59–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 114–715 

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF CHUMASH MISSION INDIANS 

LAND TRANSFER ACT OF 2016 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2016.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 1157] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (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, having considered the 

same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians 

Land Transfer Act of 2016’’. 

SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF LAND IN TRUST FOR SANTA YNEZ BAND OF CHUMASH MISSION INDIANS. 

(a) TRANSFER AND ADMINISTRATION.— 

(1) TRANSFER OF LANDS INTO TRUST.—If the Tribe transfers title to the land 

described in subsection (b) to the United States, the Secretary shall take that 

land into trust for the benefit of the Tribe, subject to valid existing rights and 

to the terms relating to an easement as set forth in the stipulated judgment 

in Willard W. Shepherd v. Fess Parker Ranch LLC filed in the Superior Court 

of the State of California for the County of Santa Barbara on January 26, 2004. 

(2) ADMINISTRATION.—The land transferred under paragraph (1) shall be part 

of the Santa Ynez Indian Reservation and administered in accordance with the 

laws and regulations generally applicable to land held in trust by the United 

States for an Indian tribe. 

(3) EFFECT.—For purposes of certain California State laws (including the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, Government Code Section 51200, et seq.), 

placing the land described in subsection (b) into trust shall remove any restrictions on the property pursuant to California Government Code Section 51295 

or any other provision of such Act. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
2 

(b) LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LANDS TRANSFERRED.—The lands to be transferred 

pursuant to this Act are described as follows: 

Legal Land Description/Site Location: 

Real property in the unincorporated area of the County of Santa Barbara, State of 

California, described as follows: 

PARCEL 1: (APN: 141-121-51 AND PORTION OF APN 141-140-10) 

LOTS 9 THROUGH 18, INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT 18, IN THE COUNTY OF SANTA 

BARBARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP SHOWING THE 

SUBDIVISIONS OF THE CANADA DE LOS PINOS OR COLLEGE RANCHO, 

FILED IN RACK 3, AS MAP 4 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER 

OF SAID COUNTY. 

THIS LEGAL IS MADE PURSUANT TO THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF 

COMPLIANCE RECORDED DECEMBER 5, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 01- 

105580 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 

PARCEL 2: (PORTION OF APN: 141-140-10) 

LOTS 1 THROUGH 12, INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT 24, IN THE COUNTY OF SANTA 

BARBARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP SHOWING THE 

SUBDIVISIONS OF THE CANADA DE LOS PINOS OR COLLEGE RANCHO, 

FILED IN RACK 3, AS MAP 4 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER 

OF SAID COUNTY. 

THIS LEGAL IS MADE PURSUANT TO THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF 

COMPLIANCE RECORDED DECEMBER 5, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 01- 

105581 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 

PARCEL 3: (PORTIONS OF APNS: 141-230-23 AND 141-140-10) 

LOTS 19 AND 20 OF TRACT 18 AND THAT PORTION OF LOTS 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 

AND 15 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT 16, IN THE COUNTY OF SANTA 

BARBARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP SHOWING THE 

SUBDIVISIONS OF THE CANADA DE LOS PINOS OR COLLEGE RANCHO, 

FILED IN RACK 3, AS MAP 4 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER 

OF SAID COUNTY, THAT LIES NORTHEASTERLY OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 

LINE OF THE LAND GRANTED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY AN EXECUTOR’S DEED RECORDED APRIL 2, 1968 IN BOOK 2227, PAGE 136 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. 

THIS LEGAL IS MADE PURSUANT TO THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF 

COMPLIANCE RECORDED DECEMBER 5, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 01- 

105582 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 

PARCEL 4: (APN: 141-240-02 AND PORTION OF APN: 141-140-10) 

LOTS 1 THROUGH 12, INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT 25, IN THE COUNTY OF SANTA 

BARBARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP SHOWING THE 

SUBDIVISIONS OF THE CANADA DE LOS PINOS OR COLLEGE RANCHO, 

FILED IN RACK 3, AS MAP 4 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER 

OF SAID COUNTY. 

THIS LEGAL IS MADE PURSUANT TO THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF 

COMPLIANCE RECORDED DECEMBER 5, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 01- 

105583 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 

PARCEL 5: (PORTION OF APN: 141-230-23) 

THAT PORTION OF LOTS 3 AND 6 OF TRACT 16, IN THE COUNTY OF SANTA 

BARBARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP SHOWING THE 

SUBDIVISIONS OF THE CANADA DE LOS PINOS OR COLLEGE RANCHO, 

FILED IN RACK 3, AS MAP 4 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER 

OF SAID COUNTY, THAT LIES NORTHEASTERLY OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 

LINE OF THE LAND GRANTED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY AN EXECUTOR’S DEED RECORDED APRIL 2, 1968 IN BOOK 2227, PAGE 136 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. 

THIS LEGAL IS MADE PURSUANT TO THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF 

COMPLIANCE RECORDED DECEMBER 5, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 01- 

105584 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 

(c) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act shall— 

(1) enlarge, impair, or otherwise affect any right or claim of the Tribe to any 

land or interest in land that is in existence before the date of the enactment 

of this Act; 

(2) affect any water right of the Tribe in existence before the date of the enactment of this Act; or 

(3) terminate or limit any access in any way to any right-of-way or right-ofuse issued, granted, or permitted before the date of the enactment of this Act. 

(d) RESTRICTED USE OF TRANSFERRED LANDS.—The Tribe may not conduct, on the 

land described in subsection (b) taken into trust for the Tribe pursuant to this Act, 

gaming activities— 

(1) as a matter of claimed inherent authority; or 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
3 

1Tiller’s Guide to Indian Country, 3rd Edition. Veronica E. Valarde Tiller at 340 (2015). 2Written statement of Vincent Armenta, Chairman, Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, 

Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs oversight hearing on Indian lands: Exploring 

resolutions to disputes concerning Indian tribes, state, and local governments, and private landowners over land use and development, August 2, 2012. 3Tiller’s Guide to Indian Country, 3rd Edition. Veronica E. Valarde Tiller at 340 (2015). 4http://www.chumashea.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/site-and-vicinity.pdf 

5The Williamson Act provides certain property tax relief for a California landowner who 

agrees to maintain his property as open space or for agricultural uses. California Land Conservation Act of 1965, Government Code Section 51200, et seq. 

(2) under any Federal law, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 

U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and regulations promulgated by the Secretary or the National Indian Gaming Commission under that Act. 

(e) DEFINITIONS.—For the purposes of this section: 

(1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the Interior. 

(2) TRIBE.—The term ‘‘Tribe’’ means the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 1157 is to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for the benefit of the Santa Ynez Band 

of Chumash Mission Indians. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The Santa Ynez Reservation was established in 1901 in California under the authority of the Act of January 12, 1891, for members of the Chumash tribe. European diseases took a large toll on 

the original population of the Chumash people.1 Today, the Tribe 

has about 140 enrolled members and more than a thousand descendants (i.e., individuals of Chumash ancestry who do not qualify 

for membership in the Tribe), and its reservation of about 138 

acres is located in Santa Barbara County.2 The Tribe constructed 

a casino and hotel resort on its reservation pursuant to the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and this facility has lifted the Tribe from historic poverty to economic success. 

With other private investments in the region, the Tribe has become 

one of the largest employers in Santa Barbara County.3

The current reservation also hosts dense tribal housing that was 

originally built through Department of Housing and Urban Development low income grant programs; these grants were obtained 

prior to the Tribe’s successful operation of gaming under IGRA. 

The Tribe reports that relatively few of its members reside on the 

reservation. 

In 2010, the Tribe purchased a 1,400-acre tract of land known as 

Camp 4, located about two miles from the reservation in an unincorporated area of Santa Barbara County,4 from the Fess Parker 

estate. The Tribe has testified it intends to use Camp 4 for suitable 

tribal housing for its current and future members. At present, the 

landscape of Camp 4 is mainly agricultural in character. Under 

California law and Santa Barbara County zoning rules—including 

the Williamson Act 5—the property may not be easily converted to 

the kind of developed status the Tribe says it desires to pursue. 

To divest the State and County of its regulatory, zoning, and tax 

jurisdiction over Camp 4, the Chumash have requested legislation 

and also applied to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in the Department of the Interior to acquire title to the land in trust. 

In December 2014, the Pacific Region Director for the BIA approved an application by the Tribe to accept title to the Camp 4 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
4 

6http://www.chumashea.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/FONSI.pdf at 5. 

7See 25 C.F.R. 151.10 and 151.11, regarding need for trust land, justification, and impacts 

on others. 8See, for example, statements of Diane Dillon, Napa County Supervisor, on behalf of CSAC, 

and Matthew D. Chase, Executive Director of NaCO, Carcieri: Bringing Certainty to Trust Land 

Acquisitions, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hearing, S. Hrg. 113–214, Nov. 13, 2013. 9http://www.independent.com/news/2015/jan/26/county-appeals-federal-camp-4-approval/ 

10See Opening Brief of Appellant Santa Ynez Valley Concerned Citizens, U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Assistant Secretary of the Interior—Indian Appeals, December 31, 2015. 11https://www.countyofsb.org/tribal-matters.sbc 

property in trust after making a Finding of No Significant Impact 

under an Environmental Assessment prepared under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

The Environmental Assessment describes the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the trust acquisition as being for ‘‘tribal housing on five or one-acre lots and associated facilities. The housing 

project would include up to 143 residential units, as well as supporting infrastructure including on-site wastewater treatment and 

reuse of recycled water and development of groundwater to meet 

potable water demands.’’ 6

It is important to note that when the BIA exercises its discretionary authority to acquire land in trust (typically under regulations developed pursuant to Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization 

Act of 1934, 25 U.S.C. 465), NEPA is triggered. Under its regulations, the BIA also considers certain other criteria when taking 

land into trust.7 In contrast, when Congress legislatively mandates 

the acquisition of land in trust, NEPA is not applied, and no BIA 

assessment of local impacts is performed. The California State Association of Counties and the National Association of Counties— 

while not directly weighing in on H.R. 1157—have previously testified that the BIA’s fee-to-trust process is broken.8

Under rules and policies developed by the Department of the Interior, a decision by a Regional Director of the BIA (as in this case) 

to acquire land in trust (for non-gaming purposes) may be appealed 

administratively. 

Following the BIA’s approval of the Tribe’s application to acquire 

Camp 4 in trust, Santa Barbara County voted 3–2 to file an administrative appeal and to file litigation against the BIA action.9 In addition, other individuals and nearby property owners also filed an 

administrative appeal, arguing among other grounds that the BIA 

violated NEPA.10

It is unlikely that title to Camp 4 will transfer into federal trust 

until the appeals are resolved. A timeframe for the exhaustion of 

appeals in this case is uncertain. 

Following an Indian, Insular and Native Alaska Subcommittee 

hearing on H.R. 1157 on June 17, 2015, the County of Santa Barbara and the Tribe engaged in a number of meetings in an effort 

to resolve differences concerning the placement of Camp 4 in trust 

for the tribe. The County formed an ad hoc subcommittee to facilitate these discussions,11 which two of the County supervisors (including the one whose district includes Camp 4) characterize as ongoing. The Tribe continues to urge the Committee to report and 

Congress to enact H.R. 1157. 

H.R. 1157 directs the Secretary of the Interior to acquire Camp 

4 in trust for the benefit of the Chumash tribe. Legislative acquisition of Camp 4 in trust would waive NEPA and render the administrative appeal over BIA’s alleged violation of NEPA moot. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
5 

Except for a prohibition on gaming, H.R. 1157 imposes no restriction on the Tribe’s use of Camp 4, and the bill clarifies that certain 

California state laws, including the Williamson Act shall no longer 

apply to Camp 4. The bill also provides that nothing in the Act affects any water right of the Tribe, or terminates any right-of-way 

or right-of-use in existence before the date of enactment of the Act. 

The Committee recently received a letter from an attorney for an 

individual who owns property adjacent to Camp 4, access to which 

is provided by an easement over Camp 4. The letter expresses concern that the right-of-way language in H.R. 1157 does not adequately protect the property owner’s easement rights, which are 

confirmed by the Santa Barbara County Superior Court. 

At the Committee’s markup of this bill, an amendment was 

adopted to clarify that lands placed into trust by H.R. 1157 are 

subject to valid existing rights and to the terms relating to an easement as set forth in the stipulated judgment in Willard W. Shepherd v. Fess Parker Ranch LLC (2004). Section 2(c) was further 

clarified to include that no limitations on access may be placed on 

any existing right-of-way or right-of-use issued, granted, or permitted prior to the date of enactment of H.R. 1157. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 1157 was introduced on February 27, 2015, by Congressman 

Doug LaMalfa (R–CA). The bill was referred to the Committee on 

Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee 

on Indian, Insular, and Alaska Native Affairs. On June 17, 2015, 

the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On July 12, 2016, the 

Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent and Congressman 

Rob Bishop (R–UT) offered Amendment #1 that was adopted by 

voice vote. The bill as amended was ordered favorably reported to 

the House of Representatives by a bipartisan roll call vote of 29 

yeas to 1 nay, on July 13, 2016, as follows: 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
6 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 7 here HR715.001
7 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act. With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and sections 308(a) and 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has 

received the enclosed cost estimate for the bill from the Director of 

the Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, August 31, 2016. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, 

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1157, the Santa Ynez 

Band of Chumash Mission Indians Land Transfer Act of 2016. 

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Robert Reese. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 1157—Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians Land 

Transfer Act of 2016 

Under H.R. 1157, the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians (Chumash Tribe), could request that the Department of the 

Interior (DOI) take into trust approximately 1,400 acres of land the 

tribe owns in Santa Barbara County, California. DOI would hold 

the title to that land for the benefit of the tribe if requested. The 

bill would prohibit certain types of gaming on those lands. CBO estimates that implementing the bill would have no significant budgetary effects related to holding the land in trust. 

Enacting H.R. 1157 would not affect direct spending or revenues; 

therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO estimates 

that enacting H.R. 1157 would not increase net direct spending or 

on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027. 

The bill would impose intergovernmental and private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

CBO estimates that the cost of the mandates would fall below the 

annual thresholds established in UMRA for intergovernmental and 

private-sector mandates ($77 million and $154 million in 2016, respectively, adjusted annually for inflation). 

The bill would impose an intergovernmental mandate by preempting the authority of state and local governments to tax land 

taken into trust for the Chumash Tribe. Information from Santa 

Barbara County about taxes and other receipts associated with the 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
8 

land indicates that such revenues total less than $500,000 annually. 

The bill also would impose an intergovernmental and private-sector mandate by eliminating the ability of public and private entities to appeal the federal government’s decision to take land into 

trust for the benefit of the Chumash Tribe. The County of Santa 

Barbara and private entities appealed DOI’s approval in 2014 of 

the Tribe’s application to take land into trust. The bill would effectively extinguish those appeals and preclude any future challenges 

by making the trust acquisition mandatory if the Tribe requests it. 

The costs of the mandates would be the value of forgone compensation and settlements associated with such appeals if they would 

have been successful under current law; however, because no monetary award is available for such challenges to the administrative 

procedures and decisions of the federal government, CBO expects 

that the mandate would impose no costs. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Robert Reese (for 

federal costs), Rachel Austin (for intergovernmental mandates), 

and Amy Petz (for private-sector mandates). The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to take land 

into trust for the benefit of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined under clause 9(e), 

9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5

Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that this 

bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any specific 

rule-making proceedings. 

Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not establish or 

reauthorize a program of the federal government known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was not included in 

any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 

pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139 or identified in the 

most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act (Public Law 95–220, 

as amended by Public Law 98–169) as relating to other programs. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
9 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing law. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING