U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

95–136 PDF 2015

H.R. 1157, ‘‘SANTA YNEZ BAND OF 

CHUMASH MISSION INDIANS LAND 

TRANSFER ACT OF 2015’’; H.R. 2386, 

‘‘UNRECOGNIZED SOUTHEAST ALASKA 

NATIVE COMMUNITIES RECOGNITION 

AND COMPENSATION ACT’’; AND 

H.R. 2538, ‘‘LYTTON RANCHERIA HOMELANDS ACT OF 2015’’ 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN, INSULAR AND 

ALASKA NATIVE AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Wednesday, June 17, 2015 

Serial No. 114–11 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Dan Newhouse, WA 

Ryan K. Zinke, MT 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Thomas MacArthur, NJ 

Alexander X. Mooney, WV 

Cresent Hardy, NV 

Vacancy 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Lois Capps, CA 

Jared Polis, CO 

Vacancy 

Jason Knox, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director 

Sarah Parker, Democratic Deputy Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN, INSULAR AND ALASKA NATIVE AFFAIRS 

DON YOUNG, AK, Chairman 

RAUL RUIZ, CA, Ranking Democratic Member 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Paul Cook, CA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 ......................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Capps, Hon. Lois, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1157 ............................................................ 23 

Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2538 ............................................................ 20 

LaMalfa, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 5 

Ruiz, Hon. Raul, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 3 

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

Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska . 2 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Armenta, Vincent, Chairman, Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission 

Indians, Santa Ynez, California ................................................................... 28 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1157 ............................................................ 30 

Barlow, Leo, Representative for the Community of Wrangell, Alaska, 

on behalf of the Southeast Alaska Landless Corporation, Juneau, 

Alaska ............................................................................................................ 42 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2386 ............................................................ 44 

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

the Interior, Washington, DC ...................................................................... 24 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1157, H.R. 2386, and H.R. 2538 .............. 26 

Lavagnino, Steve, Fifth District County Supervisor, Santa Barbara 

County, California ......................................................................................... 39 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1157 ............................................................ 41 

Mejia, Margie, Chairperson, Lytton Rancheria, Santa Rosa, California ..... 46 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2538 ............................................................ 47 

Miyasato, Mona, Executive Officer, County of Santa Barbara, on behalf 

of the County of Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors, Santa Barbara, 

California ....................................................................................................... 32 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1157 ............................................................ 33 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

List of documents submitted for the record retained in the Committee’s 

official files .................................................................................................... 70 

Submissions for the Record by Representative Huffman 

Memorandum of Understanding between the County of Sonoma and 

the Lytton Rancheria of California ...................................................... 9 

Gorin, Hon. Susan, Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, Prepared 

statement of ........................................................................................... 10 

Memorandum of Understanding between the Windsor Fire Protection 

District and the Lytton Rancheria of California ................................. 11 

Windsor Unified School District, Letter in support of H.R. 2538 ......... 18 

Map of Lytton Fee Owned Property to be Taken into Trust ................. 19 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1157, TO AUTHORIZE THE 

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO TAKE LAND INTO TRUST 

FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE SANTA YNEZ BAND OF CHUMASH 

MISSION INDIANS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ‘‘SANTA 

YNEZ BAND OF CHUMASH MISSION INDIANS LAND TRANSFER ACT OF 2015’’; H.R. 2386, TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECOGNITION OF CERTAIN NATIVE COMMUNITIES AND THE 

SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN CLAIMS UNDER THE ALASKA 

NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ‘‘UNRECOGNIZED SOUTHEAST ALASKA NATIVE COMMUNITIES RECOGNITION AND COMPENSATION ACT’’; AND 

H.R. 2538, TO TAKE LANDS IN SONOMA COUNTY, 

CALIFORNIA, INTO TRUST AS PART OF THE RESERVATION 

OF THE LYTTON RANCHERIA OF CALIFORNIA, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES, ‘‘LYTTON RANCHERIA HOMELANDS ACT 

OF 2015’’ 

Wednesday, June 17, 2015 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:02 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Don Young [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Young, Benishek, Gosar, LaMalfa, 

Denham, Cook, Radewagen; Ruiz, and Torres. 

Also Present: Representatives Huffman and Capps. 

Mr. YOUNG. The committee will come to order. 

The subcommittee today is hearing testimony on the following 

bills: H.R. 1157, by Doug LaMalfa, the ‘‘Santa Ynez Band of 

Chumash Mission Indians Land Transfer Act of 2015’’; H.R. 2386, 

by myself, the ‘‘Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native 

Communities Recognition and Compensation Act’’; and H.R. 2538, 

by Mr. Huffman from California, the ‘‘Lytton Rancheria Homelands 

Act of 2015.’’ 

I would also like to mention that two local governments were 

invited to testify on H.R. 2538, the Sonoma County Board of 

Supervisors and the Town of Windsor. Both were unable to be here 

today. I am somewhat concerned we are unable to have an open 

dialog with all local stakeholders. I would like to continue in an 

open dialog with the bill’s sponsor, as well as any local stakeholders who may be impacted by the bill. 

Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, 

Vice Chairman, and designee of the Ranking Member. This will 

allow us to hear from our witnesses who have traveled to testify 

on these legislative packages. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent 

that all Members’ opening statements will be made part of the 

2 

hearing record if they are submitted to the Subcommittee clerk by 

5:00 p.m. today, or at the close of the hearing, whichever comes 

first. 

[No response.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Hearing no objection, so ordered. I also ask unanimous consent that the gentlelady from California and the gentleman from California, Mrs. Capps and Mr. Huffman, will be 

allowed to join us on the dais to be recognized and participate in 

today’s hearing. 

[No response.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA 

Mr. YOUNG. As I mentioned, the subcommittee would hear 

testimony today on three bills. 

H.R. 1157 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to place approximately 1,400 acres of land commonly known as the Camp 4 

Property into trust for the benefit of the Santa Ynez Band of 

Chumash Mission Indians with Santa Barbara County. The bill is 

sponsored by my colleague, Mr. LaMalfa. 

The second bill on our agenda, H.R. 2386, will provide redress 

to Alaska Natives from the communities of Haines, Ketchikan, 

Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell. These natives were denied an 

opportunity to establish villages or urban corporations under the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971. Natives 

who enrolled in these communities did become at-large shareholders in the regional corporation for Southeast Alaska, but were 

denied rights to land and local resources that other villages and 

urban corporations received under ANCSA. 

ANCSA prohibits these communities from obtaining an administrative or judicial solution, so legislation is necessary. My bill will 

recognize the five communities under ANCSA, establish urban corporations for the communities, and provide a process for newly established urban corporations to negotiate with the Department of 

the Interior for selection of surface estates of Federal lands that 

would be conveyed to the corporations as compensation—the same 

amount of land that other native villages received under ANCSA. 

The final bill on our agenda today is H.R. 2538, which would direct the Interior Secretary to take into trust approximately 511 

acres of non-contiguous fee land owned by the Lytton Rancheria, 

adjacent to the Town of Windsor in Sonoma County, California. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

INDIAN, INSULAR AND ALASKA NATIVE AFFAIRS

As I have mentioned already, the subcommittee will hear testimony today on 

three bills: H.R. 1157, H.R. 2386, and H.R. 2538. 

H.R. 1157 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to place approximately 1,400 

acres of land, commonly known as the Camp 4 property, into trust for the benefit 

of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians within Santa Barbara County. 

The bill is sponsored by my colleague, Mr. LaMalfa. 

The second bill on our agenda, H.R. 2386, would provide redress to Alaska 

Natives from the communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and 

Wrangell. 

3 

These natives were denied the opportunity to establish villages or urban corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) process in 1971. 

Natives who enrolled in these communities did become at-large shareholders in the 

regional corporation for Southeast Alaska, Sealaska, but were denied rights to land 

and local resources that other village and urban corporations received under 

ANCSA. 

ANCSA prohibits these communities from obtaining an administrative or judicial 

solution, so legislation is necessary. 

My bill would recognize the five communities under ANCSA, establish urban corporations for the communities, and provide a process for the newly established 

urban corporations to negotiate with the Department of the Interior for selecting 

surface estates of Federal land that would be conveyed to the corporations as compensation—The same amount of land that other native villages received under 

ANCSA. 

The final bill on our agenda today, H.R. 2538, would direct the Interior Secretary 

to take into trust approximately 511 acres of non-contiguous fee land owned by the 

Lytton Rancheria adjacent to the town of Windsor in Sonoma County, California. 

Mr. YOUNG. Now I will recognize the Ranking Member for his 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL RUIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Dr. RUIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As always, I want to thank 

our witnesses here today for taking time to help us understand 

your views on these bills. 

Today we will hear testimony on three bills: H.R. 1157, introduced by our colleague, Rep. LaMalfa, will authorize the Secretary 

of the Interior to take 1,400 acres of property in the Santa Ynez 

Valley in California into trust for the Santa Ynez Band of 

Chumash Indians. The Chumash have longstanding cultural and 

spiritual ties to the property, which is located just 2 miles from the 

current Santa Ynez Reservation. 

Currently, only about 17 percent of the Tribe’s members are able 

to reside on the reservation, due to the fact that the natural terrain 

is unsuitable for further housing development. Therefore, the 

Chumash would like the 1,400-acre property, which they already 

own, to be taken into trust so that they may construct 143 single 

family homes for their members. The Tribe has no intention of 

using these lands for gaming, and the legislation includes a specific 

provision to the effect. 

H.R. 2538, introduced by my friend and colleague, Rep. 

Huffman, will take approximately 511 acres in Sonoma County, 

California, into trust as part of the reservation of the Lytton 

Rancheria. Most of us, especially those Members from California, 

are aware of the Federal Government’s sad history in dealing with 

the Rancherias, including the unjust termination of their status in 

the late 1950s. With the exception of a small parcel of land that 

Congress provided for gaming in San Pablo, the Lyttons have been 

left essentially landless and without a reservation since 1961. The 

new land, which the Tribe holds in fee status, will ensure that they 

will finally have a permanently protected homeland on which they 

can plan for future generations. 

Furthermore, I understand the Tribe has worked closely with 

Sonoma County to reach an agreement that protects the sovereign 

rights of the Tribe, while sharing any burdens of development. This 

4 

is a shining example of how tribal government-to-government 

relationships can create positive outcomes for all involved. 

The third bill, H.R. 2386, introduced by Chairman Young, will 

designate five Alaskan communities as urban corporations under 

the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), and grant each 

corporation 23,040 acres of public lands. While I empathize with 

the concerns of the villages, I understand that there are serious 

concerns that enactment of these legislations could have sweeping 

and harmful impacts to the forest and the economy of southeastern 

Alaska. I am looking forward to listening to have a deeper understanding, so that we can get to the bottom of this. 

In closing, let me again thank our witnesses for appearing, thank 

the Members who have come to testify, and thank all the staff who 

have worked very hard on these bills. I look forward to your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Ruiz follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL RUIZ, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON INDIAN, INSULAR AND ALASKA NATIVE AFFAIRS

Thank you Mr. Chairman. As always, I want to thank our witnesses here today 

for taking time to testify and to help us understand your views on these bills. 

Today, we will hear testimony on three bills. H.R. 1157, introduced by our colleague Rep. LaMalfa, will authorize the Secretary of the Interior to take 1,400 acres 

of property in the Santa Ynez Valley in California into trust for the Santa Ynez 

Band of Chumash Indians. The Chumash have long-standing cultural and spiritual 

ties to the property, which is located just 2 miles from the current Santa Ynez 

Reservation. 

Currently, only about 17 percent of the Tribe’s members are able to reside on the 

reservation, due to the fact that the natural terrain is unsuitable for further housing development. Therefore, the Chumash would like the 1,400-acre property to be 

taken into trust so that they may construct 143 single-family homes for their members. The tribe has no intention of using these lands for gaming, and the legislation 

includes a specific provision to this effect. 

H.R. 2538, introduced by my friend and colleague Rep. Huffman, will take approximately 511 acres in Sonoma County, California, into trust as part of the reservation of the Lytton Rancheria. Most of us, especially those Members from 

California, are aware of the Federal Government’s sad history in dealing with the 

Rancherias, including the unjust termination of their status in the late 1950s. With 

the exception of a small parcel of land that Congress provided for gaming in San 

Pablo, the Lyttons have been left essentially landless and without a reservation 

since 1961. The new land, which the Tribe holds in fee status, will ensure that they 

will finally have a permanently protected homeland on which they can plan for future generations. 

Furthermore, I understand the Tribe has worked closely with Sonoma County to 

reach an agreement that protects the sovereign rights of the Tribe, while sharing 

any burdens of development. This is a shining example of how tribal governmentto-government relationships can create positive outcomes for all involved. 

The third bill, H.R. 2386, introduced by Chairman Young, will designate five 

Alaskan communities as ‘‘Urban Corporations’’ under the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (ANCSA), and grant each corporation 23,040 acres of public lands. 

While I empathize with the concerns of the villages, I understand that there are 

serious concerns that enactment of this legislation could have sweeping and harmful 

impacts to the forest and the economy of southeastern Alaska. 

In closing, let me again thank our witnesses for appearing, and I look forward 

to your testimony. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. I would like to recognize the sponsor of 

the legislation, Mr. LaMalfa, if he has an opening statement. 

Mr. LAMALFA. I do. 

5 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMALFA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, and Mr. Ruiz, thank you for your comments on H.R. 1157. I 

appreciate the strong support that the committee is showing here 

today. So thank you. 

I am pleased to present H.R. 1157 with, again, 10 cosponsors, 8 

Californians and 4 Californians that are members of this committee, subcommittee. This will direct the Secretary of the Interior 

to take land into trust to enable the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash 

to address a shortage of housing for their members. 

The Tribe, to its credit, has used its own resources to purchase 

land to meet these housing needs, has a demonstrated presence in 

the area dating back to the earliest European contact with 

California Indians, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs recently announced that it would approve the Tribe’s application to take the 

land into trust, administratively. Unfortunately, anti-growth 

obstructionists have already threatened to stall this process with 

lawsuits. 

The recorded history of the Chumash in the area reaches back 

to the earliest arrival of Europeans in California. When Spanish 

explorer Cabrillo landed on the shores of California in 1542, it was 

the Chumash he encountered. Beginning in the early 1800s, the 

Chumash became wards of the Spanish mission in Santa Ynez, 

which included the Camp 4 property, and later the Mexican 

Governor granted lands to Chumash members that included the 

Camp 4 property. 

The Mission Relief Act of 1891 created a commission which found 

that the Tribe continued to reside in the Santa Ynez and Camp 4 

area, though only 99 acres, mostly unusable creek bed, were ultimately taken into trust. The reservation grew through small additions to about 130 acres today, and is home to 17 percent of tribal 

members and lineal descendants, lacks any additional space for 

homes, lacks safe access and escape, especially in emergencies— 

emergency equipment—and is at the risk of flooding. 

Chumash have long worked to provide for the needs of their 

members without relying upon outside assistance. In the 1960s the 

Tribe raised funds through a number of creative means to provide 

the reservation with running water for the first time. In a continuation of this self-sufficiency, the Tribe purchased the Camp 4 property in 2010 with the intent of addressing the housing needs of its 

members and lineal descendants. Unfortunately, the Chumash’s efforts to secure housing for the members—efforts, which must again 

be noted are undertaken with the Tribe’s own resources—have 

been hindered by anti-growth extremists and frivolous lawsuits. 

One local anti-group has gone so far as to question the legitimacy 

of the Tribe’s federally-acknowledged status and its existing reservation, despite records of the Tribe’s presence in the area dating 

back over 470 years. Though the Tribe has repeatedly attempted 

to work with the County to reach a mutually agreeable arrangement to address any impact to the local governments, a vocal 

minority of residents have persuaded the portions of the county 

government to refuse to even negotiate with the Tribe. 

6 

Some opponents claim that the trust proposal would reduce the 

county property tax revenues, ignoring both the fact that the 

County currently receives just $83,000 from the property annually, 

and the Tribe’s initial offer of $1 million each year to offset any impacts to infrastructure or services. 

Other opposition arguments are equally misleading. Claims that 

the proposal would be too densely developed, which ignores an adjacent housing subdivision, which is actually more dense than the 

Chumash proposal. 

Despite this continued mistreatment, the Tribe strives to be a 

good neighbor and support local governments, funding multiple 

full-time firefighter and paramedic positions, and recently a new 

ladder fire engine. 

Again, the Chumash intend only to build housing for their members, and the measure includes a prohibition on gaming in the 

measure, ensuring that no casino will be built on the property. 

When did it become acceptable to obstruct the efforts of historically mistreated groups to provide themselves with housing, one of 

the most fundamental human needs? Prior congresses and previous 

presidents have worked to right the generations of wrong committed against American Indians. They would be appalled by the 

actions of those attempting to prevent the Chumash from meeting 

their most basic needs of their members on lands that their ancestors occupied for millennia. 

Additionally, on a very basic level, I firmly believe that any 

American family should have the right to build a home for their 

own purpose on land that they own, within reason. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, the Constitution 

places great responsibility to redress relations with Indian tribes 

with the Congress. A number of laws require that tribes are ceded 

the support of the Federal Government for education, health care, 

and housing. Chumash have strived to address these needs with 

their own resources, an effort that every member of the subcommittee should support. 

While the BIA has indicated that it intends to take the property 

into trust administratively, opposition groups have already announced their intent, through the courts, to obstruct the administrative process indefinitely. It is imperative that Congress act to 

ensure that the Tribe is able to address its needs in a timely fashion, and I urge and appreciate your support of this bill. Thank you, 

I yield back. 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman and recognize Mr. Huffman 

to make a statement on his legislation. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

start by thanking you and Ranking Member Ruiz for including the 

Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2015 in today’s hearing. I also 

want to welcome the Chairperson of the Lytton Rancheria, Margie 

Mejia, who is here to speak in support of the bill today. 

This bill, which I am pleased to introduce with my friend, 

Congressman Jeff Denham, takes lands already owned by the 

7 

Lytton Tribe in Sonoma County into trust for housing and other 

non-gaming purposes, as part of the Lytton Rancheria Reservation. 

In 1958, this tribe, which was federally recognized as a Pomo 

Indian Tribe, lost its homeland when it was terminated by the 

Federal Government. The Tribe was restored in 1991 by the courts 

to federally-recognized status, but the restoration did not include 

restoring the Tribe’s reservation on its ancestral homeland. 

Now, I represent lots of tribes, about 30, which I think makes me 

second only to Chairman Young in terms of the number of tribes. 

And many of them have land to trust issues in my district. One 

thing I tell them all so that I can be very consistent is that I need 

for them to work things out with their local government partners. 

I cannot introduce bills that are at odds with my local government 

colleagues. 

So, an important condition of my introducing this bill was that 

the Tribe negotiate agreements with its local government neighbors 

to address and mitigate potential concerns, including the strong opposition to new casinos in Sonoma County. They have done that. 

The agreements that have been negotiated—and in some cases 

there are some processes still underway—will provide certainty for 

all parties, and provide a model for functional, respectful, productive relationships between local governments and federallyrecognized tribes. 

This bill ensures that the Lytton Tribe, after many long years, 

can finally return to a homeland, and it does it in a partnership 

that works for its local government neighbors. The County of 

Sonoma and the Tribe have entered into a Memorandum of 

Agreement on March 10, 2015, and Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution signed by the Sonoma County 

Board of Supervisors be entered into the record. 

[No response.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. The Chairperson of the Sonoma County Board of 

Supervisors, Susan Gorin, has also written a statement for the 

record, and I would ask unanimous consent that that be entered 

into the record at this time, too. 

[No response.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I would like to highlight just a few lines from 

Supervisor Gorin’s statement. She says, ‘‘The Tribe and the County 

worked together to accurately identify the off-reservation impacts 

and, as the project changed over time, to build a framework that 

met the parties’ respective interests.’’ 

‘‘Enactment of H.R. 2538 will re-establish an historic homeland 

for the Tribe in Sonoma County, while setting a course for a constructive intergovernmental relationship and addressing community concerns regarding gaming.’’ 

The town of Windsor is still working through a cooperative process with the Tribe, which will include some public proceedings. 

While that is happening, I am pleased to note that two of the affected local agencies in Windsor have already reached agreements 

with the Tribe covering their interests. 

8 

The Lytton Rancheria has entered a separate MOU with the 

Windsor Fire Protection District to provide emergency services to 

the Tribe. 

I ask unanimous consent that that agreement be entered into the 

record, Mr. Chairman. 

[No response.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Without objection. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. And the Tribe has entered a 

Memorandum of Agreement with the Windsor Unified School District to prepare for and mitigate the increase in school-aged children who would move into the proposal tribal housing. I also ask 

unanimous consent that that agreement be entered into the record. 

[No response.] 

Mr. YOUNG. How many more are you going to put into the 

record? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. I mean this is one way to have a long statement—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I know, but I am done at that point. 

Mr. YOUNG. Without objection. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Ruiz is showing you pictures of his children, 

isn’t he? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. It is a little more interesting. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I hear you. 

Last, Mr. Chair—I actually do have one more unanimous consent 

request. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HUFFMAN. It is that we enter the pictures of Mr. Ruiz’s 

children into the record. 

No. In seriousness, it is that we enter the map referenced in my 

bill into the record. 

[No response.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Without objection. 

[The submissions for the record by Mr. Huffman follow:] 

9 

Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of 

California, Authorizing the Chair to Sign a Memorandum of Agreement 

between the County of Sonoma and the Lytton Rancheria of California 

Regarding Development of Tribal Homelands in Sonoma County. 

Whereas, Sonoma County has a government-to-government relationship with all 

five federally recognized tribes in the County, respects their tribal sovereignty, and 

understands the significance of their status as federally recognized tribes; and 

Whereas, the County has a long history of advocating for a thorough environmental review and appropriate mitigation of any environmental impacts of tribal 

development projects that otherwise would be borne by County residents; and 

Whereas, Lytton Rancheria of California is a federally-recognized Indian Tribe 

whose traditional lands lie within Sonoma County; and 

Whereas, the Tribe is currently seeking to have lands placed into federal trust 

status to reestablish a Tribal homeland and to diversify its tribal economy; and 

Whereas, the Tribe has proposed that the federal government take into trust 14 

parcels consisting of 124.12 acres of land for the development of a residential community, a community center and associated facilities (Residential Development 

Project); and 

Whereas, the Tribe is seeking proposed federal legislation to place into trust approximately 500 acres of land that includes the Residential Development Project; 

and 

Whereas, it is anticipated that the Tribe will in the future seek to place 

additional lands into federal trust status; and 

Whereas, the Tribe and the County have negotiated an agreement to address 

issues including gaming, potential off-site environmental impacts, and possible mitigation measures regarding the Residential Development Project and other potential 

Tribal development, consistent with the Tribe’s sovereignty and applicable law; and 

Whereas, the Agreement addresses the potential impacts of any present and future trust land acquisitions by the federal government for the benefit of the Tribe, 

while at the same time allowing the Tribe to reestablish its homeland and exercise 

its authority as a sovereign government; and 

Whereas, the Residential Development Project and other potential Tribal development are not County projects and are not subject to the discretionary approval 

of the County, and, absent this Agreement, the County has limited opportunity to 

influence mitigation measures or seek compensation for adverse environmental impacts; and 

Whereas, the Tribe has reached separate agreements with the Windsor Unified 

School District and Windsor Fire Protection District, and is negotiating with the 

Town of Windsor toward an agreement regarding water and sewer services. 

Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Chair is hereby authorized to sign the 

Memorandum of Agreement between the County of Sonoma and the Lytton 

Rancheria of California labeled Fee to Trust Lands (March 10, 2015). 

10 

Be It Further Resolved that entry of the Memorandum of Agreement is not a 

project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. By approving, executing 

and performing the Agreement, the County has not and is not, making any commitment to issue a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use, or 

develop, construct or improve any facilities or cause any other physical change in 

the environment. 

Be It Further Resolved that the original copy of the Memorandum of 

Agreement shall be kept by the Clerk of the Board. This document may be found 

at the office of the Clerk of the Board, 575 Administration Drive, Room 100–A, 

Santa Rosa, California 95403. 

Supervisors: 

Rabbitt: Aye Zane: Aye Gore: Aye Carrillo: Aye Gorin: Aye 

Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 0 

So Ordered. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SUSAN GORIN, CHAIRPERSON, SONOMA

COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ON H.R. 2538 

On behalf of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors I would like to thank 

Chairman Young, Ranking Member Ruiz, and members of the subcommittee for the 

opportunity to submit this testimony in support of H.R. 2538—the Lytton 

Rancheria Homelands Act of 2015. My name is Susan Gorin, and I serve as the 

Chairperson of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. This bill, in many ways, 

exemplifies the type of relationships between tribes and local governments that 

should be promoted not just in individual legislation but as part of reform of the 

fee-to-trust process. Several weeks ago my colleague, Sonoma County Supervisor 

David Rabbitt, testified before this subcommittee on behalf of the California State 

Association of Counties (‘‘CSAC’’) at its oversight hearing on ‘‘Inadequate Standards 

for Trust Land Acquisition in the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934.’’ 

A central point of CSAC’s testimony was that the fee-to-trust process is broken 

due, in part, to the lack of objective standards. Supervisor Rabbitt urged that perhaps the single most important thing Congress could do to reform the system would 

be to require that, in any decision to take land into trust, there be a determination 

by the Department of the Interior, that the off-reservation impacts related to the 

acquisition are fully mitigated—both for the short and long term. This would be 

demonstrated either by a voluntary intergovernmental agreement between the tribe 

and local jurisdictions or a Secretarial determination, after consultation with local 

governments, that the projects would not have a significant off-reservation impact. 

As part of his oral testimony Supervisor Rabbitt singled out the Sonoma County 

-Lytton Rancheria Tribal Agreement (‘‘MOA’’) as an example of the type of intergovernmental understandings that should be reached on fee-to-trust projects. 

Sonoma County is home to five federally-recognized tribes, two of which operate 

casinos. While the County opposes gaming we nonetheless have intergovernmental 

agreements with three of the five tribes including the two who operate gambling facilities. We are also in conversation with the other two tribes to work toward memorandums of agreement with respect to pending fee-to-trust requests. We are grateful 

for the efforts of Congressman Huffman and the leadership of the Lytton Rancheria 

of California to engage in a fee-to-trust consultation process where we could work 

together on a government-to-government basis to insure that the Tribe’s objectives 

were met and that the off-reservation impacts were mitigated through a judicially 

enforceable agreement. 

This Agreement is the product of hard work among the parties and started about 

8 years ago with the County working with the Lytton Tribe to address what was 

seen as inadequacies in the Environmental Assessment of its initial trust proposal 

and community concerns regarding gaming. The Tribe and County worked together 

to accurately identify the off-reservation impacts and, as the project changed over 

time, to build a framework that met the parties’ respective interests. We believe the 

Memorandum of Agreement approved by both the Tribe and County, and which is 

supported in the legislation, is now a model for the type of agreement that should 

be incentivized as part of much needed fee-to-trust reform. 

11 

THE LEGISLATION

From the County’s perspective, H.R. 2538 has two critical components. First, 

Section 5 insures that, in perpetuity, no gaming will be conducted on the lands 

taken into trust. While the Lytton Tribe did not have an intention to acquire the 

land for gaming purposes, the legislative provision helps address community and 

government concern on the issue for the long term. Second, Section 6 recognizes and 

protects the Memorandum of Agreement from any potential interference from the 

Department of the Interior. While the Tribe entered into this Agreement as an exercise of its sovereignty, under 25 U.S.C. Section 81, the Department of the Interior 

reserves the ability to substitute its judgment for the Tribe’s and, historically, has 

not played an active role in facilitating these types of agreements. The legislation 

helps insure that the mutually beneficial MOA will not be disturbed. 

THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

As CSAC stated in its prior testimony, having an intergovernmental agreement 

between a county and a tribe to ensure that off-reservation impacts are addressed 

is the type of critical demonstration that should be in place before actions are taken 

to move land into trust—either legislatively or administratively. While the Lytton 

Tribe and County were in discussions previously, Congressman Huffman played a 

key role in ensuring that the County (and CSAC) objectives of mitigating off reservations impacts were met. The MOA does this in several important respects by: 

(1) specifying current development limits and providing for tailored mitigation; (2) 

setting land use parameters and providing for environmental review of future tribal 

projects (and a conflict resolution process if there is disagreement over necessary 

mitigation); (3) prohibiting gaming (which provision is enhanced by the legislative 

ban); (4) ensuring that applicable building and fire code standards are met; and (5) 

making the Agreement and compliance with prior NEPA identified mitigation measures judicially enforceable. 

One of the unique provisions of the Agreement addresses another key component 

of CSAC’s fee-to-trust reform proposal, specifically: ‘‘Changes in use should not be 

permitted without further reviews, including environmental impacts, and application of relevant procedures and limitations.’’ As stated above, this was accomplished 

in the Lytton Agreement by establishing some broad parameters for future use and 

building in a voluntary, tribal driven, environmental review process, the focus of 

which would be to determine any off-reservation impacts of a proposed project. The 

MOA then put in place a negotiation and binding dispute resolution process if the 

parties were not able to agree on appropriate mitigation. This approach respects 

sovereignty while also insuring that off-reservation impacts are adequately 

addressed. 

CONCLUSION

As part of the 1991 judicial settlement agreement which restored the Lytton 

Tribe, the County promised to assist it in finding suitable housing and economic development opportunities. Almost 25 years later those promises finally can be kept 

through the passage of H.R. 2538 and the resulting implementation of the 

Memorandum of Agreement. Enactment of H.R. 2538 will reestablish an historic 

homeland for the Tribe in Sonoma County while setting a course for a constructive 

intergovernmental relationship and addressing community concerns regarding 

gaming. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share these views. 

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 

This Memorandum of Agreement (hereinafter ‘‘Agreement’’) is made and entered 

into effective this 22nd day of May, 2012, (hereinafter ‘‘Effective Date’’) by and between the Windsor Fire Protection District, a California Special District authorized 

by California Health and Safety Code 13800, et seq. (hereinafter ‘‘Fire District’’) and 

the Lytton Rancheria of California aka Lytton Band of Pomo Indians (hereinafter 

‘‘Tribe’’) (collectively hereinafter ‘‘Parties’’). 

1. Recitals 

1.1 WHEREAS, the Tribe is a federally-recognized Indian tribe which occupies 

land within the Windsor Fire Protection District’s geographic boundary that will be 

held in the future by the federal government, in trust for the benefit of the Tribe 

(‘‘the Property’’); and 

12 

1.2 WHEREAS, the Tribe intends to develop a community of residences and 

related structures on the Property to be occupied and used by Tribal members (‘‘the 

Project’’); and 

1.3 WHEREAS, the Fire District provides fire prevention and emergency 

response services (‘‘Services’’) on the Property prior to the Federal government’s 

anticipated acquisition of the Property, in trust, for the benefit of the Tribe; and 

1.4 WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that the development of the Project, 

and the increase in population and activity that will exist when the Project is 

completed and the residences and other structures are occupied, will require fire 

protection and emergency response services; and 

1.5 WHEREAS, the Tribe desires to have the Fire District continue to provide 

Services to the Project; and 

1.6 WHEREAS, the Parties recognize that the fire protection and emergency 

service needs arising from the Project will increase the burden on the Fire District’s 

resources and that public safety is enhanced by cooperation between the Tribe and 

Fire District to alleviate the increased burden; and 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties mutually agree on the terms and conditions as 

follows: 

2. Cooperation Agreement 

2.1 The Tribe and Fire District desire to cooperate on an inter-governmental 

basis to promote public safety and provide the Tribe with the opportunity to benefit, 

on a voluntary, non-jurisdictional basis from the constructive suggestions Fire 

District personnel may have with respect to fire safety and building issues, and to 

share expertise to maximize public and emergency personnel safety. 

3. Level of Services to be Provided 

3.1 The Fire District shall provide the initial response to all emergency incidents 

on the Project. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to provide any special services 

to the Tribe that are not provided equally throughout the Fire District’s boundaries. 

The Fire District, with its own resources and with the mutual aid services provided 

to the Fire District under separate contracts, shall provide the required initial 

response as outlined in paragraphs 3.2 through 3.6. 

3.2 Any reported fire or fire alarm shall have the initial response of one fire 

engine and any other additional personnel and equipment deemed necessary by the 

Fire District to effectively mitigate the emergency. 

3.3 Any reported medical emergency shall have the initial response of one 

vehicle appropriately equipped with medical equipment, supplies and communications sufficient to render medical care in accordance with the currently applicable 

Standard of Care applicable to the Fire District. When required, the Fire District 

will request resources including additional personnel and equipment and ground 

and/or air transport to effectively mitigate the emergency. 

3.4 Any reported rescue shall have the initial response of one fire engine or 

rescue squad and any other additional personnel and equipment deemed necessary 

by the Fire District to effectively mitigate the emergency. 

3.5 Any reported hazardous material incident shall have the initial response 

deemed necessary by the Fire District to assist in containing the emergency in 

accordance with the applicable hazardous materials response plan, as determined by 

the Fire District. 

3.6 Any reported miscellaneous response shall have a person in a vehicle with 

appropriate equipment and communications to handle the request. 

4. Alleviation of Impact on Fire District 

4.1 Impact on Fire District: The Parties recognize that the increased need for 

Services to the Project will impact the Fire District’s daily operations. These impacts 

include the additional time required of the paid and volunteer personnel responding 

to calls, the additional wear and tear on equipment, the potential need for additional part or fulltime fire fighting and clerical personnel, as well as the possible 

need for capital improvements to accommodate these needs. 

4.2 Capital Improvement Contribution: The Tribe agrees to make an annual 

capital contribution of Fifty-Thousand Dollars ($50,000) to be used for equipment 

purchases. 

13 

4.3 Payment of Fees and Taxes: The Tribe agrees to pay the Fire District the 

following payments that equate in general to the mitigation fees, special taxes and 

ad valorem property taxes that would be applicable to the Project if the Tribe was 

not a federally recognized Indian Tribe and the Property was not held by the federal 

government, in trust, for the benefit of the Tribe. Said fees may be deposited in the 

Fire District’s general fund and may be used for any legitimate Fire District 

purpose: 

4.3.1 The Tribe agrees to pay the Fire District prior to start of construction of 

each single family house or cottage a fee of $750.00 per unit. 

4.3.2 The Tribe agrees to pay the Fire District prior to the start of construction 

of each multi-family unit a fee of $525.00 per multi-family unit. 

4.3.3 The Tribe agrees to pay the Fire District prior to the start of construction 

a fee of $340.00 per 1,000 square feet of space for the construction of the 

Community Center and Tribal Retreat. 

4.3.4 The Tribe agrees to pay the Fire District pursuant to the following 

schedule once the Property is taken into trust by the federal government for the 

benefit of the Tribe: 

First day of the first calendar year following the 

date the Property is taken into trust. $25,000.00 

First day of the second calendar year following the 

date the Property is taken into trust. $30,000.00 

First day of the third calendar year following the 

date the Property is taken into trust. $35,000.00 

First day of the fourth calendar year following the 

date the Property is taken into trust. $40,000.00 

First day of the fifth calendar year following the 

date the Property is taken into trust. $45,000.00 

First day of the sixth calendar year following the 

date the Property is taken into trust. $50,000.00 

First day of the seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth 

calendar year following the date the Property is 

taken into trust, and each year thereafter 

during the term of this agreement. $50,000.00 

4.4 Funding for Additional Firefighter: The Tribe will pay the Fire District an 

annual amount equal to $80,000.00, which is estimated to be the full expense, 

including benefits, of one full-time paid firefighter. Said funding will only occur 

beginning the first day of the calendar year following the completion of any building 

structure on the Property and only if the Town of Windsor has provided public 

sewer and water to the Project. 

4.5 [Intentionally Deleted] 

4.6 Unforeseen Costs: The Parties recognize that during the term of this 

Agreement potential significant unforeseen costs may arise which are not contemplated by this Agreement, including, but not limited to, expenses which would 

be necessary in order to respond to an unforeseen emergency situation, examples 

include Acts of God, such as earthquake, or acts of terrorism, among others, that 

could require specialized equipment such as cranes, excavators, decontamination 

facilities, specialists or other resources required to provide a level of service above 

that specified in Section 3 of this Agreement. In such case, the Fire District is not 

required to incur such expenses or undertake the underlying activity. However, the 

Fire District may agree to incur such expenses or undertake the underlying activity 

if the Tribe provides assurance that it will reimburse the Fire District for such expenses, and provides resources it has at its disposal for use by the Fire District to 

address the situation. Such assurance must be in writing unless the nature of the 

situation does not provide sufficient time to receive written assurance, in which case 

the assurance may be provided orally by a representative of the Tribe. 

4.7 Accounting for Payments: The Fire District agrees to account for all monies 

paid to the Fire District pursuant to this Memorandum of Agreement, and shall 

provide the Tribe an annual accounting for all payments made by the Tribe to the 

Fire District. 

14 

5. Building Design, Modifications and Construction 

5.1 Adoption of Current Standards: The Tribe shall comply with the most current 

adopted editions of the California Fire Code and the current Fire Safety Standards 

Ordinance in effect at the time of construction for the Project. The Parties acknowledge that the Fire District does not have fire code enforcement authority on the 

Property under Public Law 280 or any other applicable law, and nothing in this 

Agreement is intended to or may be interpreted as effecting any change in this area. 

Nonetheless, as part of government-to-government consultations, the Fire District 

shall be permitted by the Tribe to inspect and review Tribal plans and the Project, 

consistent with and pursuant to the terms specified in this Agreement, provided 

that Fire District inspections or review of residential projects shall take place prior 

to occupancy. 

5.2 Recommendations: Upon the request of the Tribe, the Fire District shall 

provide recommendations to the Tribe regarding on-going design, modifications, and 

construction of the Project. In order to protect the safety of Fire District personnel, 

employees of the Project and members of the Tribe, the Tribe shall provide the Fire 

District reasonable access to the Project so the Fire District may examine the 

Project. Pursuant to these examinations, the Fire District shall make recommendations to the Tribe regarding maintaining or improving the safety of the Project. The 

Parties agree that no liability shall be conferred on either Party based on the fact 

that any recommendations have or have not been made pursuant to this Section. 

5.3 Non-compliance with Codes: If the Fire District believes the Project does not 

meet the provisions of the California Fire Code and the current Fire Safety 

Standards Ordinance or is otherwise unsafe, the Fire District shall raise its concerns with the Tribe. If the Tribe fails to address these concerns to the Fire 

District’s satisfaction, the Parties agree that the Fire District may utilize the dispute resolution provisions of Section 8 of this Agreement or unilaterally terminate 

the Agreement immediately. 

6. Adequate Water Supply 

6.1 The Tribe agrees to provide adequate water at an adequate pressure to 

effectively fight fires in and around the Project. 

7. Obligations and Immunities 

In order to effectuate the implementation of, and ensure the effectiveness of this 

Agreement, the Parties recognize and agree to the following obligations and 

immunities: 

7.1 Indemnification: Each Party agrees to maintain, defend (with counsel satisfactory to the indemnified Party), protect, hold harmless, and release the other, its 

officers, members, agents, representatives, volunteers and employees, from and 

against any and all claims, loss, proceedings, damages, causes of action, liability, 

costs or expense (including attorneys’ fees and witness costs) arising from or in connection with, or caused by, any act, omission, or negligence of such Party, including 

its members, officers, agents, representatives, volunteers or employees. This indemnification obligation shall not be limited in any way by any limitation on the 

amount or type of damages or compensation payable to or for the indemnifying 

Party under workers’ compensation acts, disability benefit acts, or other employee 

benefit acts. This indemnification obligation shall be subject to the limitations of the 

Tribe’s waiver of sovereign immunity described in Section 7.3. 

7.2 Insurance: The Tribe agrees to obtain and maintain, at its sole cost, a policy 

of commercial general liability insurance with limits not less than Two Million 

Dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence and in the aggregate covering bodily injury and 

property damage, including excess medical coverage. The policy shall contain endorsements for coverage, which includes but is not limited to: premises liability, 

general liability, personal injury, blanket contractual coverage and contractual indemnity. The policy shall be endorsed to name the Fire District, its officers, officials, 

employees and volunteers as an additional insured. The Fire District shall cooperate 

in providing any information reasonably required to obtain such insurance. The 

Tribe shall provide a copy of the policy to the Fire District for review and approval 

and timely provide proof of such insurance on an annual basis. Any dispute over 

the existence of a duty to indemnify or defend shall be resolved through the dispute 

resolution process set forth below in the Agreement. No cancellation or change of 

coverage of insured shall be effective until thirty (30) days written notice has been 

given to the Fire District. 

15 

7.3 Limited Waiver of Sovereign Immunity. The Tribe agrees to be bound by the 

terms of this Agreement. The Parties acknowledge that the Tribe is a federallyrecognized Indian tribe and, as such, it possesses sovereign immunity from suit. 

Nothing in this Agreement is or shall be deemed to be a waiver of the Tribe’s 

sovereign immunity from suit, which immunity is expressly asserted, except that 

Tribe agrees to waive its immunity for the limited and sole purpose of effectuating 

this Agreement and enforcing the dispute resolution provisions described in Section 

8. The Tribe’s limited waiver of its sovereign immunity as provided herein in favor 

of the Fire Department extends only to an arbitration, action to compel arbitration 

and action to confirm or enforce arbitration awards by the Fire Department for the 

Tribe’s breach of this Agreement. The Tribe does not waive its sovereign immunity 

for the benefit of any third party. 

7.4 Fire District Obligations and Immunities. The Fire District agrees to be bound 

by the terms of this Agreement. In order to be so bound, the Fire District agrees 

to waive its immunity for the limited purposes of effectuating this Agreement and 

enforcing the dispute resolution provisions described in Section 8. However, notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, the Parties agree that the Fire 

District, in response to any claim or action, may assert all of the statutory immunities and related statutes of California with regard to fire protection services, rescue 

services, emergency medical services, hazardous material emergency response 

services, ambulance services and any other service relating to the protection of lives 

and property and other matters covered by this Agreement. 

8. Dispute Resolution/Mediation/Judicial Review 

8.1 Meet and Confer. Prior to pursuing any arbitration, each Party shall, 

whenever possible, attempt to resolve any grievances, complaints or disputes that 

are brought to its attention by the other Party. Each Party shall notify the other 

Party in writing of any material dissatisfaction with the other Party’s performance 

at that Party’s address of record. Within ten (10) days of receipt of such notice, unless the problem has been resolved, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith 

to determine what remedial action, if any is necessary; provided that if the complaining Party believes that the problem identified creates a significant, imminent 

threat to public health or safety or to the Property and Project, the complaining 

Party may proceed directly to judicial review as provided in Paragraph 8.5 below. 

8.2 Arbitration. In the event of any dispute between the Parties arising under this 

Agreement, such dispute shall be submitted to mandatory binding arbitration pursuant to the Commercial Rules of American Arbitration Association. Each Party 

shall initially pay its own arbitration costs and expenses, but the arbitrator may, 

in its discretion, include such costs and expenses, together with reasonable 

attorney’s fees, as part of the award to the prevailing Party. 

8.3 Judicial Review. Any award of the arbitrators may be submitted for enforcement to a court of competent jurisdiction located in Sonoma County, California. 

Such enforcement actions shall be brought in the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of California, the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. If the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of California determines that it lacks jurisdiction, 

the Parties shall be entitled to file in the appropriate trial court for the State of 

California. The awards of any arbitration if brought in Federal Court shall be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act codified in Title 9 of the United States Code 

except as the same may be changed or limited by the provisions of this Agreement. 

The appropriate Court shall have the authority not only to confirm any order or decision of the arbitrator, but to issue all orders necessary, including, but not limited 

to, the issuance of temporary or permanent injunctions to prohibit the Parties from 

engaging in conduct that violates the provisions of this Agreement; compelling the 

Parties to comply with the provisions of this Agreement; requiring the Parties to 

pay over any income, or profits subject to attachment or any decision or order of 

any arbitrator selected under this Agreement. 

8.4. Judicial Remedies. Judicial remedies are specifically limited to the following: 

8.4.1. The enforcement of an award of money damages by arbitration pursuant 

to this Agreement; provided that the arbitrator(s) and/or Court shall have no authority or jurisdiction to execute against its San Pablo Lytton Casino operations and 

to award the prevailing Party the costs of arbitration, court costs to enforce the arbitration decision and legal fees incurred during arbitration and any subsequent court 

proceedings to enforce the arbitration decision. 

16 

8.4.2. The enforcement of a determination by an arbitrator pursuant to this 

Agreement that mandates either Party to specifically perform any obligation under 

this Agreement (other than an obligation to pay money which is provided for in 

Paragraph 8.4.1 above). 

8.5 Expedited Procedure for Significant, Imminent Threats to Public Safety: If the 

Fire District or the Tribe reasonably believes that the other Party’s conduct in violation of this Agreement or applicable law has caused or will cause a significant, 

imminent threat to public health or safety or to the Property or the Project, resolution of which cannot be delayed for the time periods otherwise specified in this 

section, the complaining Party may proceed directly to arbitration as set forth in 

Paragraph 8.2 above, without reference to the Meet and Confer process set forth in 

Paragraph 8.1 above and seek immediate equitable relief. At least twenty-four (24) 

hours before proceeding in this manner, the complaining Party shall provide to the 

other a written request for correction and notice of intent to exercise its rights 

under this Paragraph 8.5, setting out the legal and or factual basis for its reasonable belief that there is a significant, imminent threat to public health or safety or 

to the Property or Project. 

9. Miscellaneous Provisions 

9.1 Notices: Notices and service of process shall be sent to the contacts listed 

below or to such other person or address as shall be provided in writing by the 

party. Notice or correspondence provided pursuant to Section 8 of this Agreement 

shall be by Certified Mail, return receipt requested, to the addressees below. All 

other correspondence under this Agreement, including but not limited to submission 

of payments, shall be provided by personal delivery or first class mail to the first 

addressees specified below for each Party. Notice or payment provided by Certified 

Mail or first class mail pursuant to this Paragraph shall be deemed given upon deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid or otherwise at the time of actual 

delivery. Notice of changes in any of the addressees below is to be given by giving 

notice pursuant to this Paragraph. 

FOR THE TRIBE: FOR THE FIRE DISTRICT: 

Lytton Rancheria of California Windsor Fire Protection District 

Margie Mejia Pat McDowell 

Tribal Chairperson Board President 

437 Aviation Blvd. P.O. Box 530 

Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Windsor, CA 95492 

Lawrence R. Stidham William J. Arnone, Jr. Esq. 

Stidham Law Offices Merrill, Arnone & Jones, LLP 

210 5th Street 3554 Round Barn Blvd., Suite 303 

Ramona, CA 92065 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 

9.2 Applicable Law: This Agreement is not intended to nullify or reduce the effect 

of application of any applicable law. 

9.3 Amendments: This Agreement may be modified or amended only by mutual 

and written agreement of the Parties. The Parties may amend this Agreement by 

mutual written consent at any time. 

9.4 Third Party Beneficiaries: This Agreement is not intended to, and shall not 

be construed to, create any rights in third parties. 

9.5 No Waiver of Breach: No covenant, term or condition or the breach thereof 

of this Agreement shall be deemed waived, except by written consent, and any 

waiver of the breach of any covenant, term or condition shall not be deemed to be 

a waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach of the same or any other covenant, 

term or condition. 

9.6 Assignment and Delegation: Neither Party shall assign, delegate or transfer 

any interest in or duty under this Agreement without the prior written consent of 

the other, and no such transfer shall be of any force or effect unless and until the 

other Party shall have so consented. 

9.7 Force Majeure: In the event of a forced delay in the performance by either 

Party of obligations under this Agreement due to acts of God or of the public enemy, 

acts or inaction of the other Party or its employees or agents, strikes, lockouts, unusual delay in transportation, unavailability of materials, fires (other than those 

17 

fires intended to be covered by the Services), floods, catastrophic weather or other 

natural disasters, epidemics, riots, insurrection, war or unavoidable casualties, the 

time for performance of such obligations shall be extended for the period of the 

forced delay. 

9.8 Termination: This Agreement shall remain in effect until at least January 1, 

2022, and may not be terminated by either Party without the other Party’s written 

consent, unless in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement 

shall continue in effect after January 1, 2022, until terminated by mutual agreement or until either Party provides six (6) months written notice indicating its 

desire to terminate the Agreement. Any disputes regarding payments to the Fire 

District incurred prior to the termination date shall be resolved through the dispute 

resolution process outlined in Section 8 above. 

9.9 Suspension of Services: If the Tribe fails to make a payment in accordance 

with the requirements of this Agreement, then, upon ten (10) days written notice 

to the Tribe, the Fire District may suspend Services and any other obligations to 

the Tribe under this Agreement until such payment is made. 

9.10 Change in Use of Property: The Parties acknowledge that the terms of 

relative duties and obligations in this agreement are based upon the Project being 

the development of a residential community on the Property. The Parties agree that, 

should the use of the Property change from residential to another use, this 

Agreement shall be reviewed and changed as appropriate. 

9.11 Final Agreement: This Agreement is intended both as the final expression 

of the agreement between the Parties with respect to the included terms and as a 

complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement and supersedes all 

prior written and oral agreements, if any, with respect to the subject matter hereof. 

No modification of this Agreement shall be effective unless and until such modification is evidenced by a writing signed by the Parties. 

9.12 Authorized Representatives: The persons executing this Agreement on behalf 

of the Parties hereto affirmatively represent that each has the requisite legal authority to enter into this Agreement on behalf of their respective Party and to bind 

their respective Party to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The undersigned representative of each Party agrees to provide written proof of such authority 

to the other Party prior to, or at the time of, execution of this Agreement. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of their respective Parties understand that 

both Parties are relying on these representations in entering into this Agreement. 

9.13 Successors in Interest: The terms of this Agreement will be binding on all 

successors in interest to each Party. 

9.14 Severability and Construction: To the fullest extent allowed by law, the 

provisions of this Agreement shall be construed and given effect in a manner that 

avoids any violation of applicable law. The Parties covenant and agree that in the 

event that any Provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, such determination shall not affect the validity of any other provision 

of this Agreement or the remaining portion of any provisions. In the event of a dispute between the Parties as to the language of this Agreement or the construction 

or meaning of any term hereof, this Agreement will be deemed to have been drafted 

by the Parties in equal parts so that no presumption or inferences concerning its 

terms or interpretation may be construed against one Party over the other to this 

Agreement. 

9.15 Governing Law: This Agreement shall be construed according to applicable 

federal and California substantive law to the extent not inconsistent with the 

express provisions of this Agreement, unless federal law as to the Tribe or the Fire 

District, or California law as to the Fire District, prohibits such Parties from abiding by such express provision, in which case the provision will be deemed to be 

invalid and resolved, if possible, under the severability provisions in Section 9.15. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing California rules of construction shall be applied in 

interpreting this Agreement. 

9.16 Hazardous Materials: The Tribe agrees to maintain information on 

hazardous materials used or stored on the Project, including, at a minimum, information on the types, quantities and location of use or storage of such materials. 

Such information shall be available to the Fire District upon request and shall be 

maintained so that it is immediately available in case of emergency. The Parties 

acknowledge that, in the event of an emergency involving Hazardous Materials, the 

Fire District’s responsibility is limited to clearing the impacted area, if possible, and 

18 

containing the hazard, if possible; the Tribe is solely responsible for the clean-up, 

transportation and disposal of any hazardous material. 

9.17 Mutual Good Faith: Throughout the term of this Agreement, the Parties 

agree to exercise good faith and to observe the covenants contained herein. 

WHEREFORE, IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Parties hereby execute and enter 

into this Agreement with the intent to be bound thereby through their authorized 

representatives whose signatures are affixed below. 

WINDSOR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 

WINDSOR, CA, 

JUNE 3, 2015. 

Hon. JARED HUFFMAN, 

1630 Longworth House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Re: ‘‘Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2015’’ 

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE HUFFMAN: 

On behalf of the Windsor Unified School District (District), Board of Trustees 

please accept this letter in support of the introduction and enactment of H.R. 2538, 

the ‘‘Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2015.’’ 

This past fall, the District has entered into an Agreement with Lytton Rancheria 

(the Tribe) applicable to its proposed project to build housing, governmental and 

community facilities, for its members on land to be acquired in trust for the Tribe 

within the District’s geographic boundaries. Under the Agreement, the Tribe agreed 

to donate to the District an amount equal to the developer fees that would be afforded to the District if the Tribe’s project were a standard residential development. 

The District supports the acquisition of the lands in trust for the Tribe and 

continues to work with the Tribe for the betterment of our community. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

STEVEN L. JORGENSEN, 

Superintendent. 

19 

20 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. As evidenced by the documents that 

I have just referenced, the Tribe has worked very hard to reach 

agreements and address potential concerns from its neighbors and 

local governments. I am very thankful for those efforts. An agreement like this that works for all of the affected parties, in my opinion, is far preferable to everyone involved than the black box of the 

BIA process. 

So, I am pleased to introduce this bill, along with my colleague, 

Jeff Denham, and I would like to welcome Chairman Mejia again. 

We look forward to your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

I want to start by thanking Chairman Young and Ranking Member Ruiz for 

including the Lytton Rancheria Homeland Act of 2015 in today’s hearing. 

I would also like to welcome Chairperson of the Lytton Rancheria Margie Mejia 

who is here to speak in support of this bill today. 

The Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2015 (H.R. 2538), which I introduced 

with my friend Congressman Denham, takes lands already owned by the Lytton 

Rancheria in Sonoma County into trust for housing and other non-gaming purposes 

as part of the Lytton Rancheria reservation. 

In 1958, the Lytton Rancheria, a federally-recognized Pomo Indian tribe, lost its 

homeland when it was terminated by the Federal Government. In 1991, the Tribe 

was restored by the courts to federally-recognized status, but the restoration did not 

include restoring the Tribe’s reservation on its ancestral homeland. 

An important condition of my introducing this bill was that the Tribe negotiate 

agreements with its local government neighbors to address and mitigate potential 

concerns, including the strong opposition to new casinos in Sonoma County. 

The arrangements that have been negotiated—and in some cases are continuing 

to be finalized—provide certainty for all parties, and provide a model for functional, 

respectful, productive relationships between local governments and federallyrecognized tribes. 

This bill ensures that the Lytton Tribe, after many long years, can finally return 

to a homeland—and it does it in partnership with the Tribe’s local government 

neighbors. 

The County of Sonoma and the Lytton Rancheria entered into a Memorandum of 

Agreement on March 10, 2015 and I ask unanimous consent that the resolution 

signed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma be entered into the 

record. 

The Chairperson of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, Susan Gorin, has 

also written a statement for the record, I ask unanimous consent that it be entered 

into the record at this time. 

I would like to highlight a few lines from Supervisor Gorin’s statement for the 

subcommittee: 

‘‘The Tribe and County worked together to accurately identify the off-reservation 

impacts and, as the project changed over time, to build a framework that met the 

parties’ respective interests.’’ 

‘‘Enactment of H.R. 2538 will reestablish an historic homeland for the Tribe in 

Sonoma County while setting a course for a constructive intergovernmental relationship and addressing community concerns regarding gaming.’’ 

The town of Windsor is still working cooperatively with the Tribe, which will include their public process. While that public process is proceeding, I am pleased to 

note that two of the affected local agencies have already reached agreements with 

the Tribe covering their shared interests. 

• Lytton Rancheria has entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the 

Windsor Fire Protection District to provide emergency services to tribal members located in the proposed tribal housing area. I ask unanimous consent 

that the agreement be entered into the record. 

21 

• Lytton Rancheria has entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the 

Windsor Unified School District to prepare for and mitigate an increase in 

school-aged children who would move into the proposed tribal housing. I ask 

unanimous consent that a letter of support for H.R. 2538 from the Windsor 

Unified School District be entered into the record. 

Last, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the map referenced in my bill. This map can be found on my Web site and it is my understanding that it has been on file for public review with the town of Windsor since 

May 28, 2015. 

As evidenced by the documents I have just referenced and included in the record, 

the Tribe has worked hard to reach agreements and address potential concerns from 

its neighbors and local governments, and I am very thankful for those efforts. 

Again I would like to welcome Chairperson Margie Mejia. We look forward to 

hearing your testimony. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Huffman, a little latitude. Thank you for your 

kind gesture of the bottle of wine, you know, celebrating my new 

bride. Thank you. 

So this guy knows how to do the job, you know. I can tell you 

right now. He is up there with—thank you. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. You are welcome. Congratulations. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. 

Mrs. Capps, you are recognized to comment on the legislation. It 

affects your district. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. LOIS CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to provide a statement on H.R. 1157 today. I want to congratulate you, as well, in a personal way. And I also do not have 

any unanimous consent requests. 

[Laughter.] 

Mrs. CAPPS. But I also have three constituents who are witnesses 

today, and I want to welcome them to this hearing. 

H.R. 1157 is a bill that would take 1,400 acres of land known 

as Camp 4 in the Santa Ynez Valley into trust for the Santa Ynez 

Band of Chumash Mission Indians. The Santa Ynez Valley, which 

is in my congressional district, has a long history of limited development and there has long been a concerted effort to retain the undeveloped, rural nature of the valley. 

As the earliest inhabitants of the valley, the Chumash certainly 

share the community’s commitment to protecting and preserving 

the land and the unique qualities of this area. I have had the 

pleasure of working with Chairman Armenta and the Tribe on 

many occasions over the years, including on their wonderful Tribal 

Health Clinic and Education Center. It is clear the Tribe has legitimate needs for more housing for its members, a need that must be 

addressed. That is why I have worked many years to try to bring 

the Tribe, local community members, and county leadership together to work out the differences and find a way forward. 

While I know this has proven to be a difficult process, I sincerely 

believe that there can still be, and there is, a path forward that 

meets both the needs of the Tribe and addresses the concerns of 

the county and local residents. But let me be clear: H.R. 1157 is 

not that path, and I oppose it for several reasons. 

22 

First, the issues at the core of this matter are fundamentally 

local. This is ultimately about local housing, zoning, and land use. 

These are issues best resolved by county and municipal officials in 

consultation with local residents and the Tribe, not in Washington, 

DC by Members of Congress who don’t even live near the area. 

These are issues that have always been worked out locally, because 

they involve very localized knowledge of the community and its 

residents. No matter how well-intentioned, without the support of 

the local community, we here in Congress, in my opinion, should 

not intervene in this local issue. 

Second, the bill is unnecessary because Camp 4 has already been 

taken into trust. While I think we can all agree that the BIA feeto-trust process certainly has its flaws, this is the process that has 

been put into place to resolve issues like Camp 4, and that process 

is moving forward. After roughly a year-and-a-half of review, the 

BIA approved the Tribe’s application last year on Christmas Eve. 

The process may not be moving as fast as the Tribe would prefer, 

but the application was approved in a timely manner and appeals 

will be considered under new rules that expedite the process. Legislative action such as H.R. 1157 should be for circumstances when 

the BIA process is clearly failing; this is not one of those 

circumstances. 

Third, with Camp 4 already taken into trust, the only real effect 

of this bill would be to cut off consideration of the appeals of the 

BIA decision currently being considered by Assistant Secretary 

Kevin Washburn. Again, the BIA appeals process may not move as 

quickly as the Tribe would like, but eliminating the appeals process 

less than 6 months after it began hardly seems appropriate. Agree 

or disagree, my constituents have the right to be heard and provide 

input on this process. This bill would prematurely and needlessly 

cut off this right. 

Finally, I am deeply troubled by the precedent being set by the 

consideration of this bill, and I think my colleagues should be troubled, as well. The land taken into trust by H.R. 1157, as well as 

the entirety of Santa Barbara County, is solely within California’s 

24th congressional district, which I happen to represent. The land 

has no connection to the districts represented by Mr. LaMalfa, by 

anyone else on this committee, or by any other Member of the 

House. It is my congressional district. I alone have been elected by 

the people of the 24th District to represent them here in Congress. 

It is also worth noting that our former Republican colleague, 

Elton Gallegly, who also represented the Santa Ynez Valley in 

Congress for many years, did not support Federal legislation on 

this issue either. 

I would hope that my colleagues would take a minute to consider 

this and the door being opened by today’s hearing and the committee’s consideration of H.R. 1157. Consider the fact that this committee is moving forward on legislation that is opposed by both 

local and Federal representatives of the communities impacted by 

this bill. Consider also that the outcome of this legislation could 

have a profound impact on the future of the Santa Ynez Valley, yet 

valley residents do not have the opportunity to hold the bill’s sponsors accountable at the ballot box. I find this profoundly troubling, 

and I urge my colleagues to consider this carefully. 

23 

Once again, Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose H.R. 1157. I urge 

you not to advance this bill, and I yield back the remainder of my 

time. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Capps follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. LOIS CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Thank you Mr. Chairman for giving me the opportunity to provide a statement 

on H.R. 1157 today. 

I’d also like to welcome my three constituents testifying on the panel. 

H.R. 1157 is a bill that would take 1,400 acres of land known as ‘‘Camp 4’’ in 

the Santa Ynez Valley into trust for the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission 

Indians. 

The Santa Ynez Valley, which is in my congressional district, has a long history 

of limited development and there has long been a concerted effort to retain the undeveloped, rural nature of the valley. 

As the earliest inhabitants of the valley, the Chumash certainly share the community’s commitment to protecting and preserving the land and the unique qualities 

of the area. I have had the pleasure of working with Chairman Armenta and the 

Tribe on many occasions over the years, including on the wonderful Tribal Health 

Clinic and Education Center. It is clear that the Tribe has a legitimate need for 

more housing for its members—a need that must be addressed. And that is why I 

have worked to try to bring the Tribe, local community members, and county leadership together to work out their differences and find a way forward. 

While I know this has proven to be a difficult process, I sincerely believe that 

there can still be a path forward that both meets the needs of the Tribe and addresses the concerns of the county and local residents. But let me be clear: 

H.R. 1157 is not that path, and I oppose it for several reasons. 

First, the issues at the core of this matter are fundamentally local. This is ultimately about local housing, zoning, and land use. These are issues best resolved by 

county and municipal officials in consultation with local residents and the Tribe, not 

in Washington, DC by Members of Congress who don’t even live near the area. 

These are issues that have always been worked out locally because they involve very 

localized knowledge of the community and its residents. No matter how wellintentioned, without the support of the local community, we here in Congress should 

not intervene in this local issue. 

Second, the bill is unnecessary because Camp 4 has already been taken into trust. 

While I think we can all agree that the BIA fee-to-trust process certainly has its 

flaws, this is the process that has been put in place to resolve issues like Camp 4 

and that process is moving forward. After roughly a year-and-a-half of review, the 

BIA approved the Tribe’s application last year on Christmas Eve. 

The process may not be moving as fast as the Tribe would prefer, but the application was approved in a timely manner and the appeals will be considered under new 

rules that expedite the process. Legislative actions such as H.R. 1157 should be for 

circumstances when the BIA process is clearly failing; this is not one of those 

circumstances. 

Third, with Camp 4 already taken into trust, the only real effect of this bill would 

be to cut off consideration of the appeals of the BIA decision currently being considered by Assistant Secretary Kevin Washburn. Again, the BIA appeals process may 

not move as quickly as the Tribe would like, but eliminating the appeals process 

less than 6 months after it began hardly seems appropriate. Agree or disagree, my 

constituents have a right to be heard and provide input on this process. This bill 

would prematurely and needlessly cut off this right. 

And finally, I am deeply troubled by the precedent being set by the consideration 

of this bill, and I think my colleagues should be troubled as well. The land taken 

into trust by H.R. 1157, as well as the entirety of Santa Barbara County, is solely 

within California’s 24th Congressional District, which I represent. This land has no 

connection to the districts represented by Mr. LaMalfa, by anyone on this committee, or by any other Member of this House. It is in my congressional district; 

I alone have been elected by the people of the 24th District to represent them here 

in Congress. 

And it’s also worth noting that our former Republican colleague Elton Gallegly, 

who also represented the Santa Ynez Valley in Congress for many years, did not 

support Federal legislation on this issue either. I would hope that my colleagues will 

take a moment to consider this and the door being opened by today’s hearing and 

the committee’s consideration of H.R. 1157. Consider the fact that this committee 

24 

is moving forward on legislation that is opposed by both the local and Federal 

representatives of the communities impacted by this bill. Consider also that the outcome of this legislation could have a profound impact on the future of the Santa 

Ynez Valley, yet valley residents do not have the opportunity to hold the bill’s sponsors accountable at the ballot box. I find this profoundly troubling, and I urge my 

colleagues to consider this carefully. 

Once again, Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose H.R. 1157 and urge you not to 

advance this bill. 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the lady for her statement. Now I will 

introduce our witnesses. 

Mr. Mike Black—again, Mr. Black, welcome. I am not going to 

be mean yet, so just keep that in mind. And you are accompanied 

by Michael Nedd, Assistant Director, Energy, Minerals, and Realty 

Management, Bureau of Land Management. The Honorable 

Vincent Armenta, Chairman of the Ynez Chumash Mission 

Indians, Santa Ynez, California. Ms. Mona Miyasato, Executive 

Officer, County of Santa Barbara, on behalf of the County of Santa 

Barbara Board of Supervisors. Mr. Steve Lavagnino, County Supervisor, Fifth District, Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, 

Santa Maria, California. Mr. Leo Barlow, Representative of the 

Community of Wrangell, Alaska, on behalf of the Southeast Alaska 

Corporation. And the Honorable Ms. Mejia, Chairperson of the 

Lytton Rancheria, Santa Rosa, California. 

Mr. Black, before you proceed, the committee has received the 

Administration’s testimony an hour before the hearing. I would 

suggest you hire a little bit more efficient clerks, because we, as 

a committee, do not appreciate 1 hour. The rules are 24 hours at 

the minimum. I just want you to know that. I have had trouble 

with every administration and the Department of the Interior—just 

not your administration—not recognizing the rules of the committee, that you have to follow because we have to have the testimony ahead of time so we can review what you are going to say, 

what you are going to do—defend it or support it. And I think it 

is inappropriate to have the committee get it an hour before the 

hearing. Just want you to know it doesn’t make me happy. 

So, Mr. Black, you are up. 

I think all of you know you have 5 minutes. And I will, very 

frankly—I am pretty lenient in some cases, if you are making 

sense. And that is—you have to keep that in mind. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. So, we will try to be as generous as we can, and then 

the questions. 

Mr. Black, you are up. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BLACK, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF 

INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. BLACK. Chairman Young, Ranking Member Ruiz, and members of the subcommittee, I am accompanied today, as you stated, 

by Michael Nedd, Assistant Director for the Bureau of Land 

Management. I want to thank you for the opportunity to present 

the Department of the Interior’s views on H.R. 1157, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to place certain lands located 

25 

in the unincorporated area of the County of Santa Barbara, 

California into trust for the benefit of the Santa Ynez Band of 

Chumash Mission Indians; H.R. 2538, a bill taking certain lands 

located in the County of Sonoma, California into trust for the benefit of the Lytton Rancheria and for other purposes; and H.R. 2386, 

the ‘‘Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities 

Recognition and Compensation Act.’’ 

Taking land into trust is one of the most important functions 

that the Department undertakes on the behalf of Indian tribes. 

Homelands are essential to the health, safety, and welfare of tribal 

communities. Thus, the Administration has made the restoration of 

tribal homelands a priority, and is committed to this effort through 

the Department’s acquisition of land in trust for tribes, where 

appropriate. 

H.R. 1157 authorizes the Secretary for the Department to place 

approximately five parcels of land into trust for the Tribe. 

H.R. 1157 clearly provides a legal description for the lands that 

will be held in trust for the Tribe, and once the land is placed in 

trust for the Tribe, removes any restrictions on the property, pursuant to California State law, but also provides that the legislation 

does not terminate any right-of-way, right-of-use issued, granted, 

or permitted prior to the date of the enactment of this legislation. 

H.R. 1157 also includes a restriction that the Tribe may not conduct any gaming activities on any land taken into trust pursuant 

to this Act. 

The Department supports mandatory fee-to-trust legislation, but 

takes no position on H.R. 1157, given that the five parcels identified in the bill are currently on appeal to the Assistant Secretary 

for Indian Affairs. 

H.R. 2538 will place approximately 500 acres of land into trust 

for the Tribe. H.R. 2538 references a map titled, ‘‘Lytton Fee 

Owned Property to be Taken Into Trust,’’ dated May 1, 2015, for 

the lands that will be held in trust for the Tribe. Under H.R. 2538, 

once the land is in trust for the Tribe, valid existing rights, contracts, and management agreements related to the easements and 

right-of-ways will remain. 

H.R. 2538 also includes a restriction that the Tribe may not conduct any gaming activities on any land taken into trust pursuant 

to this Act. 

The Department recommends adding language into H.R. 2538 

that does allow the BIA to examine the land for any environmental 

issues prior to such lands going into trust. The Department supports H.R. 2538 with some amendments. 

H.R. 2386 would amend ANCSA to authorize the five Southeast 

Alaska Native communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, 

Tenakee, and Wrangell to organize as urban corporations, entitling 

each, upon incorporation, to receive one township of land, or approximately 23,040 acres, the local areas of historical, cultural, 

traditional, and economic importance. The bill provides that the establishment of these new urban corporations does not affect any 

entitlement to land of any native corporation established before 

this Act being proposed. 

Although the Department opposes H.R. 2386, we would be glad 

to work with the sponsor and committees to address issues with 

26 

the proposed legislation, as well as problems with eligible existing 

ANCSA communities. 

Mr. Nedd and I would be happy to answer any questions that 

you may have. Thank you again. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Black follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BLACK, DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF INDIAN

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ON H.R. 1157, H.R. 2386, AND

H.R. 2538 

H.R. 1157, ‘‘Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians Land 

Transfer Act of 2015’’ 

Chairman Young, Ranking Member Ruiz, and members of the subcommittee, my 

name is Michael Black and I am the Director for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the Interior’s 

(Department) views on H.R. 1157, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior 

to place certain lands located in the unincorporated area of the County of Santa 

Barbara, California into trust for the benefit of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash 

Mission Indians (Tribe), and for other purposes. 

Taking land into trust is one of the most important functions that the Department 

undertakes on behalf of Indian tribes. Homelands are essential to the health, safety, 

and welfare of the tribal communities. Thus, this Administration has made the restoration of tribal homelands a priority. This Administration is committed to the 

restoration of tribal homelands, through the Department’s acquisition of lands in 

trust for tribes, where appropriate. The Department supports mandatory fee-to-trust 

legislation but takes no position on H.R. 1157 given that the five parcels identified 

in the H.R. 1157 are currently on appeal to the Assistant Secretary for Indian 

Affairs at the Department. 

H.R. 1157 authorizes the Secretary for the Department to place approximately 

five parcels of land into trust for the Tribe. H.R. 1157 clearly provides the legal description for the lands that will be held in trust for the Tribe. H.R. 1157, once the 

land is placed in trust for the Tribe, removes any restrictions on the property pursuant to California state law, but also provides that the legislation does not terminate 

any right-of-way, or right-of-use issued, granted or permitted prior to the date of the 

enactment of this legislation. H.R. 1157 also includes a restriction that the Tribe 

may not conduct any gaming activities on any land taken into trust pursuant to this 

Act. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department’s views on this 

legislation. I will be happy to answer any questions the subcommittee may have. 

H.R. 2386, ‘‘Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities 

Recognition and Compensation Act’’ 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of the Department of the 

Interior on H.R. 2386, the Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities 

Recognition and Compensation Act. H.R. 2386 would amend the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) to authorize the five Southeast Alaska Native communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell to organize as 

urban corporations, entitling each to receive land in southeastern Alaska. 

The Department supports the goals of fulfilling ANCSA entitlements as soon as 

possible so that Alaska Native corporations may each have the full economic benefits of completed land entitlements. In recent years, the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) has maintained an accelerated pace in fulfilling entitlements 

pursuant to the ANCSA. To date, the BLM has fulfilled 95 percent of ANCSA and 

state of Alaska entitlements by interim conveyance, tentative approval, or patent. 

The BLM is committed to improving the Alaska land transfer process wherever opportunities exist. For example, we have proposed to establish a faster, more accurate, and more cost-effective method for land conveyances required by the Alaska 

Statehood Act, though we continue to wait for meaningful engagement and feedback 

from the state of Alaska. 

Background 

ANCSA effected a final settlement of the aboriginal claims of Native Americans 

in Alaska through payment of $962.5 million and conveyances of more than 44 million acres of Federal land. Although it was impossible for Congress to have effected 

27 

total parity among all villages in the state, there was a distinction made in ANCSA 

between the villages in the Southeast and those located elsewhere. Prior to the passage of ANCSA, natives in the Southeast received payments from the United States 

pursuant to court cases in the 1950s and late 1960s, for the taking of their aboriginal lands. Because natives in the Sealaska region benefited from an additional cash 

settlement under ANCSA, the eligible communities received less acreage than their 

counterparts elsewhere in Alaska. Congress specifically named the villages in the 

Southeast that were to be recognized in ANCSA; these five communities were not 

among those named. Despite this, the five communities applied to receive benefits 

under ANCSA and were determined to be ineligible. Three of the five appealed their 

status and were denied. 

Notwithstanding the ineligibility of some communities for corporate status under 

ANCSA, all natives potentially receive benefits from the ANCSA settlement. Alaska 

Natives in these five communities are enrolled as at-large shareholders in the 

Sealaska Corporation. The enrolled members of the five communities comprise more 

than 20 percent of the enrolled membership of the Sealaska Corporation, and as 

such, have received benefits from the original ANCSA settlement. 

H.R. 2386 

H.R. 2386 would amend ANCSA to authorize the five Southeast Alaska Native 

communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell to organize 

as urban corporations, entitling each, upon incorporation, to receive one township 

of land (23,040 acres) from local areas of historical, cultural, traditional and economic importance. The bill provides that establishment of these new urban corporations does not affect any entitlement to land of any native corporation established 

before this Act being proposed. 

Recognition of these five communities as provided in the bill, despite the history 

and requirements of ANCSA, risks setting a precedent for other similar communities to seek to overturn administrative finality and re-open their status determinations. Establishing this de facto new process would contravene the purposes of 

ANCSA and could create a continual land transfer cycle in Alaska. 

The Department also has concerns with specific provisions in the bill. For example, in Section 6, new ANCSA Section 43 contains very open-ended selection language. The provision does not require the new urban corporations to take lands for 

‘‘the township or townships in which all or part of the native village is located,’’ as 

provided for in ANCSA. Instead, it requires only that the lands be ‘‘local areas of 

historical, cultural, traditional, and economic importance to Alaska Natives’’ from 

the villages. The bill also appears to require the Secretary, in consultation with the 

Secretary of Commerce and representatives from Sealaska Corporation, to select 

and offer lands to the new urban corporations. 

Although the Department does not support H.R. 2386, we would be glad to work 

with the sponsor and the committee to address these issues as well as problems 

with eligible existing ANCSA communities. For instance, rather than simply addressing the perceived inequities of five communities formerly deemed to be ineligible under ANCSA, the Department would like to work with the committee to find 

solutions to the existing eligible communities that have no remaining administrative 

remedies, such as the villages of Nagamut, Canyon Village and Kaktovik. 

Conclusion 

The BLM’s Alaska Land Transfer program is now in a late stage of implementation and the Department strongly supports the equitable and expeditious completion 

of the remaining Alaska Native entitlements under ANCSA and other applicable authorities. H.R. 2386 would delay the Department’s goal of sunsetting the Alaska 

Land Transfer Program, which is in its final stages. The Department believes that 

the completion of the remaining entitlements under ANCSA and the Statehood Act 

is necessary to equitably resolve the remaining claims and fulfill an existing 

congressional mandate. 

H.R. 2538, ‘‘Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2015’’ 

Chairman Young, Ranking Member Ruiz, and members of the subcommittee, my 

name is Michael Black and I am the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Thank 

you for the opportunity to present the Department of the Interior’s (Department) 

views on H.R. 2538, a bill taking certain lands located in the County of Sonoma, 

California into trust for the benefit of the Lytton Rancheria of California (Tribe), 

and for other purposes. 

Taking land into trust is one of the most important functions that the Department 

undertakes on behalf of Indian tribes. Homelands are essential to the health, safety, 

28 

and welfare of the tribal communities. Thus, this Administration has made the restoration of tribal homelands a priority. This Administration is committed to the 

restoration of tribal homelands, through the Department’s acquisition of lands in 

trust for tribes, where appropriate. The Department supports H.R. 2538, with some 

amendments. 

H.R. 2538 will place approximately 511 acres of land into trust for the Tribe. 

H.R. 2538 references a map titled ‘‘Lytton Fee Owned Property to be Taken into 

Trust’’ dated May 1, 2015 that identifies the lands to be transferred into trust for 

the Tribe. Under H.R. 2538, once the land is in trust for the Tribe, valid existing 

rights, contracts, and management agreements related to easements and rights-ofway will remain. H.R. 2538 includes a restriction that the Tribe may not conduct 

any gaming activities on any land taken into trust pursuant to this Act. 

H.R. 2538 also references a Memorandum of Agreement between the County of 

Sonoma and the Tribe. The MOA affects not only the trust acquisition covered in 

the legislation but also future acquisitions and subjects the Tribe to the land use/ 

zoning authority of the County for most of the property identified in the legislation 

for the term of the MOA, 22 years, and imposes negotiated restrictions on the 

Tribe’s residential development. 

This Administration is supportive of legislative efforts to take land into trust for 

tribes. The Administration is also supportive of counties and tribes negotiating 

agreements to resolve their differences. The decision to compromise principles of 

tribal sovereignty is itself an exercise of sovereignty and tribal self-governance. In 

that spirit, the Administration defers to the decision made by the Tribe. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department’s views on this 

legislation. I will be happy to answer any questions the subcommittee may have. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Black. We have now—let me see. 

Vincent, you are up. 

STATEMENT OF VINCENT ARMENTA, CHAIRMAN, SANTA YNEZ 

BAND OF CHUMASH MISSION INDIANS, SANTA YNEZ, 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. ARMENTA. Good afternoon, Chairman Young, Ranking 

Member Ruiz, and members of the subcommittee. My name is 

Vincent Armenta, and I am the Tribal Chairman for the Santa 

Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. On behalf of our tribe, first I 

would like to thank you today for allowing me to testify on 

H.R. 1157. 

The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians is located in the 

Santa Ynez Reservation in Santa Barbara County, California. Our 

tribe was federally recognized in 1901, and remains the only federally-recognized Chumash Tribe in the Nation. The Chumash aboriginal territory lies along the California coast, between Malibu 

and Paso Robles, as well as the Northern Channel Islands. Their 

area was first settled about 13,000 years ago, and at one time the 

total population of the Chumash was approximately 18,000. 

Our tribe was eventually relegated to a 99-acre reservation. For 

many years, very few tribal members lived on the reservation. Running water, electricity were not available to our residents. We did 

not even have indoor plumbing until the 1960s. 

In the 1970s, the Tribe was able to secure funding for assistance 

from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to build 

the first modern homes on our reservation. Those homes are now 

nearly 50 years old, and insufficient to meet the needs of our people. In many instances, several generations live under one roof. 

Still, only about 17 percent of our members and descendants live 

on our reservation. 

29 

The HUD homes from the 1970s may have met the basic health 

and safety standards, but fire and rescue equipment commonly 

used today would be hard-pressed to service many of these homes 

as the roads are too narrow and the population density is too great. 

Unfortunately, building additional homes on our existing reservation is not possible. The majority of our reservation land is already 

developed and the remaining is in a creek bed or on a sloped 

hillside. 

Knowing the housing shortage will only worsen, our tribe purchased 1,400 acres of our ancestral land in 2010, known as Camp 

4. Camp 4 sits just a few miles east of our reservation. The Department of the Interior has confirmed that Camp 4 is part of our ancestral land. Shortly after purchasing Camp 4, we submitted a 

draft cooperative agreement to the Santa Barbara County Board of 

Supervisors, hoping to negotiate a payment in lieu of taxes in that 

agreement. Even though the land was currently only generating 

$81,000 a year in property taxes, our tribe offered $1 million a year 

for a period of 10 years. 

For more than 2 years, the Santa Barbara County Board of 

Supervisors ignored our offer. On August 20, 2013, the Board voted 

3 to 2 not to enter into a government-to-government dialog with 

our tribe, ending any hope we had of resolving this at the local 

level. The official position of the Board to this day is that tribes are 

not governments and, therefore, the County need not negotiate 

with them. One of the supervisors even went so far as to call for 

the end of tribal sovereignty. 

In spite of the Board’s decisions, our tribal government continues 

to build partnerships in our community. For instance, we recently 

completed a cooperative agreement with both the sheriff’s department and the Santa Barbara County fire department. We are paying for law enforcement, not just on the reservation, but for the 

entire valley. We are providing two additional positions at two separate fire stations in our community, for the purpose of protection 

of our tribal members, as well as community members. 

These agreements demonstrate that the Tribe is willing to work 

with the County in a positive and constructive manner, if we are 

given the opportunity to do so. Sadly, relations between the Tribe 

and the Board of Supervisors and its anti-tribal allies remain toxic. 

The Board and its allies blocked us from acquiring 6.9 acres of 

trust land for nearly 14 years. After lawsuits from anti-tribal 

groups, the BIA finally placed the land into trust last year. 

We are willing to work with the County to resolve these concerns. For instance, we address fears of gaming, which is in 

H.R. 1157. 

As witnessed by our lengthy but successful efforts to bring 6.9 

acres into trust through the administrative process, we will eventually prevail on this issue. There are only two variables, which are 

timing and restrictions on land use. 

Mr. Chairman and Members, thank you again for the 

opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Armenta follows:] 

30 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VINCENT ARMENTA, TRIBAL CHAIRMAN, SANTA YNEZ BAND

OF CHUMASH INDIANS ON H.R. 1157 

Good afternoon Chairman Young, Ranking Member Ruiz and members of the subcommittee. My name is Vincent Armenta and I am the Tribal Chairman of the 

Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. 

On behalf of our tribe, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about 

H.R. 1157, the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians Land Transfer Act 

of 2015. 

I. Brief History of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians/California 

Tribes 

The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians is located on the Santa Ynez 

Reservation in Santa Barbara County, California. Our tribe was federally recognized 

in 1901 and remains the only federally-recognized Chumash Tribe in the Nation. 

The Chumash original territory lies along the California coast, between Malibu 

and Paso Robles, as well as on the Northern Channel Islands. The area was first 

settled about 13,000 years ago and at one time, the Chumash had a total population 

of approximately 18,000 people. 

II. Need for Housing 

Our tribe was eventually relegated to a 99-acre reservation. For many years, very 

few tribal members lived on our reservation. Running water and electricity were not 

made available to our residents. 

Our source of water had been declared unfit for human consumption. Tribal members living on the reservation at that time had to walk to the creek to fill buckets 

of water for use in their homes. Toilets were open pits that sometimes overflowed 

into the creek, the very creek that supplied our members with drinking water. 

While it took a few years and many fundraisers, our reservation eventually 

secured running water and we finally had indoor plumbing in the late 1960s. 

In the 1970s, our tribe was able to secure funding and assistance from the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development to build the first modern homes 

on our reservation. Those homes are now nearly 50 years old and are insufficient 

to meet the needs of our people. In many instances, multiple generations live under 

one roof. Still, only about 17 percent of our tribal members and lineal descendants 

live on our reservation. 

While the subdivision planned by HUD in the 1970s may have met basic health 

and safety standards, fire and rescue equipment commonly used today would be 

hard pressed to service many of the homes in our current development as the roads 

are too narrow and the population density is too great. 

Unfortunately, building additional homes on our existing reservation is not possible. The majority of our reservation land is already developed and the remaining 

is in a creek bed or sloped areas that are impossible to develop. 

Knowing the housing shortage would only worsen, our tribe purchased 1,400 acres 

of ancestral land in 2010—land known as ‘‘Camp 4.’’ One of our primary goals in 

purchasing the land is to build homes on it for our tribal members and their 

families. 

Camp 4 sits just a few miles east of our reservation. By official action, the 

Department of Interior has confirmed that Camp 4 is part of our ancestral lands. 

III. Initial Offer to County of SB, Refusal to Meet and Rejection 

Shortly after purchasing the Camp 4 property, we submitted a Draft Cooperative 

Agreement to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, hoping to negotiate 

a payment in lieu of property taxes agreement. Even though the land was currently 

only generating $81,000 in property taxes per year, we offered the County a million 

dollars annually, for 10 years. 

For more than 2 years, the Board ignored our offer. 

On August 20, 2013, the Board voted 3–2 not to enter into a government-togovernment dialog, ending any hope we had of resolving this at the local level. 

The official position of the Board to this day is that tribes are not governments 

and therefore the County need not negotiate with them. One supervisor even went 

so far as to call for the end of tribal sovereignty. 

Unfortunately, the majority of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors 

simply lack a basic understanding of tribes as governments—an elementary 

recognition required to work effectively with tribal nations. 

31 

IV. Meetings and Agreements with Sheriff and Fire Department 

Notwithstanding the perpetual opposition from the County, our tribal government 

continues to build partnerships with those in the community who are willing to 

work with us. 

For instance, we recently completed cooperative agreements with our local Sheriff 

and Fire Departments. Through these agreements, Chumash is now paying for law 

enforcement and fire safety services not only on our reservation, but also mitigating 

off-reservation impacts and improving emergency services across the entire Santa 

Ynez Valley. 

As members of the subcommittee will recall, just last month, the California State 

Association of Counties testified in support of a number of reforms for the land into 

trust process, including providing for a legal framework to encourage tribes to reach 

intergovernmental mitigation agreements. Mr. Chairman, it is not the tribes that 

need encouragement, but rather, it is the counties. It is shameful that one of CSAC’s 

leading members, Santa Barbara County, can’t be troubled to take the advice of its 

own membership association. 

These agreements demonstrate that we are willing to work with the County in 

a positive and constructive manner, if we are just given the opportunity to do so. 

We have also built solid relationships in the community with various organizations. Through our Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians Foundation, our tribe has 

played a significant role in the philanthropic arena, donating millions of dollars to 

a wide variety of non-profit organizations and schools. In addition to funding a myriad of community projects that benefit the entire community, our tribe also provides 

volunteers for a number of non-profit organization projects through our volunteer 

organization, Team Chumash. 

A few of our Foundation’s recent donations include donating iPads to school children in an effort to expand technology access throughout the largest elementary 

school in the Lompoc school district, donating $10,000 to the Legal Aid Foundation 

of Santa Barbara County to help the organization continue its efforts to reduce 

homelessness and donating annually to the Santa Ynez Valley People Helping 

People organization to help with emergency and short-term social services. 

For the past decade, our tribe has also hosted its annual Chumash Charity Golf 

Classic where the proceeds from the tournament go to well-deserving local charities. 

In 2014, the largest amount in the tournament’s history was raised—$150,000— 

bringing the total amount raised through the tournament for local nonprofit organizations to $1 million. 

Through our Foundation, our tribe has donated more than $19 million to hundreds of groups, organizations and schools in the community and across the Nation 

as part of our tribe’s long-standing tradition of giving. 

V. Conclusion 

Sadly, relations between the Tribe and the Board of Supervisors and its antitribal allies remain toxic. 

The Board and its allies blocked us from acquiring just 6.9 acres of trust land for 

nearly 14 years, as lawsuit after lawsuit was filed then dismissed. The BIA’s decision to finally acquire the land last year came after a process that cost both the 

Tribe and our neighbors millions. 

But now that the playbook has been written, we are witnessing the same game 

play out. The County’s allies have once again filed frivolous lawsuits to stop the 

Tribe at every turn. And with housing pressures growing, we are left with passage 

of H.R. 1157 as the only viable solution. 

Regardless of how we have been treated, the Santa Ynez Chumash still stand 

ready to work with the County to resolve concerns. For instance, we have heard 

fears about additional gaming—that’s why the legislation takes gaming off the table. 

And if there are other reasonable requests, we remain open to finally opening a true 

government-to-government dialog with the County of Santa Barbara. 

As witnessed by our lengthy but successful efforts to bring the 6.9 acre parcel into 

trust via the administrative process, we will eventually prevail on this issue. The 

only two variables are timing and restrictions on land use. Your efforts and support 

of this legislation can ensure that the land is put in use in a timely manner with 

reasonable restrictions; or conversely, the land will eventually be brought into trust 

administratively with no restrictions on its use or additional financial compensation 

to the County. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I welcome any questions. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Vincent. 

32 

Mona Miyasato? 

Ms. MIYASATO. Yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mona, you are up. 

STATEMENT OF MONA MIYASATO, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY 

OF SANTA BARBARA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, SANTA 

BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 

Ms. MIYASATO. Thank you, Subcommittee Chairman Young, 

Ranking Member Ruiz, and members of the subcommittee, for this 

opportunity to testify today. My name is Mona Miyasato, and I am 

the County Executive Officer for the County of Santa Barbara, 

California. This testimony is submitted on behalf of the County of 

Santa Barbara, and reflects the policy position of the Board of 

Supervisors. 

The County has adopted a legislative policy that recognizes the 

role and unique interests of tribes, states, and counties to protect 

all members of our community, and to provide services and infrastructure benefits to all. 

H.R. 1157 would take into trust 1,427 acres in the Santa Ynez 

Valley, as you have been told. But Camp 4 is over 10 times larger 

than the existing 138-acre Chumash Reservation, and this would 

have substantial negative impacts on our community. 

The County of Santa Barbara respectfully opposes H.R. 1157 for 

the following reasons: the County has a pending appeal of the decision by the BIA to accept Camp 4 into trust. The purpose of the 

administrative appeal process is to address concerns of local entities and residents. These concerns include loss of tax revenue, lack 

of compliance with NEPA, insufficient environmental mitigations 

and conflicts with local land use regulations. H.R. 1157 would essentially shortcut this administrative process, and prevent the 

County and its residents from addressing these concerns. And finally, H.R. 1157 does not rule out any use of the property other 

than gaming, while the BIA’s administrative process proposes residential use and has been more focused. 

Therefore, the County of Santa Barbara requests that, instead of 

enacting H.R. 1157, Congress allow the regular administrative 

process on the appeal to proceed. 

I would like to spend a few minutes now to detail some of the 

areas of concern we have. 

The County of Santa Barbara submitted a timely appeal of the 

Christmas Eve, December 24, 2014 BIA decision to accept Camp 4 

into trust. In the appeal, the County thoroughly discusses the process shortcomings, including the need for appropriate weighing of 

factors detailed in the Code of Federal Regulations, as well as a 

lack of adequate environmental review, including the need for an 

environmental impact statement, rather than the environmental 

assessment, and appropriate mitigation. This bill would bypass 

that appeal review. 

Also, the County questions the need for and purpose to take the 

land into trust, as the present BIA regulations provide inadequate 

guidance as to what constitutes legitimate tribal need for a trust 

land acquisition. Given the stated need for only a fraction of the 

acreage requested to be taken into trust for housing, the County 

33 

questions why the 1,400 acres needs to be taken into trust at this 

time. 

In addition, the County projected that it would lose up to $311 

million in tax revenue over a 50-year period if the land is taken 

into trust and developed. The County provides major public services to the Camp 4 area, including law enforcement, fire protection, 

emergency medical response, roadway access and maintenance. 

And there will be no property tax compensation or funding offset 

required by the County for these services if Camp 4 is taken into 

trust into perpetuity. 

Also, this permanently exempts it from community land use processes. The project alternatives, including a proposal for 143 residences and over 12,000 square feet of tribal facility with parking 

for 250 cars and possibly up to 800 visitors a week to the valley, 

is inconsistent with the surrounding uses. The development contravenes rural area policy countywide and is incompatible with the 

County’s General Plan, Santa Ynez Community Plan, and our land 

use regulations. 

Further, the property has been preserved for agricultural use by 

an Ag. preserve contract, a Williamson Act Contract, since 1971. In 

August of 2013, the Tribe submitted an application for nonrenewal, meaning that it will expire in December 2022. 

Another primary area of concern relates to environmental impacts, such as groundwater resources. Santa Barbara County and 

the rest of California are in severe drought conditions. The environmental assessment acknowledged the past designation of an overdraft in the groundwater basin in which Camp 4 resides, but did 

not analyze the potential for Camp 4 to exacerbate that overdraft. 

The environmental document did not analyze the long-term water 

supply. 

Finally, the County supports the BIA’s administrative process, 

although we believe there should be an effort to reform that 

process. We strongly support the efforts of the California State 

Association of Counties to achieve comprehensive fee-to-trust 

reform and improve the role of local government in this process. 

In conclusion, I respectfully urge Members to reject H.R. 1157. 

As stated, this would bypass the administrative appeal process, 

whose purpose is to address concerns of our local residents and entities, and those concerns include loss of tax revenue, lack of compliance with NEPA, insufficient environmental mitigation and 

conflicts with our local land use regulations in perpetuity. 

Furthermore, I respectfully request that reforms to the existing 

process be considered in the future to improve local government involvement, which can reduce significant impacts on communities 

and reduce controversy, delay, and existing distrust in the process. 

Thank you very much for considering my testimony this morning, 

and allowing me to appear before you today. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Miyasato follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MONA MIYASATO, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY EXECUTIVE

OFFICER ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

ON H.R. 1157 

Thank you Subcommittee Chairman Young, Ranking Member Ruiz, and members 

of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Mona Miyasato 

and I am the County Executive Officer for the County of Santa Barbara. This 

34 

testimony is submitted on behalf of County of Santa Barbara and reflects the 

adopted policy position of the County Board of Supervisors. 

The County of Santa Barbara has adopted a legislative policy which recognizes 

the role and unique interests of tribes, states, counties and other local government 

to protect all members of their communities and to provide governmental services 

and infrastructure benefits to all. In addition, the County recognizes and respects 

the tribal right of self-governance, to provide for tribal members and to preserve traditional tribal culture and heritage. In similar fashion, the County recognizes and 

promotes its own self-governance to provide for the health, safety and general welfare of all residents of our communities. 

H.R. 1157 would take into trust five parcels of land totaling approximately 

1,427.78 acres in the Santa Ynez Valley (commonly known as ‘‘Camp 4’’) for the benefit of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. Camp 4 is over 10 times larger 

than the existing 138-acre Chumash Reservation. This would have substantial, negative impacts on our community. 

The County of Santa Barbara respectfully opposes H.R. 1157 for the following 

reasons: 

• The County has a pending appeal of the decision by the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs to accept Camp 4 into trust and the BIA’s related decisions under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); 

• The purpose of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) administrative appeal 

process is to address concerns of local entities and residents, including loss 

of tax revenue, lack of compliance with NEPA, insufficient environmental 

mitigation and conflicts with local land use regulations; 

• H.R. 1157 would short-circuit this administrative process and prevent the 

County and its residents from addressing these concerns; and 

• H.R. 1157 does not rule out any use of the property other than gaming, while 

the BIA’s administrative process proposes residential use and is more focused. 

The County of Santa Barbara therefore requests that instead of enacting 

H.R. 1157, Congress allow its regular administrative appeal process to proceed. 

PENDING APPEAL

On December 24, 2014, the BIA issued a Notice of Decision to accept Camp 4 into 

trust. The County of Santa Barbara submitted its appeal on January 21, 2015. In 

that appeal, the County discusses the shortcomings of the BIA’s review, which must 

include appropriate weighing of eight required factors detailed in the CFR and adequate environmental review and mitigation. Those eight factors are attached to this 

testimony. This bill would bypass that appeal review. 

A few areas of significant concern with the fee-to-trust decision include the 

following: 

• Need for the Land and Purposes of Use: The present BIA regulations provide 

inadequate guidance as to what constitutes legitimate tribal need for a trust 

land acquisition. Two alternatives have been identified in the fee-to-trust 

application, providing housing for tribal members, the stated purpose of the 

Fee-to-Trust application. One alternative requires 793 acres for residential 

homes and infrastructure; the other requires 194 acres for homes and infrastructure. Given the stated need for only a fraction of the acreage requested 

to be taken into trust for housing, the County has questioned why the 1,400 

acres need to be taken into trust. 

Also, in the second alternative, 30 acres would be dedicated for Tribal 

Facilities including a Community Center with Banquet Hall/Exhibition 

Facility, resulting in potentially 400 visitors per event, with two events per 

week, or up to 800 visitors to the Valley each week. The analysis by the BIA 

did not discuss the facility structure or the purposes for which it will be used 

and therefore, could not fully assess the land use conflicts. 

Impact on County Tax Rolls: The County projected in FY 2012/13 that it 

would lose up to $311 million in tax revenue over a 50-year period if the land 

is taken into trust and developed. In addition, the County would lose mitigation fees required to be paid by developers for provision of transportation improvements, parks, fire protection and other public services. The BIA decision 

regarded the tax loss as insignificant given the financial contributions by the 

Tribe to the community. However, the County provides major public services 

to the Camp 4 area, including law enforcement, fire protection, emergency 

medical response and roadway access and maintenance. The proposed 

35 

development will increase the number of residents and employees in the area 

that use county parks, schools, roads and public services. The need for county 

services would expand yet the County would not be able to collect property 

taxes or other special assessments that would pay for those additional 

services. 

Jurisdictional and Land Use Conflicts: The development of 143 residences 

and over 12,000 square feet of tribal facility with parking for 250 cars would 

constitute a change in the current land use that is inconsistent with the surrounding uses. Essentially, it would be an urban development in the middle 

of a rural area. Given that the zoning is currently AG-II100 (agriculture with 

a minimum parcel size of 100 acres), housing development at 1 residence per 

acre, or 1 residence per 5 acres, would result in potentially increasing density 

20 to 100 times what is currently allowed. The development contravenes rural 

area policy countywide and is incompatible with the County’s General Plan, 

Santa Ynez Community Plan and land use regulations. Further, the property 

has been preserved for agricultural use by a Williamson Act Contract since 

at least 1971. In August of 2013 the Tribe submitted an application for nonrenewal meaning the contract will expire on December 31, 2022. On July 1, 

2013 the Tribe passed Resolution 931 which requires compliance with the 

existing Williamson Act Contact until the contract expires. 

The BIA noted that the Chumash Tribe has consistently been cooperative 

with local government and service providers to mitigate adverse effects and 

cited agreements with County Fire and Sheriff’s Office. Those agreements, 

however, relate to services on the existing reservation and the ongoing impacts 

to that development, not Camp 4. The County is grateful to the Chumash 

Tribe for their willingness to work collaboratively to achieve these service 

agreements. In the Fire Department agreement, however, the Tribe’s agreement to provide an aerial ladder truck for its planned 12-story tower Casino 

expansion only came after the County requested it as mitigation to the 

project; it was not included as part of the Tribe’s environmental evaluation 

or mitigation. In this case, the identification of mitigation by the county fire 

personnel resulted in a better outcome for the Tribe and community members. 

Other issues raised by the County regarding the casino expansion, however, 

were not addressed by the Tribe. 

• Compliance with NEPA and Environmental Mitigation: The fee-to-trust 

acquisition raises substantial questions about the environmental impacts of 

the action as to its context and intensity. The County identified a need for 

the environmental document to be elevated from the current level proposed 

by the BIA of an Environmental Assessment (EA) to an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS). 

The loss of agricultural land is of great significance to the state, region and 

locality as agriculture provides economic and environmental benefits to the 

public. The development will bring more residents, employees and visitors to 

a largely agricultural area and change the land use. This change implicates 

unique geographic considerations such as conversion of prime agricultural 

farmland, threatens land use and regulatory requirements imposed for the 

protection of the environment and the community, impacts public health and 

safety concerns, such as the demand for services, groundwater and wastewater resources, air quality, and traffic control, impacts threatened or endangered species habitat and other unique habitat involving oak trees, and 

creates controversy as shown by the debate among many knowledgeable, interested parties as to the environmental effects of the project. 

A particular area of concern relates to Groundwater Resources. Santa 

Barbara County and the state of California are in severe drought conditions. 

The Environmental Assessment acknowledged the past designation of an 

overdraft in the Santa Ynez Uplands Groundwater Basin but did not analyze 

the potential for Camp 4 to exacerbate that overdraft. The EA did not analyze 

long-term water supply. 

In addition, mitigation measures proposed to date do not sufficiently minimize or avoid environmental impacts or adequately protect against significant 

adverse impacts of the proposed action. The measures suggested in the EA 

do not provide the detail and discussion required to support a finding of no 

significant impact. 

36 

BYPASS OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS THROUGH H.R. 1157

H.R. 1157 would short-circuit the administrative appeal process and prevent the 

County and its residents from addressing the concerns just described. Another example of this relates to the identical real property descriptions in both H.R. 1157 

and the BIA’s Notice of Decision, dated December 24, 2014. These are unclear and 

do not adequately address the property interests of the County or nearby residents 

in roadway rights-of-way. In its pending appeals with the Interior Board of Indian 

Appeals, the County has raised this question about County rights of way throughout 

Camp 4 and whether those rights of way are held in fee or easement. The appeal 

process provides an opportunity to resolve these legal questions. If H.R. 1157 is enacted, though, neither the County nor any county resident would have the opportunity to clarify their property interests in those roads. 

BROADNESS OF H.R. 1157 AND CONFLICTS WITH BIA PROCESS

H.R. 1157 does not rule out any use of the property other than gaming. The legislative approach is broader than the BIA’s process. The existing process, with its 

combination of evaluation of factors specified in 25 CFR Sections 151.10 and 151.11 

and NEPA, provides some comfort to the community of the proposal, given what was 

studied and allowed per the BIA process. The legislation only rules out gambling 

but does not specify other uses. 

REFORMS TO BIA PROCESS ARE NEEDED

While the County supports the BIA’s administrative process, we also strongly support the efforts of the California State Association of Counties, and their extensive 

work on behalf of all California counties, to achieve comprehensive fee-to-trust 

reform and improve the role of local government in the fee-to-trust process. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the following reforms of the existing process 

be considered. 

• Often local governments are afforded limited, and sometimes late, notice of 

a pending trust land application. In our case, the Notice of Decision was 

issued on Christmas Eve, December 24, 2014. Our staff resorted to checking 

the BIA’s Web site daily to ensure notice given the 30-day appeal period. The 

notice first came to our attention as a courtesy from Chumash Tribe members, followed by mailed notices in subsequent days from the BIA. Improved 

notice is needed to ensure adequate time for meaningful input, as well as reasonably detailed information early on to affected local governments, as well 

as the public, about the proposed uses. Broad notice of trust applications 

should allow at least 90 days to respond, compared to the current 30-day 

requirement. 

• There is a lack of standards of any objective criteria in fee-to-trust decisions, 

which has been criticized by local governments. For example, the BIA requests only minimal information about the impacts of such acquisitions on 

local communities and trust land decisions are not governed by a requirement 

to balance the benefit to the Tribe against the impact to the local community. 

As a result, there are significant impacts on communities with consequent 

controversy, delay and distrust of the process. 

• Regulations should provide adequate guidance as to what constitutes legitimate tribal need for trust acquisitions. There is now the stipulation that the 

land is necessary to facilitate tribal self-determination, economic development 

or Indian housing. These standards can be met by virtually any trust land 

request. 

• Under Part 151, the BIA does not mention input by third parties even though 

individuals or communities as a whole may experience negative impacts, although it will accept and review such comments. BIA accepts comments only 

from the affected state and local government with legal jurisdiction over the 

land and, from those parties, only on the narrow question of tax revenue loss, 

government services currently provided to the subject parcels and zoning conflicts. The reviews, therefore, do not provide real consultation or an adequate 

representation of the consequences of the decision. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I respectfully urge Members to reject H.R. 1157. As stated, this 

would bypass the administrative appeal process, whose purpose is to address concerns of local entities and residents, including loss of tax revenue, lack of compliance 

37 

with NEPA, insufficient environmental mitigation and conflicts with local land use 

regulations. Also, H.R. 1157 does not rule out any use of the property other than 

gaming, while the BIA’s administrative process is less broad, focusing on the uses 

of the site, namely residential housing. Furthermore, I respectfully request that reforms to the existing process be considered in the future to improve local government involvement, which can reduce significant impacts on communities and reduce 

controversy, delay and distrust of the process. 

Thank you for considering my testimony. Should you have questions regarding my 

testimony, the policy position of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, 

or if I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me. 

Attachments: 25 CFR Sections 151.10, 151.11 and Maps 

ATTACHMENTS 

TITLE 25—INDIANS 

CHAPTER I—BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR 

SUBCHAPTER H—LAND AND WATER 

PART 151—LAND ACQUISITIONS 

§ 151.10 On-reservation acquisitions. 

Upon receipt of a written request to have lands taken in trust, the Secretary will 

notify the state and local governments having regulatory jurisdiction over the land 

to be acquired, unless the acquisition is mandated by legislation. The notice will inform the state or local government that each will be given 30 days in which to 

provide written comments as to the acquisition’s potential impacts on regulatory jurisdiction, real property taxes and special assessments. If the state or local government responds within a 30-day period, a copy of the comments will be provided to 

the applicant, who will be given a reasonable time in which to reply and/or request 

that the Secretary issue a decision. The Secretary will consider the following criteria 

in evaluating requests for the acquisition of land in trust status when the land is 

located within or contiguous to an Indian reservation, and the acquisition is not 

mandated: 

(a) The existence of statutory authority for the acquisition and any limitations contained in such authority; 

(b) The need of the individual Indian or the tribe for additional land; 

(c) The purposes for which the land will be used; 

(d) If the land is to be acquired for an individual Indian, the amount of trust or 

restricted land already owned by or for that individual and the degree to which he 

needs assistance in handling his affairs; 

(e) If the land to be acquired is in unrestricted fee status, the impact on the State 

and its political subdivisions resulting from the removal of the land from the tax 

rolls; 

(f) Jurisdictional problems and potential conflicts of land use which may arise; and 

(g) If the land to be acquired is in fee status, whether the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

is equipped to discharge the additional responsibilities resulting from the acquisition of the land in trust status. 

(h) The extent to which the applicant has provided information that allows the 

Secretary to comply with 516 DM 6, Appendix 4, National Environmental Policy Act 

Revised Implementing Procedures, and 602 DM 2, Land Acquisitions: Hazardous 

Substances Determinations. (For copies, write to the Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Branch of Environmental Services, 1849 C Street NW, 

Room 4525 MIB, Washington, DC 20240.) 

§ 151.11 Off-reservation acquisitions. 

The Secretary shall consider the following requirements in evaluating tribal requests for the acquisition of lands in trust status, when the land is located outside 

of and noncontiguous to the tribe’s reservation, and the acquisition is not mandated: 

(a) The criteria listed in Section 151.10 (a) through (c) and (e) through (h); 

38 

(b) The location of the land relative to state boundaries, and its distance from the 

boundaries of the tribe’s reservation, shall be considered as follows: as the distance 

between the tribe’s reservation and the land to be acquired increases, the Secretary 

shall give greater scrutiny to the tribe’s justification of anticipated benefits from the 

acquisition. The Secretary shall give greater weight to the concerns raised pursuant 

to paragraph (d) of this section. 

(c) Where land is being acquired for business purposes, the tribe shall provide a 

plan which specifies the anticipated economic benefits associated with the proposed 

use. 

(d) Contact with state and local governments pursuant to 151.10 (e) and (f) shall 

be completed as follows: upon receipt of a tribe’s written request to have lands taken 

in trust, the Secretary shall notify the state and local governments having regulatory jurisdiction over the land to be acquired. The notice shall inform the state 

and local government that each will be given 30 days in which to provide written 

comment as to the acquisition’s potential impacts on regulatory jurisdiction, real 

property taxes and special assessments. 

MAPS 

39 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. 

Steve Lavagnino. Is that good enough? 

Mr. LAVAGNINO. Very good, Chairman Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. All right, thank you. 

Mr. LAVAGNINO. Appreciate it. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE LAVAGNINO, FIFTH DISTRICT COUNTY 

SUPERVISOR, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. LAVAGNINO. Chairman Young, Mr. Ranking Member, I am 

Steve Lavagnino, Fifth District Supervisor for Santa Barbara 

County. Members of the committee, good morning. Thank you for 

the opportunity to speak before you today regarding H.R. 1157, the 

vehicle that would move 1,400 acres known as Camp 4 into Federal 

trust for the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. 

In my opinion, I should not be needed here today and this piece 

of legislation should have never been necessary. I believe the Santa 

Barbara County Board of Supervisors has failed to perform its responsibilities as the local jurisdiction, and I am grateful you have 

allowed me the opportunity to provide another perspective. 

More than 4 years ago, Tribal Chairman Vincent Armenta requested that the County of Santa Barbara enter into governmentto-government dialog to discuss the Tribe’s plans for Camp 4, as 

well as mitigation strategies for those impacts deemed significant 

enough to warrant mitigation. On August 20, 2013, our Board held 

a hearing during which Chairman Armenta once again reiterated 

his desires to begin negotiations, and in order to show his good 

faith, he made an initial $10 million offer over 10 years for payments in lieu of property taxes, as well as an offer to waive the 

Tribe’s sovereign immunity, which would allow the County to 

legally enforce the agreement. 

40 

Instead of responding to the offer, our Board decided that the 

Tribe was not equal to other governments we commonly negotiate 

with, including our local cities, Vandenberg Air Force Base, and the 

University of California Santa Barbara. On a 3–2 vote, the decision 

was made to reject the request for dialog. 

Some would consider Santa Barbara County a progressive region. 

It is a leader when it comes to protecting most human rights, but 

for some reason those same protections are not always afforded to 

the Tribe. During our public hearings, seemingly educated people 

still regularly questioned the heritage of the tribal members and 

the validity of the Tribe’s sovereign status. While you may expect 

such comments sometimes from the public, most alarming are 

shocking statements from current and former elected officials. 

The County Supervisor who formerly represented the area in 

which both Camp 4 and the Tribe’s current reservation lie said, 

‘‘These are not real sophisticated people.’’ She went on to question 

their work ethic by stating that they ‘‘get $300,000 a year for sitting on the couch watching a Lakers game.’’ One of our current 

board members, whose district is home to more than 800 people 

employed by the Tribe recently questioned whether or not the reservation system as a whole should be abolished. This is the environment in which the Tribe is asked to live and work. 

I share my colleagues’ concerns regarding loss of property tax 

revenue and loss of local land use control. However, they have 

refused to even discuss these matters with the Tribe. I warned my 

colleagues that if we failed to acknowledge the Tribe as a federallyrecognized government entity, it would lead to congressional action 

such as H.R. 1157. That warning fell on deaf ears. But it wasn’t 

just my advice—Governor Jerry Brown’s expert on tribal relations 

indicated the best strategy for counties in dealing with fee-to-trust 

applications is to ‘‘negotiate early in the process.’’ 

Opponents will speak about density, even though the Tribe’s plan 

calls for less density than the neighboring development. They will 

speak about a lack of water, even though the Tribe has proposed 

a water-neutral development, and they will claim that CEQA will 

be ignored, even though any development will fall under the regulations provided in NEPA. Although they will claim to be concerned 

about all of these potential impacts, one has to question what their 

true motivation is. Just last year, 6.9 acres of land directly adjacent to the existing reservation and slated for construction of a cultural center and park was finally taken into trust after more than 

14 years of appeals by these same opponents. 

Finally, the Tribe currently resides in substandard housing that 

lies directly in a flood plain. In case of a fire or emergency, the ingress and egress for those living on the reservation is extremely 

limited. The Tribe purchased Camp 4 specifically to remedy the 

housing situation, and is willing to negotiate with the County to resolve the concerns that have been raised. Without negotiations, the 

County is destined to incur all of the impacts without any share 

of the revenue. 

Unlike some in Santa Barbara County, I understand that the 

process of taking land into trust is wholly a Federal decision, 

whether it is through Congress or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Given that fact, my goal is to work together with the Tribe to 

41 

mitigate potential impacts through negotiation. Unfortunately, I 

believe the Tribe has thoroughly exhausted all avenues in search 

of reaching an agreement with their local government; and thus, I 

understand why congressional action is being taken. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lavagnino follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE LAVAGNINO, FIFTH DISTRICT SUPERVISOR, SANTA

BARBARA COUNTY ON H.R. 1157 

Chairman Young and members of the committee: Good morning and thank you 

for the opportunity to speak before you today regarding H.R. 1157, the vehicle that 

would move 1,400 acres (Camp 4) into Federal trust for the Santa Ynez Band of 

Chumash Indians (Tribe). In my opinion, I should not be needed here today and this 

piece of legislation should have never been necessary. But I believe the Santa 

Barbara County Board of Supervisors has failed to perform its responsibilities as 

the local jurisdiction and I am grateful that you have allowed me the opportunity 

to provide another perspective. 

More than 4 years ago, Tribal Chairman Vincent Armenta requested that the 

County of Santa Barbara enter into government-to-government dialog to discuss the 

Tribe’s plans for Camp 4 as well as mitigation strategies for those impacts deemed 

significant enough to warrant mitigation. On August 20, 2013 our Board held a 

hearing during which Chairman Armenta once again reiterated his desires to begin 

negotiations and in order to show his good faith, he made an initial $10 million offer 

for payments in lieu of property taxes as well as an offer to a waive the Tribe’s sovereign immunity, which would allow the County to legally enforce the agreement. 

Instead of responding to the offer, our Board decided that the Tribe was not equal 

to other governments we commonly negotiate with, including our local cities, 

Vandenberg Air Force Base and the University of California at Santa Barbara. On 

a 3–2 vote, the decision was made to reject the request for dialog. 

Some would consider Santa Barbara County a progressive region and it is a 

leader when it comes to protecting most human rights, but for some reason those 

same protections are not afforded to the Tribe. During our public hearings, seemingly educated people still regularly question the heritage of the tribal members and 

the validity of the Tribe’s sovereign status. While you may expect such comments 

from the public, most alarming are shocking statements from current and former 

elected officials. The County Supervisor who formerly represented the area in which 

both Camp 4 and the Tribe’s current reservation lie, said, ‘‘These are not real sophisticated people.’’ She went on to question their work ethic by stating that they 

‘‘get $300,000 a year for sitting on the couch watching a Lakers game.’’ One of our 

current Board members, whose district is home to more than 800 people employed 

by the Tribe, recently questioned whether or not the reservation system as a whole 

should be abolished. This is the environment in which the Tribe is asked to live and 

work. 

I share my colleagues’ concerns regarding loss of property tax revenue and loss 

of local land use control; however they have refused to even discuss these matters 

with the Tribe. I warned my colleagues that if we failed to acknowledge the Tribe 

as a federally-recognized government entity it would lead to congressional action 

such as H.R. 1157. That warning fell on deaf ears. But it wasn’t just my advice— 

Governor Jerry Brown’s expert on tribal relations indicated the best strategy in 

dealing with fee-to-trust applications is to ‘‘negotiate early in the process.’’ 

Opponents will speak about density even though the Tribe’s plans call for less 

density than the neighboring development, they will speak about a lack of water 

even though the Tribe has proposed a water neutral development and they will 

claim that CEQA will be ignored even though any development will fall under the 

regulations provided in NEPA. Although they will claim to be concerned about all 

of these potential impacts, one has to question what their true motivation is. Just 

last year, 6.9 acres of land directly adjacent to the existing reservation and slated 

for construction of a cultural center and park was finally taken into trust after more 

than 14 years of appeals by these same opponents. 

Finally, the Tribe currently resides in substandard housing that lies directly in 

a flood plain. In case of a fire emergency, the ingress and egress for those living 

on the reservation is extremely limited. The Tribe has purchased Camp 4 specifically to remedy the housing situation and is willing to negotiate with the County 

to resolve the concerns that have been raised. Without negotiations, the County is 

destined to incur all of the impacts without any share of the revenue. 

Unlike some in Santa Barbara County, I understand that the process of taking 

land into trust is wholly a Federal decision, whether it is through Congress or the 

42 

Bureau of Indian Affairs. Given that fact, my goal is to work together with the Tribe 

to mitigate potential impacts through negotiation. Unfortunately, I believe the Tribe 

has thoroughly exhausted all avenues in search of reaching an agreement with their 

local government and thus I understand why congressional action is being taken. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, sir. Now we have Mr. Barlow. 

Mr. Barlow, thank you and welcome from where—I believe—from 

the free State of Alaska, come down and see me on an issue that 

has been on my burner for a long time, and I wish my colleagues 

will listen to this testimony, and why we think it is justifiable, regardless of what the Department says. So, Mr. Barlow, you are up. 

STATEMENT OF LEO BARLOW, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE 

COMMUNITY OF WRANGELL, ALASKA, ON BEHALF OF THE 

SOUTHEAST ALASKA LANDLESS CORPORATION, JUNEAU, 

ALASKA 

Mr. BARLOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, 

Chairman Young and subcommittee members. 

Mr. YOUNG. Turn the microphone on. 

Mr. BARLOW. Good morning, Chairman Young and subcommittee 

members. I have traveled here today from Alaska to provide testimony regarding H.R. 2386, a bill to provide for the recognition of 

five communities in Southeast Alaska in the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act, commonly known as ANCSA. Thank you for this 

opportunity to testify on this important issue to several thousand 

Alaska Natives, and a special thank you, Congressman Young, for 

introducing this much-needed legislation and for once again taking 

on our worthy cause. 

My name is Leo Barlow, and I have the great honor and responsibility of serving as a representative for the community of 

Wrangell on the Southeast Alaska Landless Corporation (SALC) 

Board of Directors, which represents Alaska Natives through 

ANCSA to the native villages of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, 

Tenakee, and Wrangell. The people I represent today have suffered 

an injustice for more than 40 years, an injustice the legislation currently before this subcommittee would address. 

In 1971, Congress enacted ANCSA to recognize and settle the 

aboriginal claims of the Alaska Natives to their traditional homelands. ANCSA provided for establishment of native corporations to 

receive and manage funds and lands throughout Alaska and 

Southeast Alaska, where recognized and afforded the opportunity 

to establish village or urban corporations, and secure a native land 

settlement. Our five communities were denied these benefits of 

ANCSA and we have been fighting this injustice since the passage 

of the Act. 

Under ANCSA, as Alaska Natives, we enrolled to 1 of 13 regional 

corporations, and also to the villages where we lived or to which 

we had a historic, cultural, or familial tie. For example, I enrolled 

to the region for Southeast Alaska, and also to the village of 

Wrangell, my hometown, where our ancestors have lived for many 

generations. 

A total of 747 Alaska Natives enrolled to the native village of 

Wrangell. Other members of our Landless Corporation enrolled to 

the four villages of Haines, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Ketchikan. 

43 

Those of us who enrolled to these five communities during the 

ANCSA process did so because they are our traditional homelands 

and places of origin. Our families and clans originated in these 

communities and have lived here for hundreds, if not thousands, of 

years. 

In Section 11 of ANCSA, Congress set forth a general process for 

determining eligibility for each native village in Alaska. Native villages throughout the state of Alaska were listed in this section, and 

the Secretary of the Interior was charged with making determinations as to whether the listed villages met the eligibility requirements. For a number of reasons, however, there was a different 

process created for determining eligibility of Southeast Alaska 

Native villages in Section 16 of ANCSA. These reasons included 

previous Tlingit and Haida Indian Claims cash settlement, the existence of the Tongass National Forest, the existence of large 

timber contracts secured by powerful pulp companies, and the significant non-native populations in certain communities. 

Another significant difference between Southeast and nonSoutheast Alaska communities in ANCSA was the fact that Section 

11 of ANCSA provided an appeal right for communities left off of 

the list of eligible villages, while Section 16 of the Act did not. 

Three of our coalition’s villages—Ketchikan, Haines, and 

Tenakee—brought protests of this inequitable treatment to the 

Alaska Native Claims Appeal Board of the U.S. Department of the 

Interior through appeals in 1974 and 1977. The appeals were rejected because Section 16 made no provision for the administrative 

reconsideration of the eligibility of villages in Southeast Alaska. 

Thus, we must appeal directly to Congress for help. You are our 

only recourse. 

The over-3,500 natives who originally enrolled to the affected five 

villages comprised over 20 percent of the shareholders of Sealaska 

Corporation in 1972—our regional corporation. Over the years we 

have received revenue-sharing distributions from Sealaska pursuant to Section 7(j) of ANCSA, but have not enjoyed the social, economic, and cultural benefits of owning shares in a village, urban, 

or group corporation. Many of the village or urban corporations in 

our region have brought significant economic benefits to their communities. Additionally, we have been deprived of the significant 

cultural benefit of owning an interest in lands located within and 

around our traditional homelands. 

The history I am telling today is not based only on the opinions 

and conclusions made by landless natives. In 1993, Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a report examining 

the reasons why the unrecognized communities had been denied 

eligibility to form native corporations under the Act. 

This report—‘‘A Study of Five Southeast Alaska Communities,’’ 

referred to as the ISER report—was done by the University of 

Alaska and concluded that requirements for villages eligible to 

form native corporations were met by the native villages of Haines, 

Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell. The report noted 

that our communities appeared on early versions of native village 

lists in the ANCSA Act, and the subsequent omission was never 

clearly explained in any provision of ANCSA or in the accompanying conference report. The ISER Report is attached hereto, 

44 

and I ask that the subcommittee incorporate this report into the 

record for this hearing. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Barlow, how much time do you have left? 

Mr. BARLOW. I will conclude fairly rapidly here, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. 

[No response.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Are you finished? 

Mr. BARLOW. Yes, almost. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BARLOW. The legislation before this subcommittee today proposes simply to correct a 40-year wrong, and grant rights that we, 

the native communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, 

and Wrangell should have been given in 1971. Unlike other native 

villages that were recognized under ANCSA, our communities have 

not been able to use the tools provided by the Act to create an economic engine by utilizing the resources in our lands, and to promote the well-being of our community members. Sadly, many of our 

elders have passed who fought for this legislation. We have seen 

a generational change, and we have much interest now by our 

younger shareholders who will carry on this battle. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on 

behalf of the Southeast Alaska communities affected, I want to 

once again personally express our extreme gratitude for your consideration of this important legislation. 

With that, we conclude our report and thank you. In our 

language, [Speaks native language.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barlow follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEO BARLOW, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE SOUTHEAST

ALASKA LANDLESS CORPORATION ON H.R. 2386 

Good Morning, Chairman Young and subcommittee members. I have traveled here 

today from Alaska to provide testimony regarding H.R. 2386, a bill to provide for 

the recognition of five communities in Southeast Alaska in the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). Thank you for this opportunity to testify on this 

important issue to several thousand Alaska Natives; and a special thank you to 

Congressman Young for introducing this much needed legislation, and for once 

again taking on our worthy cause. 

My name is Leo Barlow, and I have the great honor and responsibility of serving 

as a representative for the community of Wrangell on the Southeast Alaska 

Landless Corporation (SALC), which represents Alaska Natives enrolled through 

ANCSA to the native villages of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and 

Wrangell. The people I represent today have suffered an injustice for more than 40 

years; an injustice the legislation currently before this subcommittee would address. 

In 1971, Congress enacted ANCSA to recognize and settle the aboriginal claims 

of Alaska Natives to their traditional homelands. ANCSA provided for establishment of native corporations to receive and manage funds and lands awarded in settlement of the claims of all Alaska Natives. While many villages throughout Alaska 

and Southeast Alaska were recognized and afforded the opportunity to establish 

Village or Urban Corporations and secure a native land settlement, our five communities were denied these benefits of ANCSA. We have been fighting this injustice 

since ANCSA’s passage. 

Under ANCSA, as Alaska Natives we enrolled to one of 13 Regional Corporations 

and also to the villages where we lived or to which we had a historic, cultural and 

familial tie. For example, I enrolled to the region for Southeast Alaska, and also to 

the village of Wrangell, my hometown, where my ancestors have lived for many generations. A total of 747 Alaska Natives enrolled to the native village of Wrangell. 

Other members of our Landless Corporation enrolled to the four villages of Haines, 

Petersburg, Tenakee and Ketchikan. Those of us who enrolled to these five commuVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:37 Nov 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\114TH CONGRESS\INDIAN, INSULAR & ALASKA NATIVE AFFAIRS\06-17-15\95136.TXT
45 

1Lee Gorsuch, Steve Colt, Charles W. Smythe, and Bart K. Garber, Institute of Social and 

Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, ‘‘A Study of Five Southeast Alaska 

Communities,’’ prepared for the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and Bureau 

of Indian Affairs (Feb. 1994) available at http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/StudyOf5- 

SE-AK-Communities.pdf. 

nities during the ANCSA process did so because these are our traditional homelands 

and places of origin. Our families and clans originated in these communities. 

In Section 11 of ANCSA, Congress set forth a general process for determining eligibility for each ‘‘native village’’ in Alaska. Native villages throughout the state of 

Alaska were listed in this section, and the Secretary of the Interior was charged 

with making determinations as to whether the listed villages met the eligibility requirements. For a number of reasons, however, there was a different process created 

for determining eligibility of Southeast Alaska Native villages in Section 16 of 

ANCSA. These reasons included the previous Tlingit and Haida Indian Claims cash 

settlement, the existence of the Tongass National Forest, the existence of large timber contracts secured by powerful pulp companies, and the significant non-native 

populations of certain communities. 

Another significant difference between Southeast and non-Southeast Alaska communities in ANCSA was the fact that Section 11 of ANCSA provided an appeal right 

for communities left off of the list of eligible villages, while Section 16 of ANCSA 

did not. Three of our Coalition’s villages (Ketchikan, Haines and Tenakee) brought 

protests of this inequitable treatment to the Alaska Native Claims Appeal Board of 

the U.S. Department of the Interior through appeals in 1974 and 1977. The Appeals 

were rejected because Section 16 made no provision for administrative reconsideration of the eligibility of villages in Southeast Alaska. Thus, we must appeal directly 

to Congress for help. You are our only recourse. 

Southeast Alaska was the first area of Alaska with significant settlement by nonnatives because of the inviting climate and abundant resources in our homelands. 

Although we welcome non-natives who have chosen to live in Southeast Alaska, 

their presence does not make our homes any less ‘‘native’’ than other villages in 

Southeast Alaska. Nonetheless, this was a significant factor in the exclusion of our 

five communities from the list of eligible Southeast Native villages in ANCSA. This 

occurred despite the clear evidence that each of these Communities has historic, cultural, and traditional Alaska Native characteristics. 

The 3,425 natives who originally enrolled to Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, 

Tenakee, and Wrangell comprised over 20 percent of the shareholders of Sealaska 

Corporation in 1972—our Regional Corporation for Southeast Alaska. Over the 

years we have received revenue-sharing distributions from Sealaska pursuant to 

Section 7(j) of ANCSA, but have not enjoyed the social, economic and cultural benefits of owning shares in a Village, Urban, or Group Corporation. Many of the Village 

or Urban Corporations in our Region have brought significant economic benefits to 

their communities. Additionally, we have been deprived of the significant cultural 

benefit of owning an interest in lands located within and around our traditional 

homelands. 

The history I am telling today is not based only on the opinions and conclusions 

made by Landless Natives. In 1993, Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior 

to prepare a report examining the reasons why the Unrecognized Communities had 

been denied eligibility to form native corporations under the Act. This report—A 

Study of Five Southeast Alaska Communities (the ISER Report) 1 concluded that requirements for villages eligible to form native corporations were met by the native 

villages of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and Wrangell. The Report noted 

that, with the exception of Tenakee, our communities appeared on early versions of 

native village lists, and the subsequent omission was never clearly explained in any 

provision of ANCSA or in the accompanying conference report. The ISER Report is 

attached hereto, and I ask that the subcommittee incorporate this report into the 

record for this hearing. 

The ISER Report also indicated that the populations and percentage of natives 

in each of our communities, as well as the historic use and occupation of the lands, 

were comparable to those Southeast Alaska communities recognized under ANCSA’s 

original language. Prior to passage of ANCSA, each of the Unrecognized Communities had been involved in advocating for the settlement of the aboriginal claims 

of that community. 

In short, the ISER report found no meaningful distinction between the native 

communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and Wrangell and other 

communities listed in Sections 14 or 16 of ANCSA, and thus no justification for 

omission from the list of communities eligible to form Urban or Group Corporations 

under ANCSA. 

46 

Based on the history set forth above, it is clear that those of us who enrolled to 

the five Unrecognized Communities—and our heirs—have been unjustly denied the 

financial and cultural benefits of enrollment in a Village, Urban or Group Corporation. The legislation before this subcommittee today proposes simply to correct a 44- 

year wrong, and grant rights that we, the native communities of Haines, Ketchikan, 

Petersburg, Tenakee and Wrangell, should have been given in 1971. 

In summary, we are Southeast Alaska Natives. These villages identified in 

H.R. 2386 are our traditional homelands. All we are asking is that Congress recognize that fact and provide us with what we deserve under law and equity: a chance 

to form ANCSA Corporations for our people and for future generation with ties to 

our traditional communities. Sadly, many of the original shareholders enrolled to 

these five communities have passed on and will never see this injustice resolved. 

I hope that you will help those of us original landless shareholders and our descendants finally secure recognition under ANCSA. It is long overdue. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the 

Southeast Alaska villages of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and Wrangell, 

I want to once again express our extreme gratitude for your consideration of this 

important legislation and we urge you to support our efforts to be included in the 

benefits that ANCSA has brought to other Alaska Natives. I hope that this subcommittee and the House will act quickly to ensure that we finally receive the 

recognition we have deserved for more than 44 years. 

Gunalcheesh (Thank You). 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. The next witness is Margie? 

Ms. MEJIA. Yes. 

STATEMENT OF MARGIE MEJIA, CHAIRPERSON, LYTTON 

RANCHERIA, SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA 

Ms. MEJIA. Good morning, Chairman Young, Ranking Member 

Ruiz, and members of the Subcommittee on Indian, Insular, and 

Alaska Native Affairs. My name is Margie Mejia, I am the Chairwoman of the Lytton Rancheria in Santa Rosa, California. Thank 

you for allowing me to be here today to speak in strong support of 

H.R. 2538, the Lytton Rancheria Homeland Act of 2015. 

A special thank you to our Congressman, Jared Huffman, for 

working with the Tribe to introduce the bill, and our neighboring 

Congressman, Jeff Denham, for supporting us and co-sponsoring 

the bill. 

The Tribe has provided a written statement for the record, and 

I would like to explain why the passage of this bill is so important 

for the Lytton Rancheria. Taking this land into trust will allow the 

Tribe to construct, with its own funds, housing and community facilities. This will allow the Tribe to live as a community for the 

first time in over 50 years. 

The creation of a homeland will allow the Tribe to govern itself 

and continue to diversify its economy to provide for tribal generations to come. The status as a federally-recognized tribe will fully 

be restored, and the Tribe will now be on equal footing with other 

recognized tribes. 

Thank you for your time and your support, and I am available 

for any questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mejia follows:] 

47 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARGIE MEJIA, LYTTON RANCHERIA, SANTA ROSA, 

CALIFORNIA ON H.R. 2538 

Good morning Chairman Young, Ranking Member Ruiz and members of the 

Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs. My name is Margie 

Mejia, Chairperson of the Lytton Rancheria in Santa Rosa, California. Thank you 

for allowing me to be here today to speak in strong support of H.R. 2538, the Lytton 

Rancheria Homeland Act of 2015. A special thank you to our Congressman Jared 

Huffman for working with the Tribe to introduce the bill and to our neighboring 

Congressman Jeff Denham for supporting us and co-sponsoring the bill. 

If enacted, H.R. 2538 would right a historical wrong and restore a permanent 

homeland for the Lytton Rancheria now and for our future generations. The bill 

would provide that lands currently owned by the Tribe in fee be held in Federal 

trust and have reservation status. On behalf of the members of the Lytton 

Rancheria of California, I ask that you support the Lytton Rancheria Homeland Act 

of 2015. 

BACKGROUND

The Lytton Rancheria is a federally-recognized Pomo Indian Tribe from 

California’s San Francisco Bay area. Prior to European contact it is estimated that 

as many as 350,000 Indians were living in what is now the state of California. By 

the end of the 19th century, that number was reduced by 96 percent to approximately 15,000. 

The Pomo people occupied lands in the northern part of California that spanned 

an area from the Pacific coast at the northern San Francisco Bay area to the Lake 

District in northern California. Their ancestors were devastated by the Gold Rush 

and hostile state and Federal policies toward Indians in the 19th century. By the 

early 1900s most Indians and Indian tribes from the area that managed to survive 

were poverty stricken, landless and homeless. Because of this unconscionable state 

of affairs in California, Congress enacted legislation to help purchase reservation 

lands for many of these Indians and tribes. The Lytton Rancheria is one such tribe 

which received reservation lands in Sonoma County from these purchases. 

The Tribe resided and flourished on the land sustaining itself by farming and 

ranching until it once again fell prey to bad ‘‘Indian policy’’ on the part of the government. Unfortunately, the hostile attitude toward California tribes soon returned, 

and with passage of the Rancheria Act of 1958, Lytton Rancheria, along with dozens 

of other California tribes, had its relationship with the Federal Government terminated. This resulted in the Tribe losing all of its Rancheria lands as well, and it 

once again became a destitute, landless Indian tribe with no means of supporting 

itself. As has now been widely accepted, the Rancheria Act was another failed attempt to cause Indian tribes to disband. Despite the hardships caused to it by continuously losing its homelands, the Lytton Tribe remained cohesive and strong, not 

giving up its claim that it had been wrongfully terminated. 

In 1987, the Tribe joined with three other tribes in a lawsuit against the United 

States challenging the termination of their Rancherias. In 1991, a Federal court 

concluded in ‘‘Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Sugar Bowl Rancheria v. 

United States of America’’ No. C–86–3660 (N.D.Cal. March 22, 1991), that the termination of the Lytton Rancheria was indeed unlawful, and Lytton’s federallyrecognized tribal status was restored by court order. In part the Stipulated 

Judgment reads, ‘‘. . . that the distributees of the Lytton Rancheria are eligible for 

all rights and benefits extended to Indians under the Constitution and laws of the 

United States; and that the Lytton Indian Community and its members shall be eligible for all rights and benefits extended to other federally-recognized Indian tribes 

and their members . . .’’ 

Lytton’s status was restored, but its land base, now owned by non-Indians, was 

not returned to them and Lytton remained a landless and impoverished tribe. The 

Tribe had no home to return to. The Stipulated Judgment that ended the case was 

agreed to by Federal and county authorities and specifically promised the Tribe a 

new homeland in Sonoma County on lands to be held in Federal trust. Twenty-four 

years later, the Tribe is still waiting for that promise to be fulfilled. Almost three 

generations of our people have not known what it is like to live in a community on 

tribal lands. 

In 2000, Congress passed Section 819 of P.L. 106–568 which directed the 

Secretary of Interior to take certain land into trust for gaming purposes for the 

Tribe in San Pablo, California. This action was taken after due consideration and 

with strong local support. Lytton has established a small, successful Class II gaming 

operation in that location which is limited by law to electronic bingo games and 

48 

poker. The Tribe collects revenues from this facility to pay for tribal needs including 

education and health care, as well as purchasing property for a homeland and area 

to diversify the Tribe’s economic development. The Tribe’s 9.5 acre San Pablo trust 

parcel is only large enough for the gaming facility and cannot meet the Tribe’s need 

for tribal homeland. 

NEED FOR TRUST LAND

Indian tribes have long been held to be distinct political communities. This inherent sovereignty of tribal governments is acknowledged in the United States 

Constitution, as well as treaties, legislation and judicial and administrative decisions. Land is essential for tribes in order for them to function as governments. 

Tribal trust lands are especially important to this advancement. Tribes need trust 

lands so that they can provide governmental services for their members, such as 

housing, health care, education, economic development, and in order to protect historic, cultural and religious ties to the land. 

The Indian Reorganization Act (‘‘IRA’’) recognized the need for tribes to have and 

govern their own lands to provide for the advancement and self-support of their people. The legislative history of the IRA clearly shows the intent of Congress to address and ameliorate the extensive loss of land tribes had suffered. Specifically, the 

IRA made a change in Federal Indian policy which would ‘‘establish machinery 

whereby Indian tribes would be able to assume a greater degree of self-government, 

both politically and economically.’’ This is done through growing their land bases. 

Every Indian tribe needs to have a homeland with clearly delineated authority to 

provide services to its members and jurisdiction over its lands to provide the necessary infrastructure and land use planning for future generations. With the exception of the small parcel Congress provided it for gaming in San Pablo, which is not 

large enough for a tribal homeland, Lytton Rancheria has been left essentially landless since it was terminated in 1961. For more than 50 years the Tribe has not been 

able to provide its members a homeland on which to have housing, community and 

governmental facilities, and to follow their religious practices without interference 

from outsiders. 

Lytton Rancheria has used revenues from the San Pablo Casino to purchase 

lands, from willing sellers and at fair market value, near its former Rancheria in 

the Alexander Valley of Sonoma County. Lytton Rancheria has concentrated the 

purchase of property near the Town of Windsor and currently holds these lands in 

fee status. The attached map entitled, ‘‘Lytton Fee Owned Property to be Taken into 

Trust—May 1, 2015’’ shows the property proposed for trust status under H.R. 2538 

which includes 511 acres. There will be no gaming on any of the lands covered in 

H.R. 2538. The bill specifically prohibits gaming on any of the lands. 

Of the acreage proposed for trust status, the Tribe proposes to use approximately 

124.12 acres for housing and other governmental and community facilities. This will 

allow it to have a homeland for its members after 50 years in exile. A portion of 

the land proposed to be taking into trust is currently being used for economic development purposes such as viniculture. 

The Tribe has purchased a number of vineyards and is operating them in an environmentally sensitive manner. Vineyards that were in various stages of disrepair 

prior to the Tribe’s purchase are now being put back into clean, healthy working 

order. Small tributaries of the Russian River that have long been clogged and unusable by fish are being cleaned out and made ready for use again. Additionally, the 

Tribe has installed wind machines to use during frost warnings to keep the grapes 

from freezing, rather than using overhead spray from the Russian River like many 

ranches in the area. This innovative measure will save water from being taken from 

the Russian River at a vital time of the river’s flow. The Tribe’s investment in the 

ongoing viniculture operations has reinvigorated many previously deteriorating 

vineyards, and its grapes are being used to produce high-quality wines. Lytton operates its vineyards on a fish-friendly and sustainable basis, and is working toward 

sustainability certification pursuant to the practices of the Sonoma County 

Winegrape Association and the California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance. 

LYTTON RANCHERIA IS A GOOD NEIGHBOR

Lytton Rancheria has prided itself in being a good neighbor to the communities 

surrounding its lands. For example, in San Pablo, the Tribe provides more than 50 

percent of the City’s operating budget and donates to many local charities. For instance, the Tribe sponsors a yearly golf tournament to benefit the Brookside 

Foundation thus providing $100,000 a year for healthcare for an impoverished community. The Tribe has also donated $50,000 to the Boys and Girls Clubs of San 

49 

Pablo. In addition, the Tribe contributes $25,000 a year to the Friendship House in 

San Francisco to help aid in drug and alcohol rehabilitation in the Bay Area. 

The Tribe is a premier supporter of the Wells Fargo Center for the Arts in 

Sonoma County, donating $500,000 a year for children’s programs and musical instruments. Lytton has recently agreed to give $250,000 a year for 5 years to the 

Charles Shultz Children’s Charities, which includes three different children’s charities in Sonoma County. These are just a few examples of Lytton Rancheria using 

its resources to assist its local communities. 

On the Federal level, Lytton Rancheria does not accept any Federal funding it is 

eligible for as a tribe except for Indian Health Service (IHS) funding, which it immediately turns over to the Sonoma Indian Health Clinic. This Clinic provides 

healthcare for all Indians, regardless of tribal affiliation, residing in Sonoma 

County. On top of its IHS funding, the Tribe also donates an additional $600,000 

per year to the Sonoma Indian Health Clinic to use for expenses. 

MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT

Realizing that having land in trust in Sonoma County would change some of the 

current uses of the land, the Tribe has spent years meeting with, negotiating and 

forming agreements with the County of Sonoma, the local school district and the 

local fire department. 

WINDSOR FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT

Lytton Rancheria has entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the 

Windsor Fire Protection District to provide emergency services to tribal members located in the proposed tribal housing area, which is within the District’s jurisdiction. 

Under the Agreement, the Windsor Fire Protection District will provide the initial 

response to all emergency incidents for fire, medical, rescue or other reported emergency reason. 

In return for these services, the Tribe has agreed to make payments to the fire 

district including: $50,000 a year for equipment purchases and $80,000 a year for 

one full-time firefighter. In addition, the Tribe has agreed to pay to the District, 

prior to the start of construction: $750 per each single family home, $525 per each 

multi-family unit, and $340 per every 1,000 square feet of space for a community 

center and tribal retreat center. Once property is in trust status the Tribe has also 

agreed to pay the District on an escalating basis yearly. The beginning payment 

would be $25,000/year and increase up to $50,000/year for the term of the agreement. Further, the Tribe has agreed to provide additional funding if necessary in 

the case of an emergency such as terrorism, earthquake or other act of God. 

The Tribe will comply with California Fire Code and Fire Safety Standards 

Ordinance during construction of all housing and tribal buildings. The Tribe will 

also be responsible for providing adequate water and pressure for firefighting. 

WINDSOR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Lytton Rancheria has entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the 

Windsor Unified School District to prepare for and mitigate an increase in school 

aged children who would move into the proposed tribal housing. The Tribe has 

agreed to pay, based on the Environmental Assessment for the housing project, the 

amount of $1 million dollars. This amount is similar to the amount that would be 

owed to the School District if the land were developed by a non-tribal entity. 

TOWN OF WINDSOR

The Tribe is in talks with the Town of Windsor for water and sewer support for 

the tribal housing area since the development would be just outside the current 

Town water and sewer boundaries. This decision is likely to be made through public 

referendum and the Tribe is prepared to pay substantially to mitigate any costs required by such services as well as to assist the Town with other priorities it might 

have for its citizens. 

COUNTY OF SONOMA

After years of discussion and negotiation, Lytton Rancheria and the Sonoma 

County Board of Supervisors have agreed to and signed a binding Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA). I am pleased to report that both the Lytton Tribal Council and 

the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to support the agreement and the legislation to take lands into trust for the Tribe. 

50 

The detailed Agreement with the County initially spans a term of a generation 

and covers almost every aspect of land management once the tribally owned land 

is taken into trust status. The MOA is too long to detail in this testimony, but I 

will cover some of the significant portions. 

• An Environmental Assessment was prepared and submitted to the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs and circulated regarding the residential development area for 

tribal housing. The Bureau of Indian Affairs issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on June 5, 2012. The MOA contains agreements for the 

mitigation of potential impacts from this, or any future, land being taken into 

trust status for Lytton Rancheria. 

• In the residential development area, the MOA contains agreements on how 

many units will be built, the size of the units and who can reside there. Some 

oak trees will be cut in the residential area, however the Tribe has marked 

and will protect the larger heritage trees, and is providing the County with 

funding to replace, on a 1 to 1 ratio, the smaller trees that are cut down. 

• The Tribe has agreed to strict environmental protection and mitigation efforts 

for the residential project, including the community and governmental facilities. The Tribe has also agreed that for a potential future lodging facility and 

winery, it will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in compliance 

with NEPA and negotiate with the County on mitigating impacts. The Tribe 

waived its sovereign immunity in the MOA and agreed to binding arbitration 

if there is disagreement on mitigation. 

• Lytton Rancheria has agreed to provide compensation for substantial mitigation and other costs to the County. These include a one time payment of $6 

million dollars for mitigation of, among other things, county roads, native 

oaks, woodlands; and a one time payment of $100,000 for costs incurred by 

the County to prepare and implement the MOA. 

• The Tribe has agreed to a continuous payment to the County based on the 

valuation of the land as determined by the County Assessor’s Office. In addition the Tribe has agreed to pay to the County 9 percent of all rents collected 

by the Tribe on hotel rooms and vacation rentals. 

GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA

On May 27, 2015, Governor Jerry Brown, Jr. wrote a letter to Congressman Jared 

Huffman expressing his support for the Lytton Rancheria Homeland Act of 2015. 

In his letter he stated in part, ‘‘Lytton Rancheria and Sonoma County have concluded an Agreement that reflects a respectful relationship. The Act and Agreement 

provide the framework for mutually beneficial cooperative efforts that protect the 

Tribe’s sovereignty as well as the vital interests of Sonoma County residents.’’ 

CLOSING

In closing Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for holding this hearing addressing the number one priority of my tribe—the re-establishment of a homeland 

on which the Lytton people can once again live communally now and for future generations. We have been fighting back from losing our lands (the last time) for more 

than 50 years, and I do not want another of our tribal elders to pass away without 

knowing there once again is tribal land to house our people. 

This committee has been there for us in our struggle. Please know that fact is 

not lost on us. All people need a homeland and we are no different. We are not asking for Federal or state lands. We have been able to purchase our own land and 

we have done the hard work of getting agreements with our local non-Indian 

communities. All we need now is for the Federal Government to finish what was 

promised to us when our status was restored. As an Indian tribe, we need our land 

to be held by the Federal Government in trust for the Lytton Rancheria. 

Passage of H.R. 2538, the Lytton Rancheria Homeland Act of 2015 will restore 

my people to where we were before termination. I hope you will continue to support 

the Lytton Rancheria and move H.R. 2538 out of committee and to the House Floor 

in the near future. 

Thank you. 

Attachment: Map 

51 

MAP 

52 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. Before I recognize the Ranking Member, 

who will ask the first series of questions, Steve, I will tell you this 

is not new to me. This issue has been around for a long time. 

Thank you for your testimony. And I mean that, because I have not 

seen the effort put forth, as you suggest in your testimony, by the 

people involved that don’t want the bill to pass. If I thought for a 

moment there was true negotiation, government-to-government, I 

wouldn’t be having this bill. I wouldn’t have this hearing. But I 

don’t see that effort. I see a total lack of consideration. And some 

of the comments you made are telling about the character of some 

people. So we are going to try to move this piece of legislation. 

With that, I will recognize the Ranking Member. 

Dr. RUIZ. I am going to go ahead and yield the first round of 

questions to Representative Huffman. Go ahead. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I thank the Ranking Member. My question is to 

Mr. Black from the BIA. 

One of the reasons I introduced this bill is that I appreciate the 

detailed agreements that this tribe, the Lytton Tribe, has reached 

with county and local agencies. These are agreements that anticipate and mitigate possible impacts. They describe how future decisions will be made. And, along with the legislation, they actually 

prohibit gaming on the land. 

Now, it is my impression that if we think about the alternative 

of the BIA process, there are far fewer opportunities for all of the 

affected parties to collaborate on a path forward. Can you give us 

an idea as to how many applications the BIA has approved in recent years, including post-Carcieri, and how much land has been 

taken into trust through that process? 

Mr. BLACK. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. Since about 

2009, we have brought in approximately 1,921 applications, totaling a little over 300,000 acres of land into trust for tribes. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. So the perception that Carcieri sort of shut down 

the BIA land-to-trust process is incorrect. We hear this sometimes. 

Mr. BLACK. I wouldn’t say it shut down the process. It did add 

some complications and length to the process, yes. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Right. As we heard from the Chairperson at the 

Tribe, the Lytton Rancheria is a federally-recognized Pomo Indian 

Tribe, and these folks have occupied land in California and entered 

into treaties with the Federal Government going back to the 1850s. 

I understand that the Tribe has two land-to-trust applications 

pending before the BIA. I wonder if you could speak to the scenario 

where, if BIA approved those pending applications, would any of 

the agreements that have been reached with local agencies or the 

County, or the prohibition on casinos, would any of that necessarily 

be included in a BIA decision on those applications? 

Mr. BLACK. Those decisions, or those types of agreements and 

stuff, are considered when we are reviewing applications, but they 

do not become part of the application process, or the decision, no. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. So there would be no guarantee, for example, that 

there would be a no-casino provision in a BIA decision. 

Mr. BLACK. No, generally not, no. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Chairperson Mejia, your written testimony explains that you have used revenues from San Pablo, the casino, to 

buy lands in Sonoma County from willing sellers, and some of the 

53 

property that the Tribe has acquired includes vineyards. The Tribe 

is now getting into the wine business. 

Why is it important for you that the Tribe diversify its economic 

holdings? 

Ms. MEJIA. It is important because you can’t put all your eggs 

in one basket. And gaming, while it is a viable vehicle for generating revenue, we can’t be guaranteed that that is going to always 

be there. As a Senator told me years ago, the gaming industry is 

fluid. 

Second, it is what IGRA intended, for tribes to be sovereign. You 

diversify to make your money work for you and to be able, for the 

longevity of the Tribe, to provide for my members for generations 

to come—not only for my members, but for the community, because 

with the agreements that we have, we are definitely good neighbors. And I think the signed agreements show that. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. You have agreements with the County of Sonoma, 

the local fire district, local school district, the possibility of an additional agreement with the Town of Windsor. This is a lot of work. 

You are not required by law to do any of this. Why was it important to you to spend months and, actually I think, even years at 

the negotiating table to try to work these things out with your local 

government partners? 

Ms. MEJIA. It was important because we want to be good neighbors. We don’t want to be in a community where we are not wanted 

and we are a burden. So in doing these agreements, we gave the 

local communities the assurance that we were going to be good 

neighbors, we were going to be productive citizens in the community, and it is a mutual respect and a win-win situation for 

everyone. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Well, I want to thank you for taking that approach. This is not how it always works in these land-to-trust 

situations around the country, or even everywhere in my district. 

So I applaud you for doing the hard work of trying to work things 

out with your local government partners. 

Ms. MEJIA. Thank you. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I appreciate your testimony today. With that, I 

yield back. 

Dr. BENISHEK [presiding]. Thank you. I will yield myself 5 

minutes, since I was up next. 

Ms. Miyasato, you work for the County Board, or the Board of 

Supervisors, then. You are the Executive Director. I listened to 

your testimony and why you opposed the land-into-trust thing, and 

the reasons for it. I guess the question I have for you is, how do 

you propose remedying the Tribe’s current need for housing? 

Ms. MIYASATO. Congressman, thank you for asking that question. 

We never said the Tribe didn’t need housing. And when the Board 

made its decision back in August 2013, which Chairman Armenta 

and Mr. Lavagnino referred to, the actual motion was for the Tribe 

to—we requested that they begin discussions with the County regarding their plans to develop housing on Camp 4 and other 

projects that they would like to see, and they directed their staff, 

us, to work with the Tribe on any potential plans for Camp 4. 

So, I just wanted to clarify that that was actually the Board’s 

direction to staff. There was a meeting, I believe, with the 

54 

representative from the Tribe and with our staff, and there was an 

explanation of our process, and then no follow-up from the Tribe. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Well, what about the gentlemen next to you, both 

say that the County was unwilling to work with the Tribe as a government? What is that about? 

Ms. MIYASATO. Congressman, I think that since I have been with 

the County—I have been with the County for a year-and-a-half as 

the CEO—I know there have been different stories and discussions 

about what had happened. So I went back to look at the record myself, and all I can tell you is that the actual direction from the 

Board of Supervisors at that time and at that meeting was directing staff to work with the Tribe in discussions with our planning 

staff on plans to develop Camp 4. And that is the information that 

I have. 

And since I have been with the County, the Board of Supervisors 

has worked productively with the Tribe. There are two agreements 

that Chairman Armenta discussed, which was one for sheriff 

services and fire services. So they offered, and the County voted 

unanimously to work with them and approve those agreements. 

Just as a side note, those agreements for existing services on the 

reservations—— 

Dr. BENISHEK. Chairman Armenta, now, give me your response 

to what she just said here. You know, what is the story? I mean, 

like any other landowner, can’t you do an application to put up 

housing? And why is this not an option for you? 

Mr. ARMENTA. Our request at that meeting was that the County 

meet and negotiate with the Tribe on a government-to-government 

basis. Instead, the County Board of Supervisors failed to acknowledge our sovereign status, and pointed us in the direction of staff, 

county staff, as a typical landowner, not as a government. That is 

the direction we were sent. 

Dr. BENISHEK. So that is not going to work for you, then? Is that 

the story? 

Mr. ARMENTA. To address the housing need for our membership, 

that does not fall within the Santa Barbara County or the Santa 

Ynez Valley community land use plan. No, sir. 

Dr. BENISHEK. I see. So you couldn’t build housing there without 

it being put into trust? 

Mr. ARMENTA. We could build one house for every 100 acres. So 

we could build 14 houses. 

Dr. BENISHEK. I see. OK. Let me ask Mr. Barlow. 

Can you discuss a little bit further the economic benefits that the 

recognized tribal communities in your area might have with the 

passage of this? 

Mr. BARLOW. Thank you for your question, Congressman. I 

would—— 

Dr. BENISHEK. You mentioned it, but I need a little more detail. 

Mr. BARLOW. Sure. In the case of those communities in our region that have been recognized, they have been able to form business operations. We are organized under a corporate structure in 

Alaska. And they are into several different enterprises, including 

things such as government contracting, including eco-tourism, cultural tourism. Some have invested in operating companies all over 

the United States of America. This has allowed them to, provided 

55 

they are profitable, have enough wherewithal to fund such things 

as cultural programs, educational programs, scholarship programs 

for their shareowners, as well as to participate in furthering the 

political process in the region. So they have much more of a realized benefit than those of us who have not been recognized. 

Dr. BENISHEK. All right, thank you. I appreciate it. I just want 

to ask Chairwoman Mejia a question here. 

Can you describe the current status of the land, again, that is 

going to be taken into trust? And what is the current status? 

Ms. MEJIA. It is held in fee. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Oh, OK. All right. 

Ms. MEJIA. It is owned by the Tribe, but it is in fee status, 

currently. 

Dr. BENISHEK. OK. All right, thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. YOUNG [presiding]. Mr. Ruiz. 

Dr. RUIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Black, I have a clarifying question. I heard today that the 

Chumash bill is unnecessary because the land is already into trust, 

the Camp 4 land is already into trust. Is it into trust? 

Mr. BLACK. The decision was made by the Pacific regional director to bring that land into trust. That decision is currently under 

appeal. So it hasn’t completed the process. No, sir. 

Dr. RUIZ. OK. So it is not into trust. 

Mr. BLACK. Not officially, no—— 

Dr. RUIZ. OK. 

Mr. BLACK [continuing]. It is still under appeal. 

Dr. RUIZ. Chairman Armenta, I understand, then, in the late 

1800s the Tribe lost over 13,000 acres of land. It seems to me that 

one of the concerns was that this new land would be 10 times larger than the existing reservation. But yet you lost your ancestral 

land that was larger than this 10 times the size of what your current exists. Can you give me more of that history, please? 

Mr. ARMENTA. There was a lawsuit filed by the Archdiocese of 

the Catholic Church against the Federal Government to remove the 

tribes and the tribal member’s name off a title, when the Catholic 

Church held that land with the tribe on title. And, in return for 

that lawsuit, that is when they gave us 99 acres. For a period of 

time we were on title for over 13,000 acres. 

Dr. RUIZ. So you had 13,000 acres. They put you on 99 acres. 

And, of those 99 acres, how many of it can you develop housing on, 

or do anything with it? 

Mr. ARMENTA. The original 99 acres, about 40 acres of it is 

developable. 

Dr. RUIZ. So, in other words, they took away your land, put you 

on a very small piece, and the majority of that is rocky hillside, 

where you can’t do anything with it. Is that—— 

Mr. ARMENTA. Either rocky hillside, sir, or swamp. 

Dr. RUIZ. OK. So, my understanding is that you owned this piece 

of land, and it has been determined to be your ancestral land, and 

you want members of your tribe to come home to, basically, live on 

their land. Is that the premise of this bill? 

Mr. ARMENTA. Yes, sir. It is. 

Dr. RUIZ. OK. And my understanding, from what I have heard 

today, is that you have shared any concerns, the burden of any 

56 

concerns, in providing for law enforcement, fire department, and 

anything else that the local different agencies want you to address, 

but that the stalemate here is that the County does not want to 

negotiate in a government-to-government level with the Tribe. Is 

that my understanding? 

Mr. ARMENTA. That is your understanding. We currently have 

two agreements with Santa Barbara County to provide law enforcement and fire safety of a total of about $2 million a year. 

Dr. RUIZ. So I am wondering. What is the heart of this issue? So 

they are concerned about gaming, and you put in the provision 

there is no gaming. They are concerned about taxes, yet you want 

to give them $1 million a year when they are only collecting 

$81,000. So that is 125 years’ worth of taxes in the next 10 years. 

You are going through the NEPA process. You are looking at 

water. There is a development next to yours that is even more 

dense in housing than what you are proposing. 

So, this question is for Ms. Miyasato. What else—what is the 

heart of this issue? What is the matter here? 

Ms. MIYASATO. Congressman, there are a couple of different 

things that you have mentioned, so thank you for mentioning those 

things. 

One is when you talked about the provision of service. The provision of service that Chairman Armenta discussed was for the existing reservation and the casino. And we consider it as mitigation for 

those and their casino expansion, which is a recent project to put 

in a 12-story tower, and to expand their casino with that. So, the 

recent agreements we have agreed to with the Chairman and the 

Tribe were really for the existing reservation, not for the 1,400 

acres that we are talking about today. 

In addition, you talked about—and rightfully so—you said there 

is other land in the area that is developed. When the community 

went through a community planning process, and the County went 

through a comprehensive planning process, we said, ‘‘Yes, we agree 

there are some pockets of development. But those are not pockets 

of development we would like to see in this particular land, which 

has been zoned for agricultural use.’’ And, as Mr. Armenta said, it 

is zoned for 100 acres, and it is because, when we went through 

this local community planning process, we said there are areas that 

are part of the urban boundary, and areas outside. And we, in 

Santa Barbara County, are committed to preserving and encouraging agricultural viability. 

So, some of the land that has been purchased by the Tribe is in 

that agricultural zone; so it is really a discussion of the community’s values of maintaining agricultural use, and confirming the 

community’s desires through our comprehensive planning process. 

Then this land being in there, this isn’t in-fill development. We are 

talking about an area that we have looked at for rural agricultural 

use. 

And when the Chairman said you couldn’t build the houses—— 

Dr. RUIZ. So then, in other words, the point of the matter is that 

you don’t want housing on this agricultural land. Because it seems 

to me that everything else, the Tribe is bending over backwards to 

work with you. So then, it not only becomes an agricultural zoning 

issue versus whether you want to build houses on it, but, on the 

57 

flip side, the other side of the story is a moral justification for some 

sense of justice for a tribe who has lost a large portion of their 

land, and is now simply wanting to have their members come home 

and to have a homeland of which it was taken away years ago. So, 

I believe that is sort of the dilemma that is going on in this. 

And one of the things that I want to make very clear is that they 

are a government. They are a sovereign nation. And for any institution in the United States not to recognize that is backwards. So, 

we need to make sure that they are respected, that they have a 

seat at the table, and that they are in negotiations with any other 

government, as a government. I believe that is another part of the 

matter for our committee to make it understood to the County. 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. LaMalfa. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. And again, 

thank you all for your travel here to come all the way to DC, Chairman and Supervisor, Ms. Miyasato—sorry about that. 

Supervisor, I think we may share the same old-country roots, so 

I am going to try it the right way. Is it Lavagnino? 

Mr. LAVAGNINO. Lavagnino. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Lavagnino. OK, all right. I was trying to account 

for the G there. So, anyway, now, as a county supervisor—and, you 

know, I represent 11 counties up in the north, in the first congressional district, and it is pretty rural—they are always battling, trying to stay funded, trying to work with the Federal Government for 

a lot of the Federal lands that are owned there that we have the 

PILT, payment in lieu of taxes, and that is probably fairly important to you in Santa Barbara, as well. 

So, what we are looking at here is kind of a PILT-type situation. 

Of course, there were concerns, taking land into trust. But we have 

seen where the Chumash Tribe has stepped forward to more than 

make up for that. So what do you see that as being beneficial for 

your county, which—I would imagine all counties, you know, having worked with CSAC and RCRC before—how important is that 

to you, to see the potential benefit here? 

Mr. LAVAGNINO. Well, thank you, Congressman. We, as any 

county has over the past few years in California, we have struggled 

financially, and this was our first year where we really had a surplus and have been able to restock our surplus accounts. 

But, obviously, when you are talking about an area—if you are 

just looking at this from a financial perspective, we have been receiving somewhere between $80,000 and $85,000 a year, and now 

we would be getting $1 million a year. Obviously, that would have 

a significant impact to the services that we would provide. 

Mr. LAMALFA. And earlier, Chairman Armenta testified that 

they do indeed provide not only their own weight, but above that 

with their emergency services and other things they provide to the 

area, to the valley. So that has to have a pretty positive impact already, as well, for—— 

Mr. LAVAGNINO. It does, and it is very well received. And those 

were actually agreements that the Chairman worked—I would 

have to say it is almost offline with the sheriff. The Board of 

Supervisors were not involved until we actually approved the contracts at the end. They brought us the contracts between the Tribe 

58 

and the sheriff and our fire department. And one of them is for a 

large—forgot how much they spent—over $1 million on a piece of 

equipment that is going to be used all throughout the Santa Ynez 

Valley. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK, thank you. 

Ms. Miyasato, you kind of mentioned earlier that the legislation, 

or the effort by the Tribe, would be a shortcut to getting to their 

end goal of providing housing, of using their land as they would 

perhaps like to see fit. 

So they have already owned the land for about 5 years. But, even 

more so, you point back to taking into trust recently 6 acres adjacent right to the trust land they have, which was a 14-year 

lawsuit-filled process. How can you really think that, at this point, 

this looks like a shortcut, when they have waited this long, and 

past history shows that they have endured a lot of unnecessary attorneys fees and delay, again, with the end goal they have members that need housing, would like housing, would like it in the 

traditional way, with people they would like to associate with? How 

can you justify that? 

Ms. MIYASATO. Congressman, I think what we are saying in the 

County is that we have—you have a process, Congress has a process for hearing the community and the local residents’ concern 

through the appeal process, and we would like to see that through, 

rather than have this bill preempt that. 

And on the 6.9 acres, I am sympathetic to the Tribe in the length 

of time. And I just want people to know that the County did not 

oppose that, taking that into trust. It was commercial property for 

their uses, and we did not oppose that. I think the issue, here 

again, is that this—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. But you have a culture there of people that will 

come forward with lawsuits, frivolous in nature—and that is debatable, I suppose—but the delay there for people trying to do what 

they see fit, and do business, and the County is contributing to that 

in this scenario here. 

Ms. MIYASATO. Congressman, I think that there are some errant 

voices, and maybe misguided voices in the community, as you have 

pointed out. In my time there, in evaluating that and talking to 

community members, I think the main concern is just the change 

in use and the lack of input through the process. And as we talked 

about—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. There has been plenty of input through the courts, 

ma’am, and it looks like there will be more to come along. 

And a disturbing thing, too, is that you didn’t acknowledge that 

they are already providing emergency services above and beyond 

what anybody would expect. Instead you referred that the County 

has to do this on the lands that are—as is. So I think a little more 

acknowledgment of the cooperation of the Tribe, it would be very 

much in order. 

I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. 

Mrs. Torres. 

Mrs. TORRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a follow-up 

question to Ms. Miyasato. 

59 

What are your—you were talking about community values. I 

happen to value affordable housing. Have you met your numbers? 

Ms. MIYASATO. For the state? Yes, we did. We just passed our 

most recent housing community development plan for the state of 

California. So we just approved that, yes. 

Mrs. TORRES. OK. What is the number of homeless individuals 

in your county? 

Ms. MIYASATO. Congresswoman, I don’t have that information, 

but I could certainly provide it to you. 

Mrs. TORRES. When you provide that information, can you provide tribal members that may be homeless or at risk of homelessness? 

Chairman Armenta, can you give the committee a little bit more 

information about the Tribe’s current housing stock? Specifically, 

can you elaborate on who does and doesn’t live on the reservation? 

Mr. ARMENTA. Yes, Congresswoman. Currently we have 65 

homes on the reservation. There are 143 enrolled tribal members, 

there are 500 children. Of those, 17 percent live on the reservation. 

They are homes that were built—started being built in the 1970s 

by HUD. Most of them are two-, perhaps three-bedroom homes, 

that are housing multiple generations. 

Mrs. TORRES. As a follow-up, if the Tribe is able to acquire this 

land, how far would it go toward addressing the housing situation 

among tribal members? 

Mr. ARMENTA. It would assure that every enrolled tribal member 

would have a home to live in on the reservation and practice our 

cultural beliefs, as well. 

Mrs. TORRES. I read in the reports about all of your outreach efforts to the community. Can you elaborate for this hearing today 

how extensive those efforts have been? 

Mr. ARMENTA. Congresswoman, we have lived within this community far before it was developed. Even when the first settlers 

came in, we felt that it was the responsibility of our tribe, it was 

the nature of our membership to be hospitable to people. But we 

provide our community, I believe, with items that are not recognized as well as they should be. 

For instance, the fire agreement. This fire agreement that we 

have with the County was originally dated back to 2002 that I personally negotiated, far before any casino expansion. Three years 

ago I started negotiations with the county sheriff, well before we 

were doing any expansion of any casino. 

California is a Public Law 280 state. Santa Barbara County has 

the responsibility for providing fire service and public safety, law 

enforcement on reservations. We just insist on helping them, because we know it not only makes our reservation community a better place to live, but it makes the Santa Ynez Valley a better place 

to live. 

Mrs. TORRES. Right. Thank you. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank you. 

Mr. Gosar. 

Dr. GOSAR. Thank you very much. 

Director Black, the Tribe has been very forthcoming that this 

land taken into trust will not facilitate a casino. Is that true? 

60 

Mr. BLACK. Yes, sir. 

Dr. GOSAR. So—— 

Mr. BLACK. That legislation has that statement in it. 

Dr. GOSAR [continuing]. So they have been above board the whole 

time. 

Mr. BLACK. That is my understanding, sir. 

Dr. GOSAR. Well, the reason I bring that up is that we have a 

problem in Arizona, that a tribe wasn’t very forthcoming, actually 

lied to the commission in Arizona in regards to buying a piece of 

property and extending casinos in Phoenix. So that is very important, that they were straightforward. 

Chairman Armenta, you have been very forthcoming, as well. 

You have been more than polite, extending a hand. Is that true? 

Mr. ARMENTA. Yes, sir. 

Dr. GOSAR. So do you see this as a win-win situation, the 

potential for a win-win situation? 

Mr. ARMENTA. I believe any time two governments work together 

it is absolutely a win-win for both parties involved. 

Dr. GOSAR. Ms. Miyasato—I am probably saying your name 

wrong, I am sorry—do you see a position for a win-win situation 

in this? 

Ms. MIYASATO. Congressman, I think there is always a chance 

for a win-win, an opportunity—— 

Dr. GOSAR. I don’t know—don’t like that word, ‘‘chance.’’ Because 

it seems to me like you are on the back burner, and they should 

be on the front burner. So tell me that there is a win-win situation 

here, because I am about ready to tell you how it can happen. 

Ms. MIYASATO. I think there can always be a win-win situation. 

And—— 

Dr. GOSAR. And particularly when you have that mind set, right? 

When you go in with a positive mind set, there are a lot of things 

that you usually—— 

Ms. MIYASATO. There is a lot you can do with a positive mind set. 

You are absolutely right, Congressman. 

Dr. GOSAR. Yes. Well, I see a lot of negativity in this process. 

I have a tribe in my hometown. It is called the Yavapai Apaches. 

And what happens, they have an island, and they are surrounded 

by the Town of Prescott in Prescott Valley. And so, a choice came 

to this entity about collaborating and working with the tribes, or 

treating them like what you are doing right now. And it has turned 

out to be a magical relationship. Because when there is a problem 

for Prescott and Prescott Valley with the Federal Government, they 

let the tribes address it. That is unbelievable. And then, when they 

have the state and local aspects, the city councils and the Board 

of Supervisors work. They even included them in their economic 

plan. Yes, they have a casino up on top of the hill, but they are 

very diversified in their applications now. 

Why don’t we see something like that in this case? 

Ms. MIYASATO. Congressman, I think that—and, again, I am 

going to give from my experience—the relationship has been inconsistent with the Tribe and the County, so—— 

Dr. GOSAR. And whose fault is that? 

Ms. MIYASATO. I think there is shared responsibility in that. And 

I think Chairman Armenta talked about the great things that they 

61 

have done for the County, the sheriff agreement, the fire agreement. Again, that was a response to their existing reservation, 

their existing casino. And the fire truck that he mentioned, that 

was brought up by our fire staff, and not brought up originally by 

the Tribe, to provide an aerial fire truck to service a tower that is 

part of the casino expansion. Our staff is the one who brought that 

up, that wasn’t part of the original plans or their mitigation. 

And the things that we wanted to continue to talk about, and we 

asked the Tribe, ‘‘That is great, and can we continue talking about 

these other things that we see as issues,’’ they never came back to 

us. So I think it is an uneven discussion. 

Dr. GOSAR. So let me ask you a question. It seems like, from your 

standpoint, when I do the background on this, you have delayed 

and delayed and delayed from the County’s perspective. Would you 

agree with that? 

Ms. MIYASATO. From my existing experience, I don’t see that we 

have delayed and delayed. I think—— 

Dr. GOSAR. Chairman Armenta, would you agree or disagree with 

that comment? 

Mr. ARMENTA. I would have to agree with it, sir. 

Dr. GOSAR. OK. So, how do you go forward? I mean you want us 

to slow this legislation down, and I don’t think the Congress wants 

to do that, because that is our jurisdiction. So how do you see the 

next time frame, or the next, let’s say, 6 months? 

Ms. MIYASATO. Congressman, we would like the appeal to proceed, and have those discussions about the issues that we do see 

with the process and with the fee-to-trust application, and some of 

the inadequacies that we saw in the environmental impact, or the 

environmental assessment. Some of the issues that we saw needed 

to be addressed that weren’t addressed. So we would like that process to proceed, so that we, the county, the government, and the 

local communities can have some more input in discussing those 

impacts and what we see are issues. 

Dr. GOSAR. Chairman Armenta, how do you see the next 6 

months? 

Mr. ARMENTA. Congressman, I have not seen a change since 

1999, when I became Tribal Chairman. I have reached out to the 

County many times. I will continue to reach out to the County. 

But, to be perfectly honest, I don’t know if the County is going to 

allow that. So I don’t know if I see much change. If there is an opportunity to meet with the County, I will absolutely do that. 

Dr. GOSAR. I see it as a possibility here that Congress needs to 

keep the fire on you guys’ feet. And I have done this with the 

Forest Service in our fire-laden forests in Arizona. So I actually 

would applaud the folks here to continue pushing this legislation. 

And I ask you to speed up your negotiation and do it in good faith, 

because there is a win-win at the end of this tunnel. 

So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Denham. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Miyasato, in our notes here it says that you are currently getting $82,000 annual for tax revenue on that current piece of 

property. 

62 

Ms. MIYASATO. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM. And the Tribe is offering a million. Those are 

correct numbers? 

Ms. MIYASATO. I am told the Tribe offered a million some time 

ago. 

Mr. DENHAM. And in this relationship, this government-togovernment relationship, this negotiation they are having with the 

Tribe, what is it you are actually looking for? What are you asking 

for? 

Ms. MIYASATO. The last action of the Board of Supervisors was 

to ask the Tribe to engage us in a planning process for their housing development and other uses that they asked for on the site. 

Mr. DENHAM. Other uses. So you want a greater say over the 

agricultural part of the land use? 

Ms. MIYASATO. We wanted a greater say into the whole development, so part of the application, or part of the initial project alternatives from the Tribe was—one was to have lots of open space, 

one was to do a community facility and exhibition hall and have 

some visitor serving kind of uses. 

Mr. DENHAM. Do you not want an exhibition hall or another type 

of facility there? 

Ms. MIYASATO. Currently we believe that would have significant 

impacts to the residents, if it brought 800 visitors to the valley. So 

we wanted to have more discussions with—— 

Mr. DENHAM. Well, what impact would it have? 

Ms. MIYASATO. Well, one could be traffic, one could be noise, one 

could be the intersection with the agricultural area. We have these 

agricultural buffer areas between the commercial or residential 

areas—— 

Mr. DENHAM. It is currently in Ag. use now, is it not? 

Ms. MIYASATO. It currently is. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM. OK. So further Ag. use is not a problem, is it? 

Ms. MIYASATO. Further Ag. use is not a problem, currently. 

Mr. DENHAM. OK. And the density of this housing development 

is less dense than the current housing unit that is adjacent to this 

property. Is it not? 

Ms. MIYASATO. Congressman, could you repeat that? 

Mr. DENHAM. There is another piece of property adjacent to this 

property, where there is a housing development that is more dense 

than what is actually being proposed by the Tribe. 

Ms. MIYASATO. There is a housing development that is one unit 

per 5 acres to the east, and that was one of the things that the 

Tribe had proposed, would be a 5-acre—— 

Mr. DENHAM. I guess what I have continued to not understand 

over the years—and I think the committee members of this committee are failing to understand—is if the housing development is 

less dense than the one next to it, if the Ag. use is currently being 

used for Ag. use, and they are willing to offer more than 10 times 

what you get in property values today for that tax revenue, what 

is it you are looking for, other than just holding this issue up? 

Ms. MIYASATO. Congressman, some of the issues you raise are 

significant issues. And on the money, let’s talk about that for a second. I am told there was a draft agreement some years ago where 

that was the offer. That wasn’t based on any particular number. 

63 

So, in the Lytton agreement, for example, that you are looking at 

today, they are looking at a percentage. But, we don’t know what 

the number of people per household would be. There is no document that tells us how many new residents are going to be coming. 

And the Tribe’s environmental review said you are not going to 

have an increase in people, because people who live in the valley 

will then move—— 

Mr. DENHAM. Have you been to their current reservation? 

Ms. MIYASATO. I am sorry? 

Mr. DENHAM. Have you been to their current reservation? 

Ms. MIYASATO. Yes. 

Mr. DENHAM. Have you seen the housing? 

Ms. MIYASATO. I have driven by, yes. 

Mr. DENHAM. The HUD housing that is there. I mean do you see 

that as being acceptable housing? Can you see why they are looking to build new housing elsewhere? 

Ms. MIYASATO. I can see why they are looking to build new housing elsewhere, and the County has never said that they shouldn’t 

build new housing. In fact—— 

Mr. DENHAM. They just took the—— 

Ms. MIYASATO [continuing]. We invited them to come talk to us 

about it—— 

Mr. DENHAM [continuing]. Land into trust through the 

government-to-government negotiation. 

Ms. MIYASATO. I am sorry, Congressman? I am sorry. 

Mr. DENHAM. My time is limited. Do you have issues with the 

current development under the current reservation, developing a 

larger casino, large hotel, any of their current issues—are there 

issues that the County has with the development on the current 

reservation? 

Ms. MIYASATO. We did have issues with their expansion plans. 

Mr. DENHAM. You did, or do? 

Ms. MIYASATO. We do, but it is sort of a moot point at this point. 

Mr. DENHAM. Why is it a moot point? You said something in your 

testimony which got my attention. It seems to me that you are— 

because we have failed over the years to find any land use issue 

with the property that they are trying to develop for housing for 

their individuals, but in your testimony you mentioned that you 

had concern over the development on their current reservation. 

Now, I imagine you can’t do much about their current reservation, the current developments there. But because you can hold 

hostage another piece of property, that gives you leverage to hold 

up something that may or may not be happening on their 

current—— 

Ms. MIYASATO. Congressman, we are not holding up anything on 

their existing reservation. 

Mr. DENHAM. OK. Let me conclude. This is an issue of government-to-government relationships. The Federal Government is 

going to negotiate, just as you would hope the local government 

would negotiate in good faith. This is not a geographic issue, any 

more than the fine folks of Utah and the Red Rock bill that continues to come up every year, with no members of the Utah delegation supporting something that other members continue to try to 

push, or, in my community, where we need water storage, and we 

64 

have a coalition of members that are fighting for water storage, 

and yet there are members outside of our community that want to 

stop that water storage. 

This is not about a regional issue, as it is about a self-reliance, 

or a government-to-government negotiation. You either believe in 

tribal sovereignty—which many members in this body do—or you 

don’t. We believe that we have to make up for the misdeeds of previous Congresses, and misdeeds that have happened to Indian 

Country throughout the country. And this is one of those ways 

that, in a government-to-government relationship, in a fight for 

self-reliance, that this tribe, as well as other tribes, should be able 

to provide housing, medical facilities, and many other essential necessities to be able to have self-reliance for their tribe. This isn’t 

about gaming. It is about being able to help your family, same way 

that we want to help our family. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. We need to correct an injustice, and this is one bill 

to be able to do that. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. I thank the gentleman. 

Mrs. Capps. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

your testimony—to our witnesses. 

Again, I am pleased to have several constituents here, providing 

their perspectives on H.R. 1157 and the complex issues involved. 

But I believe even our witnesses would admit that they do not represent the full array of views on this issue in the Santa Ynez 

Valley and throughout Santa Barbara County. 

As we know, we locals, there are fierce opponents of this bill, 

strong supporters, and many people in between, who are not necessarily vocal about their views. This diversity of opinion on this 

local issue cannot fully be represented accurately in this setting, 

which is one of the many reasons why I oppose the legislation, and 

oppose it moving forward in this committee. 

As I am sure Supervisor Lavagnino and Ms. Miyasato can certainly attest, when these types of local land issues and zoning 

issues are considered at the county level, the full array of interested parties can participate in the process—and they do—and 

voice their opinions directly to decisionmakers. 

Santa Barbara County has heard from hundreds of local residents in hours and hours of meetings, community forums, and 

hearings on these issues, as well as considered hundreds of pages 

of letters, legal filings, and environmental studies. But this diversity of opinion and in-depth debate of the many issues involved in 

this matter are not a part of today’s limited hearing. 

H.R. 1157, which impacts only my district, and is being considered today with only the limited views of three witnesses from the 

area, and questions from a handful of Members of Congress who 

do not represent the region, and consequently do not fully understand the community or the complexity of the issues at hand. This 

restrictive process is not how these issues should be resolved. 

The BIA fee-to-trust is far from perfect, but it at least does allow 

for all interested parties to participate and make their voices 

heard. As I mentioned in my opening statement, the BIA has 

65 

approved Camp 4 property being taken into trust, and several 

appeals of this decision have been filed. 

Director Black, my understanding is that these appeals of the 

Camp 4 decision are being considered under new rules from 2013 

that speed up the internal appeals process. Is that true? 

Mr. BLACK. Yes—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Well, would you explain this new process—maybe 

some of my colleagues are not familiar with it—under which this 

particular Camp 4 appeal is now being considered, and the expected timeline going forward? 

Mr. BLACK. Yes. The Assistant Secretary, under current regulations, has the ability to take an appeal from the IBIA and issue 

that decision from his office. So he has exercised that right on this 

case. 

Mrs. CAPPS. OK. And how does the appeals process for Camp 4 

differ from the process used to consider the 6.9 acres that the Tribe 

has been trying to take into trust for well over a decade? Do you 

expect the Camp 4 appeals to take as long as the 6.9 acres did? 

Mr. BLACK. I don’t know how much of that time involved in the 

previous one was under the IBIA and how much of it was at 

Federal court. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Well, can you—— 

Mr. BLACK. Subsequently, you know—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Right. 

Mr. BLACK [continuing]. Upon issuing the decision from the 

Assistant Secretary’s office, there is the ability to go to Federal 

court. That is oftentimes what happens. And, as it was stated earlier, this went on for 14 years. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Right. But now there is a consolidated appeal. 

Mr. BLACK. There is a consolidated appeal before the Assistant 

Secretary, yes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Have there been examples that this has been a 

shorter time frame? 

Mr. BLACK. I can’t speak to that, right at the moment, no. 

Mrs. CAPPS. OK. Well, finally, if H.R. 1157 were enacted, how 

would it impact the consideration of the pending Camp 4 appeals? 

Mr. BLACK. It is my understanding that if this legislation was 

enacted, it would moot those appeals. 

Mrs. CAPPS. So there would be no further opportunity for any 

local appeals to be considered. 

Mr. BLACK. Not through our process, no. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I yield back. 

Mr. BLACK. That is my understanding. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the good lady. 

Mr. Black, again, you just hit a time frame on appeals. It is my 

understanding, if it goes against the Santa Barbara County, that 

that could be appealed to a court ruling? 

Mr. BLACK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. And that would be to, what, a local district court? 

Or would it be to—— 

Mr. BLACK. I believe that goes to Federal court, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. And it would be a Federal court, but at a lower 

court. 

66 

Mr. BLACK. I would have to ask my lawyers exactly what the—— 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. And then, if that was lost, it could be appealed 

again to a higher court of the lower court? 

Mr. BLACK. I have seen that in the past, with—— 

Mr. YOUNG. So, what we are talking about is 14 years, right? 

That is really what we are talking about. 

Mr. BLACK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. If I can—and this is a question—it will be a 

little short. 

Mr. Black, my concern is my bill. We’ve got a lot about all these 

other bills, but the villages or the townships and the natives in 

Southeast Alaska—I am going to go to Mr. Barlow later on—you 

keep saying, ‘‘Aside from precedent, the issue of identifying specific 

lands and administrative difficulty of conveying lands’’—does the 

Department find any good reason to deny the aboriginal land 

claims for the five Alaska Native communities? 

Mr. BLACK. [No response.] 

Mr. YOUNG. What is the precedent? That is what I want to know. 

Mr. BLACK. Sir, I am going to defer that question to Mr. Nedd, 

if that is OK with you. 

Mr. YOUNG. You are on the hot seat, bud. 

Mr. BLACK. Well, I am sorry, I don’t have a—— 

Mr. YOUNG. No, he can do it. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. NEDD. Thank you, Congressman. I am sorry, I didn’t get 

your full question. 

Mr. YOUNG. The testimony we have from you is precedent. And 

I always like that we are in the precedent. There is no such a thing 

as precedent as the law. We make the law. So, the question is, you 

use the word ‘‘precedent,’’ but is there any good reason to deny the 

aboriginal land claims of these five native communities? 

Mr. NEDD. Well, Congressman, it is my understanding that these 

five communities previously were found ineligible, and appealed— 

and three of them appealed that. So, therefore, what the Department is saying, if Congress was to move ahead and determine eligibility when they were ineligible, it would set a precedent, and open 

it for any other community—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Only we can open it up. 

Mr. NEDD. Well—— 

Mr. YOUNG. You know, you can see there is no precedent. Only 

the Congress can do it. And this is not an attempt to open up 

ANCSA at all. What we are trying to say here is there are reasons 

why they were not recognized, and why they were denied that recognition through the appeals process, because the law was written 

in 1971. 

But in 1971, when this law was written—and go back and read 

a little bit of history—the communities involved here all had large, 

lumbering timbering operations. There was effort put into this 

Congress at that time not to recognize them because it might have 

affected the long-term leases of that timber. They were still aboriginal people, they still had a right under the Lands Claims Act, as 

far as being an aboriginal settlement. And I am suggesting respectfully, is there any other reason, other than precedent? Don’t you 

recognize them as aboriginals? 

67 

Mr. NEDD. Congressman, again, right now what we have is the 

1971 law that was passed—— 

Mr. YOUNG. That is right. And we passed that. OK? You admit 

that. And what we passed, we can rectify. That is our role, as this 

committee. And they were excluded by Members of Congress at 

that time because there was an undue pressure put upon those 

that are not to be recognized that would have affected the leases 

from the Federal Government—you guys remember, from the 

Federal Government. It wasn’t from the state of Alaska. So they 

were excluded. What I am trying to do is rectify that. 

Now, let’s see. Five times—what is it, 27, Mr. Barlow? How many 

acres by township? 

Mr. BARLOW. Congressman, that would be 23,040 acres per 

township. 

Mr. YOUNG. Twenty-three thousand. So we are talking about 

five. How many acres in the Tongass National Forest, Mr. Black, 

do you know? 

Mr. BLACK. I have it somewhere here—— 

Mr. YOUNG. It is 17 million. 

Mr. BLACK. OK. 

Mr. YOUNG. So we are talking about little itty bits to justify the 

aboriginal right to those lands. And I always worry about this, because there is this—‘‘It is mine.’’ This is the Forest Service, these 

are the other agencies—‘‘Ours.’’ It was theirs, before. And to take 

and be this small, and not say it is their right, is wrong. And they 

are not asking for the barn or the farm. Every other community in 

the Southeast, every other village, got these lands. But they didn’t 

have this timber interest. 

Now we turn around and ruin the timber industry, because you 

reneged on the—you didn’t, but my administration reneged on the 

long-term leases. And now we have these five communities without 

land. It just bothers me. 

Mr. Barlow—just a moment, I am going to get you right—why 

did—I think I hit it, but why do you think they didn’t give you 

guys land? And, by the way, most of these Native Land Claims Act 

started in Wrangell, way back when in 1903. And this was the hotbed of the natives in Southeast Alaska. They were leading forward 

the brotherhood, and et cetera, and they were left out. 

But go ahead, Mr. Barlow. 

Mr. BARLOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There has been much 

speculation over the years, and there certainly is no record of why 

there was not a conveyance to the five affected communities. There 

are a lot of suspicions. Of course, the timber contracts that you 

mentioned, as well as activities by the Forest Service and, in some 

respects, by the state of Alaska, which didn’t view native land ownership in the Southeast as a good thing. Frankly, there was a lot 

of prejudice in the communities at times, too. 

But we really do not know why we were not included. All we 

know is that the University of Alaska report confirms this, there 

was nothing on the record. So, therefore, we will continue to pursue 

resolution of this issue, because the battle isn’t over yet. 

Mr. YOUNG. All right. I thank you. I can tell you in that period 

of time a lot of things weren’t on the record. Probably some of it 

should have been. 

68 

I just want to thank you. As you know, I have been pursuing this 

legislation for a long time. And I just wish my administration 

would—excuse me, not my administration—I wish the Administration would start looking at the amounts of land we are talking 

about. We had the veterans—‘‘Can’t do it. Oh, it is awful.’’ And we 

have these communities, these small pieces of land. I do not believe 

in precedent; we set, if there is such a thing, the rules. And don’t 

refer as your lawyer, going back and saying the precedent has been 

set, because only we can change that, this Congress. 

On the issue of the question of Santa Barbara, I am just—I don’t 

know. I just want you to know one thing, young lady. You go back 

and tell your people this is not new to me. Mrs. Capps mentioned 

the idea of Elton Gallegly was against it. And we do have a responsibility. And I don’t see any effort by anybody—and those Board of 

Supervisors, other than one—that wants to solve this problem. 

I just asked Mr. Black. You are going to appeal it again. Are you 

not going to appeal it, if you lose? 

Ms. MIYASATO. Congressman, I can’t presuppose what the Board 

is going to be doing. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, I can tell you, you are. Like right now. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. You probably won’t have a job, as CEO. So I am suggesting that either you tell them they better sit down with this 

chief, or I am moving this bill. It is that simple. Injustice does not 

pander to those that have, and deprive those that do not have. The 

right of housing, the right of being able to live under good shelter, 

is a basic right of every American. And we provided all kinds of 

public housing for everybody else, and yet this group that wants to 

build their own housing in the scenic area of a backyard of a lot 

of other people, this bothers me. 

So, you had better tell them that. Because I suggested this to 

them 5 years ago, 5 years ago. And, as a courtesy, I said, ‘‘No, I 

haven’t seen any progress.’’ And I listened to Mr. Seymour there— 

is it Seymour? Is that his name? What is his name? You know, the 

supervisor, next to the chief. And it is a pretty damning case. So 

you better go back and tell your friends that we will, if they don’t. 

It is that simple. 

Anybody want to ask any other questions? 

[No response.] 

Mr. YOUNG. If not, Mr. Denham. 

Mr. DENHAM. Just one final question for Mr. Armenta. There is 

a safety issue I am concerned about, as well. I was surprised to 

learn that there could be severe fire hazards faced by some of the 

HUD housing that is currently on the reservation. It is not something that has been talked about yet today. 

Mr. ARMENTA. Congressman, when that housing development 

was designed, it wasn’t designed in a manner that would allow for 

safety equipment to access the streets. They are narrower than a 

typical street. The housing, where there is multiple housing on one 

lot, is denser than anywhere else, and it wouldn’t allow for public 

safety departments to access our reservation in a timely manner. 

The county-owned road that enters the reservation is even below 

substandard, when it comes to ingress and egress for emergency 

vehicles. 

69 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. LaMalfa. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I have 

toured the area. My son went to college down in the general area, 

as I did years ago, as well. So, we have a connection. But more so, 

it is important that we in Congress back up, basically, our oath to 

preserve constitutional ideals. And that would be freedom, that 

would be property rights, and that would be the ability to exercise 

your ability to use your land and do things as you see fit. So we 

know we have constraints with planning and local government, and 

I respect that, I greatly respect that. 

But we hear, again, an unyielding roadblock by the local government to have a dialog, really. So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your 

stern suggestion to the County that they step up here, that we do 

have a piece of legislation that we will continue to be pursuing in 

this process. 

But I think what everybody needs to recognize here is that the 

County actually will do better under this legislation than the openendedness of what a BIA decision would do. The legislation provides for certain aspects that the County can predict, whereas the 

Tribe wouldn’t necessarily have to do certain things under a BIA 

decision. So there is really not a downside for the County, other 

than maybe they enjoy being a roadblock, for whatever reason. And 

that is not right, because I work very well with my counties up in 

the north, and they are by and large very willing to come together 

and have great relationships with the tribes, and see that there is 

a mutual benefit. Mr. Gosar mentioned that a little bit ago, as well. 

So, I don’t know that that is the direction CSAC likes to go, but 

this seems to be unique. So I appreciate the attitude and the direction that Supervisor Lavagnino wanted to take this, as well. And, 

again, for your travel, Chairman Armenta, for your patience and 

the patience of the people you represent to get here, to be here, and 

to work. 

And for Ms. Miyasato, I hope you really have heard loud and 

clear what the attitude of this subcommittee is today, and that you 

will take that back, along with your supervisor, and if there is 

something to be done locally, really reflect upon that and show that 

there has been a wrong done for a long time here with delays that 

are unnecessary, and do the right thing. Your county will come out 

better with our legislative process than by what could happen in 

an open-ended one. 

Mr. Chairman, with that, I will yield back. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. I have one question to the Chairman 

again. 

When did you buy this land? 

Mr. ARMENTA. We bought this land 5 years ago. 

Mr. YOUNG. Five years ago. Was it up for public auction? 

Mr. ARMENTA. No, sir, it wasn’t. 

Mr. YOUNG. Did you have an inroad, or—I mean how did this 

work out? 

Mr. ARMENTA. The previous owner was Mr. Fess Parker, who 

was a personal friend of mine and a personal acquaintance, along 

with his son. On his death bed, he told his children he wants this 

land to go back to the Tribe. 

70 

Mr. YOUNG. So it was Fess Parker who did this. 

Mr. ARMENTA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. I think that is good. That is good to know. Fess 

Parker, I like that idea. He had a good idea about culture. He had 

a good idea about justice. So—never mind, I won’t go into it. 

Any other questions? 

[No response.] 

Mr. YOUNG. If not, the committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:51 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

H.R. 1157 

• August 20, 2013, Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors, Minutes 

from Board of Supervisors meeting. 35 pages. 

• June 6, 2015, Santa Barbara County GIS Data, Exhibit A— 

Aerial Vicinity Parcel Map, Santa Ynez Camp 4. 1 page. 

• June 11, 2015, Mr. Brian Kramer, Santa Ynez, CA, Letter to 

Chairman Young. 3 pages. 

• June 12, 2015, C. David and M. Andriette Culbertson, Letter 

to Chairman Young in regards to proposed legislation. 3 pages. 

• June 12, 2015, Mr. Thomas P. Walters, County of Santa 

Barbara, Board of Supervisors, Comments in opposition to proposed legislation. 1 page. 

• June 30, 2015, Mr. Brian Kramer, Santa Ynez, CA, Letter to 

Chairman Young. 2 pages. 

• July 1, 2015, Cappello & Noel LLP, A. Barry Cappello, 

Comments on proposed legislation. 47 pages. 

H.R. 2386 

• April 18–21, 2012, Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian 

Tribes of Alaska, Seventy-Seventh Annual Tribal Assembly, 

Juneau, Alaska, Resolution TA/12–41, ‘‘Support for ‘Landless’ 

Alaska Native Communities.’’ 2 pages. 

• April 17–20, 2013, Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian 

Tribes of Alaska. Seventy-Eighth Annual Tribal Assembly, 

Juneau, Alaska, Resolution TA/13–40, ‘‘Support of the Landless 

Southeast Alaska Native Communities Seeking Legislation to 

Form Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA) Corporations and Receive ANCSA Benefits.’’ 2 pages. 

• April 9–12, 2014, Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian 

Tribes of Alaska. Seventy-Ninth Annual Tribal Assembly, 

Juneau, Alaska, Resolution TA/14–32, ‘‘Support of the Landless 

Southeast Alaska Native Communities to Form Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA) Corporations.’’ 3 pages. 

71 

• October 8–11, 2014, Alaska Native Brotherhood & Alaska 

Native Sisterhood Grand Camp, Resolution No. 14–08, 

‘‘Support all Southeast Alaska Native Communities and their 

Descendants from the failures of the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (ANCSA) to include Land Selection Rights and 

Compensation.’’ 2 pages. 

• April 15–17, 2015, Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian 

Tribes of Alaska, Eightieth Annual Tribal Assembly, Juneau, 

Alaska, Resolution TA/15—19, ‘‘Support of the Unrecognized 

Southeast Alaska Native Communities Seeking Legislation to 

Allow Them to Form Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

(ANCSA) Corporations and Receive ANCSA Benefits.’’ 2 pages. 

• June 16, 2015, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, 

Statement for the record on H.R. 2386. 4 pages. 

• June 16, 2015, Various letters to the Chairman from residents 

of Tenakee, Alaska in opposition to H.R. 2386. 8 pages. 

• June 18, 2015, Christie Lee (Dailey) Jamieson, Wrangell 

Landless Tribal Member, Letter to Chairman Young in support 

of H.R. 2386. 1 page. 

• June 19, 2015, Ms. Joyce Ruth Freiberg, Letter to Chairman 

Young in support of H.R. 2386. 1 page. 

• June 24, 2015, Sealaska Corporation, Mr. Anthony Mallott, 

President & CEO, Statement for the record in support of 

H.R. 2386. 3 pages. 

• June 25, 2015, Richard ‘Tashee’ Rinehart, Letter to Chairman 

Young. 6 pages. 

• June 30, 2015, Grand Camp Alaska Native Brotherhood, Mr. 

Bradley J. Fluetsch, CFA, ANB Executive Committee, Chair 

Landless Committee, Letter to Chairman Young in support of 

H.R. 2386. 1 page. 

• July 1, 2015, Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian 

Tribes of Alaska, Mr. Richard J. Peterson, President, Letter to 

Chairman Young in support of H.R. 2386. 3 pages. 

• July 1, 2015, National Congress of American Indians, Letter to 

Chairman Young in support of H.R. 2386. 4 pages. 

• July 24, 2015, Senator Bert K. Stedman, Alaska State Legislature, Letter to Chairman Young in support of H.R. 2386. 2 

pages. 

H.R. 2538 

• May 27, 2015, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Office of the 

Governor of California, Letter to Congressman Jared Huffman 

expressing support for H.R. 2538. 1 page. 

• June 14, 2015, Michael Robinson and Eric Wee, Testimony 

submitted to Chairman Young in opposition of H.R. 2538. 18 

pages. 

• June 15, 2015, Thane Young, Vice President, Van Scoyoc 

Associates, Letter to Chairman Young in support of H.R. 2538. 

1 page. 

72 

• June 16, 2015, Craig Curreri, Vice President of the Board, 

Windsor Fire Protection District, Letter to Representative 

Jared Huffman in support of H.R. 2538. 1 page. 

• June 26, 2015, Brent Gudzus, Letter to Chairman Young in 

opposition of H.R. 2538. 1 page. 

• June 27, 2015, Margaret Rouse, Letter to Chairman Young in 

opposition of H.R. 2538. 2 pages. 

• June 27, 2015, C. Stan Shusda, Letter to Chairman Young in 

opposition of H.R. 2538. 1 page. 

• June 28, 2015, Robert E. Hopkins, Letter to Chairman Young 

in opposition of H.R. 2538. 2 pages. 

• June 28, 2015, Richard Mendelsohn, Letter to the Chairman in 

opposition of H.R. 2538. 2 pages. 

• June 28, 2015, Debbie Paulsen, Letter to the Chairman in 

opposition of H.R. 2538. 2 pages. 

• June 28, 2015, Jenny Whalen, Letter to the Chairman in 

opposition of H.R. 2538. 1 page. 

• June 29, 2015, Ms. Candise Alvarez, Letter to Chairman 

Young in opposition of H.R. 2538. 2 pages. 

• June 29, 2015, Mariela P. Au and the Au Family, Letter to 

Chairman Young in opposition of H.R. 2538. 1 page. 

• June 29, 2015, Whitney Hopkins, Letter to Chairman Young in 

opposition of H.R. 2538. 3 pages. 

• June 29, 2015, Janice Mascadri, Letter to Chairman Young in 

opposition of H.R. 2538. 3 pages. 

• June 29, 2015, Barbara Mendelsohn, Letter to the Chairman 

in opposition of H.R. 2538. 2 pages. 

• June 30, 2015, Peg Champion, Letter to the Chairman in 

opposition of H.R. 2538. 2 page. 

• June 30, 2015, Karen Dubrule, Ed. D., Letter to the Chairman 

in opposition of H.R. 2538. 2 pages. 

• June 30, 2015, Jennifer Ramirez, Letter to the Chairman in 

opposition of H.R. 2538. 1 page. 

• July 1, 2015, Sheri R. Greene, Letter to Chairman Young in 

opposition of H.R. 2538. 2 pages. 

• July 1, 2015, Robb & Ross, Testimony for the Record on 

H.R. 2538. 19 pages. 

• July 1, 2015, John Stayton, Letter to Chairman Young in 

opposition of H.R. 2538. 1 page. 

Æ