Page 529 TITLE 25—INDIANS § 1773

(Pub. L. 100–228, §6, Dec. 31, 1987, 101 Stat. 1559.)

REFERENCES IN TEXT

Section 7 of the Act of August 15, 1953, referred to in

subsec. (d)(1), is section 7 of act Aug. 15, 1953, ch. 505,

67 Stat. 590, which was set out as a note under section

1360 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, and

was repealed by Pub. L. 90–284, title IV, §403(b), Apr. 11,

1968, 82 Stat. 79.

§ 1772e. Water rights compact

The compact defining the scope of Seminole

water rights and their utilization by the tribe

shall have the force and effect of Federal law for

the purposes of enforcement of the rights and

obligations of the tribe.

(Pub. L. 100–228, §7, Dec. 31, 1987, 101 Stat. 1560.)

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

This section is referred to in section 1772c of this

title.

§ 1772f. Judicial review

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of

law, any action to contest the constitutionality

of this subchapter shall be barred unless the

complaint is filed within 180 days after December 31, 1987. Exclusive jurisdiction over any such

action is hereby vested in the United States District Court for the southern district of Florida.

(b) Notwithstanding any present immunity

from suit enjoyed by any of the parties, jurisdiction regarding any controversy arising under

the Settlement Agreement or compact or private agreement between the tribe and any third

party entered into under authority of the compact is hereby vested in the United States District Court for the southern district of Florida.

Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive except that

the court shall not have jurisdiction to award

money damages against the State, the district

or the tribe. Proceedings in the district court

under this section shall be expedited consistent

with sound judicial discretion.

(Pub. L. 100–228, §8, Dec. 31, 1987, 101 Stat. 1561.)

§ 1772g. Revocation of settlement

In the event the Settlement Agreement or any

part thereof is ever invalidated—

(1) the transfers, waivers, releases, relinquishments and any other commitments made

by the State, the tribe, or the district in the

Settlement Agreement shall no longer be of

any force or effect;

(2) section 1772c of this title shall be inapplicable as if such section was never enacted

with respect to the lands, interests in lands, or

natural resources of the tribe and its members; and

(3) the approvals of prior transfers and the

extinguishment of claims and aboriginal title

of the tribe otherwise effected by section 1772c

of this title shall be void ab initio.

(Pub. L. 100–228, §9, Dec. 31, 1987, 101 Stat. 1561.)

SUBCHAPTER VII—WASHINGTON INDIAN

(PUYALLUP) LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT

§ 1773. Congressional findings and purpose

(a) Findings

The Congress finds and declares that:

(1) It is the policy of the United States to

promote tribal self-determination and economic self-sufficiency and to support the resolution of disputes over historical claims

through settlements mutually agreed to by Indian and non-Indian parties.

(2) Disputes over certain land claims of the

Puyallup Tribe and other matters, including—

(A) ownership of the Commencement Bay

tidelands and areas of former Puyallup

Riverbed, lands within the Puyallup Tribe’s

Treaty Reservation, or intended reservation

boundaries,

(B) railroad and other rights-of-way,

(C) control of fisheries resource and habitat,

(D) jurisdiction over law enforcement, environment, navigation, and authority and

control in the areas of land use,

(E) business regulation and zoning,

have resulted in difficult community relations

and negative economic impacts affecting both

the Tribe and non-Indian parties.

(3) Some of the significant historical events

that led to the present circumstances include—

(A) the negotiation of the Treaty of Medicine Creek in December 1854, by the Puyallup Indians and others, by which the tribes

ceded most of their territories but reserved

certain lands and rights, including fishing

rights;

(B) the Executive Order of 1857 creating

the Puyallup Indian Reservation;

(C) the Executive Order of 1873, clarifying

and extending the Puyallup Reservation in

the Washington Territory;

(D) the March 11, 1891, Report of the Puyallup Indian Commission on allotments and

the 1896 report by a second Puyallup Indian

Commission describing the problems with

sales of allotted lands; and

(E) the 1909 District Court for Tacoma decision of the United States of America

against J.M. Ashton and the 1910 Supreme

Court decision of United States of America

against J.M. Ashton.

(4) It is recognized that both Indian and nonIndian parties enter into this settlement to resolve certain problems and claims and to derive certain benefits.

(5) There is a recognition that any final resolution of pending disputes through a process

of litigation would take many years and entail

great expense to all parties; continue economically and socially damaging controversies;

prolong uncertainty as to the access, ownership, and jurisdictional status of issues in

question; and seriously impair long-term economic planning and development for all parties.

(6) To advance the goals of Federal policy of

Indian self-determination and to carry out the

trust responsibility of the United States, and

to advance the Federal policy of international

trade and economic development, and in recognition of the Federal policy of settling these

conflicts through comprehensive settlement

agreements, it is appropriate that the United

States participate in the funding and implementation of the Settlement Agreement.