89–010 

1 California Rancheria Act of 1958, Pub. L. No. 85–671, 72 Stat. 619, 619–21 (1958). 

Calendar No. 166 

116TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 116–67 

TO TAKE LANDS IN SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, INTO TRUST AS PART 

OF THE RESERVATION OF THE LYTTON RANCHERIA OF CALIFORNIA, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

JULY 29, 2019.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. HOEVEN, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 1388] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which referred the bill (H.R. 

1388) to take lands in Sonoma County, California, into trust as 

part of the reservation of the Lytton Rancheria of California, and 

for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably 

thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE

The purpose of the bill, H.R. 1388, is to provide congressional authorization for the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) to take 

land owned in fee by the Lytton Rancheria of California (Lytton 

Rancheria or Tribe) into trust for the benefit of the Tribe. 

BACKGROUND

The Lytton Rancheria is a federally recognized Indian Tribe. In 

1958, the Lytton Rancheria, along with 40 other Indian Tribes in 

California, were the subject of Congressional action that sought to 

end the reservation status for tribal lands and the trust relationship with the Federal government. After the passage of the 1958 

California Rancheria Act 1 and through a series of tragic land 

transactions that followed, the Lytton Rancheria lost all lands located on their traditional homelands. 

In the late 1960s, the Federal government pivoted from assimilation and termination policies to a policy of tribal self-determination. As a result of this policy shift, Congress ‘‘restored’’ the federal 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
2 

2See Amador County, California v. Salazar, 640 F.3d 373, 375 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (discussing 

the 1983 stipulated order in Hardwick v. United States, No. C–79–1710 (N.D. Cal.)). 3Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Sugar Bowl Rancheria v. United States of America, No. C–86–3660–WWS (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 1991). 

4 According to the district court in Artichoke Joe’s, the 1961 termination was illegal because 

Public Law 85–671 § 3(c) required the federal government to ‘‘install or rehabilitate . . . irrigation or domestic water systems’’ before the land was distributed, or within a reasonable time 

after the land was distributed. Artichoke Joe’s California Grand Casino v. Norton, 278 

F.Supp.2d 1174, 1177 (E.D. Cal. 2003) (detailing the history of litigation and describing the settlement). The federal government never constructed the required water system improvements 

on the Lytton Rancheria’s lands, according to the Tribe. Id. 5See Artichoke Joe’s, 278 F.Supp.2d at 1177 (detailing the history of litigation and describing 

the settlement). 6The list is published each year pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act 

of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103–454, 108 Stat. 4791, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 479a. 7Section 128 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 

2002, Pub. L. No. 107–63, 115 Stat. 414, 442 (Nov. 5, 2001) (‘‘2001 Amendment’’). 

trust relationship with some Indian Tribes; others sought to restore 

this relationship through litigation.2 In 1987, the Lytton Rancheria 

joined other Indian Tribes in a Federal lawsuit that challenged the 

termination of their federal statuses. In 1991, the Scotts Valley, 

Guidiville, and Lytton Rancherias settled the lawsuit and had their 

federal recognition statuses restored under the stipulated judgment.3

The settlement reached between the parties state that the termination of the Lytton Rancheria was illegal and that the descendants of the Tribe were entitled to the rights and benefits as individual Indians.4 While the settlement provided that the Tribe could 

organize under the Indian Reorganization Act, the agreement also 

assured nearby landowners, who intervened in the lawsuit, that 

the Lytton Rancheria would not conduct gaming in Alexander Valley except when in compliance with the County of Sonoma’s general 

plan and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).5 Since the 

court entered its judgment in 1991, the DOI has listed the Lytton 

Rancheria as a federally recognized Indian Tribe in the Federal 

Register each year such notices were issued between 1992 and 

2018.6

To date, no land has been returned to the Lytton Rancheria resulting from the settlement or stipulated judgment. But in 2000, 

Congress passed the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act, which directed the Secretary of the Interior to take 9.5 acres of land in San 

Pablo, California into trust for the Tribe, declared those lands to 

be part of the Tribe’s reservation, and deemed the land to be eligible for gaming under IGRA. The following year, Congress clarified 

that the provisions of IGRA, but not those relating to the land’s eligibility for class III gaming, apply to future gaming on the San 

Pablo Property.7 Consequently, the small parcel of 9.5 acres that 

was taken into trust for the Tribe was used to build a Class II 

gaming operation. Because the Tribe does not have any additional 

trust lands available to house its membership, it is seeking legislative action. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

On February 27, 2019, Representative Jared Huffman introduced 

H.R. 1388, the Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2019. The bill 

was referred to the Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the 

United States of the Committee on Natural Resources in the House 

of Representatives. On March 26, 2019, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1388, by a vote of 404–21. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
3 

On March 27, 2019, the Senate received H.R. 1388 and the bill 

was referred to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs (Committee). On June 11, 2019, Senators Feinstein and Harris sent a 

letter to Senators Hoeven and Udall requesting the Committee to 

schedule a business meeting and give favorable consideration to 

H.R. 1388 at the earliest convenience. 

On June 19, 2019, the Committee held a duly called business 

meeting to consider H.R. 1388. No amendments were filed to the 

bill. The Committee passed H.R. 1388 by voice vote and ordered 

the bill to be favorably reported. 

At this time, there is no Senate companion bill. 

115th Congress. Representative Denham introduced H.R. 597, 

the Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2017 on January 20, 2017. 

The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Indian, Insular, and 

Alaska Native Affairs of the Committee on Natural Resources in 

the House of Representatives. The House Committee on Natural 

Resources favorably reported the bill on June 27, 2017, without 

amendment. H.R. 597 was passed by the House of Representatives 

on July 11, 2017. 

On July 12, 2017, H.R. 597 was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee. On April 25, 2018, the Committee held a 

legislative hearing on the bill. Following the legislative hearing on 

H.R. 597, the Lytton Rancheria and County agreed to further 

amend the memoranda of agreement to prohibit gaming in the 

county, in perpetuity, so long as the Lytton Rancheria is not involuntarily prohibited by governmental decision or action from operating its current casino located in San Pablo, California, pursuant 

to IGRA. The amended memoranda of agreement was ratified by 

the Lytton Rancheria and the County. 

In addition, the Department of Justice sent comments to the 

Committee regarding provisions within the bill. These comments 

concerning the gaming restrictions, liabilities on the land, and 

other technical matters did not require amendments to the legislation. On July 11, 2018, the Committee held a duly called business 

meeting to consider H.R. 597. The bill was passed without amendment by the Committee and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. No further action was taken on the 

bill. 

114th Congress. The Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2015, 

H.R. 2538, was introduced by Representatives Huffman and 

Denham on May 21, 2015 and referred to the Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs of the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives. Representative 

Thompson was added as a co-sponsor on June 9, 2015. 

The House Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native 

Affairs held a hearing on H.R. 2538 on June 17, 2015. On February 

2, 2016, the House Subcommittee discharged the bill and the full 

Committee on Natural Resources considered H.R. 2538 during a 

mark-up session, at which the bill was ordered to be reported, as 

amended, by unanimous consent. On June 21, 2016, H.R. 2538 was 

placed on the Union Calendar where no further action was taken 

on the bill. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
4 

SUMMARY OF THE BILL

The bill, H.R. 1388, would place 511 acres of land into trust for 

the benefit of the Lytton Rancheria through a mandatory trust acquisition by the DOI. This fee land is located adjacent to the Town 

of Windsor, near the tribe’s original homelands. The land, once it 

is held in trust for the Tribe, will assist in reestablishing a permanent homeland for the Lytton Rancheria, with housing, government 

facilities, and economic development opportunities, including 

viniculture. The legislation will also make the lands part of the 

Lytton Rancheria’s reservation. H.R. 1388 includes a permanent 

gaming prohibition on the lands described in the legislation and on 

future trust acquisitions for the Tribe in the County. 

The Lytton Rancheria has spent years negotiating with the 

County, local school district, and local fire department to form 

three memoranda of agreements that provide for the mitigation of 

any potential off-reservation impacts from the uses of the trust 

land. 

On May 27, 2015, Governor Jerry Brown, Jr. sent a letter to Rep. 

Huffman supporting the Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2015, 

a bill similar to H.R. 1388. Both the Lytton Rancheria Tribal Council and the County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to support the memoranda of agreement and needed Federal legislation 

to take the lands into trust for the benefit of the Tribe. 

NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Taking the land into trust, as described in H.R. 1388, would 

allow the Lytton Rancheria to rebuild their community by constructing homes and government facilities, expand economic development, and create areas to practice traditional and religious 

teachings. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

This section cites the Act as the ‘‘Lytton Rancheria Homelands 

Act of 2019.’’ 

Sec. 2. Findings 

This section explains the history of Lytton Rancheria, a federally 

recognized Indian Tribe, and how they lost their trust status and 

homelands. Through litigation, the Lytton Rancheria and other Indian Tribes challenged the loss of their trust status. In a stipulated 

judgement, the court restored the Lytton Rancheria’s trust relationship with the United States and held that the Tribe would have 

the ‘‘individual and collective status and rights’’’ it had prior to its 

termination. The stipulated judgement expressly contemplated the 

acquisition of trust lands for the Lytton Rancheria. 

Sec. 3. Definitions 

This section provides for definitions used throughout the Act, including the term ‘‘County’’ to mean the Sonoma County, California; 

the term ‘‘Secretary’’ to mean the Secretary of the Interior; and the 

term ‘‘Tribe’’ to mean the Lytton Rancheria of California, a federally recognized Indian Tribe. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
5 

Sec. 4. Lands to be taken into trust 

This section specifies the land that will be taken into trust; the 

land owned by the Tribe and depicted on the map titled ‘‘Lytton 

Fee Owned Property to be Taken into Trust,’’ dated May 1, 2015. 

The land to be taken into trust are part of the Lytton Rancheria’s 

reservation and shall be administered in accordance with the laws 

and regulations generally applicable to property held in trust by 

the United States for an Indian Tribe. 

Sec. 5. Gaming 

This section explains that the lands taken into trust under this 

Act are not eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. 

This section also provides for a permanent gaming prohibition on 

the Tribe for any future land into trust acquisitions in the County. 

Sec. 6. Applicability of certain law 

This section states the Memorandum of Agreement, and any addenda and supplement or amendment, entered into by the Lytton 

Rancheria and the County concerning the trust land is not subject 

to review or approval of the Secretary in order to be effective, including review or approval under (25 U.S.C. § 81). 

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The following cost estimate, as provided by the Congressional 

Budget Office, dated July 12, 2019, was prepared for H.R. 1388: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, July 12, 2019. 

Hon. JOHN HOEVEN, 

Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1388, the Lytton 

Rancheria Homelands Act of 2019. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jon Sperl. 

Sincerely, 

PHILLIP L. SWAGEL, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
6 

H.R. 1388 would take into trust, for the benefit of the Lytton 

Rancheria of California, a federally recognized Indian tribe, certain 

land located in the county of Sonoma, California. The act would 

specify certain prohibitions on gaming on the affected land, consistent with an existing memorandum of understanding between 

the tribe and the county. 

Using information from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1388 would have no significant effect on the federal budget. CBO estimates that any change in the 

agency’s administrative costs under the act, which would be subject 

to appropriation, would not exceed $500,000. 

H.R. 1388 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by prohibiting state and local governments from taxing land taken into trust 

for the Lytton Rancheria. CBO estimates the costs of the mandate 

would be well below the threshold established in UMRA ($82 million in 2019, adjusted annually for inflation). 

The act contains no private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Jon Sperl (for federal costs) and Rachel Austin (for mandates). The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

REGULATORY AND PAPERWORK IMPACT STATEMENT

Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires each report accompanying a bill to evaluate the regulatory and paperwork impact that would be incurred in carrying 

out the bill. The Committee believes that H.R. 1388 will have minimal impact on regulatory or paperwork requirements. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

The Committee has received no communications from the Executive Branch regarding H.R. 1388. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 7 here SR67.001
7 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

On February 6, 2019, the Committee unanimously approved a 

motion to waive subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules 

of the Senate. In the opinion of the Committee, it is necessary to 

dispense with subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 

the Senate to expedite the business of the Senate. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS