 

obstacles to consolidating trust land ownership on the Reservation, the Tribe’s 

progress toward making agricultural use of trust land economical, and any outcomes 

or lessons learned by the Secretary and the Tribe as a result of the Tribe’s land 

consolidation efforts. These reports shall be submitted to this Committee and the 

House Committee on Natural Resources no less than once per year for the next five 

years. As one of the first tribes to sign a cooperative agreement with the Department of the Interior Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations, the Tribe is excited 

to share news of its land consolidation obstacles and achievements with Congress. 

Conclusion 

The Tribe has pursued passage of S. 2442 with integrity and honor. S. 2442, if 

enacted, would achieve the following constructive results: 

(1) Consolidate the Tribe’s land base and the Tribe’s ability to self-govern. 

(2) Enhance the Tribe’s opportunity for economic development on the Reservation. 

(3) Protect the area around Bear Butte, which is sacred to the Northern Cheyenne and other tribes. 

(4) Remediate the federal government’s 114-year error which has deprived the 

Tribe of ownership of eight sections of Reservation subsurface. As S. 2442 

provides, in return for the mineral conveyances provided for in the bill, the 

Tribe would release any and all claims it may have against the United 

States for that error. 

(5) Prevent GNP (or anyone else) from developing the eight sections without 

Tribal consent or benefit, irrespective of the long-standing Tribal concerns 

about Reservation coal development. 

(6) Provide a potential revenue stream to the Tribe to help the Tribe cope with 

the accrued and future impacts of adjoining off-Reservation coal-related development. 

(7) Address the long-standing injustices suffered by the Tribe from 

federallysponsored and facilitated coal-related development in areas near 

the Reservation, while the Tribe’s trustee financially benefits from such development. 

(8) Secure the Northern Cheyenne Trust Fund to be held in perpetuity to fund 

vital Tribal programs for the youth, elderly and other underprivileged Tribal 

members. The Tribe would release the United States from liability related 

to management of the Fund. 

(9) Reward the Tribe for its self-generated, steadfast and honorable effort to resolve these matters by agreement rather than litigation. 

(10) Give the Tribe an inventory of fractionated trust lands that will allow the 

Tribe to direct its land consolidation efforts toward achieving a Tribalowned land base suitable for agriculture. 

(11) Provide Congress with helpful information on lessons learned by the Secretary and the Tribe during the trust land consolidation process. 

Again, Chairman Tester and Committee Members, I want to thank you for your 

consideration of S. 2442, the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act. Enactment of this bill 

will help address many wrongs that have been done to the Northern Cheyenne by 

the United States over the centuries. The Tribe did not create the situation we now 

find ourselves in. We implore Congress and the Administration to do the right thing 

and enable the Northern Cheyenne to control their own lands and trust funds, and 

therefore control their own destiny. 

Attachments 

28 

1 Exec. Order of Nov. 26, 1884. 

2See Brief for the Northern Cheyenne Tribe as Amicus Curiae Supporting Defendants-Appellees, Fidelity Exploration & Production Co. v. U.S., 506 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2007). 3 Id. at 4. See also Opinions of the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, M–34758, Validity of Patents Issued to Northern Cheyenne Indians (September 5, 1947). 4 Id. at 1469. 5 Id. See also James McLaughlin, My Friend the Indian 302 (Houghton Mifflin Co. 1910). In 

his biographical novel, McLaughlin noted that in implementing the expanded Reservation he 

‘‘found it necessary not only to buy out ranchers and individual settlers on a small scale, but 

actually to buy up the town of Hutton, Montana, which had been located on the reservation 

lands, through the incorrectness of a map of the portion of Custer County.’’ 6 Northern Pacific Land Grant Act, July 2, 1864 (13 Stat. 365); Joint Resolution 67, May 31, 

1870 (16 Stat. 378). 7Opinions of the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, M–34758 at 1469. 

8 Exec. Order of March 19, 1900. 

9Opinions of the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, M–34758 at 1469. 

NORTHERN CHEYENNE LANDS ACT—HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE—MAY 7, 2014 

Struggle for the Reservation. The Northern Cheyenne cherish their land. To 

them, their Reservation is everything. It has provided for the Northern Cheyenne 

for centuries. Northern Cheyenne bands made their way back to the Tribe’s original 

lands in Southeast Montana after the notorious massacres at Sand Creek and 

Washita. Later, they were forcibly relocated to the Oklahoma Territory in 1878 as 

retribution for their resistance to White domination and their participation in the 

Battle of the Little Bighorn (the Custer Battle), and then (uniquely among all other 

tribes relocated to the Oklahoma Indian Territory) fought their way back to their 

historic homeland in Montana. The journey came at great cost to the Tribe—death, 

imprisonment and other deprivations—hounded along the way by thousands of hostile military and settlers. The Northern Cheyenne eventually made it back to Montana to reclaim their homeland. 

1884 Reservation. In 1884, by Executive Order, President Arthur established a 

371,200 acre reservation for the Northern Cheyenne Tribe extending westward from 

the eastern border of the Crow reservation to 10 miles east of the Tongue River in 

Montana. 1 The Reservation included non-Indian settlers within its boundaries. A 

number of Tribal members living east and west of the Tongue River were not encompassed within the Reservation. Violent conflicts arose between Tribal members 

and early white settlers. Pending resolution of the situation, the Secretary of the 

Interior withdrew additional lands in 1886, including lands between the Reservation’s eastern boundary and the Tongue River, as well as land to the east of the 

Tongue River. 2 These withdrawals further heightened the hostilities. 

1900 Expansion of Reservation. In 1898, Congress directed the Secretary to investigate and report on the situation and, specifically, to determine whether it was 

feasible to relocate the Northern Cheyenne to the adjacent Crow Reservation. 3 In 

November, 1898, U.S. Indian Inspector James McLaughlin reported to Congress 

that the Tribe was unwilling to move to the Crow Reservation and the Crows were 

unwilling to receive them. McLaughlin recommended that ‘‘if the reservation were 

cleared of white settlers, who occupied much of the best land on the reservation, 

and if a sufficient amount of other desirable land could be added to the reservation, 

many of the difficulties of the Northern Cheyenne could be eliminated.’’ 4 He also 

reported on his negotiations with the white settlers (legal and illegal) for the acquisition of their lands within the expanded limits of the Reservation so as to entice 

those Northern Cheyenne living east of the Tongue River to relocate to the expansion area. 5

In a second report issued in February 1900, McLaughlin recounted his negotiations with the Northern Pacific Railway Company for the purchase of the railway 

holdings within the expansion area. The Railway held checkerboard sections of public lands (surface and subsurface) under prior Acts of Congress 6 intended to induce 

westward Railway expansion. In early 1900, McLaughlin reported that he had 

reached purchase agreements with the Railway and persons who had purchased 

surface land from the Railway within the expansion area. 7

On March 19, 1900, President McKinley by Executive Order expanded the Reservation as McLaughlin had recommended. The boundaries of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation now ran from the Crow Reservation on the West to the middle 

of the Tongue River on the East. 8 On May 31, 1900, Congress appropriated the 

funds necessary to pay for lands purchased by McLaughlin, including those of the 

Railway and its successors. The Secretary then revoked 1886 withdrawal orders covering the public lands east of the Tongue River. 9

GNP’s 5,000 Acres of Subsurface. The Railway had previously sold some of its 

surface lands within the Reservation expansion area to others, while retaining ownVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:58 Oct 14, 2014 Jkt 090791 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\90791.TXT JACK
29 

10See Hearings before the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs on S. 2126—A Bill 

Relating to Certain Leases Involving the Secretary of the interior and the Northern Cheyenne 

Indian Reservation, 90th Cong. 32–39 [’’S. 2126 Hearing’’] (testimony of Allen Rowland, President of the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council). 11See Report from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on S. 2126 (September 23, 

1980). 

ership of about 5,000 acres of the underlying subsurface. In purchasing from the 

railway, McLaughlin unfortunately neglected to acquire that underlying Railway 

subsurface. In 1992 (92 years later), Great Northern Properties (‘‘GNP’’) purchased 

those subsurface lands from a subsidiary of the Railway. This split estate (between 

Tribal surface ownership and third party subsurface ownership), subsists 112 years 

after Congressional direction to purchase the private in-holdings within the expanded Reservation in trust for the Tribe. These 5,000 acres are the only subsurface 

within the Reservation not owned by the Tribe. 

Tribal Homeland. Today, the Northern Cheyenne Reservation is bordered on the 

west by the 4–5 times larger Crow Indian Reservation and on the east by the 

Tongue River. The Northern Cheyenne Reservation is truly the homeland of the 

Northern Cheyenne. The Reservation population is a 90 percent Northern Cheyenne. Non-Indian presence on the Reservation is minimal. A majority of the Tribe’s 

almost 10,000 Tribal members reside on the Reservation. Traditional Cheyenne values and culture still thrive on the Reservation and the Cheyenne language is still 

spoken. The Reservation remains culturally distinct from the surrounding land and 

communities. 

Significantly, the Northern Cheyenne Reservation was the last Reservation to be 

allotted by Congress. Because of that very late Allotment Act, the Tribe’s reverence 

for the Reservation, and a long-standing Tribal buy-back program, almost all of the 

Reservation surface is held in trust for the Tribe as an entity and its members. Furthermore, the Reservation surface is overwhelmingly controlled and used by the 

Tribe and its members. The primary land uses are cattle grazing, timber harvesting 

(entirely suspended for years due to adverse market conditions), farming, and ceremonial and subsistence use. The entire Reservation mineral estate—except for the 

5,000 acres that are the subject of the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act—is owned by 

the Tribe as a single entity. Because of the paramount importance to them of the 

Reservation, the Northern Cheyenne feel a sacred duty to pursue ownership of the 

5,000 acres of Reservation subsurface held by GNP. 

GNP Leases 5,000 Acres to Peabody. In 1965, the coal industry began to express interest in the Northern Cheyenne Reservation. Encouraged by BIA and 

USGS (and without benefit of any independent expertise), in an effort to alleviate 

its abject poverty the Tribe authorized BIA and USGS to prepare documents necessary to conduct a public lease sale of its coal reserves. 10 In three successive coal 

sales (1966, 1968 and 1971), the vast bulk of the Reservation was carved up by a 

collection of the Nation’s leading energy companies and speculators, all on unconscionable terms. During this episode, the Railway separately and independently 

leased its 5,000 acres of Reservation subsurface to Peabody Coal Company. 

Cancellation of Reservation Coal Transactions. Realizing that it had lost 

control over about 70 percent of the Reservation, in 1973 the Tribe submitted a 600- 

page petition to the Secretary of the Interior seeking cancellation of the permits and 

leases encumbering the Reservation. The Tribe argued: (1) the royalty rate of 17.5 

cents per ton (reduced to 15 cents if the coal, as most companies intended, was processed on the Reservation) was unconscionable; (2) the 25,000–30,000 lease options 

granted by the BIA-approved exploration permits grossly exceeded the 2,500 acre 

limitation specified in federal regulations; (3) the United States performed no prior 

environmental analyses before approving the coal transactions; (4) the documents 

contained no significant environmental protection or restoration provisions; and (5) 

the BIA leasing process was otherwise littered with regulatory and statutory violations. 

The Secretary responded to the Tribe’s petition by suspending all further coal development under the transactions, recognizing that the United States had effectively 

turned over the Reservation to the coal industry and speculators. To restore the balance of power to the Tribe, and in the hope that the transactions would be renegotiated, the Secretary declined to cancel the permits and leases outright, but assured 

the Tribe that ‘‘the terms and conditions upon which mineral development may proceed on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation will require [the Tribe’s] joint agreement and support prior to any further approval by [the Secretary].’’ 11 In the ensuing years, the Tribe remained so traumatized and deeply offended by what had been 

30 

12 A Bill Relating to Certain Leases Involving the Secretary of the Interior and the Northern 

Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Pub. L. No. 96–401, 94 Stat. 1707 (1980). 13 Id. at §4. 14The speculators offered to pay the Tribe an initial payment and an overriding royalty on 

the federal coal (located in the Tongue River Valley) they sought, if the Tribe would sign the 

necessary cancellation agreement. The Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council rejected that offer. 15 NRG Co. v. U.S., 24 Cl. Ct. 51 (1991). 16 NRG Co. v. U.S. (‘‘NGR II’’), 30 Fed. Cl. 460 (1994). 17 Redesignation of Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation for Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 42 Fed.Reg. 40695 (August 11, 1977). 18 Nance v. EPA, 645 F.2d 701 (9th Cir. 1981). 

done, that it rejected all overtures of the involved coal companies and speculators 

to renegotiate the transactions. 

Congressional Solution. In approximately 1978, the Tribe approached the coal 

companies with a proposal to seek federal legislative action which would facilitate 

the companies’ voluntary relinquishment of their claims on the Reservation. Recognizing that their development prospects on the Reservation were nil, the companies 

joined with the Tribe in a cooperative effort to seek legislation. At the request of 

the Tribe and the companies, in 1979, S. 2126 entitled ‘‘A Bill Relating to Certain 

Leases Involving the Secretary of the Interior and the Northern Cheyenne Indian 

Reservation’’ was introduced. The final bill incorporated the concepts of noncompetitive leases and ‘‘bidding rights’’ as compensation for expenditures on the Reservation. S. 2126 as enacted authorized the Secretary to negotiate with the Tribe and 

each affected party for a ‘‘cancellation agreement’’ under which the permit or lease 

would be cancelled in exchange for either (a) a much smaller noncompetitive lease 

for federal coal adjacent to an existing mining unit that was unlikely to be mined 

separately, or (b) a certificate of bidding rights. 12 The final bill also established the 

value of the bidding rights at a level equal to the amount of the permit holder’s or 

lessee’s actual cash investment plus interest. 

S. 2126 was enacted on October 9, 1980. 13 Over the next year, separate cancellation agreements among the Department of the Interior, the companies, and the 

Tribe were entered into, except as to the tracts secured by the speculators, whose 

claims on the Reservation were therefore cancelled by Congressional fiat as provided 

in the Act. 14 The speculators then sued the United States for a Fifth Amendment 

‘‘taking’’ in the U.S. Court of Claims. 15 That suit was essentially unsuccessful. The 

Court gave token judgment by ordering reimbursement by the United States of the 

very minimal bonuses they had paid for the permits. 16

Class I Air. In the late 1970s, utilities owning the Colstrip power plants about 

15 miles north of the Reservation sought to greatly expand the size of that project. 

The Tribe was very concerned about the likely adverse effects on Reservation air 

quality and the pattern of exclusion of Northern Cheyenne from employment in the 

power plants, notwithstanding appalling unemployment rates on the Reservation 

(the area’s largest local community). To address these issues, the Tribe took the bold 

and unprecedented step of reclassifying the air quality standard above its Reservation to Class I—the most pristine standard under federal law. 17 The Tribe was the 

first governmental entity of any kind in the Country to do so. EPA granted the reclassification and litigation challenging it was unsuccessful. 18 The end result was 

an agreement between the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and the power plant owners 

providing for the adoption of enhanced air quality control technology for the plant 

expansion, employment and other commercial opportunities for the Northern Cheyenne, and funding for Tribal government. 

Powder River Coal Sale. In 1982, Secretary of the Interior James Watt authorized the largest federal coal lease sale in history. The Power River Basin Sale included tracts to the north, east and south of the Reservation, as well as tracts in 

Wyoming. The Montana tracts included so-called tracts for an existing mine in 

Colstrip 15 miles to the north, tracts for the Decker mines 25 miles to the south, 

and tracts for new mines to be established to the east in the Tongue River Valley. 

The Tribe made extensive efforts to resolve its concerns with this enormous coal 

lease sale without litigation. Those efforts were spurned by the Secretary and industry and, on the eve of the Powder River Basin lease sale, the Tribe filed suit against 

the Secretary asking that any leases issued in the forthcoming sale be voided on 

the ground that the leasing process essentially ignored or minimized the very adverse effects on the Northern Cheyenne. The Tribe’s claims were filed under the federal coal leasing statues and regulations, the federal trust responsibility, and NEPA. 

The Tribe based its claims on exclusion of the Tribe from impact funding, the physical and socio-economic on- Reservation impacts such development would engender, 

and the historic pattern of exclusion of Northern Cheyenne from employment opportunities at existing off- Reservation coal-related projects. 

31 

19 Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel, 12 Ind.L.Rep. 3065 (D. Mont. 1985). 20 Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel, 851 F.2d 1152 (9th Cir. 1988). 21Montco v. Simonich, 285 Mont. 280, 947 P.2d 1047 (1997). 22 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources of the Committee on 

Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, New World Mine Proposed Buyout, H.Rpt. 105–40 

(May 20, 1997); CRS Report for Congress, New World Gold Mine and Yellowstone National Park, 

No. 96–669 ENR (August 27, 1996). 23The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105–33 (Aug. 5, 1997). 24 It also included $250 million for the Headwaters Forest acquisition in northern California. 

In federal District Court, the Tribe won a sweeping victory on all counts. All 

leases, including those authorizing new production tracts in the Tongue River Valley, were voided. 19 The United States and the involved companies appealed only the 

remedial provisions of the District Court decision. 20 Ultimately, the new production 

tract leases in the Tongue River Valley were terminated and the Tribe negotiated 

a mitigation agreement with the Colstrip mine (which had initially received tracts 

in the 1982 sale) that provided, among other items, jobs for Tribal members and 

some Tribal impact funding. 

Termination of Montco Project. In the 1980s, federal mining permits were 

issued for the proposed Montco Mine project in the Tongue River Valley, adjacent 

to the Reservation. While the Tribe had concerns about the project from its inception, a lack of resources prevented the Tribe from taking legal action to challenge 

it, although the Northern Plains Resource Council (NRPC) and others tried unsuccessfully to block the project. In the 1990s when the Montco Project was applying 

for yet another renewal of its mining permit (after several prior renewals), the Tribe 

finally decided to legally challenge the project. 

The Tribe was successful in administrative proceedings. Montco appealed to the 

District Court, which reversed the administrative decision. The Tribe then appealed 

to the Montana Supreme Court. Although NPRC was a party to the proceedings, 

the Tribe took the lead in preparing the pleadings, writing the briefs, and arguing 

the case. In a case of first impression, the Montana Supreme Court agreed with the 

Tribe’s position and denied further renewal of the Montco permit. 21 Since then, 

there have been no efforts to resuscitate the Montco Project. 

Otter Creek. In 1989, Crown Butte Mines proposed a precious metals mine—the 

New World Mine—on private and U.S. Forest Service lands located approximately 

3 miles from the border of Yellowstone National Park. During the federal environmental review process for the New World Mine, several issues arose about the impact of mining on the surrounding area, including the Clark’s Fork of the Yellowstone River, and the permitting process for the mine became extremely controversial. 

With this controversy and the increasing likelihood that the New World Mine 

would never receive the necessary federal permits, negotiations began between 

Crown Butte Mines, local environmental groups and the Council on Environmental 

Quality as to how to buy-out the valid existing rights held by Crown Butte Mines. 

In August 1996, President Bill Clinton announced an agreement between the United 

States and Crown Butte Mines which, among other items, committed the United 

States to pay $65 million for patented and unpatented mining claims held by Crown 

Butte Mines. 

In April 1997, the United States proposed to fund this $65 million payment with 

either a diversion of federal royalties from currently producing coal, oil, and gas operations in Montana or an exchange of other federal assets. To identify appropriate 

revenue streams, Montana Governor Marc Racicot commenced the Montana Initiative to identify federal coal and timber lands in Montana. 22 Ultimately, for various 

reasons, none of the revenue streams or exchange property identified by the State 

of Montana or the United States was workable as payment to Crown Butte Mines. 

However, the Fiscal Year 1998 Balanced Budget Agreement entered into by Con- gressional leadership and President Clinton included $300 million for ‘‘high priority 

land acquisitions.’’ 23 This total included $65 million for the purchase by the United 

States of Crown Butte Mines’ interests in patented and unpatented mining 

claims. 24 Despite their inclusion in the Balanced Budget Agreement, the Republican 

Congress did not wholeheartedly endorse the ‘‘high priority land acquisitions’’ identified by President Clinton. The Senate Appropriations Committee included money 

for ‘‘high priority land acquisitions’’ in the Fiscal Year 1998 Appropriations Bill for 

the Department of the Interior provided that separate legislation was enacted authorizing the acquisition while the House Appropriations Committee did not include 

any funding for the acquisitions. 

In the fall of 1997, negotiations began in earnest between the White House and 

Congressional Republicans on the Fiscal Year 1998 Appropriations Bill for the Department of the Interior. Congress eventually decided to fund and authorize the AdVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:58 Oct 14, 2014 Jkt 090791 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\90791.TXT JACK
32 

25 An Act Making Appropriations for the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies for 

the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998 and for other purposes, Pub. L. No. 105–83 (Nov. 20, 

1997). 26The Montana Mineral Exchange: H.R. 2107, Section 503 of the Department of Interior & Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Briefing & Information Packet (January 1999). 27Draft Environmental Assessment for Compliance with Section 503 of the Department of the 

Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 1998, Public Law 105–83 at pp. 17—19 (Feb. 

4, 2002). It is unclear if a final EA was ever issued for the transfer of the Otter Creek Tracts. 28 Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Norton, Docket # 1:02-cv-00146–TPJ (D.D.C. 2002). The Tribe’s 

complaint was filed on January 25, 2002. 

ministration’s ‘‘high priority land acquisitions’’ including $65 million for the New 

World Mine property. The authorization for the New World Mine acquisition included a number of terms and conditions insisted upon by the respective authorizing 

Committees in the House and Senate. 25 It also included two items of particular importance to the State of Montana: (1) $12 million for the maintenance and rehabilitation of the Beartooth Highway through Wyoming into Montana and (2) $10 million in federal mineral rights to the State of Montana. 

As to the transfer of the federal mineral rights to the State of Montana, the Act 

authorized that the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the state ‘‘without consideration’’: 

• $10,000,000 in mutually agreeable federal mineral rights in the State; or 

• all federal mineral rights in Otter Creek tracts 1, 2, and 3. 

Over the next four years, the State and the federal government failed to identify 

mutually agreeable federal mineral rights to convey to the State. 26 Thus, the Secretary was obliged to convey the Otter Creek tracts 1, 2 and 3 to the State. 

Otter Creek Settlement. Throughout this time, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

repeatedly expressed concerns to the State of Montana and the Department of the 

Interior about transferring the Otter Creek tracts to the State of Montana. The 

Otter Creek tracts are approximately 3–4 miles from the Tongue River, the eastern 

boundary of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation. The Tribe was worried that transfer of the property from federal to state ownership would adversely impact the Reservation if the tracts were developed, since the Tribe would lose federal trust protections and the environmental protection requirements of the federal coal leasing program would no longer apply. The Tribe met on numerous occasions with the Montana Congressional delegation, representatives of the Department of the Interior, 

the Governor, other State officials, and Great Northern Properties (GNP), to work 

out a settlement. 

In January 2002, Montana Governor Martz formally requested that the Secretary 

of the Interior Norton transfer the Otter Creek tracts 1, 2 and 3 to the State. The 

Tribe met with Secretary Norton, to present its concerns and request time to negotiate a multi-party settlement. Shortly after that meeting, the Tribe was advised 

that the Secretary would withhold action on the transfer pending such settlement 

discussions. The Department then ‘‘withheld action of the transfer of any federal 

mineral rights to the State of Montana in order to support the discussions between 

the State of Montana and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe.’’ 27

On the eve of a public hearing before the State Land Board to consider and consummate an Otter Creek Settlement Agreement negotiated by the Tribe and the 

State, the Tribe learned that, notwithstanding the Secretary’s stand-still assurance, 

the Otter Creek transfer would go forward virtually immediately. Within two business days, the Tribe filed suit against the Secretary in federal District Court in 

Washington, D.C. to enjoin the transfer. 28 The Tribe’s settlement discussions with 

Governor Martz, the Montana State Board of Land Commissioners, the Montana 

Congressional delegation and Great Northern Properties (the owner of the private 

coal checkerboard in Otter Creek) to resolve its litigation and objections to the Otter 

Creek transfer were ultimately successful. 

Under the settlement, the Land Board and the Congressional delegation agreed 

to support the enactment of federal legislation which would provide impact funding 

to the Tribe and resolve the Tribe’s claims against the United States arising from 

the Otter Creek transfer and the 1900 failure to acquire 5,000 acres of subsurface 

rights within the Reservation. The State Land Board agreed to require any lessee 

of the Otter Creek tracts, in close consultation with the Tribe, to fashion Operating 

Plans which would provide employment and commercial opportunity to the Northern Cheyenne, enhance environmental protection for the Reservation, require 

project workforce and truckers to meet conduct codes while on the Reservation, and 

protect Tribal historic, cultural and religious interests and values in the Tongue 

River Valley. The Land Board also agreed to support efforts to improve off-ReservaVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:58 Oct 14, 2014 Jkt 090791 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\90791.TXT JACK
33 

29Settlement Agreement by the Montana State Board of Land Commissioners and Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe (Feb. 19, 2002). 30State of Montana, Office of the Governor, Executive Order No. 12–02, Executive Order Certifying Transfer of Title to Federal Property Interests (May 28, 2002). 31S. 2225, 108th Cong., 2d Sess. (2004). 

tion roads to lessen resulting traffic loads on the Reservation, new cooperative law 

enforcement arrangements, and Congressional enactment of federal legislation to facilitate federal impact funding to the Tribe. In exchange, the Tribe agreed to dismiss, with prejudice, its judicial challenge to the Otter Creek transfer. 

The Settlement Agreement was signed by the President of the Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe, Governor Martz, Montana Secretary of State Brown, and Montana Director 

of Natural Resources and Conservation Clinch in February 2002. 29 The Bureau of 

Land Management issued the State of Montana a patent for the Otter Creek tracts 

on April 10, 2002. 30

Legislative Follow-Up on Otter Creek Settlement. Consistent with the terms 

of the Otter Creek Settlement, in 2004, Senator Burns introduced the Montana Mineral Conveyance Act. 31 The 2004 Montana Mineral Conveyance Act was cosponsored by Senators Baucus and Campbell. As introduced, the bill conveyed to the 

United States the Northern Cheyenne Reservation tracts owned by Great Northern 

Properties for other coal reserves owned by the United States in Montana. The 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe agreed to waive its breach of trust claims against the 

United States. The legislation also authorized a $70 million impact assistance fund 

for the benefit of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. No hearings were held on the 2004 

Montana Mineral Conveyance Act. 

H.R. 1158 was introduced in 2011, as was a similar bill in the Senate, S. 647. 

Another iteration of the bill was introduced in the Senate as S. 2110. In contrast 

to the predecessor 2004 Bill and the negotiated Otter Creek Settlement, neither 

H.R. 1158 nor the Senate bills provided the promised $70 million in federal impact 

funding to the Tribe. This provision was removed in light of federal budget realities 

and to increase the likelihood of enactment. H.R. 1158 was reported favorably by 

unanimous consent out of the House Indian and Alaska Native Affairs with a recommendation that it would pass. No hearing was held in the Senate. 

34 


709a1.eps
35 


709a2.eps
36 


709a3.eps
37 


709a4.eps
38 


709a5.eps
39 


709a6.eps
40 


709a7.eps
41 


709a8.eps
42 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, President Fisher. 

We had a number of members show up, and Senator Flake is 

here. I promised when Senator Flake showed up he could introduce 


709a9.eps 709a10.eps
43 

the bill that he is a sponsor of, and Senator McCain. Then you are 

free to stay or go, whatever you want, Senator Flake. So go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF FLAKE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. I really appreciate this opportunity to testify in support of 

S. 2503, the Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act of 

2014. 

This is an important piece of legislation for Arizona. I would like 

to recognize the Chairman of the Hualapai Tribe, Ms. Sherry 

Counts, who will be testifying today. Both her efforts and those of 

the Hualapai Tribal Council on this measure are appreciated, and 

I am happy to join her in advancing this legislation. 

Also I want to thank my colleague from Arizona, Senator 

McCain, for his long role in addressing Indian water rights in Arizona, and for his co-sponsorship of this bill. It is rare to find a piece 

of legislation that that can garner bipartisan, bicameral support 

from the entire State congressional delegation. I am happy to report that Congressman Gosar and the entire Arizona delegation 

have introduced a companion measure, H.R. 4924. At its core, this 

legislation seeks to resolve a dispute between the Hualapai Tribe, 

the mining company Freeport Minerals Corporation, the United 

States as trustee for the tribe and the allottees, and the Arizona 

Game and Fish Commission, and the Arizona Department of Water 

Resources related to competing interests and shared water resources in the Bill Williams Basin. 

Basically this legislation would recognize the Hualapai Tribe and 

the allottees’ right to 694-acre feet of water in three parcels. It establishes protections for the tribe’s culturally significant interests 

in the Cofer Hot Springs and it caps Freeport’s water use at 

Wikieup well field at 10,055 acre feet per year. It facilitates the 

transfer of a portion of land known as Planet Ranch to the Arizona 

Game and Fish Commission for use as part of a Lower Colorado 

River Multi-Species Conservation Plan, or MSCP, which provides 

endangered species related mitigation enabling current and future 

water management activities along the Colorado River in Arizona, 

Nevada and California. It secures non-Federal contributions from 

Freeport to the Hualapai Tribe and toward a future settlement of 

water disputes in two other river basins. It also ensures enforceability of the settlement only occurs after any objections by the 

non-settling parties have been resolved in a final non-appealable 

decision. 

Due to the statutory time requirements requiring parties to use 

or potentially lose water rights within five years, there is a sense 

of urgency to passing this legislation quickly. But also I would like 

to note that as a legal settlement of claims where parties are negotiating sensitive deal terms, the settlement negotiations were subject to a confidentiality agreement among the parties. The practice 

is not unusual. It enables the parties to negotiate with each other 

in good faith. 

However, with the introduction of the legislation at today’s hearing, the public vetting process has begun. A lot of people have been 

44 

concerned that they haven’t been involved in the process. This is 

the beginning of the process and they will be involved. 

To that end, I understand there are some concerns that have 

been raised by Mojave County and La Paz County in reviewing this 

settlement. I further understand the Department of Interior and 

Department of Justice will raise some issues at today’s hearing. I 

look forward to working with all interested stakeholders on improving the bill. 

With regard to the Department’s testimony on the limited waiver 

of sovereign immunity, I would note that the parties to the settlement must have the ability to enforce the terms of the agreement. 

In light of the Supreme Court precedents, I believe the waiver 

must be express and unequivocal. The waiver included in this legislation is not unprecedented; it is similar to the waiver included in 

the White Mountain Apache Settlement authorized by Congress in 

2010. I believe this settlement will mark an important step for Arizona. I am pleased to join Senator McCain and the entire House 

delegation and the Hualapai Tribe to advance this bill. I appreciate 

the Committee’s support in that effort. 

Finally, with the Committee’s indulgence, I would ask that my 

written statement, the Hualapai Tribe Resolution 40-2014 in support of the settlement, letters in support from the Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Nature Conservancy, written testimony in support of S. 

2503 from Freeport Minerals Corporation, as well as a letter and 

statement in opposition from Mojave County, be entered into the 

legislative record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you, Senator Flake. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Flake follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF FLAKE, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, and Members of the Committee, I appreciate 

the opportunity to appear before you today to testify in support of S. 2503, the Bill 

Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2014. Thank you for scheduling this 

hearing on what I believe is an important piece of legislation for the state of Arizona. I would also like to recognize the Chairwoman of the Hualapai Tribe, Ms. 

Sherry Counts, who will be testifying today. Both her efforts and those of the 

Hualapai tribal council on this measure are appreciated, and I am happy to join her 

and the Tribe in advancing this legislation. Finally, I would like to thank my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, for his long-held role in addressing Indian 

water rights in Arizona and his cosponsorship of this settlement. 

It is rare to find a piece of legislation that can garner the bipartisan and bicameral support of an entire state congressional delegation, but in this instance we 

appear to have a confluence of seemingly disparate interests flowing in the same 

direction. With the introduction of S. 2503, as well as Congressman Gosar’s companion measure, H.R. 4924, Congress has an opportunity to resolve a water-rights 

dispute among the Hualapai Tribe; a mining company, Freeport Minerals Corporation; and the United States, as trustee for the Tribe and Allottees. Better yet, we 

can resolve this dispute without authorizing any new federal spending. In addition, 

the bill would enhance the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Plan 

or MSCP—a program that provides endangered species related mitigation enabling 

current and future water-management activities along the Colorado River in Arizona, Nevada, and California. 

The dispute this legislation resolves arose over competing interests in shared 

water resources in western Arizona. There, the Hualapai Tribe and Allottees own 

parcels of land along the Big Sandy River. The Big Sandy River is a tributary of 

the Bill Williams River, which flows into the Colorado River at Lake Havasu. Nearby, Freeport owns and operates a large copper and molybdenum mine in Bagdad, 

45 

Arizona. Like the Tribe, the company draws its water for that operation from wells 

located in the Big Sandy River watershed. 

In an effort to safeguard its water uses against potential legal challenges that 

could disrupt mining operations, Freeport purchased land and water rights associated with two properties in the basin known as Planet Ranch and Lincoln Ranch. 

The company then sought to shift a portion of the water rights associated with those 

ranches to its wellfield. However, a number of parties, including the United States, 

as trustee for the Tribe and the Allottees, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, 

and Mohave County filed objections. Due to a statutory time clock regarding surface 

water in Arizona, Freeport has five years before it must either use or potentially 

lose those water rights they purchased for the express purpose of safeguarding their 

economic activity in that part of the state. That time clock creates a sense of urgency for passing this legislation, otherwise Freeport would be required to make significant investments in irrigation infrastructure or risk losing water rights. 

With prompt passage, this legislation would resolve much of the dispute among 

the Tribe, Freeport, the United States as trustee for the Tribe and the Allottees, 

the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, and the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Specifically, the settlement would: 

• Recognize the Hualapai Tribe’s and the Allottee’s right to 694 acre-feet of water 

on three parcels in the Big Sandy River basin; 

• Establish protections for the Tribe’s culturally significant interest in Cofer Hot 

Springs; 

• Cap Freeport’s water use at the Wikieup Wellfield at 10,055 acre-feet per year; 

• Facilitate the transfer of a portion of Planet Ranch to the Arizona Game and 

Fish Commission for use as part of the MSCP; 

• Secure a non-federal contribution from Freeport to the Hualapai Tribe toward 

a potential future settlement of water disputes in two other river basins; and 

• Ensure that enforceability of the settlement only occurs after any objections of 

non-settling parties have been resolved in a final and non-appealable decision. 

As a legal settlement of claims, where parties are negotiating sensitive deal 

terms, these negotiations were subject to a confidentiality agreement among the 

parties. This practice is not unusual, particularly in the context of Indian water 

rights settlements, as it enables the parties to negotiate with each other in good 

faith. However, with the introduction of legislation, where Congress is ratifying and 

confirming the agreements negotiated by those parties, the settlement enters a new 

phase of public review. As such, I see introduction of this bill and today’s hearing 

as the beginning of the public vetting process. To that end, I understand that some 

concerns have been raised by Mohave and La Paz counties as they begin to review 

the settlement. I further understand that the Department of the Interior and the 

Department of Justice will raise some issues in today’s testimony. I look forward 

to working with those and all other interested stakeholders in finding ways that we 

can improve this legislation. 

I would like to take a minute to just briefly discuss one of the issues raised in 

the Department’s testimony that could garner attention: the limited waiver of sovereign immunity. I believe the parties to this settlement must have the ability to 

enforce the terms of the agreements amongst each other. As this Committee is 

aware, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, confirms that Congress must ‘‘unequivocally’’ express its intent to waive 

tribal immunity in the context of such agreements. Likewise, the Supreme Court in 

Orff v. United States, concluded that waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity must be explicit. 

The waiver included in this legislation would expressly allow the parties to enforce the terms of the settlement against each other. It is not unprecedented; in fact, 

a similar waiver was included in the White Mountain Apache Settlement authorized 

by Congress in 2010. I am concerned by the Department’s suggestion that instead 

Congress should employ existing waivers in the Tucker Act, Administrative Procedure Act, or the McCarran Amendment. I will continue to work with the Department to find a path forward, but I believe the relevant Supreme Court precedent 

requires an unequivocal statement by Congress regarding the parties’ ability to enforce the settlement. 

I would like to conclude by noting that last year the Arizona Department of Water 

Resources issued a report highlighting that of Arizona’s 22 federally recognized Indian tribes, 13 have enacted settlements that either partially or fully resolve water 

rights disputes. I believe the Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act would 

mark another important step in that long tradition. As such, I am pleased to join 

46 

Senator McCain, the Arizona House delegation, and the Hualapai Tribe in trying 

to advance this bill, and I appreciate the Committee’s support in that effort. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Before we go back to the tribal witnesses, Senator McCain, do you have anything you would like to add? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN MCCAIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA 

Senator MCCAIN. I am grateful that the Committee is holding 

this hearing. The Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act, 

and I am proud of the leadership of my colleague, Senator Flake. 

He, as you know, Mr. Chairman, has succeeded Senator Kyle, who 

was a leader on numerous water rights settlements in our State. 

I am also glad to hear our Committee testimony from the Chairwoman of the Hualapai Tribe, Ms. Sherry Counts. Welcome. And 

Mr. Chairman, there are many, many beautiful Indian lands in 

this Country. But I would argue that if you have the chance to go 

down to the Hualapai Tribe, it is really incredibly magnificent 

beauty. I am sure that, Chairwoman Counts, you would invite a 

Democrat down there, wouldn’t you? I think so, yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. This Democrat has been down there before. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MCCAIN. They didn’t want you back, though. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MCCAIN. Actually, Senator Udall’s father was a key element in so many of not only the water rights settlements, but settlements amongst Native Americans. In his eight-year tenure, his 

outstanding tenure as Secretary of Interior, an incredible legacy 

that he has passed on to his son. 

Senator Flake described the legislation, I hope to everyone’s satisfaction. So I won’t repeat it. But it isn’t a full settlement of the 

Hualapai Tribe’s water rights claims. But it does offer the tribe a 

path forward for a future comprehensive settlement using the million dollars provided by Freeport. I would like to thank all the parties involved for working together to reach a speedy agreement. 

I understand that the Interior Department has some concerns, 

and we look forward to working those out. The issue of the 21st 

century in the Southwest, including my State of Arizona, is water. 

We have to conclude our Native American water rights settlements 

if we are going to have a predictable supply of water for Indians 

and non-Indians alike. We have to give the highest priority to settling these Indian water rights issues rather than see years and 

years of litigation that go on and benefit only lawyers. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I couldn’t agree with you more, Senator McCain. 

Thank you for your endorsement of the bill. 

With that, we are going to go back to our tribal witnesses. Aletha 

Tom, you have the floor, and know that as with everyone else, your 

full written testimony will be a part of the record. Go ahead, 

Aletha. 

47 

STATEMENT OF HON. ALETHA TOM, CHAIRWOMAN, MOAPA 

BAND OF PAIUTE INDIANS 

Ms. TOM. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, good afternoon. I am Aletha Tom, Chairwoman of the Moapa Band of Paiutes. 

The tribe strongly supports S. 2479, and we deeply appreciate 

the efforts of the many people who have helped us move this forward, especially Senator Reid and also Congressman Horsford, who 

has introduced a companion bill in the House. 

The bill would restore about 26,000 acres to our reservation. 

These are desert lands adjacent to our reservation that are currently managed by BLM and Bureau of Reclamation. The lands 

were all part of our original Southern Paiute homeland and were 

part of the original Moapa Reservation, which once comprised over 

2 million acres. Unfortunately, pressures from miners and settlers 

led Congress to shrink our reservation in 1875 from over 2 million 

down to 1,000 acres. Our reservation remained tiny until 1980, 

when Congress restored a small portion of our lands, about 70,000 

acres, back to our reservation. 

The current bill would continue this process by restoring around 

26,000 additional acres. The lands addressed in the bill are particularly important to us. One portion, about 7,500 acres, is located 

near where most of us live on the reservation. These additional 

lands will be directly useful for housing and community needs for 

our people. Right now, housing is extremely scarce and many of our 

young adults must move off the reservation. These lands would 

give our young people an opportunity to stay home and contribute 

to our community. 

A second portion, about 11,500 acres, is located just south of our 

main commercial development, a travel plaza with a convenience 

store and gas station. We see using these lands to enhance outdoor 

recreation and conservation opportunities. The plaza area is located 

along the natural path to Las Vegas’ growth, on Interstate 15, by 

an exit which leads to the Valley of Fire, Nevada’s oldest and largest State park. 

A third portion, around 4,500 acres on the north side of the reservation, has special significance to the tribe and would be preserved for cultural purposes. The remaining lands are purely desert 

areas that would be very useful for our solar energy development. 

Our tribe already has three solar projects in different stages of development. Our reservation is uniquely situated to provide solar 

power in the region. We are located near power lines and substations, as well as major markets which need extra energy exactly 

when the sun is shining most brightly, for air conditioning. 

Again, solar development would benefit both the tribe and the 

greater community, and would increase the tribe’s stake in the 

prosperity of the region. 

The bill specifically endorses these purposes, housing, recreation 

and renewable energy development, as well as traditional and cultural uses and environmental stewardship. The bill also provides 

that the land would not be used for gaming. We have no problem 

with that, although Indian gaming is not really an issue in Nevada. 

48 

We again want to thank Senator Reid and the Committee. Not 

only would this bill help rectify past injustices, but it also gives in 

very practical ways hope to our future of our tribe. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tom follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ALETHA TOM, CHAIRWOMAN, MOAPA BAND OF PAIUTE

INDIANS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

Good afternoon. I’m Aletha Tom, Chairwoman of the Moapa Band of Paiutes. The 

Tribe strongly supports Senate Bill 2479, and we deeply appreciate the efforts of the 

many people who have helped us move this forward, especially Senator Reid, and 

also Congressman Horsford, who has introduced a companion bill in the House. 

The bill would restore about 26,000 acres to our Reservation. These are desert 

lands adjacent to our Reservation that are currently managed by BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation. 

The lands were all part of our original Southern Paiute homeland, and were part 

of the original Moapa Reservation, which once comprised over 2,000,000 acres. Unfortunately, pressures from miners and settlers led Congress to shrink our Reservation in 1875 from over 2,000,000 down to only 1,000 acres. Our Reservation remained tiny until 1980, when Congress restored a small portion of our lands—about 

70,000 acres—back to our Reservation. The current bill would continue this process 

by restoring around 26,000 additional acres. 

The lands addressed in the bill are particularly important to us. 

One portion, about 7,500 acres, is located near where most of us live on the Reservation. These additional lands will be directly useful for housing and community 

needs for our people. Right now, housing is extremely scarce, and many of our 

young adults must move off the Reservation. These lands would give our young people an opportunity to stay home and contribute to our community. 

A second portion, about 11,500 acres, is located just south of our main commercial 

development, a travel plaza with a convenience store and gas station. We see using 

these lands to enhance outdoor recreation and conservation opportunities. The plaza 

area is located along the natural path of Las Vegas’s growth, on Interstate 15, by 

an exit which leads to the Valley of Fire, Nevada’s oldest and largest state park. 

A third portion, around 4,500 acres on the north side of the Reservation, has special significance to the Tribe and would be preserved for cultural purposes. 

The remaining lands are purely desert areas that would be very useful for solar 

energy development. Our Tribe already has three solar projects in different stages 

of development. Our Reservation is uniquely situated to provide solar power in the 

region. We’re located near powerlines and substations, as well as major markets 

which need extra energy exactly when the sun is shining most brightly, for air conditioning. Again, solar development would benefit both the Tribe and the greater 

community, and would increase the Tribe’s stake in the prosperity of the region. 

The bill specifically endorses these purposes—housing, recreation, and renewable 

energy development—as well as traditional and cultural uses and environmental 

stewardship. The bill also provides that the lands would not be used for gaming. 

We have no problem with that, although Indian gaming is not really an issue in 

Nevada. 

We again want to thank Senator Reid and the committee. Not only would this 

bill help rectify past injustices, but it also gives, in a very practical way, hope to 

our people for the future. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Aletha, for your testimony. 

Chairman Melendez, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ARLAN MELENDEZ, CHAIRMAN, RENO– 

SPARKS INDIAN COLONY 

Mr. MELENDEZ. Good afternoon, Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso and distinguished members of the Committee. My 

name is Arlan Melendez, and I have been the Chairman of the 

Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Paiute, Washoe and Shoshone People, 

for the last 23 years. 

49 

I am honored to be speaking today for all the tribes in S. 2480, 

who comprised the Nevada Tribal Lands Coalition. I would also 

like to express our heartfelt thanks to Senators Reid and Heller for 

their bipartisan sponsorship of this bill, and to the Committee for 

scheduling today’s hearing. 

I also wish to thank Congressmen Mark Amodei and Don Young 

and Congresswoman Dina Titus for introducing companion legislation in the House. A few weeks ago, the House Committee on Natural Resources unanimously reported the bill to the Floor. The 

membership numbers of our tribes are growing, and the caring capacity of our current lands is very limited. With limited exceptions, 

the majority of tribes in Nevada have very small land bases. Some 

are so small they don’t even show up on State maps. 

As see in the chart on the easel to my right, the comparison to 

the large land bases of other tribes in many western States is dramatic. It is unrealistic to expect that we can thrive, manage our 

natural resources, practice traditional culture, provide housing and 

encourage economic development on so little land. It is only by 

being able to expand and consolidate our lands 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 more effective use of these lands. 

Over 80 percent of the land in our State is Federal land. BLM 

administers nearly 48 million acres of land in Nevada. Even with 

these transfers, BLM lands would still comprise 67 percent of the 

land base in Nevada. The transfers would only reduce BLM’s total 

percentage of land owned statewide by around 2 tenths of a percent. Yet the transfer of this tiny percentage of land to BIA to be 

held in trust could be one of the most important developments for 

our tribes in a generation. The positive impact will be experienced 

by our peoples for generations to come. 

The other tribes will be submitting statements for the record, but 

let me quickly summarize these situations. For the South Fork 

Band of the Te-Moak Tribe, the bill would transfer BLM land to 

expand grazing and agriculture, develop housing and cultural and 

agricultural areas. Currently reservation lands are checkerboarded. 

Their population has tripled since the 1940s, but their land base 

is the same size. 

For the Elko Band of Te-Moak Tribe, a small parcel of land 

would be transferred to the Elko Band who have sought to expand 

their current small land base for 17 years for housing, cultural activities, recreation, economic development and gravesites. The bill 

would also transfer 275 acres of BLM land to Elko County to establish a motocross track, which is also supported by the tribes. For 

the Fort McDermitt Paiute and 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. For the Shoshone Paiute Tribe of the Death Valley Reservation, this bill would transfer a small parcel of Forest Service 

land, a longstanding goal. When the Forest Service located a district headquarters, housing units were abandoned. The tribes 

50 

would like to renovate these units to address chronic housing shortages and to help recruit medical professionals, law enforcement 

and conservation personnel. 

For 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, which surrounds the lake except in one area. Summit Lake is home to the cutthroat trout, which was integral to the 

tribe’s culture and a vital food source. The transfer will allow for 

improved management and habitat restoration. 

For the 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. 

For my tribe, the Reno-Sparks India Colony, the bill would alleviate the strain caused b the small size of our reservation, because we simply need land for housing, cultural preservation and 

development. For decades the colony members were residing on 

just 27 acres in Reno, Nevada. In 1986, due to overcrowding, thenNevada Congresswoman Barbara Vucanovich assisted us 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 to Congress 

and ask for it. 

In closing, we have made the best use the 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, 

and the wells in the Hungry Valley community are also within the 

proposed transfer plot. BLM has told us they don’t have enough 

staff to effectively monitor all the activities and the urban interface 

adjacent to Hungry Valley. As a result, our people have suffered 

from many adverse activities such as recreational shooting, including the use of assault weapons near residential areas, creating a 

dangerous safety situation; illegal dumping; unauthorized creation 

of a dirt bike race track; disruptive bike events; heavy off-road vehicle activities harming the land. While we are not against off-road 

vehicles or recreational shooting, we are concerned with the intensity of the activities adjacent to our community and homes and its 

impact on our quality of life. 

The legislation will move it a safe distance away and allow for 

growth. Our tribes are fully capable of being effective stewards of 

these lands. Thank you for this opportunity to testify and I would 

be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Melendez follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ARLAN MELENDEZ, CHAIRMAN, RENO-SPARKS INDIAN

COLONY

Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso and distinguished Members of the 

Committee on Indian Affairs. I am pleased to submit this testimony in support of 

S. 2480, legislation introduced by Nevada Senators Harry Reid and Dean Heller. We 

are also pleased that nearly identical legislation (H.R. 2455), introduced in a bi-partisan fashion by Congressmen Mark Amodei (RNV), Dina Titus (D–NV) and Don 

Young (R–AK) has been introduced and was unanimously reported out of the House 

Committee on Natural Resources a few weeks ago. 

51 

Thank you for accepting this testimony of the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony (the 

Colony) on S. 2480 and for considering our views. My remarks herein are mostly 

specific to the Colony’s land expansion needs. The other tribes in this bill may be 

submitting their own written statements for the record, and their statements should 

be relied upon for more specific details pertinent to their land transfer requests. 

However, there are common themes among all our tribes which I would like to 

share. In my oral testimony I will be speaking not just on behalf of the Colony but 

on behalf of all the tribes in this important bill. I am honored speak on behalf of 

the Nevada Native Nations Lands Act Tribal Coalition, consisting of the following 

tribes: 

• Elko Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians • South Fork Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians • Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe • Duck Valley Shoshone Paiute Tribe • Summit Lake Paiute Tribe • Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe • Reno-Sparks Indian Colony 

Expansion of Our Reservations Critical to Preserve Our Futures 

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, preservation and other purposes that our tribes and cultural 

practices can continue to thrive. While each tribe in S. 2480 has specific reasons 

for seeking to expand the lands of our reservations we are united in our need for 

better management and more effective use of these lands. We are fully capable of 

assuming these responsibilities. 

We would also 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 some state maps. 

For instance the Elko Band has just 193 acres. The principal so-called ‘‘downtown’’ 

Reno-Sparks Indian Colony lands constitute a mere 27 acres. These are not viable 

land bases. We cannot house our people; we cannot attract business or engage in 

economically viable agriculture. 

S. 2480 would put to effective use by tribes lands that are greatly underutilized 

and not being adequately managed. With the exception of a small parcel owned by 

the Forest Service, the lands in question are presently controlled by the Bureau of 

Land Management so transferring title to a different agency within the Department 

of Interior (Bureau of Indian Affairs) is not going to, for instance, affect the local 

tax bases. In many instances Indian tribes have been able to undertake economic 

activities that have benefited both reservation and off-reservation economies and 

helped create jobs. 

Nevada Native Nations Lands Act Preserves BLM Control Over Vast Area 

of Nevada 

BLM administers nearly 48 million acres of public land in Nevada. We would like 

to emphasize that even with these lands transfers, BLM lands would still comprise 

67 percent of the total land base of the state of Nevada, and that does not include 

the large percentage of land controlled by other federal agencies. In the aggregate 

over 80 percent of the land in our state is owned by the federal government. The 

transfers would only reduce BLM’s total percentage of land owned state-wide by 

0.20 percent (two tenths of one percent). Yet the transfer of this tiny percentage of 

land from BLM to BIA to be held in trust for our tribes would be one of the most 

important developments for our tribes in a generation. And the positive impact will 

be experienced by our peoples for generations to come. 

Background on Reno-Sparks Indian Colony 

In the 1880’s, 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 was established as a federally recognized Tribal government under the Indian 

52 

Reorganization Act. By the mid-1980’s, the City of Reno had grown and eventually 

engulfed the undersized lands of the Colony. The land base of the Colony, near 

downtown Reno, is now just 27 acres of densely packed homes in the residential 

area as well as additional commercial property. Less than three 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 Colony to address the need for additional 

community housing. Currently, this area, known as the Hungry Valley community, 

houses approximately half the Colony’s population. The Hungry Valley community 

is seven miles west of the Spanish Springs community and 10 miles north of the 

City of Reno. The Colony has spent millions of dollars in public improvements and 

community development. For example, we have built homes; a water and sewer system; community buildings; and constructed 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. 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 got the bill passed 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. We are now doing exactly that after extensive cooperation and coordination 

with key stakeholders including Washoe County and the BLM. We are very pleased 

to have the support of the Washoe County government for our proposed transfer. 

The Need to Supplement the Land Base of 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. 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. 

• Illegal dumping. 

• Unauthorized creation of motorcycle race tracks. 

• Military practice operation with simulated explosive devices. (Hopefully an activity that won’t be repeated.) 

These are not activities anyone would want to see in proximity to a residential 

area. While we are not against off road vehicles, we are concerned with the intensity 

of the activities adjacent to our native community and its impact on our quality of 

life. A buffer is needed and will be established by this legislation. 

Proposed Land Transfer from BLM to BIA 

As shown on the attached map, the Colony is proposing to acquire through a Congressional transfer approximately 13,434 acres from the BLM to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to be held in trust for the Colony in order to expand and consolidate our land base at the Hungry Valley residential community. These 13,434 acres 

represent a minute fraction of the almost 48 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 unable to enforce their own regulations 

and ordinances in the area around Hungry Valley. BLM has told us that they don’t 

have enough staff to effectively monitor all of the activities in the urban interface 

cover adjacent to Hungry Valley. Transferring this land to the BIA’s jurisdiction to 

be held in trust for the Colony is important for the citizens of our tribe and for the 

surrounding communities. The current situation is untenable. Our residents should 

be able to live in peace and quiet and should not have to deal with unregulated offroad race tracks carved out near their homes. We have met with a majority of the 

Washoe County Commissioners, including all those who represent the immediately 

surrounding communities and as stated above, the County has endorsed our land 

transfer request. 

53 

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 our 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 ways. 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 ofNevada and with the governments that surround our downtown reservation 

as well 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 local and surrounding areas will benefit by this proposal. 

Thank you for your consideration of this bill. I am pleased to answer any questions you might have. 

The CHAIRMAN. There will be questions. Thank you, Chairman 

Melendez. 

Chairwoman Counts, your presentation, please. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHERRY J. COUNTS, CHAIRWOMAN, 

HUALAPAI TRIBE 

Ms. COUNTS. I would like to thank Senator Flake and Senator 

McCain for sponsoring this bill for the Hualapai Tribe, S. 2503. 

My name is Sherry J. Counts. I am Chairwoman of the Hualapai 

Tribe. Thank you for the invitation and opportunity testify in support of S. 2503, the Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement 

Act of 2014. 

I would also like to say, all Democrats and Republicans are invited to the Sky Walk. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. COUNTS. The Colorado River forms the 108-mile northern 

boundary of the Hualapai Reservation through a portion of the 

Grand Canyon. Our reservation has no significant surface streams 

other than the Colorado River, and it has very limited groundwater 

resources. While the tribe is presently able to supply its main residential community, Peach Springs, with groundwater, the only feasible water for satisfying the future needs of the reservation is the 

Colorado River. 

Over the past three years we have been negotiating a comprehensive settlement of all the tribe’s reserved water rights with 

the Justice and Interior Departments, the State of Arizona and 

major private entities in Arizona. The basic principles of the settlement have been agreed upon, but the settlement is not yet ready 

for submission to Congress, because the tribe needs to complete a 

feasibility study of the alternatives for constructing the infrastructure needed to deliver Colorado River water to the reservation. In 

the meantime, the tribe, along with the United States and Freeport 

Minerals Corporation have reached an agreement settling our 

water rights claims in the Big Sandy Creek, south of our main reservation. The settlement faces a deadline, which is why we and the 

other parties are seeking enactment of S. 2503 now, in advance of 

the comprehensive settlement of our reservation water rights. 

This deadline is imposed by the possible application of provisions 

of Arizona State law and could result in the forfeiture of certain 

54 

water rights Freeport holds in the Bill Williams Basin. To meet 

this deadline, the tribe urges Congress to enact S. 2503 this year, 

ahead of considering our comprehensive water rights settlement. 

Let me now describe the important benefits to the Hualapai 

Tribe. First, as a result of this legislation, the two major landholders and water users in the Big Sandy Creek, the United States 

and Freeport Minerals Corporation, will confirm federally-reserved 

water rights for the tribe totaling 300 acre feet a year relating to 

a 60-acre parcel of the reservation land along Big Sandy Creek. 

Freeport and the United States will also confirm federally-reserved 

water rights totaling 394 acre feet a year to two off-reservation 

trust allotments issued to Hualapai tribal members in the Big 

Sandy. 

Second, the agreements ratified by S. 2503 also provide vital protections for the tribe’s water rights on fee land it owns along Big 

Sandy Creek called Cholla Canyon Ranch. This ranch contains a 

spring that is sacred to the tribe, Cofer Hot Spring, the flows of 

which have diminished in recent years due to the pumping by Freeport. Freeport has already ceased all but the most minimal pumping the aquifer that feeds Cofer Hot Spring. In the agreements ratified and approved by S. 2503, Freeport agrees permanently to 

cease pumping more than minimal amounts from that aquifer. 

Freeport also gave the tribe a right of first refusal to purchase 

nearby lands to protect the flow of Cofer Hot Spring. 

In addition to these important benefits at the Big Sandy area, Freeport will also immediately contribute $1 million to the cost of 

a central engineering study by the tribe that has been initiated to 

determine the feasibility and cost of bringing Colorado River water 

to the Hualapai reservation. This contribution from Freeport, in 

combination with the funding we have received from the Bureau of 

Reclamation and the tribe’s own funds will allow the tribe to complete this study, then finish its ongoing negotiations for a comprehensive Colorado River water settlement with the Justice and 

Interior Departments, the State of Arizona and various private entities in Arizona. 

Lastly, with the timely enactment of this legislation, Freeport 

will contribute a substantial additional sum to the tribe’s economic 

development. These Freeport funds are designated for the tribe to 

purchase Colorado River water rights. These additional water 

rights to be purchased with the Freeport contribution are critical 

to the tribe’s ability to negotiate a comprehensive settlement of our 

Colorado River water rights. 

For all of these reasons, the tribe strongly supports S. 2503. The 

tribe is very pleased with the provisions of this legislation that will 

protect its water rights and those of tribal member allottees along 

the Big Sandy Creek, and lay the foundation for the tribe to complete its negotiation in the near future for a comprehensive settlement of all the tribe’s reserved water rights on the reservation. The 

tribe hopes the Committee will support S. 2503 and that Congress 

will speedily enact it. We do have some technical corrections to the 

legislation that are explained in my testimony. I respectfully the 

Committee to consider those corrections. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I 

would be pleased to answer any questions you may have, and our 

55 

tribe will help in any way it can to secure enactment of this legislation. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Counts follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SHERRY J. COUNTS, CHAIRWOMAN, HUALAPAI TRIBE

Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso and Members of the Committee, I am 

Sherry Counts, the Chairwoman of the Hualapai Tribe. Our Hualapai Tribal Leaders and Members strongly support S. 2503, the Bill Williams River Water Rights 

Settlement Act of 2014. Before I describe the several critical benefits the Tribe receives from this legislation, let me briefly inform the Committee of the Tribe’s water 

needs. 

The Hualapai Reservation encompasses approximately 1 million acres in northwestern Arizona. All lands on the Reservation are tribal trust lands; there are no 

allotments or fee inholdings. The Colorado River forms the 108-mile northern 

boundary of the Reservation through a portion of the Grand Canyon. 

Our Reservation has no significant surface streams other than the Colorado River, 

and has very limited groundwater resources. While the Tribe is presently able to 

supply its main residential community, Peach Springs, with groundwater, the only 

feasible water supply for satisfying the future needs of most of the Reservation is 

the Colorado River. 

The Tribe is in dire need of Colorado River water in order to realize the opportunities for economic development we have already undertaken. We have constructed 

and operate Grand Canyon West, a world class tourist development on the Reservation on the western rim of the Grand Canyon. Grand Canyon West currently employs over 250 tribal members and hosts approximately 700,000 visitors a year. But 

it is located a two-hour drive away from Peach Springs, where virtually all tribal 

members who reside on the Reservation live. Thus tribal employees at Grand Canyon West have daily commutes of four hours a day, and longer in inclement weather. 

The Tribe also employs approximately 100 other tribal members in a triballyowned hotel in Peach Springs and a seasonal tribal river rafting enterprise. Without 

conducting any gaming, our Tribe is moving towards achieving full employment for 

our members and economic self-sufficiency. 

The lack of water is the major obstacle to our reaching these goals. The nearest 

groundwater to Grand Canyon West is 35 miles away, and that supply is barely 

adequate for current operations, and completely inadequate for growth. With additional water, the Tribe could take advantage of the potential for further development that would provide additional jobs to tribal members and revenues to the tribal government. Water at Grand Canyon West would also support the development 

of a residential community there so our tribal members would not have to commute 

from Peach Springs to get to their jobs. 

Over the past three years, we have been negotiating a comprehensive settlement 

of all the Tribe’s reserved water rights with the Justice and Interior Departments, 

the State of Arizona and major private entities in Arizona. The basic principles of 

this settlement have been agreed upon, but the settlement is not yet ready for submission to Congress because the Tribe needs first to complete a comprehensive 

study of the engineering feasibility of the various alternatives for constructing the 

infrastructure needed to deliver Colorado River water to Grand Canyon West, and 

a detailed projection of construction and OM&R costs of those alternatives. We expect that this study will be ready to submit to the Bureau of Reclamation and other 

parties to the negotiations by early next year. 

In the meantime, the Tribe—along with the United States and Freeport Minerals 

Corporation—have reached an agreement settling our water rights claims in the Big 

Sandy Creek, south of our main Reservation. This settlement faces a deadline, 

which is why we and the other parties seek enactment of S. 2503 now, in advance 

of the comprehensive settlement of our Reservation water rights. This deadline is 

imposed by the possible application of provisions of Arizona state law that could result in the forfeiture of water rights Freeport holds in the Bill Williams Basin. Freeport wishes to sever and transfer some of these water rights upstream to its 

Wikieup well field, which serves its nearby copper mine, and contribute the rest of 

these water rights to state and federal agencies as part of the Lower Colorado 

Multi-Species Conservation Plan. 

To meet this deadline, the Tribe urges Congress to enact S. 2503 this year, ahead 

of considering our comprehensive water rights settlement. Let me now describe the 

important benefits the Hualapai Tribe receives under S. 2503. 

56 

First, as a result of this legislation, the two major landowners and water users 

in Big Sandy Creek—the United States and Freeport Minerals Corporation—will 

confirm federally reserved water rights for the Tribe totaling 300 acre feet a year 

(afy) relating to a 60-acre parcel of land added to our Reservation along Big Sandy 

Creek by an Executive Order signed by President Taft in 1911. Freeport and the 

United States will also confirm federally reserved water rights totaling 394 afy to 

two off-reservation trust allotments issued to Hualapai tribal members in the Big 

Sandy. Both of these amounts were calculated by the Tribe’s expert hydrologist 

using the methodology set forth in controlling decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the Arizona Supreme Court. The agreements this legislation ratifies also require Freeport to provide supplemental water to the tribal and allotted 

lands in certain circumstances to ensure the Tribe and allottees can fully utilize 

these reserved water rights. 

Second, the agreements ratified by S. 2503 also provide vital protections for the 

Tribe’s water rights on fee land it owns along Big Sandy Creek called Cholla Canyon 

Ranch. The Tribe has applied to the Secretary of the Interior to take the Ranch into 

trust for it, and Freeport has agreed to support that application. This Ranch contains a spring that is sacred to the Tribe, Cofer Hot Spring, the flows of which have 

diminished in recent years due to pumping by Freeport. Freeport has already ceased 

all but the most minimal pumping in the aquifer that feeds Cofer Hot Spring, and 

in the agreements ratified and approved by S. 2503, Freeport agrees permanently 

to cease pumping more than minimal amounts from that aquifer. Freeport also will 

give the Tribe a right of first refusal to purchase Freeport’s lands at Banegas Ranch 

and surrounding land Freeport owns to protect the flow of Cofer Hot Spring. Once 

these agreements become effective, Freeport will record a binding covenant in the 

county land records that will impose the same pumping limitations on any future 

purchaser of any portion of Banegas Ranch, should Freeport decide to sell and the 

Tribe decides not to buy these lands. 

Under the agreements, Freeport’s pumping at the Wikieup well field is capped at 

10,055 afy. The Tribe has requested the Interior Department to drop objections it 

has filed to Freeport’s sever and transfer applications to bring water from Planet 

and Lincoln Ranches up to the Wikieup well field, and in these agreements Interior 

agrees to do that. 

In addition to the important benefits S. 2503 provides for the Hualapai Tribe in 

the Big Sandy Creek, Freeport will also immediately contribute $1 million to the 

costs of an essential study the Tribe has initiated (thus far with its own funds and 

a grant from the Interior Department Bureau of Reclamation) to determine the feasibility and costs of bringing Colorado River water to the Hualapai Reservation. 

This contribution from Freeport will allow the Tribe to complete this study, and 

then to finish its ongoing negotiations for a comprehensive Colorado River water 

settlement with the Justice and Interior Departments, the State of Arizona, and 

various private entities in Arizona. 

Lastly, with the timely enactment of this legislation, Freeport will contribute a 

substantial additional sum to the Tribe’s economic development fund that the Tribe 

will use to purchase rights to use Colorado River water. The legislation provides 

that these two contributions by Freeport will count as non-federal contributions to 

the final comprehensive Colorado River water rights settlement the Tribe is negotiating with federal and state parties. 

For all of these reasons, the Tribe strongly supports S. 2503. We do, however, request two technical changes that are needed to conform the bill to the Hualapai 

BWR Agreement. In Section 6(d)(3)(B), page 26, line 20, after ‘‘Agreement’’ and before the semicolon, the words ‘‘or the Hualapai Tribe Water Rights Settlement 

Agreement’’ should be inserted. This would conform the bill to Paragraph 7.1(iii)(b) 

of the Hualapai BWR Agreement. And in Section 6(e)(1)(A), page 27, lines 10–11, 

after ‘‘relating to,’’ the words ‘‘injury to’’ should be deleted and the words ‘‘claims 

for’’ should be inserted. That would conform the bill to Paragraph 7.3(i)(a) of the 

Hualapai BWR Agreement. 

In conclusion, the Tribe is very pleased with the provisions of this legislation that 

will protect its lands and those of tribal member allottees in the Big Sandy Creek 

and lay the foundation for the Tribe to complete its negotiations in the near future 

for a comprehensive settlement of all its reserved water rights on its Reservation. 

The Tribe hopes that the Committee will support S. 2503 and that Congress will 

speedily enact it. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have, and our Tribe will help in any way it can to secure enactment of this legislation. 

57 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chairwoman Counts. We appreciate 

your testimony. 

Mr. Canfield, you have the floor. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CANFIELD, PRESIDENT/CEO, INDIAN 

PUEBLOS MARKETING, INDIAN PUEBLO CULTURAL CENTER 

Mr. CANFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso, distinguished members of this Committee and also of course my home Senator, Senator Udall, thank you very much for allowing me to testify in support of S. 2465, the Albuquerque Indian School Land Transfer Act. 

As was mentioned earlier, my name is Mike Canfield. I am the 

President and CEO of the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, IPCC, 

and Indian Pueblo’s Marketing, IPMI. Both of these corporations 

are owned and operated by the 19 Pueblos of New Mexico and located on the old Albuquerque Indian School property. 

I am also a very proud member of one of our 19 Pueblos, the 

Pueblo of Laguna. 

The vision for our organizations that are located on the property 

include creating unique and successful businesses, providing professional and economic advancement opportunities for our workforce, nurturing self-sustainable developments while providing financial returns to our Pueblo communities and promoting Pueblo 

arts, culture and lifestyles. 

In 1969, the United States began the long process of converting 

the 1884 Albuquerque Indian School Reserve, which was the 

former site of a Federal Indian Boarding School. The first 11 acres 

conveyed were used to build the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, 

which was completed in 1976. The Cultural Center has a long history of successful self-sufficient operations. In fact, in 2013, we 

were recognized as the Tribal Destination of the Year by the American Indian and Alaska Native Tourism Association. We are also a 

major contributor to our State and local economy, as we are one of 

the top three most visited attractions in New Mexico, hosting approximately 470,000 visitors per year. 

In 1993, the United States placed an additional 44 acres of the 

former Indian School property in trust for the 19 Pueblos. Those 

44 acres make up the majority of the former Indian School property. The Pueblos successfully created land development protocols 

with the City of Albuquerque and this potion of the former Indian 

School property is now the home to two large office buildings occupied by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and a hotel owned by the 19 

Pueblos. He Pueblos are proceeding with additional office and retail 

development projects that remain on this property. 

In 2008, Congress enacted P.L. 110–453, requiring the Secretary 

of Interior to convey an additional 8.5 acres of the former Albuquerque Indian School Reserve to the 19 Pueblos. These parcels included the last remaining Indian School structure. Building 232, 

which formerly housed the BIA’s Southern Pueblos Agency, was 

originally built in 1931 and designed by Architect Joseph Padilla, 

a tribal member from Isleta Pueblo. The building had been slated 

for demolition, but IPMI was able to save it by financing the renovation project. The renovated building now houses the Native 

American Community Academy, a public school chartered under 

58 

Albuquerque Public Schools, that serves approximately 380 Native 

students. 

S. 2465 directs the Secretary of Interior to place an additional 

11.11 acres of land in trust for the 19 Pueblos, consolidating several small parcels contiguous with the 44 acre tract that has been 

held in trust for the 19 Pueblos since 1993 and with the Indian 

Pueblo Cultural Center that has been held in trust since 1978. 

Mr. Chairman, my written testimony includes a map and a detailed description of the tracts of land this bill seeks to convey. My 

written testimony also includes a letter of support from the Mayor 

of Albuquerque, Mayor Richard Berry. 

Mr. Chairman, S. 2465 completes the process of transferring the 

BIA’s portion of the former Albuquerque Indian School Reserve to 

the 19 Pueblos. Most importantly, S. 2465 will allow the 19 Pueblos 

to continue the achievements of our vision for this property by providing economic development, educational and cultural opportunities for our Pueblos, the City of Albuquerque and the State of New 

Mexico. 

Thank you again to this Committee for inviting me to testify this 

afternoon, and I would welcome any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Canfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CANFIELD, PRESIDENT/CEO, INDIAN PUEBLOS

MARKETING, INDIAN PUEBLO CULTURAL CENTER

Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso, my home Senator, Mr. Udall, and 

members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify here today in 

support of S. 2465, the Albuquerque Indian School Land Transfer Act. 

My name is Mike Canfield: I am president and CEO of the Indian Pueblo Cultural 

Center (IPCC) and Indian Pueblo’s Marketing (IPMI). Both of these corporations are 

owned and operated by the 19 Pueblos of New Mexico and located on the old Albuquerque Indian School property in Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

The vision for our organizations located on this property include creating unique 

and successful businesses, providing professional and economic advancement opportunities for our workforce, nurturing self-sustainable developments while providing 

financial returns to our Pueblo communities and promoting Pueblo arts, culture, 

and lifestyles. 

In 1969, the United States began the long process of converting the 1884 Albuquerque Indian School Reserve which was the former site of a Federal Indian 

Boarding School. The first 11 acres conveyed were used to build the Indian Pueblo 

Cultural Center which was completed in 1976. The Cultural Center has a long history of successful self-sufficient operations. In 2013 we were recognized as ‘‘The 

Tribal Destination of the Year’’ by the American Indian Alaska Native Tourism Association. We are also a major contributor to our state and local economy as we are 

one of the top 3 most visited attractions in New Mexico hosting approximately 

470,000 visitors per year. 

In 1993, the United States placed an additional 44 acres of the former Albuquerque Indian School Reserve in trust for the 19 Pueblos. Those 44 acres make up 

the majority of the former school property. The Pueblos successfully created land development protocols with the City of Albuquerque, and this portion of the former 

school property is now the home to two large office buildings occupied by the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs, and a hotel owned by the Pueblos. The Pueblos are proceeding 

with additional office and retail development on the remaining property. 

In 2008, Congress enacted Public Law 110–453 requiring the Secretary of the Interior to convey an additional 8.5 acres of the former Albuquerque Indian School Reserve to the United States in trust for the 19 Pueblos. These parcels included the 

last remaining Indian School structure. Building 232, which formerly housed the 

BIA’s Southern Pueblos Agency, was originally built in 1931 and designed by Architect Joseph Padilla, a tribal member from Isleta Pueblo. The building had been slated for demolition, but IPMI was able to save it by financing a renovation project. 

The renovated building now houses the Native American Community Academy, a 

59 

public school chartered under Albuquerque Public Schools that serves approximately 

380 students. 

S. 2465 directs the Secretary of the Interior to place 11.11 acres of land in trust 

for the 19 Pueblos, consolidating several small parcels contiguous with the 44 acre 

tract that has been held in trust for the 19 Pueblos since 1993 and the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center property that has been held in trust for the Pueblos since 1978. 

Mr. Chairman, my written testimony includes a map and a detailed description 

of the tracts of land this bill seeks to convey. My written testimony also includes 

a letter of support from Albuquerque Mayor Richard Berry. 

Mr. Chairman, S. 2465 completes the process of transferring the BIA’s portion of 

the former Albuquerque Indian School Reserve to the 19 Pueblos. Most importantly, 

S. 2465 will allow the 19 Pueblos to continue the achievement of our vision for this 

property by providing economic development, educational and cultural opportunities 

for our Pueblos, the City of Albuquerque and the State of New Mexico. 

I want to thank the Committee for inviting me to testify this afternoon and I am 

happy to answer any questions. 

Attachments 

60 


709a11.eps
61 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Canfield. 

Thank you all for your testimony. 

I am going to start with you, President Fisher, on the Northern 

Cheyenne’s struggle with the subsurface rights on the land. These 

are subsurface rights that you were supposed to have but never 

had them. How long has the tribe been pursuing this legislation? 

Mr. FISHER. For 20 years. We started out in 1993, when we first 

approached GNP to transfer those lands to the tribe. 

The CHAIRMAN. So tell me, if we are able to make this transfer, 

what are going to be the impacts on the tribe once it is done? If 

we get this transfer done, how will it benefit the tribe? 


709a12.eps
62 

Mr. FISHER. The tribe would then own all the subsurface on the 

reservation. We own 445,000 acres, and there’s only the 5,000 acres 

in trust. Then it would be beneficial to the tribe, we can plan what 

we are going to with our royalties in the future. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. So there is no other subsurface on that, 

on the reservation you guys don’t own? This is the only potion of 

subsurface rights that the tribe does not have? 

Mr. FISHER. Right. The tribe owns all the other subsurface underneath the reservation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Let’s talk a little bit about the bill would 

transfer control of the Northern Cheyenne Trust Account into the 

Northern Cheyenne Permanent Fund. There are some folks who 

don’t understand how funds are administered by the Office of Special Trustee and how that works. Where did the funds in the Office 

of Special Trustee Account come from and how will the transfer to 

the Northern Cheyenne Permanent Fund benefit the tribe? Why 

would that be positive? 

Mr. FISHER. In 1992, the tribe has a water rights settlement. There was $30 million set aside to renovate the Tongue River Dam 

in Montana. And there was $5,000 left over and that was placed 

in a OST trust fund. Since then, the tribe has been utilizing the 

interest off that trust fund. When that is placed in our permanent 

fund, we would get a better investment from our permanent fund 

being utilized for tribal programs. 

The CHAIRMAN. Got you. In your testimony you also discuss land 

near Bear Butte in South Dakota and how it could protect that 

land from commercial development. What does the tribe plan to do 

with the land it owns near Bear Butte in South Dakota if those 

lands are taken into trust? 

Mr. FISHER. When we purchase land, land is everything to the 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe. We purchased land around Bear Butte, 

at the base of our sacred mountain. Many tribes, as well as the 

Northern Cheyenne go to fast there, tribes from Oklahoma, New 

Mexico, South Dakota all come to fast there and worship from that 

mountain. We want to preserve that mountain from commercial development. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, so just to follow up a little bit, and we 

talked about this a little bit yesterday when you were in my office, 

but tell us the tribes in South Dakota that you have worked with 

on Bear Butte? 

Mr. FISHER. We sent letters out to all the tribes in the State of 

South Dakota, asking for their support. The only tribe that gave 

me support right away over the phone was Rosebud, South Dakota. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask you, President Fisher, as you 

get written support for the South Dakota effort, if you could pass 

those along to the Committee, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. FISHER. I think we can get written support from the tribes 

in South Dakota. We just need to have time to get that information 

back to you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good, thank you. 

With that, Vice Chairman Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

President Fisher, just kind of along the lines of what we have 

been talking about here, the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act would 

63 

give your tribe the opportunity to benefit from coal development. 

And when I kind of look at some of the details in your testimony, 

you say there are some requirements out there going back to 1984. 

Your testimony indicates that this requirement could limit the 

tribe’s return on some of the royalty investment that you should be 

getting. 

Could you tell us a little bit more about how that plan from back 

in 1984 would affect the revenue that you would get, so you 

wouldn’t get as much as you think you should get? 

Mr. FISHER. This legislation was passed in 1948. We feel that it 

is going to affect us from not getting any revenue from this coal 

development for another 10 years or so. We are not going to receive 

any revenue from that coal development. 

Senator BARRASSO. So it would affect it for the next 10 years? 

Mr. FISHER. Right. 

Senator BARRASSO. Your written testimony also describes how 

important coal development will be long term for your tribe and 

tribal members. There are some potential roadblocks, like limited 

access to ports and markets that could limit the development of 

these resources. Could you describe how important foreign markets 

and domestic markets are for these resources and how that will affect your tribal economy? 

Mr. FISHER. Right now we have no intention for developing our 

coal. It is going to be up to the Northern Cheyenne people to have 

a referendum vote. I as tribal chair cannot give you an answer as 

to whether we are going to develop the coal or not. It is going to 

be up to the people by referendum vote if we go with coal development. So right now, there is no movement for coal development on 

the reservation. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Udall? 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Tester. In my introduction 

of Mr. Canfield I forgot to recognize the strong ties he has to the 

New Mexico community. He serves on a number of boards. He is 

on the board of directors of the Native American Community Academy, the American Indian Chamber of Commerce, the Albuquerque 

Chamber of Commerce, Junior Achievement of New Mexico, University of New Mexico Business and Advisory Board, the CNM 

Foundation Board and the New Mexico State Workforce Board. He 

stays active, in addition to running the Indian Pueblo Cultural 

Center. 

Mike, every time I visit the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, I am 

amazed by the breadth and quality of exhibits and the level of community engagement. Could you talk some about the events that 

occur there and the purposes that the Cultural Center serves in the 

community? 

Mr. CANFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Senator Udall. We are 

very proud of the Cultural Center as it stands now. As I mentioned, it is a self-sufficient organization that our forefathers founded back in the 1970s to create a meeting place for our people, as 

well as a place where we could share the important factors of our 

culture with all visitors throughout the world. We think we do a 

great job in accomplishing that with our visitors. We have several 

exhibits, we have a permanent exhibits which has a display of all 

64 

19 Pueblos and helps visitors understand the importance of our 

Pueblo communities. 

We also offer special services to all of our Pueblo members to 

come in and meet and use the facility. We are also a very profitable 

organization. As I mentioned, there are two corporations. One is a 

for-profit, Section 17, and the other is a non-profit. The for-profit, 

through economic development, generates all the funds necessary 

to run the non-profit. So we haven’t had to go out to our Pueblos 

and ask for contributions to maintain the level of service that you 

mentioned. It is an organization and an area that we are very, very 

proud of. Hopefully we are fulfilling the mission that our forefathers set before us. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. I believe you were here 

when BIA Director Mike Black testified, and the issues he raised, 

the one with the fire department and some of the legal description. 

Do you see any reason we can’t work through those issues? 

Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Chairman and Senator Udall, absolutely not. 

In fact, I talked with him earlier. Our intent was to honor that to 

allow them to still own that land as long as they needed it. I talked 

with the area director and he is in support of that. If we do that 

through an MOU or through language in this bill, we are absolutely open to that, and understand that they should be able to use 

it as long as they need it. 

Senator UDALL. Great. Thank you. 

Now, you have noted that the Mayor of Albuquerque is supportive, and I think you said there was a letter that he had submitted. Did you submit that for the record? 

Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Chairman and Senator Udall, yes, I did. 

Senator UDALL. Good. Are there other stakeholders, in addition 

to the Mayor of Albuquerque, the city council, others? Is there any 

opposition that you see on this? 

Mr. CANFIELD. No, actually the only other party that is involved 

might be the neighborhood association itself, of which I serve on 

the board there. And they are working very diligently with us in 

support of everything that we are doing. I can’t think of anybody 

that doesn’t think this is a great idea. 

Senator UDALL. Great. Thank you for all your hard work on this. 

We appreciate it. Thank you, Chairman Tester. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

Aletha, dealing with economic development, you have S. 2479 

that is going to restore about 26,000 acres to your reservation, adding to the 75,000 that you currently have that were restored back 

in 1980. That first reacquisition allowed the Moapa Paiute to establish within their small land base housing and commercial opportunities. In your testimony you state that 11,500 of the 26,000 

acres of the proposed transferred land on the south side of the reservation would be used for recreation and conservation development. I think that is great. Tell us more about that. 

Ms. TOM. It will provide us a little bit more recreation opportunities. The bill will also help to address the injustice that resulted 

from diminishment of the Moapa and Paiute tribes in 1875. So it 

would help develop more opportunities in our area. 

The CHAIRMAN. What kind of recreation are we talking about? 

65 

Ms. TOM. Similar to tribal tourism area for our tribe. Something 

we can do, because we are right off I–15, right off the major highway. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good. I want to hear a little bit about the solar 

energy production that I think if developed could provide some necessary energy to surrounding communities, electrical energy. Could 

you tell us more about the tribe’s proposed solar projects and where 

they are in our overall development? 

Ms. TOM. Yes. We have three right now, ResSolar, and we also 

have ResAmerica and we are working with a smaller development, 

Stronghold Solar. We would like to pursue that in our extra land. 

The CHAIRMAN. So some of the land proposed for transfer would 

be for solar development? 

Ms. TOM. Right, exactly. For energy, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to talk about that proposed housing development on 7,500 acres of the proposed land transfer. You state that 

housing is hard to come by on your reservation. But it might be 

helpful if you explain just how difficult it is for families to find 

homes, what are the housing needs of your tribe, how will this 

transfer help your tribe meet the housing needs required. 

Ms. TOM. We have two types of housing development on the reservation, it’s with HUD and also with the HIP program, the Housing Improvement Program. If we did get additional land, we would 

be able to provide more housing for our tribe, if we had additional 

land there, we would be able to get more housing for our people. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know how many units you are short right 

now? 

Ms. TOM. Yes, we are. Our tribal members have to kind of stand 

in line in order to get a HUD home. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right, thank you very much, Aletha. 

Chairman Melendez, as you state in your written testimony, the 

area devoted to Indian uses in Nevada is smaller than any of the 

other western and plain States. Your colony is basically landlocked 

by the City of Reno. In 1986, the tribe was able to get legislation 

for land expansion in Hungry Valley, in order to meet the needs 

of the tribe’s housing and other community development. Could you 

explain why the tribe needs this expansion? 

Mr. MELENDEZ. Yes. Our tribe originally, we are called colonies 

because we are small land bases. We had 28 acres in downtown 

Reno. The city has grown up around us. In 1986, Barbara Vucanovich sponsored a bill which was successful in gaining nearly 2,000 

acres in Hungry Valley. Hungry Valley is about 30,000 acres of a 

valley, we are basically 2,000 of the 30,000 acres. It is actually one 

mile wide by three miles long, that is the additional land from the 

Vucanovich legislation in 1986. 

We are trying to, our wells out in Hungry Valley, our rural reservation, are actually on BLM lands. The water is actually pumped 

onto the small reservation. So we are trying to basically widen the 

reservation so the wells would be on reservation land, the watershed. 

Then we want to get back to the cultural aspect. On 28 acres, 

we want to teach our culture. We do sweat lodges right in downtown Reno. We would like to get out to a more rural area to perform those ceremonies. So I think that to teach our children about 

66 

the outdoors and the trails and all the different things, petroglyphs 

and different things out in the area, I think it enhances our culture 

to really have a larger land base. That is really significant to us. 

The CHAIRMAN. In your testimony, you state the BLM is currently unable to manage this land and transferring it to the BIA 

will benefit the administration of this land. Just explain how the 

tribe and the BIA will do a better job managing these lands than 

the BLM. 

Mr. MELENDEZ. It would primarily, we work very well with the 

Bureau of Land Management in the state of Nevada. They have 

told us that they just don’t have the manpower to patrol the land 

with all of the littering and the things that are happening out 

there, off-road vehicles. I know that the tribe is probably in a better position in Hungry Valley with our police officers to really help 

them. 

We have assisted them in some areas identifying people who 

have really desecrated the land there. We have helped out. But I 

think we could do a better job because we have a little more manpower than BLM. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good. Let’s talk a little bit about local support 

for transfers, because I think they are pretty critical. Has your 

tribe worked with the city or local governments on these transfers, 

and what has been the reaction? 

Mr. MELENDEZ. It has been very good. We worked with the 

Washoe County Commission, which has jurisdiction up in the Hungry Valley area. It has been real positive, we haven’t had any negative feedback from anybody. I think in our economic development 

endeavors, in the city of Reno, we have worked very well with the 

Mayor. That is one of the reasons we have been successful, is that 

we work well with local governments. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is good. Just curious, maybe you mentioned 

it in your testimony, do you have letters of support from them? 

Mr. MELENDEZ. Yes, we do. I believe we have letters from the 

county. We do have those. 

The CHAIRMAN. Perfect. S. 2480 prohibits tribes from Class 2 and 

Class 3 gaming. How do you feel about that? 

Mr. MELENDEZ. Since Nevada is a gaming State, we are not really into gaming. I think it is a sovereignty right that tribes believe 

we should have. It is the same for a lot of things. But since this 

bill prohibits gaming, I don’t think that is an issue here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good. Thank you very much. 

Chairwoman Counts, I understand the deadline imposed by the 

Big Sandy settlement requires that Congressional ratification 

needs to take place sooner rather than later. How would the enactment of S. 2503, your bill, fit into the comprehensive agreement 

you are negotiating with the State and other water rights holders? 

Ms. COUNTS. It would bring us the ability to gain water rights. 

We have been on the Colorado from time immemorial and the 

Hualapai Tribe has no water rights. Our goal is to be able to obtain 

water rights for the tribe. This bill would fit into that. 

It would also help us to do the infrastructure study that would 

bring water up from the Colorado up to our resort, so that we could 

expand. Our tribal members travel 57 miles, 100 miles round trip 

67 

every day, rough roads, just to get to work. So we want to build 

a community out there. But in doing that, we need water. 

The CHAIRMAN. Got you. Not that this will happen, but if Congress was unable to act before December, how would that impact 

ratification of the Big Sandy and Hualapai agreements? 

Ms. COUNTS. It probably would all go away. All the work that we 

have done, it would go away, because of the deadlines that are existing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Based on your written testimony, the 

Freeport Minerals Corporation and the tribe have been working together very closely and effectively to hammer out everyone’s water 

rights. How have the tribe and the corporation cultivated this relationship? 

Ms. COUNTS. We have a very good relationship. When I came 

into office in August of 2012, they were already working together. 

I just came in and there was a table of 30, 40 people just sitting 

down working out this agreement. Here we are today, we have a 

really good relationship there. Really friendly to us. They really 

want to see us achieve the goals that we have. So our relationship 

is very good, and we would like to thank them for all their help. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is good. I think your ability to be inclusive 

is critically important. So we thank you for that. 

The Hualapai’s development of the Grand Canyon West is exactly the kind of tribal economic development that I think we need 

in Indian Country. I am interested to hear more about the plans 

that the tribe has for cultivating business and cultivating industry. 

Could you share with us some of the tribe’s business goals and how 

S. 2503 would help you achieve those goals? 

Ms. COUNTS. One of our goals is to become a major economic development for the people to provide resources and also to become 

a world class resort. We are working toward those goals. This settlement will really help us. We are working on infrastructure out 

there to Grand Canyon West. We have jumped through a lot of 

hoops to get where we are today. We are going to open our new 

Diamond Bar Road, which will give better access to the resort. 

Those are some of the things we are doing. This comprehensive settlement will help us achieve the water rights that we need for the 

future. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chairwoman Counts. We appreciate 

your leadership as well as the leadership of the other folks from 

Montana, Nevada and others. So thank you very, very much. 

Mr. Canfield, I would be remiss if I didn’t at least you one question. Senator Udall isn’t here, he got his questions in. The Indian 

Pueblo Cultural Center is one of the most visited tourist attractions 

in New Mexico, I am told. It is an example of what can happen 

when a tribe, or in this case, all Pueblos work jointly together with 

local and State partnership. 

I ask this question because I think it sets a good example for 

Congress. Maybe we need to pay attention to what you are doing 

and maybe we will be a little bit more effective. Can you describe 

how the Pueblos are able to work with local governments so successfully? 

Mr. CANFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I can. One of the 

unique things we have done at the property is that we have 19 difVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:58 Oct 14, 2014 Jkt 090791 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\90791.TXT JACK
68 

ferent owners, sovereign owners. So we have formed a political subdivision of 19 Pueblos, having resolutions from each tribal council 

empowering their government to act on their behalf. So that 

streamlined the bureaucratic process of passing ordinances and tax 

codes and so forth. 

We also have a business side and we have a governance side. The 

business side is run by a five-person board, myself and our staff. 

And then there is a governance side. We understand the mutual 

beneficial relationship for both, taxes as well as commerce, and we 

have the ability on the business side to operate as a business without encumbering ourselves with bureaucratic challenges and government challenges, frankly. So we are free to do what we need to 

do to make that business work. That has been a key to our success 

there. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. The transfer of this land has taken place 

over a reasonably long period of time. Why didn’t it all get transferred? 

Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I am not exactly sure of the exact 

reasons. But my opinion is that we probably didn’t have a good 

plan for everything and a good structure for it. Sometimes things 

happen or a reason. So I feel like this last transfer, we will be better prepared than we ever have been to take advantage of that. So 

it kind of completes the BIA transfer and gives us the ability to develop the entire piece of property, and now we have resources, 

plans, support to accomplish that. 

The CHAIRMAN. So to be clear, these final 11.11 acres means that 

all the former Pueblo Indian School Reserve Land will have been 

transferred, is that correct? 

Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Chairman, it does, with the exception of one 

small parcel on the map that right now is currently under GSA 

ownership. So this does complete the BIA’s holdings over to us, but 

now our sights are going to be to finish off, we are going to be 

working on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. How big is that? 

Mr. CANFIELD. I think it is probably about 20 acres or so. I am 

sorry I don’t have the exact coordinates. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is contiguous with the other parcels of land? 

Mr. CANFIELD. It is, yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. As I said several times 

today, I appreciate all your testimony. I appreciate your willingness 

to make the trek to D.C. It is not easy for folk who live in the west. 

So thank you very, very much. 

With that, I will state that the hearing will remain open for another two weeks for any additional information people might want 

to submit. With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:59 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(69) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

Thank you Chairman Tester and Vice-Chairman Barrasso for the opportunity to 

submit testimony on these two bills that would transfer land into trust for a total 

of eight Indian tribes in Nevada. 

Nevada’s Great Basin has always been home to the Washoe, Paiute and Western 

Shoshone Peoples. 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 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 

homelands. 

S. 2479, 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. 2479, would direct the Secretary of the Interior to take more than 26,000 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 tribe’s housing, economic development and cultural preservation. 

Located on I–15, the tribe runs the Moapa Paiute Travel Plaza. The tribe 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 tribe 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. 

S. 2480, The Nevada Native Nations Land Act 

The Nevada Native Nations Land Act, S. 2480, would transfer land into trust for 

seven northern Nevada tribes—the Elko Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians, 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 South Fork Band of the Te-Moak 

Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians. Like S. 2479, the Nevada Native Nations Land 

Act would allow these seven tribes to build housing for their members, preserve 

their cultural heritage and traditions, and provide opportunities for economic development. 

Since time immemorial, the Western Shoshone have been living in what is now 

known as southern Idaho, central Nevada, northwestern Utah, and the Death Valley region of southern California. The Elko and South Fork Bands are two of four 

bands that comprise the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians. 

The Elko Band’s reservation, or colony, is landlocked by the growing City of Elko, 

where band members have been coming for mining and railroad jobs for decades. 

The colony needs additional lands for housing and economic development. My legislation would expand the Elko Band’s reservation by transferring 373 acres of BLMmanaged land into trust for the tribe. 

70 

S. 2480 would also convey 275 acres, just west of the City of Elko, to Elko County 

to provide space for a BMX, motocross, off-highway vehicle, and stock car racing 

area. 

The South Fork Reservation, home to the South Fork Band, is comprised of 

13,050 acres. The Band was one of the groups of Western Shoshone that refused 

to move to the Duck Valley Reservation and stayed at the headwaters of the Reese 

River, near the present Battle Mountain Colony. Established by Executive Order in 

1941, the colony was originally 9,500 acres of land purchased under the Indian Reorganization Act. In addition to rugged high desert terrain near the foothills of the 

Ruby Mountains, the reservation has open range which is used for open cattle grazing and agricultural uses. The Nevada Native Nations Land Act would place 28,162 

acres of BLM land into trust for the tribes and release the Red Spring Wilderness 

Study Area (WSA) from further study. 

The Northern Paiutes made their homes throughout what is now known as Idaho, 

California, Utah and Nevada. 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 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. 2480 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. The colony has 1,100 Paiute, Shoshone and Washoe members some of whom 

live on a 1,920 acre reservation in Hungry Valley, which is 19 miles north of Reno. 

The Hungry Valley Reservation is surrounded by shooting and ATV activities and 

tribal member have requested a buffer zone to ensure the safety of their community. 

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. 2480 would expand the reservation with an additional 30,669 acres of BLM-managed land. 

This legislation is so 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 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 any other parts of Indian Country. During my time in the Senate, 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. 

71 

1 As noted above, our comments are also applicable to the current draft of H.R. 4924. 

2Mohave County has challenged ADWR’s rejection of our objections by filing an administrative appeal with the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF MOHAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA

Introduction 

Mohave County is located in northwestern Arizona, with its western boundary 

being generally the Colorado River and southern boundary being the Bill Williams 

River. Our County is approximately 13,500 square miles in area, which makes it 

the fifth largest county by area in the Continental United States. Mohave County 

is an important gateway to recreational opportunities in the Grand Canyon, the 

Lake Mead National Recreational Area, the Colorado River, and numerous wildlife 

refuges and wilderness areas. The Kaibab, Fort Mojave and Hualapai Indian Reservations also lie within our County. 

Our County’s largest city is Lake Havasu City, which along with Bullhead City, 

is right on the Colorado River. Kingman is our County seat, and it is a transportation hub that lies at the intersection of two major highways, Interstate I–40 and 

U.S. Route 93. Interstate I–40 runs across the Southern United States, connecting 

Wilmington, North Carolina, to Barstow, California. Route 93 connects Phoenix, Arizona, to Las Vegas, Nevada. In the future, proposed Interstate I–11 as designated 

by the United States Congress in the 2012 Surface Transportation Act will generally 

follow the alignment of U.S. Route 93. When that happens, Kingman and Mohave 

County will be then at the intersection of two major interstate highways. Mohave 

County also is served by the mainline of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, and by several regional airports. 

Our population growth over the past twenty years has been dramatic. In 1990, 

our population was 93,000—less than half of what it is today. By 2000, we had 

grown to 155,000 people, and today, over 200,000 people currently call Mohave 

County home. This growth has been accommodated through coordinated and careful 

planning by Mohave County, as well as by the municipalities of Lake Havasu City, 

Kingman and Bullhead City. Because Mohave County lies within the Mohave Desert 

where water is scarce to non-existent, we are extremely concerned about the wise 

use of our water resources—perhaps more than any other crucial factor, water availability will limit and define how we grow in the future. 

With this background in mind, we offer to the Committee on Indian Affairs our 

statement opposing Senate Bill S.2503 as currently drafted. 1

Basis for Our Opposition to Senate Bill S. 2503 

We have been largely kept in the dark about the status of this legislation. In 

2010, our County filed a protest to an application filed by Freeport Minerals Corporation (‘‘Freeport’’) to sever and transfer water rights appurtenant to Planet 

Ranch on the Bill Williams River to Freeport’s well field on the Big Sandy River. 

On Friday, June 6, we were informed by the Arizona Department of Water Resources that our objections had been summarily rejected. 2 Based on that rejection 

of our protest, we retained counsel who learned that the introduction of this legislation was imminent. Initial efforts to obtain even a draft of the proposed S. 2503 and 

the two settlement agreements that are referenced therein were met with resistance, although Senator Jeff Flake’s office did provide a draft copy of the legislation 

six days before its introduction on June 19, 2014. Approximately a week after the 

introduction of S. 2503, our County received drafts of the two settlement agreements. 

To date, and despite repeated requests, we have not received any of the numerous 

exhibits that are referenced in these settlement agreements, nor do we know if the 

agreements have been revised or finalized. As a consequence, we are providing these 

comments with the understanding that if and when the exhibits to the settlement 

agreements are ever made available to us, we may find it necessary to submit additional comments. 

Loss of Property and Sales Tax Revenue if Land is Taken Into Trust for the 

Hualapai Tribe 

Our current opposition to S. 2503 as introduced is partly based on the fact that 

under this legislation, Mohave County may suffer a loss of property tax revenues 

as developable owned land is transferred from private to Federal ownership for the 

benefit of the Hualapai Tribe. Subsection 5(e) of S. 2503 provides as follows: 

As provided in section 10.11 of the Hualapai Tribe Agreement, the parties to 

the Hualapai Tribe Agreement shall negotiate in good faith with other parties 

72 

3The entire caption of this Settlement Agreement is, ‘‘Hualapai Tribe Bill Williams River 

Water Rights Settlement Agreement.’’ As set forth above, Section 3 of this Agreement lists numerous exhibits, none of which have been made available to Mohave County. Because this 

Agreement is only available in draft form, references in our comments to sections or paragraphs 

of this Agreement are to the 6–23–2014 version of the same. The Banegas Ranch and the ROFR 

Lands are referenced as being graphically depicted on Exhibit 2.8 to the Agreement which 

again, has not been provided to Mohave County. 4Mohave County is very cognizant of the current dispute between the Tohono O’Odam Nation 

and the City of Glendale over land that the Nation purchased for construction of a casino in 

the west Salt River valley. This Board of Supervisors does not wish to replicate that dispute 

in Mohave County. 5 References are to the 6–23–2014 version of this agreement. We do not know whether this 

agreement has been amended or substantially revised. 

the terms under which any land within the State of Arizona held or acquired 

in fee by the Tribe may be taken into trust by the United States for the benefit 

of the Tribe, with any applicable terms to be incorporated into a future agreement settling the claims of the Tribe for rights to Colorado River water, and 

the Federal law approving the agreement, subject to approval by Congress. 

The Hualapai Tribe Agreement 3 simply restates this provision-it does not restrict 

or limit the current right of the United States to take additional land into Trust 

for the benefit of the Hualapai Tribe. Yet, under the Hualapai Tribe Agreement, the 

Hualapai Tribe could acquire several tracts of land from another party to the settlement, Freeport Minerals Corporation (‘‘Freeport’’). These tracts are identified in 

Paragraphs 4.2(iii) and 4.2(iv) of the Hualapai Tribe Agreement simply as the 

Benegas Ranch and the ROFR Lands (i.e., ‘‘Right of First Refusal Lands’’), respectively. No legal description or graphic depiction of the ROFR Lands has been provided to us. 

Under the worst case scenario, the Hualapai Tribe could acquire the Banegas 

Ranch or ROFR Lands (or both) by exercising its rights of first refusal; the Hualapai 

Tribe could then ask the United States to take these lands into Trust for its benefit. 

Nothing in S. 2503 or the Hualapai Settlement Agreement precludes this from happening. Under such circumstances, these lands would no longer be subject to taxation by Mohave County, and access across such tracts would be restricted by both 

the Tribe and United States. Long-term development on lands along the 1–11 corridor might also be restricted, or if these lands are developed by the Hualapai Tribe, 

such development might conflict with the general plan for Mohave County, and our 

zoning requirements and our development criteria. All of this would impose on our 

residents additional property tax burdens. 4

Because of this concern, S. 2503 should be amended to provide that no additional 

land within the Big Sandy River watershed will be taken into Trust without the 

consent of Mohave County. This amendment does not necessarily mean that Mohave 

County would veto any such effort by the Hualapai Tribe. Indeed, Mohave County 

supports the Hualapai Tribe in its efforts to protect Cofer Hot Spring on its Cholla 

Canyon Ranch from excessive groundwater withdrawals. It simply means that prior 

to any land being taken into Trust, our County and the Hualapai Tribe would work 

through and resolve anticipated planning, land use, access and water issues arising 

out of that Federal action. 

Planet Ranch Access and Water Issues 

Our Board has similar issues with the donation of the Planet Ranch property to 

the Arizona Game and Fish Commission . The second Settlement Agreement referenced in S. 2503 is the ‘‘Big Sandy River—Planet Ranch Water Rights Settlement 

Agreement’’ (‘‘Big Sandy Agreement’’). 5 Again, our County has not been provided 

with any of the exhibits that are referenced in the Big Sandy Agreement, notwithstanding the fact that at least 30 such exhibits are referenced in that Agreement. 

Under the somewhat cryptic provisions of Section 5.0 of the Big Sandy Agreement, 

Freeport intends to donate to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission certain unidentified lands in the Planet Ranch area along the Bill Williams River. As outlined 

above, any such donation would remove private land from the Mohave County’s tax 

rolls, thereby increasing the tax burden that must be shouldered by the other residents of Mohave County. 

In addition, there is no guarantee of access to the Planet Ranch property once it 

is conveyed to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission. Subsection 7(c) of S. 2503 

states: 

Public Access—Nothing in this Act prohibits reasonable public access to Planet 

Ranch or Lincoln Ranch in a manner that is consistent with all applicable FedVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:58 Oct 14, 2014 Jkt 090791 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\90791.TXT JACK
73 

6The City Scottsdale acquired Planet ranch in 1984 as a water farm with the intention of 

transporting Planet Ranch waters from the Bill Williams area to the City of Scottsdale for municipal use. Freeport acquired the Planet Ranch from Scottsdale by Special Warranty and Quitclaim Deed, dated December 8, 2011, and recorded in the records of Mohave County, Arizona, 

as Fee Number 2011062804 on December 14, 2011. 7Peter Corbett, ‘‘Scottsdale Gets $10.15 Million, Water Rights Worth $18 Million,’’ Arizona Republic (December 23, 2011), available at: http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/2011112/21 120111221 mining-company-agreesacquire-scottsdale-planet-ranch.html. 8Mohave County does not know anything about these water rights and therefore does not concede that such water rights remain valid. Indeed, perhaps they have been abandoned too. 

eral and State laws and any applicable conservation management plan implemented under the Conservation Program. 

This provision is not an affirmative statement that requires access to be provided 

to the public, but instead only states that access will be provided if State and Federal agencies feel like it. Instead, S. 2503 should affirmatively provide that such 

lands will be opened to the public and available for hunting, fishing and other recreational uses. 

Finally, there remain substantial questions about the validity of the Planet Ranch 

water rights that Freeport proposes to transfer to its Big Sandy well field . Each 

Settlement Agreement and S. 2503 includes numerous representations by the parties about the validity of the Planet Ranch water rights. Yet, in Subparagraph 4.2.1 

(vii) of the Big Sandy Agreement, Freeport represents that it is installing irrigation 

facilities to ‘‘re-irrigate’’ the Planet Ranch property to prevent forfeiture of the water 

rights by December 13, 2016. That date is five years after the date that Freeport 

acquired the Planet Ranch property from the City of Scottsdale. 6

Under Arizona law, non-use of a water right for a five year period may result in 

a determination that the water right has been lost through forfeiture. See for example, Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) Section 45–141.C. Freeport apparently recognizes that these water rights have not been used recently, and statements by representatives of the City of Scottsdale suggest that irrigation entirely stopped on the 

Planet Ranch property sometime in 2005. 7 This statement is further supported by 

a quick review of aerial photographs of the Planet Ranch Property. 

The aerial photos and statements by Freeport and others suggest that these water 

rights have already been forfeited and/or abandoned through non-use for more than 

a five-year period. During a public hearing before our Board of Supervisors on July 

2, 2014, Freeport mentioned that it had entered into an agreement with Scottsdale 

to acquire the Planet Ranch in 2006. Around 2007 both Scottsdale and Freeport 

began taking steps to transfer the Planet Ranch water rights to Freeport’s Big 

Sandy well field for mining purposes. Thus, the Planet Ranch water rights were 

abandoned seven or eight years ago when Scottsdale gave up on its plans to use 

waters from Planet Ranch for municipal purposes. 

At the same hearing, Freeport also stated that it had about 40,000 acre-feet of 

water rights that it could use to support its withdrawals of water from its Big Sandy 

well field. 8 If this is indeed the case, then it is not clear why Freeport even needs 

to sever and transfer water rights from Planet Ranch. Instead such rights should 

be left where they already are for the support of the riparian community along the 

lower reach of the Bill Williams River. 

Conclusion 

For the reasons set forth above, we oppose the passage of S. 2503 and its companion House Bill, H.R. 4924. As currently drafted, passage of this legislation may 

result in the loss of property and sales tax revenues and accessible public land in 

Mohave County. Instead, those parties to the settlement that are pushing this Congress for quick passage of legislation should provide the numerous exhibits to those 

of us in Mohave County and others who have a vested interest in this settlement, 

and then work with us to resolve our concerns. Only after our concerns have been 

addressed should this legislation become law. 

Please include our comments in the Congressional Record in this matter. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with comments on S. 2503, and we look forward to working with members of your Committee to resolve our concerns. 

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, 

I write in strong support of S. 2480, the ‘‘Nevada Native Nations Land Act,’’ and 

section 201(c) of the legislation which conveys 82 acres of land administered by the 

74 

U.S. Forest Service to our Tribes to be held in trust by the United States and made 

part of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes are pleased 

that our Senators, Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Dean Heller have introduced the bill this session. S. 2480 is the companion bill to H.R. 2455, introduced 

by Congressman Mark Amodei in 2013 which the House Natural Resources Committee approved for House consideration just last month. 

We thank the Committee for holding a legislative hearing on S. 2480. I join the 

other Nevada Indian Tribes covered under S. 2480, and Reno-Sparks Indian Colony 

Chairman Arlan Melendez, who testified before the Committee on behalf of all the 

Nevada tribes, in supporting this bill. Together with Senators Reid and Heller, I 

urge the Committee and the full Senate to approve the legislation this session. 

The land transfer is supported by both local and national Forest Service officials 

and is not controversial. The property we seek to have conveyed to us in trust for 

our benefit, located about 20 miles from Owyhee, Nevada, the site of our tribal government, is currently managed by the United States Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture. The parcel is located approximately ten 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. Once renovated, we plan to use the housing units to address the chronic housing shortage 

on the reservation and to provide construction jobs and job training for our members. 

The Forest Service abandoned the site and existing structures located there six 

years ago when the Service moved its District headquarters to Elko, Nevada, about 

80 miles south of the property. The 82 acre Forest Service parcel constitutes a tiny 

portion of the 82,000 acres of mostly Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands that 

would be transferred to tribal and local government control under S. 2480 and represents a small portion of the Forest Service’s Mountain City Ranger Station Administrative Site, but the parcel is very important to us. 

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. Owyhee, 

Nevada is situated 100 miles south of Mountain Home Idaho, a city of about 16,000 

and 100 miles north of Elko, Nevada, a city of about 18,000. The ability to provide 

housing in close proximity to Duck Valley is immeasurable as recruitment and retention is difficult for us in light of our housing shortage and isolation. 

The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes’ provision is required because the Forest 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 authorities 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. Sections 

201(c)(2)(A) and (B) resolve this issue by providing that an the Forest Service parcel 

is held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 

and shall be part of 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. 

Section 202(b) of S. 2480 requires all lands transferred to the seven tribes covered 

under the legislation must use the land for traditional and customary uses, stewardship conservation, residential or recreational development, renewable energy or mineral development. The provisions of this section are consistent with our intended use 

of the Forest Service parcel. 

S. 2480 correctly references the appropriate map, the ‘‘Mountain City Administrative Site Proposed Acquisition,’’ dated July 29, 2013, which reflects the corrected 

boundaries of the Forest Service parcel to be conveyed to us. We had clarified in 

our 2013 testimony to the House Natural Resources Committee concerning H.R. 

2455 that the earlier referenced site map needed to be corrected to reflect that the 

proposed acquisition site lies entirely to the east of Nevada Highway 225. We are 

pleased to see that the correct map of July 29, 2013, is included in section 201(c)(1) 

of S. 2480. Once the bill becomes law, the Secretary of the Interior will complete 

75 

a survey of the boundary lines to establish the boundaries of each parcel taken into 

trust. 

We are a remote, rural reservation that straddles the Idaho-Nevada 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. 

About 85 percent of our 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 in close proximity to Duck Valley. Unfortunately, infrastructure on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation is in short supply, 

especially affordable housing. 

With abandoned improvements only 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 six years. 

Acquisition of the Forest Service parcel, located close to 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. Recent data from the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development shows that within our housing formula area, there are 242 Native 

American households that are overcrowded, 205 Native American households have 

housing expenses greater than 50 percent of Median Family Income and 877 Native 

American households that earn less than 80 percent of Median Family Income. Median family income in Owyhee, Nevada is around $30,000 annually. 

If enacted into law this session, S. 2480 will permit us to administer the site, plan 

and begin renovations to utilize the improvements for our benefit. The improvements we plan to make would provide an opportunity to put our members to work. 

Unemployment on the Duck Valley Reservation is very high. We plan to utilize the 

renovation work as a training exercise through our Tribal Employment Rights Ordinance (TERO) and 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 maintain the site. 

In conclusion, conveyance of the approximately 82 acre Forest Service parcel to 

the us in trust will assist the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes address our housing shortage, 

strengthen our tribal government programs by helping us retain personnel who 

need affordable housing near the Duck Valley Indian Reservation and create construction work and job training opportunities for our Tribal members. We support 

S. 2480 and urge its prompt passage. 

Thank you for affording the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes the opportunity to submit 

testimony to the Committee regarding S. 2480. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GERALD TEMOKE, CHAIRMAN, ELKO BAND COUNCIL

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. The Elko Band Council 

is a constituent band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada. 

For the last 17 years Elko Band Council has pursued additional land for expansion 

of its current land base which is 192.80 acres. Millions of acres within the State 

of Nevada are under the authority of the Bureau of Land Management. Elko Band 

Council is only requesting a small portion of the lands to be held in trust for its 

enrolled membership for housing, cultural activities, recreation, economic development, and gravesites. Most Tribes throughout the United States have thousands of 

acres for their land base to provide for the needs of their people. Elko Band does 

not have the adequate land base to expand and grow with its population which has 

increased to approximately 1,500 enrolled members. Elko Band has the largest population and our land base is the smallest. Additional land is greatly needed and essential to sustain growth and provide necessary services to our people. 

76 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE CHARTER, NORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on S. 2442, Senator Walsh’s 

Northern Cheyenne Lands Act. My name is Steve Charter. My family and I ranch 

above some of the coal proposed for exchange by this bill. I write on behalf of us 

and on behalf of Northern Plains Resource Council, whose board of directors I currently chair. 

Northern Plains is a grassroots conservation and family agriculture non-profit organization based in Billings, Montana. Northern Plains organizes Montana citizens 

to protect our water quality, family farms and ranches, and unique quality of life. 

Northern Plains formed in 1972 over the issue of coal strip mining and its impacts 

on private surface owners who own the land over federal and state mineral reserves. 

Our members care deeply about Montana, its future, and the issues surrounding 

coal. Many of our members’ livelihoods as ranchers and farmers depend entirely on 

clean air and water, native soils and vegetation, and lands that remain intact. The 

strip mining of coal affects us directly. 

Given that, I’m writing to express some concerns about this bill. I’d like to open, 

however, with what we support. 

What Northern Plains Supports: 

1. Conveying Coal Beneath the Reservation to the Northern Cheyenne: We think 

the Tribe ought to have control of all the resources above, on, and below their 

reservation. 

2. Surface Owner Consent: This bill seeks to preserve the intent of the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) by providing some 

protections for landowners. That bill preserved the right of surface owners 

like me to decide whether their land will be strip mined if they live above 

federal coal. Transferring the coal under me to private ownership would normally take away that right, threatening the ranch my family and I have 

worked for several generations now. By including a provision in the bill that 

transfers Surface Owner Consent with the exchanged Bull Mountain minerals, I at least maintain some of the existing protections for my ranch and 

livelihood. 

3. Maintenance of Resource Management Plan Restrictions on Mining Methods: 

In addition to SMCRA’s provision for Surface Owner Consent, the Bureau of 

Land Management’s Resource Management Plan for the area includes a provision that the federal coal sought for exchange in this bill be mined exclusively by underground methods. My family and our neighbors worked hard 

for that, and it’s something we don’t want to lose. There is currently no strip 

mining in the Bulls. Adding surface mining to existing longwall mining operations would risk destroying aquifers, making sustained agriculture in the 

Bulls untenable. It would destroy invaluable cultural artifacts (there are pictographs and other artifacts out here, a product of many generations of Native American use of these lands). And it would be a tremendous insult to 

the history of the families who live and work here now. My family’s ashes 

are scattered on this ground. I don’t want to see it torn up. 

As alternatives to the RMP language currently in the bill, we would support an 

outright ban on surface mining of the conveyed Bull Mountain tracts. We would also 

be supportive of removing Bull Mountain tracts from the bill, which would perhaps 

be progress toward address our concern detailed below. 

What Needs To Be Changed: 

1. Any Exchange Should Be More Balanced: This bill proposes a ton-for-ton 

trade of coal, giving Great Northern Properties roughly the same number of 

tons of coal being conveyed to the Tribe. Merely operating on a ton-for-ton basis 

is unreasonable- that’s like trading a house in Shepherd, Montana for a house 

in the Hamptons. 

The coal that Great Northern Properties would acquire in this bill is some 

of the highest-value coal in Montana—adjacent to existing mines with already-established infrastructure. The coal in the Bull Mountains where I live 

is notably higher BTU than the coal under the Northern Cheyenne reservation. As the Interior Department struggles to address evidence that it is already undervaluing federal coal, taxpayers deserve a hard look at the balance 

of how much coal is exchanged in this bill. This bill should convey less coal 

to Great Northern Properties in an attempt to make the exchange more balanced and to avoid unduly transferring public wealth to a private corporation. 

77 

In closing, we strongly agree with the bill’s intent to return coal to the Northern 

Cheyenne. I more than many know what it’s like to have someone else owning the 

coal beneath your land. However, as a country, we should be able to fix this problem 

and strike a more equitable balance on behalf of federal taxpayers at the same time. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANDI DESOTO, CHAIRWOMAN, SUMMIT LAKE PAIUTE

COUNCIL

On behalf of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony in support of S. 2480, 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, to conditionally adopt a form of government suggested 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. Additionally, it takes 5 hours to travel to the Reservation from 

Reno, Nevada, with the final 3 hours on a seasonally impassible dirt road. 

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. S. 2480 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. 2480 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 Paiute Tribe has long sought these lands which should have 

been a part of the Reservation from inception a century ago. 

78 

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 Paiute Tribe I respectfully and strongly urge your support. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ELWOOD LOWERY, CHAIRMAN, PYRAMID LAKE PAIUTE

TRIBE

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. 2480, 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. 2480 (Sec. 201(f)) 

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 right 

this perceived wrong and transfer these as well as additional 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. 2480 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 

79 

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 Senate Bill 2480. 

Thank you for your consideration of the preceding testimony. 

80 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LA PAZ COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS


709b1.eps
81 


709b2.eps
82 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRANCIS MCALLISTER, VICE PRESIDENT OF LAND & 

WATER, FREEPORT MINERALS CORPORATION

Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and members of the Committee: 

My name is Francis McAllister and I am the Vice President of Land & Water at 

Freeport Minerals Corporation. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony 

in support of S. 2503, the Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2014, 

which authorizes, ratifies, and approves agreements between the Hualapai Tribe 

(Tribe), the U.S. Department of the Interior, acting on behalf of itself and as trustee 

for the Tribe, its members and Allottees (U.S. DOI), the Arizona Game & Fish Commission (AGFC), the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) and Freeport 

Minerals Corporation (Freeport). 

Special thanks to Senator Flake and Senator McCain for co-sponsoring this bill 

and for their continued support. I would also like to thank both of you for scheduling this hearing to consider this important piece of legislation, and we greatly appreciate the work personal and Committee staff, have devoted to moving this bill 

through the Committee process. 

In brief, this Legislation approves a public/private agreement that will: 

1.) Recognize and confirm the Tribe’s existing water rights in the basin and protect culturally significant water supplies; 


709b3.eps
83 

2.) Provide $1,000,000 of non-federal money to the Hualapai Tribe from Freeport for additional water studies and will provide an additional non-federal 

contribution from Freeport to establish an Economic Development Fund for 

the Tribe; 

3.) Donate over 3,400 acres of land for the purposes of the Lower Colorado River 

Multi-Species Conservation Program (LCR MSCP) to assist the Lower Colorado River water users in complying with Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements; and 

4.) Effectuate the transfer of 10,055 acre-feet per year of water rights to Freeport’s Wikieup Wellfield and limits Freeport’s water consumption from 

Wikieup at this level. 

This legislation is a win-win for Indian Country, endangered species, and sustainable and responsible mining. My testimony provides background information and an 

overview of the terms of the Settlement and its benefits. 

I. Background 

Freeport is a leading producer of copper and other minerals. The Company is 

headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona and its workforce in the U.S. at the end of 2013 

included 13,300 direct employees and 1,900 contractors. In Arizona, Freeport owns 

and operates a copper smelter and five mining operations, which includes a large 

open-pit copper and molybdenum mining complex in Bagdad, Arizona. 

A fundamental element of Freeport’s U.S. operations includes direct engagement 

with Native American tribes. Education has been identified as a priority issue for 

Freeport’s partnership with Indian Country, and in 2013 our Native American University scholarship program awarded 58 college scholarships to members of the 

Hualapai, San Carlos Apache, and White Mountain Apache tribes. We also contributed, including through the Native American Partnerships Fund, approximately 

$250,000 toward initiatives such as training on forest management for carbon sequestration on reservations and supported the San Carlos Apache Women’s Conference, a forum for tribal women to share experiences on topics including family 

health. 

Our technical training program with the San Carlos Apache Tribe in Arizona, the 

first of its kind between Freeport and a U.S. tribe, will increase the employability 

and skills of Apache students who are faced with high unemployment in their community. The program will train and certify students in heavy equipment operations 

and industrial maintenance, and through the end of 2013, 200 students have entered the program and 42 have graduated—most of whom have been hired or are 

in the process of being hired. 

Freeport’s partnership in the Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement negotiations (S. 2503) with the Hualapai Tribe marks the latest chapter in its proactive 

effort to work with Native American communities that live in and around the Company’s operations. This legislation is a milestone for all the parties involved, and 

Freeport is honored to join the Hualapai Tribe in advancing this important effort. 

We particularly want to acknowledge the tireless effort of Hualapai Chair Sherry 

Counts, who was both steady and inspiring in her leadership on this settlement. 

The Company greatly treasures its strong relationship with the Hualapai people 

that developed through the years of settlement discussions that brings us before the 

Committee today. 

Additionally, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of the Federal Team for their 

work in helping to bring this Legislation to you today. In particular, the efforts of 

Letty Belin, Senior Counsel to the Deputy Secretary at the Department of the Interior; Pamela Williams, Director, Secretary’s Indian Water Rights Office at the Department of the Interior; and Ruth Thayer, Program Manager at the Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; all of whom have done a tremendous job and 

I would like to recognize them for their significant time and efforts on this matter. 

II. Protection of Freeport Bagdad’s Water Rights 

Freeport’s Bagdad Arizona mining operation is located approximately 60 miles 

west of Prescott and 100 miles northwest of Phoenix, in Yavapai County. The openpit mine has been ongoing since 1945, and prior mining was conducted through underground workings dating back to 1882. The Bagdad operation encompasses approximately 21,750 acres, comprising 21,150 acres of patented mining claims and 

other fee lands and 600 acres of unpatented mining claims. Production at the Bagdad mine in 2013 totaled 216 million pounds of copper and 8 million pounds of molybdenum. The direct and indirect economic contribution of the Bagdad Mine to Arizona’s economy totaled $339.1 million. 

84 

As with all mining operations, the Bagdad operation requires a dedicated water 

supply. The current water supplies for the Bagdad Mine include access to groundwater and surface water resources in the Big Sandy River Groundwater Basin and 

the Big Sandy River in the Bill Williams River Watershed. Although the Company 

believes the Bagdad operation has sufficient water sources to support current operations, Bagdad faces the potential for increases in competing water demands and 

variability in water supplies due to an on-going drought. We are particularly sensitive to this issue because litigation at our other Arizona facilities may set legal 

precedents that could adversely affect Freeport’s water rights at Bagdad. 

The need to protect and ensure a long-term sustainable water supply for the Bagdad operation is the basis for Freeport’s involvement in the water rights settlement 

with the Hualapai Tribe. Beginning with the purchase of Planet Ranch, Freeport 

sought to shore up its existing water rights along the Big Sandy River. Planet 

Ranch located along the Bill Williams River in northwestern Arizona has historically been irrigated for agricultural production dating back to 1960s and 1970s. The 

City of Scottsdale (near the City of Phoenix) purchased Planet Ranch in 1984 as an 

additional source of water for its future municipal water supplies. After years of failing to move water from Planet Ranch to Scottsdale, Scottsdale decided to liquidate 

its interest in the ranch, and in 2006 Freeport and Scottsdale entered into an agreement for the purchase of Planet Ranch, which the two parties completed in 2011 

(for $24 million). 

Consistent with Arizona State law, in 2010, Freeport filed with ADWR an Application to transfer a portion of the water rights from Planet Ranch to Freeport’s 

Wikieup Wellfield along the Big Sandy River (located approximately 71 river miles 

upstream of the Planet Ranch property). In response to this filing, the AGFC and 

U.S. DOI acting in its capacity as trustee for the Hualapai Tribe filed objections 

with ADWR to the transfer, citing alleged impacts to water rights in the area affecting habitat along the Bill Williams River, specifically the Bill Williams Wildlife Refuge, located immediately downstream of the Planet Ranch property and areas that 

are culturally important to the Tribe. 

In response to these objections, Freeport began discussions with the parties to resolve the water rights dispute. In 2013, the AGFC, ADWR, the Hualapai Tribe and 

Freeport reached an agreement in principle to move forward on a settlement and 

resolution of these objections in exchange for, among other things, Freeport’s recognition of tribal water rights on parcels owned by the Tribe and Allottees in the 

Big Sandy River watershed and Freeport’s commitment to make financial contributions toward a future settlement of the Tribe’s water rights claims in other river 

basins. The agreement in principle is the basis of the Bill Williams River Water 

Rights Settlement Act of 2014. 

III. Overview of the Bill Williams Water Rights Settlement Act 

The Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2014 (Settlement Act) approves, ratifies and confirms the Big Sandy River—Planet Ranch Water Rights Settlement Agreement and the Hualapai Tribe Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreements). The Settlement Act is an important first 

step and blueprint for a comprehensive settlement of the Tribe’s water rights claims 

in other river basins, such as the Lower Colorado River. 

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreements, Freeport agrees to the confirmation of certain water rights for the Tribe (and the U.S. acting as Trustee for the 

Tribe, it members and Allottees). More specifically, the Settlement Agreements provides the Hualapai Tribe with waivers and release of claims from Freeport and the 

U.S. DOI (acting on behalf of its constituent bureaus) for diversion of 694 acre-feet 

of water in the Bill Williams watershed in Arizona, specifically: 

• Claims for injury resulting from the diversion of water by the U.S. DOI, acting 

as Trustee for the Tribe or the Allottees for use on the Allotments or the 

Hualapai Reservation; 

• Past and present claims of injury for the use of water by the U.S. DOI, acting 

as Trustee for the Tribe or the Allottees in the amount of 82 acre-feet per year 

on Trust Land Parcel 1; 312 acre-feet per year on Trust Land Parcel 2; and 300 

acre-feet per year on Trust Land Parcel 3; and 

• Past, present and future claims arising out of, or relating in any manner to, 

the negotiation or execution of the Settlement Agreements. 

The Settlement Agreements also provide for the protection of the Tribe’s water 

rights at Cofer Hot Spring located on Cholla Canyon, which is an area of cultural 

significance to the Tribe, including: (1) Freeport’s agreement to curtail the drilling 

of any new production wells (a well with a capacity in excess of 35 gallons per 

minute) in the volcanic aquifer (including on Freeport’s Banegas Ranch and other 

85 

Freeport-owned properties) that supplies the Cofer Hot Spring; (2) Freeport’s agreement that if Freeport’s existing pumping (limited to certain wells not to exceed 35 

gallons per minute) is causing an adverse impact to the Cofer Hot Spring, that Freeport will work with the Tribe to address the impact; and (3) Freeport’s agreement 

to grant to the Tribe a First Right of Refusal to match a bona fide offer to purchase 

Banegas Ranch or other specific Freeport-owned lands. 

The Hualapai Tribe also benefits from two significant non-federal financial contributions that will be the cornerstone of a potential future comprehensive settlement of the Tribe’s water rights claims on the Lower Colorado River and Verde 

River in Arizona. 

First, Freeport is providing a non-federal contribution of $1,000,000 that the Tribe 

can immediately use to develop the necessary professional studies to find the most 

appropriate alternative for delivery of Colorado River water directly to the Reservation. Completion of this study before comprehensive settlement discussions begin 

will potentially facilitate a settlement of the outstanding claims of the Tribe and 

provide earlier benefits to Tribal members. 

The second non-federal contribution provided by Freeport to the Tribe comes in 

the form of an Economic Development Trust that will enable the Tribe to seek the 

purchase of lands and water rights in Arizona along the Colorado River. Without 

these substantial non-federal contributions, the settlement of the Tribe’s claims 

could be significantly delayed or reduced and would come at a higher cost to federal 

taxpayers. 

The Agreements related to this Act will also provide for the donation of a portion 

of the Freeport-owned Planet Ranch land and water rights to the AGFC. These 

lands will then be leased to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for the long-term benefit of the LCR MSCP. 

The LCR MSCP is a program developed cooperatively between the federal government and representatives from the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada. The 

goal of the LCR MSCP is to recover ESA-listed species as well as reduce the likelihood of future listings, and all while also protecting current water diversions and 

power production. In addition, the LCR MSCP provides opportunities and ESA protection for future water and power development on the Colorado River, which is 

vital to Arizona’s water supplies. This legislation will approve the long-sought addition of Planet Ranch to the LCR MSCP by the United States and it will fulfill important habitat needs of the Southwestern Willow Fly Catcher and Yuma Clapper 

Rail, among many other listed species. 

Freeport is also providing waivers to the AGFC for the donation and transfer of 

the water rights to the LCR MSCP leased lands. These lands that are currently 

under private ownership with limited access are, under the legislation, to be converted to public lands with public access provided consistent with federal and state 

laws. 

To protect water rights in the area, Freeport further agrees to limit its withdrawals of water from the Wikieup Wellfield to no more than 10,055 acre-feet per 

year for the remainder of its mining operations at the Bagdad Mine. 

In exchange for these significant concessions, the Settlement Agreements provide 

to Freeport waivers of the objections filed by the AGFC and the U.S. DOI acting 

on behalf of itself and as trustee for the Tribe, its members and Allottees which will 

allow for the partial water rights transfer from Planet Ranch to the Wikieup 

Wellfield. This will provide to Freeport secure water rights for its continued operations at the Bagdad Mine in northwestern Arizona. 

IV. Conclusion 

This Settlement Act is a fair, equitable, and final settlement of certain claims 

among the Tribe, the U.S. DOI acting on behalf of itself and as trustee for the Tribe, 

its members and Allottees, the AGFC, the ADWR (in a limited capacity related to 

the transfer of the water rights) and Freeport to water rights in the Bill Williams 

River watershed in the State of Arizona. It is beneficial for all the parties involved 

by providing long-term certainty and promotes a reliable water supply for the Tribe, 

Freeport and the LCR MSCP. 

The Settlement Act is a perfect example of a successful regional collaboration to 

address the Hualapai Tribe’s water rights claims. As a part of this Act, Freeport 

is making two significant non-federal contributions towards the Tribe’s analysis and 

acquisition of water rights, an important factor in enabling a future comprehensive 

Indian Water Rights Settlement. This Settlement would further avoid many years 

of potential litigation at great expense to the parties and the continued uncertainty 

concerning the availability of our precious water supplies in the region. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, and other Members of the 

Committee for the opportunity to present this important Indian water rights settleVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:58 Oct 14, 2014 Jkt 090791 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\90791.TXT JACK
86 

ment, which will significantly improve the reliability of regional water supplies for 

Freeport, the U.S. and the Tribe. Freeport strongly supports S. 2503, and looks forward to seeing this provision advance through the legislative process. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. GRAHAM, STATE DIRECTOR, THE NATURE

CONSERVANCY

The Nature Conservancy supports sections of S. 2503 and H.R. 4924, the Big 

Sandy River-Planet Ranch Water Rights Settlement Agreement, as outlined below. 

We thank you all for your leadership and support of this important issue. This can 

serve as a model for how water agreements can benefit both people and nature. It 

is powerful to have our entire delegation as co-sponsors of this legislation. 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is an international, nonprofit organization dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is to conserve the lands 

and waters on which all life depends. Our on-the-ground conservation work is carried out in all 50 states and in more than 30 foreign countries and is supported by 

approximately one million individual members. We have helped conserve nearly 15 

million acres of land in the United States and Canada and more than 102 million 

acres with local partner organizations globally. 

The Conservancy owns and manages approximately 1,400 preserves throughout 

the United States—the largest private system of nature sanctuaries in the world. 

We recognize, however, that our mission cannot be achieved by core protected areas 

alone. Therefore, our projects increasingly seek to accommodate compatible human 

uses, and especially in the developing world, to address sustained human well-being. 

In Arizona, The Nature Conservancy has created a dozen nature preserves and 

developed new funding sources for conservation throughout the state. In this capacity, TNC has been a long running member of the Bill Williams River Corridor Steering Committee in Arizona. This partnership effort has members with diverse management concerns and responsibilities, all tied to a unique tributary of the lower 

Colorado River. The committee serves as a venue to address a wide range of matters, from the Army Corps’ operation of their Alamo Dam facility to the issues associated with the Planet Ranch property, and strives to produce solutions built on consensus and inclusivity. 

It was within the Steering Committee’s discussions that TNC developed our position on Planet Ranch in terms of its ownership and water rights uses. It is only 

these areas of the proposed Congressional legislation that we are expressing support 

and comments on proposed legislative action. We are very supportive of gaining certainty through this agreement for all involved and are supportive of Freeport 

McMoRan’s (Freeport) efforts to do the same. 

The Bill Williams River watershed contains large unfragmented lands and significant biological diversity for the state of Arizona. It sits at the intersection of three 

arid regions—Sonoran Desert, Mohave Desert, and Colorado Plateau—yet includes 

more than 150 miles of perennial streams and rivers. These streams support nine 

native fish species and more than 340 bird species, and the watershed provides 

habitat for at least ten globally rare species. Extensive riparian forests of cottonwood, willow, and mesquite line the rivers and include the largest and healthiest 

remnant of the vegetation that once characterized the banks of the lower Colorado 

River. 

The purchase of Planet Ranch by Freeport in late 2011 from the City of Scottsdale 

provides the opportunity for significant benefits to all parties and the public by providing more certainty with respect to water rights in the watershed and that Planet 

Ranch will be owned by the State of Arizona and used permanently for habitat purposes in preserving a natural ecosystem. 

We support the sections of the proposed legislation that would accomplish the following: 

• Portions of Planet Ranch are transferred to the Arizona Game & Fish Department 

• One-third of Planet Ranch water rights are transferred to Arizona Game and 

Fish in an equitable manner 

• Freeport commits, in perpetuity, to no increases in water use for the Wikieup 

Wellfield, and to regular verification of this agreement and suitable repercussions for failure to follow it, in a way acceptable to the United States Fish & 

Wildlife Service and the Arizona Game & Fish Department 

• Federal Government to remove its objections at Arizona Department of Water 

Resources to the Planet Ranch water transfer 

87 

• Credit to the Lower Colorado River Multispecies Conservation Program (MSCP) 

for the new riparian habitat created by the project 

We understand there is a study of the Hualapai Tribe water claims currently underway, and we urge future action to provide for the settlement and legislative confirmation of the Federal reserved water rights for the Bill Williams River National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

Separate and apart from Congressional action, The Conservancy wants to continue a dialogue with Freeport to address issues outside of legislative action including: 

• Disposition of the remaining water rights when the Bagdad mine is no longer 

in operation; and 

• Use of the remaining water rights associated with Planet and Lincoln Ranches. 

Thank you again for the opportunity for us to discuss and assist in passage of 

this important action. 

ARIZONA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

July 8, 2014 

Hon. JON TESTER, 

Chairman, 

Hon. JOHN BARRASSO, 

Vice Chairman, 

U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Tester and Vice Chairman Barrasso: 

The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry urges your support of S. 2503, 

The Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2014. The Act will provide 

long-term certainty to both tribal and other water users in northwest Arizona. 

S. 2503 is the result of an agreement between the Hualapai Tribe, the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission and Freeport 

Minerals Corporation. In addition to the support of each of the stakeholders, the Act 

also has the support of the entire Arizona congressional delegation. 

The Act would ratify the Big Sandy River-Planet Ranch Water Rights Settlement 

Agreement and the Hualapai Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Agreement, and would facilitate a fair and equitable settlement of claims to water rights 

along the Bill Williams watershed in Arizona. In the agreement, Freeport Minerals 

Corporation will provide a tribal water supply study necessary to the Hualapai 

Tribe’s claims for Colorado River water and will enable the Tribe to purchase Colorado River water rights to help facilitate a future comprehensive settlement. In exchange, Freeport will secure water rights for its continued operations in northwestern Arizona. 

Water is a critical component to the economic vitality of the state of Arizona. The 

settlement of water rights claims is a priority in our state in order to provide clarity 

and long-term certainty to all water users across Arizona. 

We hope that this legislation can be swiftly approved by the Senate Committee 

on Indian Affairs. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can provide any insight 

into this important issue. 

Sincerely, 

GLENN HAMER, 

President/CEO 

HON. MARK LEWIS, DIRECTOR, CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT

Phoenix, AZ. 

Hon. JEFF FLAKE, 

2200 East Camelback Road, Suite 120, 

Phoenix, AZ. 

SUPPORT OF BILL WILLIAMS RIVER WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT OF 2014 

S. 2503 

Dear Jeff, 

I am the senior elected Director on the Central Arizona Project board representing 

Maricopa County. I am writing to you in support of the Bill Williams River Water 

Rights Settlement Act of 2014, S. 2503. While most of the bills subject matter does 

88 

1 http://www.azgfd.gov/wlc/LowerColoradoRiverMulti-speciesConservationPrograms.shtml 

not directly affect the Central Arizona Project or my constituents in Maricopa County, I personally support this water settlement bill. This bill is one of many Indian 

Water Rights settlements passed and funded over the years, and is a great first step 

in settling the remaining Tribal claims in Arizona. 

Maricopa County residents, whom I represent, contribute a small share of the 

$626 million dollar partnership between 3 states and the USBOR for Multi Species 

Conservation Program ‘‘MSCP’’ as our contribution to preservation of wildlife and 

habitat on the Colorado River, which in turn is part of the conditions for our Environmental Permits to withdraw water from the river. Maricopa County residents 

struck a grand balance between water withdraws from the river and environmental 

protection of wildlife, plants and river Biology. This legislation and the donation of 

the water rights from the Planet Ranch by natural resource companies save tax dollars and promote the MSCP program. 

There are 26 species ‘‘covered’’ by the LCR MSCP; 6 threatened and/or endangered species and 20 non-federally listed species. There are an additional five ‘‘evaluation’’ species, which could be added to the covered species list for the LCR MSCP. 

Among the threatened and endangered species covered are the razorback sucker, 

the bonytail chub, the humpback chub, the southwestern willow flycatcher, the 

Yuma clapper rail, and the desert tortoise. 1

Because of my senior position on the board, and my conservative desire to maintain our water withdraw permits for Maricopa County; I support the Bill Williams 

River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2014. 

And while I do not speak for the Board, and I am providing my own opinion as 

the most senior elected director representing Maricopa County I am happy to support S. 2503. 

Thank you, 

MARK LEWIS, 

STATE OF ARIZONA

July 7, 2014 

Hon. JEFF FLAKE, 

United States Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Senator Flake: 

For over a century, Arizona has taken seriously its obligation to all of its citizens 

to ensure that there are sufficient and secure water supplies now and into the future. Arizona has been a leader in water conservation and reuse; in securing and 

delivering water supplies to meet the needs of all Arizonans; and in comprehensive 

water management of this vital resource. Earlier this year, I released a report entitled, Arizona’s Next Century: A Strategic Vision for Water Supply Sustainability. In 

this document we have laid the groundwork for moving Arizona securely forward 

into the next century. 

In light of Arizona’s continued commitment to a secure water supply future, I am 

pleased to express my support for the Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement 

Agreement of 2014 (S. 2503/H.R. 4924). This Legislation is consistent with the Strategic Vision for the State of Arizona and represents an agreement that brings together Tribal and private industry in a solution-oriented way that will serve as an 

example for future water supply development opportunities. The benefits to the 

Hualapai Tribe in securing future water rights for their Tribal members is especially important and will be important in laying a foundation for continued economic 

development in this region. 

I truly appreciate your efforts, and those of the entire Arizona delegation, in supporting this important legislation. 

Sincerely, 

JANICE K. BREWER, GOVERNOR. 

YAVAPAI COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Prescott, AZ, July 10, 2014 

Hon. JEFF FLAKE, 

United States Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

89 

Dear Senator Flake, 

As a longtime resident of Yavapai County, former Mayor of the City of Prescott 

and current Chairman for the Board of Supervisors, I am expressing my complete 

support for the Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Agreement of 2014 (S. 

2503/H.R. 4924). 

As history shows, Arizona has been proactively building resilience and implementing innovative water management strategies to secure dependable water supplies for our future. This proposed Legislation is precisely the vehicle needed to 

bring together our future water supply development opportunities and economic security into the next century.I appreciate the commitment of our current political 

leaders in supporting this vital legislation. 

Sincerely, 

ROWLE P. SIMMONS, CHAIRMAN. 


709b4.eps
90 


709b5.eps
91 


709b6.eps
92 


709b7.eps
93 


709b8.eps
94 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JON TESTER TO

HON. ARLAN MELENDEZ


709b9.eps 709b10.eps
95 

Æ 


709b11.eps