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

20–036 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–260 

S. 817, S. 818, S. 1436, S. 1761, S. 1822, 

S. 1986, AND H.R. 387 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 7, 2015 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JON TESTER, Montana, Vice Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

T. MICHAEL ANDREWS, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANTHONY WALTERS, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on October 7, 2015 ............................................................................ 1 

Statement of Senator Barrasso ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Lankford .............................................................................. 27 

Statement of Senator Tester ................................................................................... 2 

WITNESSES

Casamassa, Glen, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture ..................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Daboda, Hon. Darren, Chairman, Moapa Band of Paiute Indians ...................... 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Martin, Hon. Robert, Chairman, Morongo Band of Mission Indians .................. 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Melendez, Hon. Arlan, Chairman, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony .......................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Smith, Michael, Deputy Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department 

of the Interior ....................................................................................................... 3 

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

APPENDIX

Day, Hon. Kevin, Chairman, Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 40 

DeSoto, Hon. Randi, Chairwoman, Summit Lake Paiute Tribal Council, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 39 

Dixon, Hon. Stacy, Chairman, Tribal Business Council, Susanville Indian 

Rancheria, prepared statement ........................................................................... 65 

Hawley, Hon. Vinton, Chairman, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribal Council, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 37 

Ike, Leona A., Member of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 71 

Leno, Hon. Reyn, Tribal Council Chair, Confederated Tribes of the Grand 

Ronde Community of Oregon, prepared statement ........................................... 45 

Manning, Hon. Lindsey, Chairman, Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation, prepared statement ..................................................... 57 

Pigsley, Hon. Delores, Chairman, Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of 

Oregon, prepared statement ................................................................................ 58 

Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada, prepared statement .................... 35 

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

Smith ..................................................................................................................... 72 

Thompson, Hon. Perline, Chairman, Duckwater Shoshone Tribe, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 36 

(1) 

S. 817, S. 818, S. 1436, S. 1761, S. 1822, S. 1986, 

AND H.R. 387 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2015 

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

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:52 p.m. in room 

628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

The CHAIRMAN. Good afternoon. I call this hearing to order. 

Today the Committee will examine seven different bills. All the 

bills being considered today pertain to taking land into trust for a 

federally-recognized tribe. 

On March 1, 2015, Senators Wyden and Merkley introduced two 

bills, S. 817 and S. 818. S. 817 would allow the Secretary of the 

Interior, when considering trust land acquisitions for the Siletz 

tribe, to treat the applications as on-reservation acquisitions. 

S. 818 would allow the Secretary of the Interior, when considering trust land acquisitions for the Grand Ronde tribe, to treat the 

applications as on-reservation acquisitions. 

Senator Reid and Senator Heller introduced S. 1436 on May 21 

of this year. The bill is similar to past bills and would place 77,177 

acres of land in Nevada into trust for six Nevada tribes to allow 

the tribes to carry out landscape restoration and fuel reduction activities. 

Senators Boxer and Feinstein introduced S. 1761 on July 14, 

2015. There is a companion bill, H.R. 2212, which was introduced 

by Representative LaMalfa on May 1. 

The bill transfers approximately 301 acres located in Lassen 

County, California from the Bureau of Land Management to the 

Department of the Interior to be placed into trust for the 

Susanville Rancheria Tribe for cultural purposes and a sports 

recreation center. 

Senators Boxer and Feinstein introduced S. 1822 on July 21, 

2015. This bill transfers approximately 80 acres from the Forest 

Service to the Department of the Interior to be placed into trust for 

the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians in order to carry out a fuel 

reduction plan. 

Senator Reid introduced S. 1986 on August 8, 2015. The bill 

transfer 25,977 acres from the Bureau of Land Management to the 

2 

Department of the Interior to place the land in trust for the Moapa 

Band of Paiutes. 

Lastly, we will consider H.R. 387, which was introduced on January 14, 2015 by Representative Ruiz and introduced in the House. 

The bill is a multi-parcel land transfer between the Morongo Band 

of Mission Indians, a private land owner, a city, and a county. 

Before we move to the witnesses, I would like to ask Vice Chairman Tester if he has an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for 

holding this legislative hearing on a number of tribal lands bills. 

I want to welcome the witnesses who are here to testify today. 

We all know how important land is to tribal communities. 

Through the seven lands bills we will hear about today, tribes will 

be better able to develop housing for their tribal members, create 

economic development opportunities for the communities, protect 

cultural and traditional uses for future generations or simply preserve lands within tribal communities. 

For too many years, the United States promoted policies designed to take lands away from Indians, even while making promises to tribes that they would have a reservation for their community in perpetuity. 

For the most part, these policies have been reversed. I want to 

commend the Committee members, the sponsors of today’s bills and 

the Federal agencies committed to restoring homelands and recognizing tribal reservations and boundaries. 

Decades of policies going back and forth on restoring tribal lands 

have led to a checkerboard of land ownership by tribes, individual 

Indians and non-Indians. This complicates the delivery of all kinds 

of services in tribal communities from law enforcement and road 

maintenance to utilities and water rights. 

Tribal land bills often serve to correct these issues by consolidating tribal lands into contiguous parcels to allow for better development and growth of tribal communities. 

I would also like to thank the tribes themselves for their work 

on restoring their homelands. Often tribes are forced to buy back 

land that was originally taken from them or to go through a 

lengthy and expensive process of getting bills through Congress to 

recognize their reservation or add additional lands. 

After the hearing today, I hope we can quickly move these bills. 

Each of these bills by themselves may be small but they have the 

highest importance to the tribes they affect. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, both from the 

agencies for their testimony and support for these bills and from 

tribal leaders who have come to Washington to discuss how their 

bills will impact and benefit their communities. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Tester. 

We will now hear from our witnesses. First to testify is Mr. Michael Smith, Deputy Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Smith, please proceed. 

3 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SMITH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

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

INTERIOR 

Mr. SMITH. Good afternoon, Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman 

Tester and members of the Committee. 

My name is Michael R. Smith. I am the Deputy Director for the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony for the Department on these bills related to BIA and the Bureau of Land 

Management. All of these are for placing lands into trust for tribes. 

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 

governments. Thus, the Department has made restoration of tribal 

homelands a priority. 

The Department supports H.R. 387, the Economic Development 

through Tribal Land Exchange Act. The Department recognizes 

that the land exchanges contemplated in this bill would reduce socalled checker boarding of Indian land and produce more consolidated land holdings for the tribe. 

The tribe and the city of Banning, California are to be congratulated for working out an exchange that benefits both the tribe and 

local government. 

S. 818, a bill to amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act to make 

technical corrections and for other purposes, amends an Act to establish a reservation with the Confederated Tribes of the Grand 

Ronde community of Oregon and to authorize the Secretary of the 

Interior to place in trust approximately 1,038 acres of real property 

located within the boundaries of the original 1857 reservation of 

the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde community if the real 

property is conveyed or otherwise transferred to the United States 

by or on behalf of the tribe. 

Furthermore, the bill provides that the Secretary is to treat all 

applications to take land into trust within the boundaries of the 

original 1857 reservation as on-reservation trust acquisition and 

that all real property taken into trust within those boundaries after 

September 9, 1988 are to be considered part of the tribe’s reservation. 

S. 817 would amend the Siletz Tribe Indian Restoration Act, 25 

U.S.C., Section 711(e), to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 

place land into trust for the Siletz Tribe. The lands lie within the 

original 1855 Siletz Coast Reservation and are located in the counties of Benton, Douglas, Lane, Lincoln, Tillamook and Yamhill, all 

located within the State of Oregon. 

S. 817 will also provide that such land would be considered and 

evaluated as on-reservation acquisition under 25 CFR, Section 

151.10 and become part of the tribe’s reservation. The bill does not 

make the original Siletz Reservation into a reservation for the 

Siletz Tribe or create tribal jurisdiction over the original Siletz Reservation. 

Additionally, S. 817 clarifies that nothing in this Act or amendment made by this Act shall prioritize for any purpose the claims 

of any federally-recognized Indian tribe over the claims of any 

4 

other federally-recognized Indian tribe. The Department supports 

S. 817. 

S. 1986, the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians Land Conveyance 

Act, declares that approximately 26,000 acres of public land in 

southern Nevada shall be held in trust for the benefit of the Moapa 

Band of Paiutes. 

The bill also declares that approximately 90 acres of land currently held in fee by the tribe shall be held in trust as part of the 

reservation of the tribe. 

The Department supports S. 1986 and would like to work with 

the sponsor and the Committee on modifications concerning energy 

transmission corridors, recreational opportunities and protection of 

sensitive species. 

S. 1436, the Nevada Native Nations Land Act, would be revised 

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

a number of federally-recognized tribes over 71,000 acres of federal 

lands in Nevada managed by the Bureau of Land Management and 

the United States Forest Service. 

The Department of the Interior welcomes opportunities to work 

with Congress on lands to be held in trust. We appreciate efforts 

to address some of the BLM’s concerns with previous versions of 

the bill and we generally support S. 1436 if amended to address a 

few concerns explained in our written testimony. 

The Department knows that some of the parcels identified in this 

legislation contain lands that are general or priority habitat management areas for the Greater Sage-Grouse which are identified for 

retention in the final Greater Sage-Grouse Plan for Nevada and 

northeastern California. 

Accordingly, we would like to work with the sponsor and the 

Committee on boundary modifications to avoid Greater SageGrouse habitat on language that would ensure appropriate conservation measures in the Greater Sage-Grouse. 

S. 1761 directs that approximately 300 acres of BLM-managed 

land located in Lassen County, California be held in trust for the 

benefit of the Susanville Indian Rancheria. The Department supports S. 1761 and would like to work with the sponsor concerning 

the treatment of rights-of-way and improvements under the bill as 

well as minor technical corrections. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department’s views 

on these bills. I will be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SMITH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

H.R. 387 

Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester, and Members of the Committee, my 

name is Michael Smith and I am the Deputy Director for the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior (Department). Thank you for the opportunity 

to present testimony for the Department on H.R. 387, the ‘‘Economic Development 

Through Tribal Land Exchange Act.’’ The Department supports H.R. 387. 

The Morongo Band of Mission Indians (the Tribe), located approximately 20 miles 

west of Palm Springs, CA, along with the City of Banning (the City) and Lloyd L. 

Fields (Mr. Fields), a private property owner who resides in California, have asked 

Congress to enact legislation providing for the exchange of certain lands within or 

5 

adjacent to the Morongo Reservation (1) to promote the consolidation of the Tribe’s 

reservation lands, (2) to resolve a land-use dispute among Mr. Fields, the City and 

the Tribe, and (3) to facilitate commercial development on lands adjacent to the 

Tribe’s reservation that will be beneficial for the City and the Tribe, as well as Mr. 

Fields. A map depicting the property to be exchanged is referenced in the bill. The 

parcels are identified as Parcels A, B, C and D. 

Background 

Among the parcels of land the United States currently holds in trust on behalf 

of the Tribe is a parcel of 41.15 acres (Parcel B), a portion of which is adjacent to 

lands outside the Tribe’s reservation that are owned by Mr. Fields. This parcel has 

no currently existing access to any public road and has little economic value to the 

Tribe. In 1995, through transactions with other private non-Indian landholders, Mr. 

Fields acquired a similarly sized parcel (Parcel A) that at the time also was outside 

the Tribe’s reservation. Parcel A has since become encircled by lands acquired by 

the Tribe and now held in trust for the Tribe by the United States as part of the 

Tribe’s residential area, largely precluding Mr. Fields from commercial development 

of Parcel A. In an effort to relieve the City from the continued maintenance and 

upkeep of certain lands which it owns, the City is interested in conveying to the 

Tribe approximately 1.21 acres of land (Parcel C) that is within the Tribe’s reservation and that is used for a roadway, in return the Tribe would grant the City an 

easement over other tribal trust lands (Parcel D) adjacent to Parcel B, which the 

City intends to use as a roadway and for electrical, sewer, water, and related utility 

lines in order to enable future commercial development that the City believes will 

be beneficial to the City. 

H.R. 387 

First, H.R. 387 authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to 

accept title to Parcel A to be held in trust for the Tribe. Second, H.R. 387 authorizes 

and directs the Secretary to convey Parcel B to Mr. Fields, thus removing Parcel 

B from trust status. Third, the bill authorizes and directs the Secretary to grant 

an easement to the City for use of Parcel D as a roadway and for electrical, sewer, 

water, and related utility lines owned by the City. All three of these conveyances 

would be done simultaneously. Fourth, H.R. 387 directs the Secretary to accept title 

to Parcel C to be held in trust for the Tribe after the City has vacated its interest 

in Parcel C pursuant to applicable state law. 

Anticipated Use of Lands 

The lands the Tribe is requesting be placed into trust on its behalf will assist the 

Tribe with its land consolidation efforts. The Tribe already has a hotel and casino 

in a different section of its Reservation that the Tribe has designated for entertainment and hospitality uses; thus, the Tribe is unlikely to use Parcel A for any commercial use other than grazing or other ranch or farming related activities. Parcel 

C will continue to be used by the Tribe as a roadway providing access to the Tribe’s 

residential area. We would be happy to work with the Subcommittee to add legal 

descriptions of the parcels into the bill. 

The Department recognizes that the land exchanges contemplated in this bill 

would reduce so-called checkerboarding of Indian land and produce more consolidated land holdings for the Tribe. The Tribe and the City of Banning are to be congratulated for working out an exchange that benefits both the Tribe and local government. The Department supports this bill. 

S. 817, A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADDITION OF CERTAIN REAL 

PROPERTY TO THE RESERVATION OF THE SILETZ TRIBE IN THE STATE 

OF OREGON 

Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester, and Members of the Committee, my 

name is Michael Smith and I am the Deputy Director for the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior. Thank you for the opportunity to present 

the Department of the Interior’s (Department) views on S. 817, a bill to provide for 

the addition of certain real property to the reservation of the Siletz Tribe. 

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 governments. 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. While the Department acknowledges that tribes near 

the Siletz Tribe oppose S. 817, the Department supports S. 817. 

6 

S. 817 would amend the Siletz Tribe Indian Restoration Act, 25 U.S.C. § 711e, to 

authorize the Secretary of the Interior to place land into trust for the Siletz Tribe. 

The lands lie within the original 1855 Siletz Coast Reservation and are located in 

the counties of Benton, Douglas, Lane, Lincoln, Tillamook, and Yamhill, which are 

all located within the State of Oregon. S. 817 would also provide that such land 

would be considered and evaluated as an on-reservation acquisition under 25 C.F.R. 

§ 151.10 and become part of the Tribe’s reservation. The bill does not make the original Siletz Reservation into a reservation for the Siletz Tribe or create tribal jurisdiction over the original Siletz Reservation. Additionally, S. 817 clarifies that nothing 

in this Act or amendment made by this Act shall prioritize for any purpose the 

claims of any federally-recognized Indian tribe over the claims of any other federally-recognized Indian tribe. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department’s views on this legislation. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

S. 818, TO AMEND THE GRAND RONDE RESERVATION ACT 

Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester, and Members of the Committee, my 

name is Michael Smith and I am the Deputy Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior (Department). Thank you for the opportunity 

to present the Department’s views on S. 818, a bill to amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act to make technical corrections, and for other purposes. The Department 

supports S. 818. 

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 governments. Thus, the Department has made the restoration of tribal homelands a priority. 

S. 818 amends an Act to establish a reservation for the Confederated Tribes of 

the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, Pub. L. No. 100–425 (Sept. 9, 1988), to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to place in trust approximately 1,038 acres of 

real property located within the boundaries of the original 1857 reservation of the 

Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon if the real property 

is conveyed or otherwise transferred to the United States by or on behalf of the 

Tribe. Furthermore, the bill provides that the Secretary is to treat all applications 

to take land into trust within the boundaries of the original 1857 reservation as an 

on-reservation trust acquisition, and that all real property taken into trust within 

those boundaries after September 9, 1988, are to be considered part of the Tribe’s 

reservation. 

Again, the Department supports S. 818. Thank you for the opportunity to present 

testimony on S. 818. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any questions 

the Committee may have. 

Attachment 

7 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

Next, we will hear from Mr. Glen Casamassa, Associate Deputy 

Chief, National Forest System, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, 

D.C. 

STATEMENT OF GLEN CASAMASSA, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY 

CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Chairman Barrasso and Vice Chairman Tester, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the United 

States Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 


1007a9.eps
8 

I am Glen Casamassa, Associate Deputy Chief of the National 

Forest System. There are two bills that I have been asked to address. I have provided written testimony for the record. 

S. 1436, the Nevada Native Nations Land Act, directs the conveyance of approximately 82 acres of land administered by the Forest Service to be held in trust for the Shoshone Paiute Tribes of 

the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. 

The parcel is located within the Humboldt-Toyaibe National Forest. This 82-acre Mountain City Ranger Station Administrative 

Site is within a larger 750-acre admin and recreation site. 

The Department supports the bill. We have several recommendations for your consideration that we would like to work with the 

Committee and sponsor to address. We recommend the bill address 

the Forest Service continued need to use roads located on the parcel for administrative purposes. 

S. 1822, a bill to take certain Federal land located in Tuolumne 

County, California into trust for the benefit of the Tuolumne Band 

of Me-Wuk Indians, would transfer approximately 80 acres of National Forest System lands administered by the Forest Service located within the boundaries of the Stanislaus National Forest to 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs to be held in trust by the United 

States for the benefit of the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians. 

The two National Forest System parcels are surrounded by private property with no legal access for the Forest Service. The private property parcels are the Murphy Ranch owned by the 

Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians and the Edward Ingalls Trust. 

Mr. Craig Ingalls has written a letter on behalf of the Trust in support of the proposed land transfer. 

The Department supports the positive and cooperative relationship between the Forest Service and the Stanislaus National Forest 

and the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians and their desire to 

manage these lands for fuels reduction and other conservation purposes. 

The Department does not oppose the land transfer to the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs. However, we would like to work with the Committee in correcting the parcels’ legal description described and 

based in the legislation. 

This concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer any 

questions. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Casamassa follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GLEN CASAMASSA, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL

FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

S. 1436, THE NEVADA NATIVE NATIONS LAND ACT

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

present the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding S.1436, 

the Nevada Native Nations Land Act. To Senator Reid, Senator Heller and other 

members of the Nevada delegation, we wish to thank you for your work on this bill. 

The Department supports the bill as it applies to lands managed by the Forest 

Service. We defer to the Department of the Interior for matters concerning land administered by the Bureau of Land Management. 

Section 3(b) of the bill would transfer approximately 82 acres of land administered 

by the Forest Service to be held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the 

Shoshone Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. The parcel is located 

within the Humboldt-Toyaibe National Forest. 

9 

The 82-acre Mountain City Ranger Station Administrative Site identified for conveyance is within a larger 750 acre withdrawal established in 1959 by Public Land 

Order (PLO) 1796, which reserved the withdrawn lands for numerous administrative and recreation sites. The Mountain City Ranger Station Administrative Site 

contains a hay shed and corral constructed in 1940 on the east side of the highway; 

a water well, water and wastewater systems, and a wastewater treatment lagoon, 

two houses, the oldest originally being constructed in 1958 are still on the subject 

site. Later buildings constructed on the site that are still there include a duplex, 

one modular single-family home, a double-wide barrack, a double-wide single-family 

home with detached garage, and a single-wide mobile home. A second water well 

was constructed in 1992. 

A total of 11 structures, including the 1940 hay shed, and two water wells are 

included in the proposed acquisition. 

We have several recommendations for your consideration that we would like to 

work with the Committee and sponsor to address. We recommend that the bill address the Forest Service’s continued need to use roads located on the parcel for administrative purposes. 

We also recommend that the bill specify that all facilities and other infrastructure 

on the 82-acre parcel transfer to the Tribe. 

S. 1822, A BILL TO TAKE CERTAIN FEDERAL LAND LOCATED IN TUOLUMNE COUNTY, 

CALIFORNIA, INTO TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE TUOLUMNE BAND OF ME-WUK

INDIANS

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Tester and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s views regarding S. 1822, a bill to take certain Federal 

land located in Tuolumne County, California, into trust for the benefit of the 

Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians, and for other purposes. 

S. 1822 would transfer approximately 80 acres of National Forest System (NFS) 

lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service located within the boundaries of the 

Stanislaus National Forest to be held in trust by the United States for the benefit 

of the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians. 

The Department does not oppose the transfer of this land to be held in trust for 

the benefit of the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians. The two National Forest System parcels comprising the 80 acres are surrounded by private property with no 

legal access for the Forest Service. The private properties surrounding the two parcels are the Murphy Ranch, owned by the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians, and 

the Edward Ingalls Trust. Mr. Craig Ingalls has written a letter on behalf of the 

Trust in support of this proposed land transfer. 

A search of Forest records and a brief site visit indicate that there are no distinctive Forest uses or special resources connected to or located on these parcels. There 

are no special use authorizations associated with these parcels. There is, however, 

a grazing permit that covers these parcels. However, the forage on these allotments 

is minimal, and there is no range infrastructure on the properties. Discussions with 

the range permittee and the tribe related to future range use are taking place with 

the anticipation of reaching a workable solution for both parties. 

The Department supports the positive and cooperative relationship between the 

Forest Service on Stanislaus National Forest and the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk 

Indians and their desire to manage these lands for fuels reduction and other conservation purposes. 

The Department would like to work with the Committee to make one important 

technical correction to the legal description as described in the legislation. Please 

add to the legal description the base and meridian, Mt. Diablo Meridian. This is 

needed to distinguish between the Mt. Diablo, San Bernardino and Humboldt meridians. 

This concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank 

you for the opportunity to testify. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. We appreciate your being 

here. 

Next, we will hear from the Honorable Arlan Melendez, Chairman of the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony of Reno, Nevada. Thank 

you for being with us. 

10 

STATEMENT OF HON. ARLAN MELENDEZ, CHAIRMAN, RENO– 

SPARKS INDIAN COLONY 

Mr. MELENDEZ. Good afternoon, Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester and distinguished members of the Senate Committee 

on Indian Affairs. 

My name is Arlan Melendez. I have been the Chairman of the 

Reno-Sparks Indian Colony for the past 24 years. 

I am honored to be speaking today, not only for my tribe, but for 

the other tribes in this bill who comprise the Nevada Tribal Land 

Coalition. I would like to express our heartfelt thanks to Senators 

Reid and Heller for introducing the bill and to you, Chairman 

Barrasso and Vice Chairman Tester, for supporting the bill last 

year and agreeing to schedule today’s hearing. 

The membership numbers of our tribes are growing. The current 

capacity of our current lands is very limited. With the exception of 

a few, the majority of tribes in Nevada have very small land bases. 

Some are so small they do not even show up on State maps. The 

comparison to large land bases of other tribes in many western 

States is dramatic. 

It is unrealistic that we can thrive, provide housing and encourage economic development on so little land. It is only by being able 

to expand and consolidate our land that our tribes and cultural 

practices can thrive. 

Each of our tribes has specific reasons for seeking to expand our 

lands. We are united in our need for better management and effective use of these lands. The other tribes may be submitting statements for the record but let me summarize their situations. 

On behalf of Chairman Smart of the Fort McDermitt Paiute Shoshone Tribe, the bill would transfer BLM land to resolve checkerboard land issues. This would address law enforcement and emergency personnel jurisdictional questions as well as enable housing 

development. Planned land use and development of natural resources will also ensure environmental biodiversity and ensure better public health and safety. 

On behalf of Chairman Manning of the Shoshone Paiute Tribe of 

Duck Valley Reservation, the bill would transfer a small parcel of 

Forest Service land, a longstanding goal. 

When the Forest Service relocated its district headquarters, 

housing units were abandoned. The tribes would like to renovate 

these units to address chronic housing shortages and to help recruit medical professionals, law enforcement and conservation personnel. 

On behalf of Chairman Desoto of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, 

the bill would accomplish a long sought transfer of BLM land for 

protection and management of Summit Lake’s natural resources 

and fish population and unify the reservation. 

Reservation lands surround the lake except in one area. Summit 

Lake is the home of the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout which was integral to the tribe’s cultural and vital food source. The transfer will 

allow for improved management and trout habitat restoration. 

On behalf of Chairman Holley of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, 

the bill would transfer BLM land to fully incorporate the watershed 

of the Pyramid Lake so the tribe could better manage its natural 

11 

resources and protect Pyramid Lake and its fish population thereby 

achieving cultural, economic and environmental benefits. 

On behalf of Chairman Thompson of the Duckwater Shoshone 

Tribe, the bill would allow the tribe to utilize added lands for economic development and community growth. The additional lands 

will allow the tribe to expand agricultural operations, plan for renewable energy projects, additional housing and facility development and protection of cultural and spiritual sites as well as wildlife. 

The tribe’s plan for the lands are spiritual, cultural, natural resource management and economic heritage with a goal of self sufficiency. 

For my tribe, the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, the bill would 

transfer BLM land because the current capacity of our reservation 

is strained as we need additional land for housing, cultural preservation and development. 

The Colony members were residing on just a small 28-acre reservation in Reno. In 1986, due to overcrowding, then-Nevada Congresswoman Barbara Vucanovich assisted the tribe in acquiring a 

parcel of land in Hungry Valley near Reno. She said if we needed 

more land in the future, we should come back and ask for it. 

We have made the best use of this limited parcel. We have constructed housing, a water system with production wells and other 

facilities such as a community center. We have purchased mining 

claims within the area proposed to be transferred by S. 1436 and 

the wells serving Hungry Valley community are off-reservation but 

also within the same proposed transfer. 

In closing, the BLM has also told us that they simply do not have 

enough staff to cover Hungry Valley. Our tribes are fully capable 

of being effective stewards of the land identified in S. 1436. 

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would 

be happy to answer any questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Melendez follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ARLAN MELENDEZ, CHAIRMAN, RENO-SPARKS INDIAN

COLONY

Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester and distinguished Members of the 

Committee on Indian Affairs. I am pleased to submit this testimony in support of 

S. 1436, the Nevada Native Nations Land Act, legislation introduced by Nevada 

Senators Harry Reid and Dean Heller. We are also pleased that identical legislation 

(H.R. 2733), has been introduced in the House by Congressmen Mark Amodei and 

Cresent Hardy of Nevada. The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Indian, 

Insular and Alaska Native Affairs held a hearing on H.R. 2733 on July 15, 2015, 

at which I testified. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify on S. 1436 and for considering our views. I 

have been acting as the leader of the Nevada Tribal Lands Coalition, which consists 

of the following tribes: 

Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe 

Shoshone Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe 

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe 

Duckwater Shoshone Tribe 

Reno-Sparks Indian Colony 

As I will be the only Nevada tribal leader testifying from this coalition, my oral 

testimony will describe the needs of each of the tribes requesting a land transfer 

and I am honored to speak on their behalf. Each of the other tribes will likely also 

be submitting a written statement for the record and their statements should be reVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:18 May 09, 2016 Jkt 020036 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\20036.TXT JACK
12 

lied upon for the specifics of their pending land transfer requests. Therefore in this 

written testimony for the record my remarks are mostly specific to the Reno-Sparks 

Indian Colony’s land expansion needs but I will include the following as a brief summary of each of the tribes’ requests for the land transfer: 

Fort McDermitt Paiute Shoshone Tribe 

The bill would transfer BLM land to resolve checkerboard lands issues. This 

would address law enforcement and emergency personnel jurisdictional questions, 

as well as enable housing development. Planned land use and development of natural resources will also ensure environmental biodiversity and ensure better public 

health and safety. 

Shoshone Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley Reservation 

The bill would transfer a small parcel of Forest Service land, a longstanding goal. 

When the Forest Service relocated its District headquarters, housing units were 

abandoned. The tribes would like to renovate these units to address chronic housing 

shortages and to help recruit medical professionals, law enforcement and conservation personnel. 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe 

The bill would accomplish a long-sought transfer of BLM land for protection and 

management of Summit Lake’s natural resources and fish population and to unify 

the reservation. Reservation lands surround the lake except in one area. Summit 

Lake is home to the Lahontan cutthroat trout, which was integral to the Tribe’s culture and a vital food source. The transfer will allow for improved management and 

trout habitat restoration. 

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe 

The bill would transfer BLM land to expand the reservation boundary to fully incorporate the watershed of Pyramid Lake. Other sections near the lake would be 

used for potential economic development and management efficiency. 

Duckwater Shoshone Tribe 

The Duckwater Shoshone Tribe plans to utilize added lands for economic development and community growth. The additional lands will allow the Tribe to expand 

agricultural operations, plan for renewable energy projects, additional housing & facilities development, and protection of cultural and spiritual sites, as well as wildlife. The Tribe’s plan for the lands incorporates our spiritual, cultural, natural resource management, and economic heritage with a goal of self-sufficiency. 

Common Themes Amongst Nevada Native Nations Land Act (S. 1436) Tribes 

Our tribes’ membership numbers are growing and the carrying capacity of our 

current lands is very limited. It is only by being able to expand and consolidate our 

lands for housing, development, and preservation that our tribes and cultural practices can continue to thrive. Each tribe in S. 1436 has specific reasons for seeking 

to expand the lands of our reservations and we are united in our need for better 

management and more effective use of these lands. We are fully capable of assuming these responsibilities. With the exception of a small parcel owned by the Forest 

Service, the lands in question are presently owned by BLM so transferring title to 

a different Interior agency (BIA) is not going to, for instance, affect the tax base. 

In a number of instances, upon acquiring land, Indian tribes have been able to undertake economic activities that have generated jobs and benefited both reservation 

and off-reservation economies and helped create jobs. 

We ask that you examine almost any map of Indian reservations in this country 

and you will see that through historic quirks of fate, the majority of land bases of 

the tribes in Nevada, particularly when compared to the land bases of many other 

tribes, are so small as to border on being non-workable. There are numerous million 

plus acre reservations in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington, Utah, 

Wyoming, Arizona and New Mexico and many more reservations that are hundreds 

of thousands of acres in size yet the majority of Paiute and Shoshone tribes of the 

Great Basin ended up with almost nothing. In many instances our existing homelands are so small they don’t even show up on many state maps. S. 1436 would put 

to effective use by tribes lands that are underutilized and not being adequately 

managed. 

Background on Reno-Sparks Indian Colony 

The historical context for how our current reservation came to be is as follows: 

In the 1880s, an urban Indian settlement made up of landless Indians from the 

regional Washoe, Shoshone and Paiute tribes started along the Truckee River next 

to the City of Reno. A land base of 20 acres was purchased in 1917 by the Federal 

13 

government to provide a permanent home for this urban settlement. The Colony 

population grew along with the City of Reno. In 1934, the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony (the RSIC) was established as a federally recognized Tribal government under 

the Indian Reorganization Act. By the mid-1980’s, the City of Reno had grown to 

the point of engulfing the undersized lands of the RSIC. The land base of the Reno 

Colony, near downtown Reno, is just 28 acres of densely packed homes. The majority of the land uses that surround the Colony today consist of industrial development, warehouses, freeways, and storage lots. With this legislation, our hope is to 

avoid a repeat of what we have experienced the last 100 years of encroachment of 

incompatible uses at our front door. Less than 3 percent of the land base is designated as park and open space. The residential area is totally built out and could 

not accommodate another home. 

In 1986, pursuant to a bill introduced by former Representative Barbara Vucanovich (R–NV), Congress transferred three sections of land north of Reno from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the RSIC (and to BIA to be held in trust) to 

address the need for additional community housing. Currently, this area, known as 

the Hungry Valley community, houses approximately half the RSIC’s population. 

The Hungry Valley community is seven miles west of the Spanish Springs community and 17 miles north of the City of Reno. The RSIC has spent millions of dollars 

in public improvements and community development, for example building homes; 

water and sewer system; community buildings and construction of Eagle Canyon 

Road from Pyramid Lake Highway to the Hungry Valley community. We also created a tribal utility district to supply water and sanitary sewer service to residents. 

The water system includes production wells, water tanks and a water treatment facility. Our primary production wells are located over a mile away on BLM lands 

within the area requested in S. 1436. The community sewer system provides for the 

treatment of all wastewater. The Hungry Valley Community Center we built is the 

primary public facility serving residents, with a volunteer fire department, offices 

for Housing Department, Utility District, Head Start Program, a gym, and meeting 

rooms. When Congresswoman Vucanovich was successful in the passage of the bill 

(public law 99–389) establishing the Hungry Valley Reservation she told us that if 

at some point in the future we needed to supplement the Hungry Valley land, that 

we should make such a request of the Congress. Here we are today making such 

a request and greatly appreciative of Senator Reid, Senator Heller and Congressman Amodei’s leadership and support on this matter. 

Further Need for this Legislation to Benefit the Hungry Valley Residential 

Community 

The Hungry Valley community is surrounded by BLM public lands to the west, 

north, and east. Directly to the south and southeast is an active open aggregate 

mining pit which conducts blasting on a regular basis. In 2000, a large scale clay 

mining operation with two open pits was proposed on BLM land directly adjacent 

to the Hungry Valley community. The mine was never put into operation. The Colony eventually purchased the 6,000 acres of mining claims and currently pays a 

$41,000 annual maintenance fee to the BLM. The 6,000 acres of mining claims are 

totally located within the lands requested in S. 1436. Many adverse activities are 

routinely occurring (in some cases permitted by the BLM, in other cases in violation 

of BLM regulations) on the lands adjacent to our residents’ homes in Hungry Valley 

including: 

• Unlimited off highway vehicle (OHV) recreation area. 

• Loud and disruptive motorcycle events. 

• Gun Shooting events & recreational shooting—with assault weapons—near residential areas. 

• Illegal dumping. 

• Unauthorized creation of motorcycle race tracks. 

• Military practice operation with simulated explosive devices. (Hopefully an activity that won’t be repeated.) 

Initial target shooting involved rifles. More recently it has escalated to assault 

weapons including apparent efforts at cutting trees down by shooting streams of 

bullets via such high powered guns. These are not activities anyone would want to 

see in proximity to a residential area. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of 

lands in Nevada not adjacent to a residential community where such activities can 

readily take place. 

14 

Proposed Land Transfer from BLM to BIA 

The RSIC is proposing to acquire through a Congressional transfer approximately 

13,434 acres from the BLM to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in trust for the 

RSIC in order to better manage and preserve the cultural and natural resources at 

the Hungry Valley residential community. Both BLM and BIA are agencies of the 

Department of the Interior. These 13,434 acres represent 0.028 percent of the 47 

million acres of BLM lands in Nevada, lands that were once the exclusive domain 

of Paiute, Washoe and Shoshone tribes of Nevada. 

The local BLM staff are overwhelmed and readily admit they cannot enforce their 

own regulations and ordinances in Hungry Valley. We believe that transferring this 

land to the BIA’s jurisdiction to be held in trust for the RSIC is important for the 

citizens of our Tribe and for the surrounding communities. We are pleased to have 

the support of the Washoe County Commissioners who, on December 13, 2013, 

unanimously supported our BLM land transfer request. 

In addition to public safety concerns, there are important cultural reasons why 

Hungry Valley is of great significance to us. We seek to manage this land so as to 

ensure for future generations that the open natural landscape that provides essential spiritual and traditional cultural support for our people will continue to be accessible and be properly managed. It is the intention of the Tribe to preserve and 

manage these scenic, cultural and natural resources. In the past, the Hungry Valley 

region was a traditional link between Pyramid Lake and the Truckee Meadows. 

Many camps and cultural resources have been identified by past archaeological 

studies. Many elders and residents continue to use Hungry Valley for spiritual and 

traditional activities. Several prominent landscape features in the Hungry Valley 

area are used for traditional religious practices and are a source of medicinal plants. 

We are very proud of the many cooperative efforts we have entered into with the 

State of Nevada and with the governments that surround our downtown reservation 

as well as our existing Hungry Valley lands. We assure the Congress that this spirit 

of good will and cooperation will continue and that all parties in the surrounding 

areas will benefit by this proposal. 

Thank you for your consideration of this bill. We greatly appreciated this Committee’s bi-partisan support for this bill last year when it was reported out to the full 

Senate, and we of course hope you will move it to the Senate floor and final passage 

this year. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chairman Melendez. I appreciate 

your being here. 

Next, we will hear from the Honorable Robert Martin, Chairman, 

Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Banning, California. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MARTIN, CHAIRMAN, MORONGO 

BAND OF MISSION INDIANS 

Mr. MARTIN. Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester and 

members of the Committee, I am Robert Martin. I serve as the 

Tribal Chairman of the Morongo Band of Indians. Our reservation 

straddles Interstate 10 just west of Palm Springs in southern California. 

I appreciate the chance to provide testimony on this important 

issue and thank you for your willingness to consider H.R. 387, a 

land exchange bill introduced by Dr. Ruiz and Colonel Cook. 

In summary, this bill is intended to address a series of issue pertaining to lands within the Morongo Tribe’s reservation impacting 

the tribe, the City of Banning and the non-Indian landowner. 

The bill itself addresses three land management problems in our 

area. First, Mr. Fields, a non-Indian, California-based businessman, owns a 41-acre parcel of fee land that is encircled by the tribal trust lands that he would like to develop to its highest and best 

use which requires improved access. 

In an effort to address this problem, the bill seeks to have the 

Fields’ lands exchanged with an identical sized 41-acre parcel of 

15 

tribal trust land adjacent to other nearby lands already owned by 

Mr. Fields. 

The exchange of these lands will accomplish two objectives. It 

provides Mr. Fields with superior access to his existing lands, potentially opening the entire parcel to new economic development 

opportunities and at the same time, the parcel exchange consolidates our reservation’s trust lands by eliminating the checkerboard 

effect in that area. The topography, physicality and values of the 

parcels of land to be exchanged are virtually identical in every respect. 

Second, the bill would address a pair of land use issues between 

the Morongo Tribe and the City of Banning. The primary access 

route to the reservation, a controlled entrance, is situated near the 

beginning of Malki Road and a road that extends near the reservation for approximately two miles. 

However, when Riverside County abandoned the roadway years 

ago because the section line runs down the middle of the road, approximately the first half mile of the western side of this road became owned by the City of Banning while the east side is held in 

trust by the United States. However, the City of Banning does not 

perform any maintenance on the roads. The tribe is interested in 

having the Banning land placed in tribal trust so as to allow for 

better maintenance and management of Malki Road in its entirety. 

Finally, the legislation addresses a desire by the City of Banning 

to locate a road and related utilities such as water and sewer that 

enable development of property on the city’s eastern edge. The 

lands on which the city is interested in locating this road are held 

in trust by the United States on behalf of the tribe. An easement 

for the city to use the land must be approved by the Federal Government. 

Under the terms of the bill, the Secretary of the Interior would 

be directed to execute a number of changes. The lands currently 

held in trust status for the tribe would revert to fee simple status 

and would be transferred to Mr. Fields and the Fields’ embedded 

lands would be placed into Federal trust status. 

Finally, the easement to Banning would be effectuated. 

We have provided the Committee with letters of support from all 

three parties and we have worked with the Bureau of Land Management to secure a land exchange map as referenced in H.R. 387. 

With the enactment of this bill, Congress would help to resolve 

a series of issues that have evolved over a number of years which 

can only be resolved with the involvement of the Federal Government. 

From my tribe’s perspective, the consolidation of our land is vitally important. From the perspective of Mr. Fields, he will secure 

direct access to lands that are currently non-performing. With this 

bill, the City of Banning will now have the opportunity to extend 

a critically important road and related utilities to properties within 

the city limits that are currently under served thus making commercial development of those properties possible. 

This legislation is a true win-win for our entire community and 

will provide for future economic development opportunities that 

will create jobs, housing and revenues for the region. 

16 

Finally, I want to thank Senator Boxer and Senator Moran for 

their willingness to work in a bipartisan spirit to help our entire 

community by introducing a companion bill in the Senate, S. 175. 

While we are grateful that the Committee has decided to take up 

the bill already approved by the House, we are nonetheless thankful for their efforts. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MARTIN, CHAIRMAN, MORONGO BAND OF

MISSION INDIANS

H.R. 387 THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THROUGH TRIBAL LAND EXCHANGE ACT

Chairman Barrasso, Vice-Chairman Tester and members of the committee, I am 

Robert Martin and I serve as the Tribal Chairman of the Morongo Band of Mission 

Indians. Our reservation straddles Interstate 10, just west of Palm Springs in 

Southern California. I appreciate the chance to provide testimony on this important 

issue and thank you for your willingness to consider H.R. 387, a land exchange bill 

that has been introduced by Dr. Ruiz and Col. Cook. In summary, this bill is intended to address a series of issues pertaining to lands within the Morongo Tribe’s 

reservation, impacting the Tribe, the City of Banning and a non-Indian landowner. 

The bill itself addresses three land management problems in our area. First, Mr. 

Fields, a non-Indian California based businessman, owns a 41-acre parcel of fee land 

(Parcel A—Fields Lands) that is encircled by tribal trust lands that he would like 

to develop to its highest and best use, which requires improved access. In an effort 

to address this problem the bill seeks to have the Fields Lands exchanged with an 

identically sized 41-acre parcel of tribal trust land (Parcel B—Morongo Lands) adjacent to other nearby lands already owned by Mr. Fields. The exchange of these 

lands will accomplish two objectives: It provides Mr. Fields with superior access to 

his existing lands, potentially opening up the entire parcel for new economic development opportunities; at the same time, the parcel exchange consolidates our reservation’s trust lands by eliminating the checkerboard effect in that area. The topography, physicality and value of the parcels of land to be exchanged are virtually 

identical in every respect. 

Second, the bill would address a pair of land use issues between the Morongo 

Tribe and the City of Banning. The primary access route to the Reservation, a controlled entrance, is situated near the beginning of Malki Road, a road that extends 

into the Reservation for approximately two miles. However, when Riverside County 

abandoned that roadway years ago, because the section line runs down the middle 

of the road approximately the first half mile of the western side of this road became 

owned by the City of Banning (Parcel C—Banning Lands) while the east side is held 

in tribal trust by the United States. However, the City of Banning does not perform 

any maintenance on the road. The Tribe is interested in having the Banning Lands 

placed into tribal trust so as to allow for better maintenance and management of 

the Malki Road in its entirety. 

Finally, the legislation addresses a desire by the City of Banning to locate a road 

and related utilities, such as water and sewer lines, that would enable development 

of property on the City’s eastern edge. As the lands in which the City is interested 

in locating this road (Parcel D—Easement to Banning) are held in trust by the 

United States on behalf of the Tribe, an easement for the City to use the land must 

be approved by the Federal Government. 

Under the terms of the bill, the Secretary of Interior would be directed to execute 

a number of changes: the Morongo Lands, currently held in trust status for the 

tribe, would revert to fee simple status and would be transferred to Mr. Fields; the 

Fields Lands and Banning Lands would be placed into federal trust status; and finally, the easement to Banning would be effectuated. 

We have provided the Committee with letters of support from all three of the parties and we have worked with the Bureau of Land Management to secure a land 

exchange map, as referenced in H.R. 387. 

With the enactment of this bill, Congress will help to resolve a series of issues 

that have evolved over a number of years and which can only be resolved with the 

involvement of the Federal Government. From my Tribe’s perspective, the consolidation of our lands is vitally important. From the perspective of Mr. Fields, he will 

secure direct access to lands that are currently non-performing. And with this bill, 

the City of Banning will now have the opportunity to extend a critically important 

17 

road and related utilities to properties within the city limits that are currently underserved, thus making commercial development of those properties possible. This 

legislation is a true win-win-win for our entire community, and will provide for future private economic development opportunities that will create jobs, housing and 

revenues for the region. 

Finally, I want to thank Senator Boxer and Senator Moran for their willingness 

to work in a bi-partisan spirit to help our entire community by introducing a companion bill in the Senate, S. 175. While we are grateful the Committee has decided 

to take up the bill already approved by the House, we are nonetheless thankful for 

their efforts. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have regarding my testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Chairman Martin, for 

your testimony. 

Next, we will hear from the Honorable Darren Daboda, Chairman of the Moapa Band of the Paiute Indians of Moapa, Nevada. 

Chairman DABODA. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DARREN DABODA, CHAIRMAN, MOAPA 

BAND OF PAIUTE INDIANS 

Mr. DABODA. Good afternoon, Chairman Barrasso and Committee 

members. 

I am Darren Daboda, Chairman of the Moapa Band of Paiutes 

Business Council which is the governing body of our tribe. This is 

my third term as chairman and my seventh year on the tribal 

council. 

I am pleased to be here today to testify on behalf of the Moapa 

Band of Paiutes in strong support of S. 1986, the Moapa Land Conveyance Act. I thank Senator Reid for introducing the bill and 

thank Senator Barrasso and the Committee for holding this hearing. 

I ask that my written testimony be included in the hearing 

record. 

S. 1986 would restore 26,000 acres to our reservation. These are 

desert lands adjacent to our reservation that are managed by BLM 

and the Bureau of Reclamation. 

In addition to restoring the lands to our tribe that were taken 

years ago, the tribe believes that this bill provides an opportunity 

for the tribe to increase its self sufficiency and to add to southern 

Nevada’s economic and recreational growth by returning these 

lands to local control. 

The Clark County Water Commissioners support this bill and the 

economic opportunity it presents. 

The Moapa Reservation is located in the heart of southern Paiute 

traditional lands. Our reservation was originally 2.2 million acres 

in 1873. In 1875, Congress reduced the reservation to 1,000 acres 

to satisfy non-Indian settlers. We made the most of the 1,000 acres 

by building housing and community resources for tribal members 

and developing a successful farm. 

In 1980, Congress introduced 70,000 acres to the reservation. We 

have worked to create economic opportunities for the benefit of the 

tribe and our neighbors by introducing our tribal plaza at Interstate I–15’s Valley of Fire exit and our leadership in utility scale 

solar development. 

18 

If this bill becomes law, the tribe stands ready to make the most 

of the additional lands for the benefit of the tribe and the local 

community in several ways. 

First, the tribe desperately needs additional land to construct 

housing within the reservation. Our existing lands are generally 

not good for housing because the lands are too far from infrastructure or the lands are off limits for environmental reasons. Some of 

the lands included in this bill would be ideal for housing. 

Second, some of the lands have potential for economic development, particularly solar energy. Our solar projects are leading the 

way in southern Nevada for creating clean energy in ways that respect the natural environment and create jobs for local community 

members. 

We have one project nearing completion of construction that currently employs 500 local workers. We have two other projects in 

the works that will support similar opportunities. 

Third, some of the lands are of great location for outdoor recreation and economic development in support of recreation. The tribe 

supports responsible outdoor recreation and economic opportunities 

it brings to the local community. 

Fourth, some of the lands have been managed for flood control. 

The reservation saw a thousand year flood event September 8, 

2014 that breached earthen dams on the reservation. The tribe has 

received FEMA funding to rebuild these reservation dams but 

there are other dams on BLM lands that need to be fixed. S. 1986 

would transfer some of the BLM lands to the tribe and allow the 

tribe to take control of the dams and their repair. 

Fifth, some of the lands contain Paiute cultural resources. The 

tribe would like to manage those lands to preserve the cultural resources and natural environment where necessary. 

Finally, Section 4 of the bill would transfer 88 acres of fee land 

within the reservation into trust. The tribe has owned this land in 

fee since 1979. It is vacant land and we intend to leave it that way 

for now but we may use it in the future for agriculture or housing. 

In closing, I thank Senator Reid, Senator Barrasso and the Committee for their work on S. 1986 and the tribe looks forward to 

working with the Committee to move the bill forward. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Daboda follows:] 

19 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DARREN DABODA, CHAIRMAN, MOAPA BAND OF

PAIUTE INDIANS


1007a1.eps
20 


1007a2.eps
21 


1007a3.eps
22 


1007a4.eps
23 


1007a5.eps
24 


1007a6.eps
25 


1007a7.eps
26 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Chairman Daboda. 

I appreciate the testimony of each and every one of you. 

I also want to thank Senator Lankford. He was actually the very 

first person to arrive at the Committee in terms of the members 

today. We had originally scheduled a business meeting to start at 

2:15 p.m. but it was temporarily delayed while we were voting on 

the floor. We had a couple roll call votes. I appreciate your efforts 

to be here so promptly, Senator Lankford. 

We did get to H.R. 487, an Act to allow the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to lease or transfer certain lands. You are welcome if you 

would like to make comments regarding that. It has passed the 


1007a8.eps
27 

Committee in the business meeting. Then please join in the questioning. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES LANKFORD, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I do appreciate the cooperation of the Committee in passing the 

bill to remove the Federal constraints that prevent the Miami Tribe 

of Oklahoma from freely buying and selling land they own but do 

not hold in trust. 

That is a great asset to them for economic development and allows them to be able to diversify their tribe and also expand without the outdated, burdensome, antiquated belief that tribes need 

the Federal Government to give them permission to move on anything. I do appreciate that very much. 

We have done this before as a Committee for tribes in Mississippi, Florida and Texas. I appreciate the help in being able to 

allow this Oklahoma tribe to be able to continue its economic development. 

I have just a couple questions as well. 

Mr. Smith, let me ask you a little bit about some Oklahoma 

items and where BIA is coming in, in the coming days, in the 

plans. 

As you are very aware, the Interior has just settled an agreement with the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations for $186 million for 

the mismanagement over the years and the lack of paperwork and 

processing on timber resources. We just had a settlement not long 

ago with the Osage Nation on energy resources. 

My question is, what is an efficient way, moving forward from 

here, to manage resources for which the Federal Government has 

responsibility but the tribes actually have that control and that 

management? Where do we go, what is the future path on this, to 

allow the tribes to be able to have greater access and control of the 

resources they have so we do not have these multimillion dollar 

settlements by the Federal taxpayer? 

Mr. SMITH. I think that is a pretty broad question. In general, 

we take our direction from the tribes. We work with the tribes as 

partners. They set the priorities and where we can, we fall in with 

our funding, support and technical assistance. 

We have programs that the tribes have taken on under contract 

or compact. They administer those programs, manage those programs and we provide the funding in general but it is a partnership. 

We have listened to the tribes and taken a look at their plans. 

Many of them have IRMPs or resource management plans. We follow their lead. 

Senator LANKFORD. So how can we improve the process of compacting or contracting with the tribes for these Federal responsibilities so they have a greater sense of lead on that? 

Mr. SMITH. I think just provide more technical assistance. Again, 

the tribes are way ahead of us in most cases because they are hiring professional people, technical people that we do not have anymore. 

28 

Our population, as far as our staff, has gone down because of either lack of funding, reductions in force or I guess you would call 

it buyouts. Some people call it that but it is an opportunity for 

early retirement for some people. 

In general, most of those funds transfer to the tribes and they 

are able to hire people with those funds. 

Senator LANKFORD. I guess the question is, given the transition 

out of D.C. into tribal leadership, they are able to make more of 

those decisions, how do you feel that is moving at this point? How 

long is the backlog to be able to make some of those decisions? 

As I have chatted with some of the tribes, the decision-making 

is so slow. They want the ability to be able to make the decision 

on some of these aspects. Where are we missing each other? 

Mr. SMITH. I am not sure I agree with that. We have regional 

directors in all 12 of our regions throughout the United States. 

They are senior executives. I supervise those regional directors and 

they work very closely with the tribes in their jurisdiction. 

They work hand in hand with the tribes. They follow their lead. 

Whatever enactments under tribal law are applicable, they fall in 

line with the tribes’ wishes. I think they work closely together. I 

do not know that we a large backlog of things to do. The tribes operate at their level and at their pace. We coordinate our activities 

with them. 

Senator LANKFORD. We will follow up on this. I will share some 

individual examples with you and maybe we can work through 

this. We are at the same spot you are. We are trying to be able 

to serve individuals, be able to work through that process and 

make sure we have the maximum amount of efficiency. Let us walk 

through that in the days ahead. 

Let me ask just on the issue of off-reservation gaming, has anything changed as far as the Bureau’s position on that? Has anything been altered on off-reservation gaming at all in the perspective? 

Mr. SMITH. Not that I am aware of. I think things are generally 

the way they have been for several years. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Lankford. Senator Tester? 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank all of you for your testimony. I want to start 

with you, Mike. 

These bills today deal with transfers of Federal land. They can 

be deemed surplus locations, it just makes sense to make the transfer, whatever the reason is. We deal with these bills with some regularity. 

The question I have for you is has there been conversation 

around the Interior that we should add statutory mechanisms to 

allow Federal agencies to transfer the lands when it is kind of a 

no-brainer rather than forcing the tribes to go through Congress? 

Mr. SMITH. The transfers that I am aware of are usually administrative in nature from one Federal agency to another. It seems 

like it is fairly simple and maybe we do need some laws that would 

strengthen that transfer so that at the local level, anyway, when 

lands are available for disposal, tribes nearby would have the first 

opportunity to acquire those. 

29 

Senator TESTER. It might be something to think about going forward. I am never much in favor of ceding authority to the Executive Branch but in this particular case, it may make sense. 

I want to talk about tribal opposition to the Siletz land bill and 

your testimony with you, Mike. In your testimony on S. 817, you 

noted there is some tribal opposition to the Siletz Tribe lands bill. 

Can you tell me, are there historical reasons for the tribal opposition to this bill? 

Mr. SMITH. The only thing I am aware of is that there were 

many tribes within that general area. Some became federally-recognized and others did not. That may be the rub. I am not sure of 

anything else. 

Senator TESTER. You are now aware of the reason for opposition? 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

Senator TESTER. You know there is opposition? 

Mr. SMITH. There was an original reservation that was supposed 

to have been established for a number of tribes and the Confederacy of Siletz was reduced down to eight or nine tribes so there 

were a larger number. I think the other tribes that were not included are probably the ones that would object. 

Senator TESTER. Glen, your testimony mentioned an existing 

grazing permit that covers the parcels to be transferred to the 

Tuolumne Band. Given S. 1822 provides that the transfer is subject 

to valid existing rights, would the bill affect the permit holder’s 

rights when it comes to grazing. 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Given the fact there is a limited number of 

AUMs on that small parcel of land, we feel we have the opportunity to mitigate any of the impacts to the livestock grazing permittee. 

I think there is going to be some level of agreement made between various entities to ensure that those AUMs still remain 

whole for the permittee. 

Senator TESTER. I want to back up a bit to hear what you just 

said. Are you saying that those rights do transfer and that you 

would be buying those out or are you saying those rights do transfer and there would be an agreement to give those up? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Vice Chairman Tester, I am saying that the 

amount of AUMs associated with that small conveyance can be absorbed into the existing permits outside of that particular area. 

It is my understanding that there is some level of agreement 

made amongst the various parties to ensure that those AUMs are 

maintained. 

Senator TESTER. That is good. That could be a sticking point if 

it is not. Let us put it that way. 

The next question is for you, Arlan. You are here on behalf of 

several tribes from Nevada. You noted that the land bases are very 

small and are often unworkable in your State of Nevada. 

What would this bill’s additional lands mean for the well-being 

of individual tribal members in Nevada? 

Mr. MELENDEZ. I believe it would be helpful for cultural activities and economic development. I think it is a positive bill. 

I think we do have a concern though about the concerns the Bureau of Land Management may have. As you know, it means a lot 

30 

to us. When we look at the maps of the Bureau of Land Management, they are mile squares. 

The concern we have heard on the House side and here today is 

that they want us to basically take a complete square. Some of 

these do not match up with, say, a mountain range where we are 

trying to just go to the mountain top. If you go on the other side 

of the mountain, you come into conflict. 

There is one situation in our reservation where it is an airport 

owned by someone else. They are not going to be in support of the 

tribe taking that square, if you try to square it up. 

At some point, if we went to the Nevada tribes and asked them, 

has the Bureau of Land Management actually contacted you for 

each one of these concerns the Interior has, I would guarantee you 

those tribes in Nevada would say they have not been really contacted one on one to try to resolve some of these issues. 

We heard it before in the hearing with the House side and now 

we are hearing it again. I hope that one of the directives that 

comes out of here is that the Bureau of Land Management or the 

Interior actually contacts these tribes and actually works out these 

situations because I think the tribes do not want to keep hearing 

this is a concern but nothing is really resolved on it. 

That could basically be an impediment to the passage of this bill. 

That is my concern as I head the Interior’s position on some of 

these issues. I do not think that some of the tribes in Nevada actually really know about some of these things that are the concerns 

of the Interior. 

Senator TESTER. Mike, have you reached out to the tribes on this 

stuff? Has Interior reached out to the tribes? 

Mr. SMITH. I thought we had. In general, when the information 

gets to us, we pass it on to the tribes. I try to work with them toward whatever benefit it would be. 

Senator TESTER. I did not plan on going down this line of questioning but if it is a problem, it needs to be fixed so that we know 

what we are getting into on the land transfers. We want to make 

sure that we do not do it halfway. 

Mr. SMITH. I do agree. One of the issues with Nevada and the 

location the chairman is in is it is quite a ways to the regional office and their agency has been watered down some. They have split 

in half. Again, we do not have the technical people that we used 

to have. 

Senator TESTER. I gotcha, and we will fight to make sure you 

have the staffing to be able to meet the needs of Indian country. 

In the meantime, figure out if you can meet halfway between. Figure out some way to get it done because you have to make sure 

the communication is there, that the consulting is done and all that 

stuff. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. Go ahead, Arlan. I am way over time. 

Mr. MELENDEZ. One last thought is in the concerns, you see the 

Sage-Grouse issue. Even a tribe like mine does not have the SageGrouse issue. There is no Sage-Grouse up in Hungry Valley and 

the land we are talking about. 

I would think that most of the tribes are probably in agreement 

with protecting the Sage-Grouse. Native tribes are probably the 

31 

best environmentalists; they are probably the best conservation 

people. I do not see it being a problem with taking this land into 

trust. 

I think the tribes would do everything they can to protect the 

Sage-Grouse but we see it coming up constantly as a finding or at 

a hearing. I hope we can get beyond that and not have it continually being an impediment to the passage of this bill. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. I have one quick question. I did not want 

to leave you out, Robert. You just got lucky. I do have a question 

for Darren real quick because the Chairman has been so kind with 

the time. 

From your written testimony, it sounds like the tribes have reasonable success with renewable energy and other economic development initiatives. You need to be congratulated on that. 

How has the tribe’s energy and economic development activities 

affected the demand for tribal housing? Would the tribe be able to 

meet the housing needs if this passes? 

Mr. DABODA. Yes, this would give us an opportunity because 

where the community is located right now is in a floodplain zone. 

That would be our first issue, looking for housing. It would be from 

the Valley of Fire to one of the areas we are looking at because it 

is higher ground and out of the flood zone. 

In the late 1990s, our tribe did not get mapped when FEMA 

came there for tribes to get surveyed. When it reaches the reservation boundaries, there is no floodplain zone at all. Around the 

Clark County area, you see a lot of the tributaries have the flood 

zones and all the washes except for our tribe. Our tribe, at the 

time, did not know what the FEMA mapping was and got impacted. 

Senator TESTER. But the point is, if you are successful with energy and economic development, as you have been in the past, does 

the tribe have the capacity to meet the housing needs? 

Mr. DABODA. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. This land transfer is going to give you more opportunity. That is the plan in my head anyway. For economic development, you guys have the capacity? That is the question. 

Mr. DABODA. Yes. We do have the capacity. Like I said, we have 

two other programs on the way. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you very much. 

Thank you all for your testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Tester. 

Mr. Smith, following up on Senator Tester’s question, specifically 

with S. 817, I may have some additional written questions for you 

related to some of the opposition expressed by some of the other 

tribes you mention in your written testimony. I may have some 

written questions on that. 

I did want to go to the recommendation on S. 1436, the Nevada 

Native Nations Land Act. Your recommendation was it be changed 

to adjust the time frames for some of the surveys which were insufficient. 

The GAO noted in the June 2015 report on Indian Energy Development that the surveys could not be found or were outdated. It 

should not be a systemic problem, I believe, within the department. 

32 

How does your department intend to improve surveying issues 

and availability so it will not delay development or frustrate the 

purpose of this bill? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you for the question. 

I think probably that is a question that would better be answered 

by the BLM. We rely on them for cadastral surveys. The timelines 

and the funding kind of go hand in hand. They control that. 

The CHAIRMAN. You can see where the concern is. It could have 

an impact on the issues. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. There are currently three existing rights-of-way 

on the land proposed to be taken into trust on the Susanville 

Rancheria. Under S. 1761, BLM administers those rights-of-way. If 

S. 1761 is enacted, what role would the BIA have in administering 

those rights-of-way, do you know? 

Mr. SMITH. I do not believe there would be any change. I think 

it will stay the same as it is now. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Casamassa, your written testimony states 

that a grazing permit covers the parcels proposed to be taken into 

trust, S. 1822, for the Tuolumne Band of the Me-Wuk Indians. You 

further state that the forage is minimal and there is no range infrastructure on the properties. Can you explain what revenues and 

activities are existing for these permits? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. In terms of the minimization of the forage, they 

do generate to some degree overall some revenues for the treasury 

but in terms of the revenue for the individual permittee, it is, to 

a degree, minimal. 

We believe that based on the minimal AUMs, we could absorb 

that administratively into the existing permit and the lands that 

are now grazed to compensate for that level of AUMs lost through 

the conveyance. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Chairman Melendez, with regard to S. 1436, your testimony stated that the tribes impacted by this legislation expanding and consolidating your lands for housing, economic development and preservation will enable cultural practices to continue to thrive. 

Other potential land use benefits highlighted in your testimony 

were energy development and resolving jurisdictional disputes. In 

addition, how will these land transfers also benefit the surrounding 

local communities? 

Mr. MELENDEZ. I think working together with the county, we 

have support from Washoe County, in going to them first and talking about some of the land issues. As you know, out in our rural 

reservation, it is 1,900 acres, a little more than that, 1,960 acres, 

we have a lot of things happening out there. 

We have off-road vehicles that are destroying some of the vegetation. We have people cutting their own racetracks out there. We 

have target practices near to our housing out there. We have people dumping trash out there from the cities. 

As you know, the Bureau of Land Management has about one 

ranger trying to patrol not just that land but most of the northern 

area around Reno, Sparks and Washoe County. We have a lot of 

support that the tribe could basically patrol that area a lot better 

than the BLM. 

33 

That is one of the supported reasons why the county supports us 

and the City of Reno about taking over this land. 

The CHAIRMAN. Chairman Martin, I want to ask you about some 

of the cooperative efforts that we have seen. When you take a look 

at the land-into-trust transfer under H.R. 387, local communities 

joined together to develop a solution that works for everyone. It 

seems that way to me. 

This example of local cooperation, I think, could be a model for 

other communities, not just for trust land acquisition but other developmental opportunities. Could you talk a little bit about how 

these joint cooperative efforts arose and how it came into being? 

Mr. MARTIN. We worked closely with the City of Banning and the 

county for mitigation of our casino, of impacts. It has carried over 

into other things we have done. We have a great relationship with 

the city and the county and also Cabazon, the nearest local community. Outlying from that is Beaumont. There are a couple others 

that we worked closely with for the last 15 or 20 years. 

It is not something that we just developed but it is something we 

have worked with for the last 15 to 20 years. It has been a good 

relationship. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Chairman Daboda, current uses of the BLM land described in S. 

1986 include recreational uses. In addition to the Moapa Valley 

Water District that provides domestic and commercial water services to the region involved in the bill, the district also has agreements with Federal and State entities which govern various conservation efforts. 

How would this bill address current public land use and the 

Moapa Valley Water District uses? 

Mr. DABODA. For the recreational aspect of it, we are working 

with Partners in Conservation. We just allowed them access to a 

hump-n-bump race event. Recently in the last month, we granted 

them access, they needed the vehicles walked down. 

Hunters for Big Horn sheep, historically, they are the only ones 

that really contact the reservation. We have never denied them access. We give them a temporary permit, get their driver’s license 

and their data, if they are coming out or scouting the site for Big 

Horn sheep. 

Regarding the Moapa Water District, we have partnerships with 

them right now currently with an MOU for lease agreement for 

water because we do not have Federal adjudicated water rights yet. 

We have worked with them in the last seven years on water issues. 

That is something that came up recently, so we will probably 

have to be in further discussion with the Moapa Water Authority 

on what they are looking at because they are looking at potentially 

wells on one of the parcels we are looking at. I guess it is proposed 

wells because there are no existing wells right now. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. 

I want to thank all of you for being here, for testifying, for sharing your knowledge and support of this legislation with the Committee. Thank you for answering the questions. Some of the other 

Committee members may want to send questions to you in writing. 

We ask that you respond quickly. 

The hearing record will remain open for ten days. 

34 

Thank you. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:44 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(35) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

Thank you Chairman Barrasso and Vice-Chairman Tester for the opportunity to 

submit testimony on these two bills that would transfer land into trust for a total 

of seven Indian tribes in Nevada. 

Nevada’s Great Basin has always been home to the Washoe, Paiute and Western 

Shoshone People. The first Nevadans have long been a voice for protecting our wild 

landscapes and enriching our state through their language and cultural heritage. I 

take the many obligations that the United States has to tribal nations seriously. 

Land is lifeblood to Native Americans and these bills provide space for housing, economic and community development, traditional uses and cultural protection. I would 

like to commend the tribes, whose immense work and collaboration made these bills 

possible, and I look forward to continuing to work with our First Nevadans on protecting their homelands. 

S. 1436, The Nevada Native Nations Land Act 

The Nevada Native Nations Land Act, S. 1436, would transfer land into trust for 

six northern Nevada tribes—the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe, the 

Duck Valley Shoshone Paiute Tribes, the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, the RenoSparks Indian Colony, the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe and the Duckwater Shoshone 

Tribe. The Nevada Native Nations Land Act would allow these six tribes to build 

housing for their members, preserve their cultural heritage and traditions, and provide opportunities for economic development. 

The Northern Paiutes have always made their homes throughout what is now 

Idaho, California, Utah and Nevada. The Western Shoshones have been living in 

what is now southern Idaho, central Nevada, northwestern Utah, and the Death 

Valley region of southern California. Due to westward expansion, our government 

pushed some Western Shoshones and Northern Paiutes into the same tribe and onto 

the same reservation where their descendants remain. 

The Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe now make their home along the 

Nevada-Oregon border. Starting as a military fort in 1865, the military reservation 

was turned into an Indian Agency in 1889 and then established as an Indian reservation in 1936. The reservation is currently made up of 16,354 acres in Nevada 

and 19,000 acres in Oregon. The Nevada Native Nations Land Act would add 19,094 

acres now managed by the BLM in Nevada to the lands already held in trust for 

the tribe. 

The Duck Valley Indian Reservation is the home of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 

who live along the state line between Nevada and Idaho. The reservation is 289,819 

acres, including 22,231 acres of wetlands. The tribes have limited economic opportunities and tribal members have made their way farming and ranching. This bill 

would place 82 acres of U.S. Forest Service land into trust for the tribes. The tribes 

plan to rehabilitate structures that were used by Forest Service employees into 

much-needed housing on the parcel. 

The Summit Lake Reservation is one of the most rural and remote reservations 

in Nevada along the Oregon and California borders. Established in 1913 for the 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, the reservation today is 12,573 acres. The tribe seeks 

land to maintain the integrity of its reservation, protect Summit Lake and restore 

the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. S. 1436 would transfer 941 acres of BLM-managed 

land into trust for the tribe. 

The Reno-Sparks Indian Colony has a very small 28-acre reservation in Reno, Nevada, established in 1917. Established as an Indian tribe under the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934, the colony now has 1,100 Paiute, Shoshone and Washoe tribal 

members. A newer 1,920 acre reservation in Hungry Valley, 19 miles north of Reno, 

was created by federal legislation in 1986. While the Hungry Valley Reservation 

provided the colony more space for residential and community development, the colony has experienced continual encroachment from the growing city of Reno and inVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:18 May 09, 2016 Jkt 020036 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\20036.TXT JACK
36 

creased public land use. Tribal members requested additional lands to ensure their 

safety, allow them to continue cultural practices and enhance their quality of life. 

The legislation would transfer 13,434 acres of BLM land into trust for the tribe. 

The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe have made their homelands around Pyramid 

Lake, a unique desert terminal lake. Pyramid Lake is one of the most valuable assets of the tribe and is entirely enclosed within the boundaries of the reservation. 

S. 1436 would expand the reservation with an additional 6,357 acres of BLM-managed land. 

The Duckwater Shoshone Tribe make their home on the Duckwater Shoshone 

Reservation in Nye County, Nevada. The tribe has 385 members and their reservation consists of 3,785 acres. The tribe has grazing rights to an additional 442,000 

acres known as the Duckwater Historic Grazing Area. This bill would convey 31,269 

acres of BLM administered land to the tribe. 

S. 1986, The Moapa Band of Paiutes Land Conveyance Act 

The Moapa Band of Paiute Indians have been in Nevada and the West since time 

immemorial and suffered great land losses through federal Indian policy. When the 

Moapa River Reservation was established in the late 1800s, it consisted of over two 

million acres. In its lust to settle the West, Congress drastically reduced the reservation to just 1,000 acres in 1875. It wasn’t until 1980 that Congress restored 

70,500 acres to the reservation. Today the reservation is approximately 71,954 

acres. 

The Moapa Band of Paiutes Land Conveyance Act, S. 1986, would direct the Secretary of the Interior to take 25,977 acres of land currently managed by the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) and the Bureau of Reclamation into trust for the 

Moapa People who live outside of Las Vegas, Nevada. This legislation would provide 

much needed land for the band’s housing, economic development and cultural preservation. 

Located on I–15, the band owns the Moapa Paiute Travel Plaza. The band is the 

first in Indian Country to develop utility-scale solar projects on tribal lands. Since 

southern Nevada has critical habitat for the desert tortoise, a species listed as 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act, the band works closely with federal, 

state, and local partners, members of the conservation community and interested 

stakeholders to develop their community in an environmentally responsible manner. 

This bill would also direct the Secretary of the Interior to take 88 acres that the 

band owns in fee into trust. The 88 acres are currently undeveloped and adjacent 

to the reservation. The band does not intend to conduct gaming on these lands as 

they have more lucrative lands along I–15. 

Lands legislation is important to me and the Indian tribes in Nevada. Throughout 

the history of our country, Native Americans have been removed and 

disenfranchised from their homelands. They have been treated so poorly. One of the 

first pieces of legislation I worked on when I came to Congress was the historic Pyramid Lake/Truckee-Carson Water Rights Settlement. This historic settlement involved two states, several cities, a lake, a river, endangered species, and two Indian 

tribes. These Indian water rights needed to be protected, just as tribal lands need 

to be restored especially in Nevada where tribal landbases are smaller and more 

rural and remote than in any other parts of Indian Country. I will continue to do 

what I can to right some of the many wrongs and help tribes restore their homelands. 

I greatly appreciate that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman have made time for 

this hearing and I look forward to working with the Committee to advance these 

bills. 

I request that my statement be included in the record. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PERLINE THOMPSON, CHAIRMAN, DUCKWATER

SHOSHONE TRIBE

S. 1436, ‘‘NEVADA NATIVE NATIONS LANDS ACT’’ 

On behalf of the Duckwater Shoshone Tribe, I would like to submit this statement 

in support of S. 1436, the ‘‘Nevada Native Nations Lands Act.’’ Our tribe is a member of the Nevada Tribal Land Coalition, which is seeking to expand land bases for 

tribes in Nevada to provide for sufficient housing, economic development and other 

essential tribal services. 

The Duckwater Shoshone Reservation, consisting of 3,785 acres of tribal land held 

in trust by the United States, is located in Nye County, Nevada, about 200 miles 

northwest of Las Vegas and 70 miles southwest of Ely. The Reservation consists of 

37 

three ranches purchased in 1940–43 by the Interior Department under the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act, plus grazing and water rights that were appurtenant to 

the ranches when purchased covering an additional 442,000 acres (Duckwater Historic Grazing Area). 

With enactment of S. 1436, approximately 31,269 acres of land administered by 

the Bureau of Land Management would be conveyed to be held in trust for the benefit of the Duckwater Shoshone Tribe. 

The Duckwater Tribe desperately needs a larger land base. As of July 10, 2015, 

there were 393 enrolled members of the Duckwater Shoshone Tribe. The Duckwater 

Reservation is so small that more than three-fourths of the Tribe’s members have 

been forced to leave to find jobs and housing. Only 88 tribally enrolled members live 

on the Reservation. Of the additional 63 people living on the Reservation, most are 

members of neighboring Tribes and/or spouses of Tribal members. The ranches that 

comprise the Reservation and originally supported three non-Indian families must 

now support 74 Indian families. Ten tribal members are currently running livestock 

on the Reservation and the Duckwater BLM Grazing Area. 

The BLM has reduced the Tribe’s allowable Animal Unit Months (AUMs) of grazing by 62 percent to the current level of 4,619 since the Reservation was created. 

The Tribe sold the tribal herd in 2003 because there is insufficient forage for both 

the Tribe and individual tribal cattlemen, who presently run 534 head of livestock. 

The Tribe is very anxious to acquire another herd if sufficient forage were available. 

The Tribe cannot maintain even existing livestock operations because of lack of sufficient grazing lands, and further economic development is impossible. The tribal 

economy consists entirely of tribal government operations, including the tribal headquarters, the tribal school and the tribal health clinic, plus very limited livestock 

grazing. 

The Duckwater Shoshone Tribe plans to utilize the additional lands to be convened under S. 1436 for economic development and community growth. These lands 

will allow the Tribe to expand agricultural operations, plan for renewable energy 

projects, additional housing & facilities development, and protection of cultural and 

spiritual sites, as well as wildlife. The Tribe’s plan for the lands incorporates our 

spiritual, cultural, natural resource management, and economic heritage with a goal 

of self-sufficiency. 

The Tribe has obtained resolutions and letters of support for Duckwater Reservation expansion and tribal economic development plans from the following: 

1. Nye County Commission 

2. Eureka County Commission 

3. National Congress of American Indians 

4. Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada 

5. Barrick Gold of North America 

6. Mount Wheeler Power Company 

7. General Moly Company 

8. Carole Hanks, Owner Blue Eagle Ranch 

9. David Weaver, Owner Angleworm Ranch 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony in support of S. 1436. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. VINTON HAWLEY, CHAIRMAN, PYRAMID LAKE PAIUTE

TRIBAL COUNCIL

SENATE BILL 1436 THE ‘‘NEVADA NATIVE NATIONS LANDS ACT’’ 

On behalf of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribal Council, the governing body of the 

Pyramid Lake Tribe and pursuant to the Council’s resolution dated May 21, 2014, 

I respectfully offer the following testimony in support of S. 1436, the Nevada Native 

Nations Lands Act. 

The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe is a federally recognized Indian Tribe and has 

a government-to-government relationship with the United States of America. 

The Pyramid Lake Reservation lies approximately 35 miles northeast of Reno, Nevada in northwestern Nevada. It lies almost entirely in Washoe County. The Reservation has 742.2 square miles in land area and includes all of Pyramid Lake, and 

all of the Truckee River from the Big Bend north. The Reservation is centered on 

Pyramid Lake, and the lake itself comprises 25 percent of the reservation’s area. 

The Reservation includes most of the Lake Mountain Range, portions of the Virginia 

Mountains and Pah Rah Range and the southern end of the Smoke Creek Desert. 

There are three communities on the Reservation. Sutcliffe is located on the western 

shore of the Lake, Nixon is at the southern end of the Lake, and Wadsworth, the 

38 

largest, is located near the Big Bend of the Truckee at the southern end of the reservation, just north of the non-reservation town of Fernley. 

The reservation land was first set aside for the Northern Paiute at request of the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1859. The Reservation was not surveyed until 1865. 

President Ulysses S. Grant subsequently affirmed the Reservation’s existence by executive order dated March 23, 1874. 

Our Tribe has a long history of repatriating ancestral lands within and contiguous 

to the reservation to Tribal ownership to protect, conserve, and enhance the cultural 

and natural resources of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Reservation. 

The Tribe has long sought the ancestral lands set forth in S. 1436 for inclusion 

within the legal boundaries of the Reservation. In 1990, President George H. W. 

Bush signed Public Law 101–618 which included a provision to allow private lands 

within or contiguous to the Reservation to be acquired by means of a Federal Land 

Exchange and then be incorporated within the Reservation. Subsequently, a number 

of land exchanges authorized by PL 101–618 were successfully completed enabling 

the Tribe to acquire certain lands in the Pah Rah Mountain Range on the southwest 

border of the reservation. Unfortunately, almost 8,000 acres of private land acquired 

in the Pah Rah Range under PL 101–618 were conveyed to the United States under 

the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rather than into Trust 

status. The Tribe has long held that these properties should have been put into 

Trust status. The proposed legislation would help address this by providing for the 

transfer of some of these as lands in the Pah Range that lie in Pyramid Lake’s watershed to Trust status. 

Additionally, in 2008 the Tribe acquired private lands contiguous to the eastern 

boundary of the Reservation in the Mud Slough area which lands are intermingled 

with isolated parcels of BLM land. S. 1436 would unify the land ownership pattern 

allowing for better, more comprehensive Tribal land management of this area. 

Incorporation of the federal land that is contiguous to the Reservation will help 

protect the Pyramid Lake watershed, and the lake’s world-renowned fishery. Transfer of these lands would also allow the Tribe to better manage the watershed of Pyramid Lake, the central feature of the Reservation. 

Pyramid Lake is home to the cui-ui, Chasmistes cujus, a large sucker fish endemic 

to Pyramid Lake. The cui-ui is not only a critically endangered species, but is also 

one of the few surviving members of its genus. As suggested by the translation of 

the Tribe’s name—‘‘Cui ui Ticutta’’—the ‘‘Cui ui Eaters’’—these fish were and remain integral to the Tribe’s culture and were a vital subsistence food source. Following the construction of Derby Dam in 1905 and diversion of much of the Truckee 

River’s flow, the Pyramid Lake fishery declined and by 1930 it was no longer capable of supplying even subsistence food. 

Pyramid Lake is also home to the federally listed Lahontan cutthroat trout. The 

trout were and remain integral to the Tribe’s culture and are central to the Tribe’s 

economy and remain a vital food source for Tribal members. Lahontan cutthroat 

trout were plentiful in the mid-1880’s. But as more people moved to the area and 

began to use the natural resources, what was once plentiful became depleted. Overfishing of the lake’s population, introduction of exotic fish and habitat degradation 

caused the collapse of the commercial Lahontan cutthroat in Pyramid Lake by 1944. 

Pyramid Lake was restocked with fish captured from Summit Lake (Nevada). However, in the 1970s, fish, believed to have been stocked almost a century ago, from 

the Pyramid Lake strain were discovered in a small stream along the Pilot Peak 

area of western Utah border, and are a genetic match to the original strain. This 

Pilot Peak strain is now integral to the reintroduction and planting programs maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Lahontan cutthroat trout were 

classified as an endangered species between 1970 and 1975, then the classification 

was relaxed to threatened species in 1975, and reaffirmed as threatened in 2008. 

As stated above, transfer of these lands will allow the Tribe to better manage its 

natural resources and protect Pyramid Lake and its fish population thereby achieving cultural, economic and environmental benefits. 

Finally, the historic range of the Pyramid Lake Paiute people was far greater 

than the current boundary of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Reservation, and transfer 

of federal lands that are contiguous to the current boundary of the Reservation 

would allow the Pyramid Lake Paiute people to expand their present day Reservation to include additional lands that they occupied in the past. 

Early on representatives of the Pyramid Lake Tribe reached out to nearby stakeholders in an effort to address concerns they may have. We have in good faith attempted to address all legitimate concerns that have been brought to our attention. 

And, even though the proposed legislation is clearly subject to honoring any and all 

valid existing rights, in an effort to accommodate concerns expressed by mining interests and recreationists, the Tribe acquiesced to requests to remove over 10,000 

39 

acres from the bill as originally proposed. After doing so, the Tribe agreed to remove 

an additional approximately 3,500 acres to accommodate concerns that were only 

brought to the Tribe’s attention on July 22, 2014. I believe the Pyramid Lake Tribe 

has been extremely willing to compromise in order to make this bill a reality and 

on behalf of the Pyramid Lake Tribal Council and all our members, I wish to thank 

Senators Reid and Heller for their support of this legislation and respectfully ask 

that you and your colleagues support S. 1436. 

Thank you for your consideration of the preceding testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RANDI DESOTO, CHAIRWOMAN, SUMMIT LAKE PAIUTE

TRIBAL COUNCIL

On behalf of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony in support of S. 1436, the Nevada Native Nations Lands 

Act. 

Background 

The Summit Lake Paiute Tribe is a federally recognized Indian Tribe and has a 

government-to-government relationship with the Federal Government. 

By election on October 24, 1964, the members of the Agai Panina Ticutta (Summit 

Lake Fish Eaters) Tribe of the Northern Paiute Nation gave up their traditional 

form of government and conditionally adopted the form of government that was set 

forth by the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (see Articles of Association (Constitution) and changed the name of the Tribe to the ‘‘Summit Lake Paiute Tribe.’’ 

The Tribe’s Articles of Association were approved by John A. Carver Jr., Acting 

Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior on January 8, 1965. 

The Tribe’s Reservation is in a very remote location in northwestern Nevada 

about 50 miles south of the Oregon state line, and about 50 miles east of the California state line and 5 hours by road from Reno, Nevada. 

Prior to contact with Europeans and Euro-Americans, the Agai Panina Ticutta 

controlled at least 2,800 square miles of land including land that is now in the 

states of Oregon and California. 

At one time, the Reservation was part of a military reservation, known as Camp 

McGarry that was established by Executive order in 1867. The military reservation 

was abandoned in 1871 and transferred from the War Department to the Department of the Interior. 

The Reservation was established on January 14, 1913 by a President’s Executive 

Order, number 1681. The Executive Order set aside about 5,026 acres in trust for 

the Tribe. Successive actions have added additional acreage to the Reservation. 

Today, the total acreage of the Reservation is about 12,573 acres. The total surface 

of the lake fluctuates between 900 and over 600 acres between the run off of snow 

melt in spring and dry summer conditions. Reservation lands surround Summit 

Lake except in one area on the west side of Summit Lake. Senate Bill 1436 would 

incorporate these public domain lands into the Reservation thereby restoring the integrity of the Reservation and allowing for better, more comprehensive management 

of the Lake and its fish population. 

Summit Lake is home to the federally listed Lahontan cutthroat trout. As suggested by the translation of the Tribe’s name—‘‘Agai Panina Ticutta’’—the ‘‘Summit 

Lake Fish Eaters’’, the trout were and remain integral to the Tribe’s culture and 

are a vital food source. 

Lahontan cutthroat trout were plentiful in the mid-1880s. But as more people 

moved to the area and began to use the natural resources, what was once plentiful 

became depleted. Overfishing of the lake populations, introduction of exotic fish and 

habitat degradation caused the collapse of the commercial Lahontan cutthroat from 

nearby lakes such as Lake Tahoe in 1939 and Pyramid Lake five years later in 

1944. 

Cooperative efforts to improve the status of Lahontan cutthroat trout began as 

early as the 1940’s. Habitat improvement projects and livestock grazing enclosures 

were initiated as early as 1969. 

S. 1436 presents an opportunity to continue efforts to restore Summit Lake and 

its fishery. Transfer of the 941 acres of public domain lands in Township 42 North, 

Range 25 East, Sections 35 & 36 to the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe for inclusion in 

the Summit Lake Reservation—the only lands that surround Summit Lake which 

are not a part of the Reservation—will allow for significantly improved management 

and habitat restoration for existing and future Lahontan cutthroat trout populations. 

40 

The Summit Lake Tribe has long sought these lands which lands should have 

been a part of the Reservation from the Reservation’s inception a century ago. 

Transfer of these lands will unify the Reservation, allow the Tribe to better manage its natural resources and protect Summit Lake and its fish population thereby 

achieving cultural, economic and environmental benefits. 

Thank you for your consideration of this bill. On behalf of the Summit Lake Tribe 

I respectfully and strongly urge your support. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN DAY, CHAIRMAN, TUOLUMNE BAND OF MEWUK INDIANS


1007b1.eps
41 


1007b2.eps
42 

Attachments 


1007b3.eps
43 


1007b6.eps
44 


1007b4.eps
45 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. REYN LENO, TRIBAL COUNCIL CHAIR, CONFEDERATED

TRIBES OF THE GRAND RONDE COMMUNITY OF OREGON

Chairman Barrasso, Vice-Chair Tester, Members of the Committee: 

My name is Reyn Leno. I am the Tribal Council Chair of the Confederated Tribes 

of Grand Ronde in Oregon. I am proud to present testimony today on behalf of over 

5,000 tribal members and appreciate the opportunity to provide views on S. 818, a 

bill to amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act to make technical corrections, and 

S. 817, a bill to provide for the addition of certain real property to the reservation 

of the Siletz Tribe in the State of Oregon. 

I ask that my complete written testimony, which includes An Administrative History of the Coast Reservation authored by Dr. David G. Lewis and Dr. Daniel L. 

Boxberger; supporting resolutions from Polk and Yamhill County Commissioners; 

and correspondence pertaining to both bills from Representative Kurt Schrader, affected Indian Tribes and Counties be included in the record. 

Grand Ronde has worked tirelessly for over six years to pass legislation to rectify 

a problem created solely by the Federal Government’s termination of the Tribe in 

1954. This legislation has the bipartisan support of the entire Oregon Congressional 

Delegation and the unanimous support of the two affected Counties; and the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs. No opposition or concerns have been raised by other Tribes or affected interests. 

This simple and straightforward legislation has been the subject of four congressional hearings and was passed as a standalone bill by the House of Representatives 

under suspension of the rules on January 13, 2014. Despite all of our efforts and 


1007b5.eps
46 

the overwhelming support for the legislation, it failed to pass the Senate in the last 

Congress. 

S. 818 is a consensus-based legislative proposal to assist the Tribe in reacquiring 

lands within its original reservation. Based on the universal support of S. 818 and 

the importance of the legislation to the Tribe, I request passage of the legislation 

be a top priority of the Committee and the Senate. 

As a result of the Federal Government’s allotment and termination policies, 

Grand Ronde lost both its federal recognition and its original reservation of more 

than 60,000 acres. Following the Tribe’s termination in 1954, Tribal members and 

the Tribal government worked tirelessly to rebuild the Grand Ronde community. 

In 1983, these efforts resulted in the Grand Ronde Restoration Act, followed by 

the Grand Ronde Reservation Act in 1988, which restored 9,811 acres of the Tribe’s 

original reservation to the Grand Ronde people. The United States Congress itself 

recognized Grand Ronde’s deep connection to Yamhill, Tillamook and Polk Counties 

in the 1983 Grand Ronde Restoration Act by expressly providing that Grand Ronde 

may take land into trust within these three counties for the purpose of establishing 

a Reservation. 25 U.S.C. § 713(c) (3). Since 1988, the Tribe has pursued the goal of 

securing its sovereignty by acquiring additional parcels of its original reservation 

and providing on-reservation jobs and services to Tribal members. 

The Tribe’s restored reservation is located in the heart of the original Grand 

Ronde Reservation. Today, the Tribe owns a total of 13,474 acres of land, of which 

11,539 have reservation or trust status. Of the reservation/trust acres, 10,722 are 

forested timber land and the remaining 817 acres accommodate the Tribe’s headquarters, housing projects, casino complex, and supporting infrastructure. Approximately 1,934 remain in fee. 

The Tribe is hampered in its efforts to restore land within its original reservation 

by a lengthy and cumbersome Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) process. After it acquires a parcel in fee, the Tribe must prepare a fee-to-trust application package for 

the BIA. The BIA then processes the application as either an ‘‘on-reservation acquisition’’ or an ‘‘off-reservation acquisition.’’ Because the BIA Pacific Regional Office 

does not recognize that the Tribe has exterior reservation boundaries (instead, it has 

distinct parcels deemed reservation through legislation), all parcels are processed 

under the more extensive off-reservation acquisition regulations—even if the parcel 

is located within the boundaries of the Tribe’s original reservation. 

After the land is accepted into trust, the Tribe must take an additional step of 

amending its Reservation Act through federal legislation to include the trust parcels 

in order for the land to be deemed reservation land. Grand Ronde has been forced 

to come to the United States Congress six times in the last 20 years to amend its 

Reservation Act to secure Reservation status for its trust lands. This process is unduly time consuming, expensive, bureaucratic, and often takes years to complete. 

In order to make both the fee-to-trust and reservation designation process less 

burdensome, Senator Wyden reintroduced S. 818, which would: (1) establish that 

real property located within the boundaries of the Tribe’s original 1857 Executive 

Order reservation shall be (i) treated as on reservation land by the BIA, for the purpose of processing acquisitions of real property into trust, and (ii) deemed a part 

of the Tribe’s reservation, once taken into trust; (2) establish that the Tribe’s lands 

held in trust on the date of the legislation will automatically become part of the 

Tribe’s reservation; and (3) correct technical errors in the legal descriptions of the 

parcels included in the Reservation Act. 

S. 818 does not authorize the transfer of any land to the Grand Ronde. 

S. 818 would not only save Grand Ronde time and money which could be better 

utilized serving its membership, but would also streamline the Interior Department’s land-into-trust responsibilities to Grand Ronde, thus saving taxpayer money. 

At a time when federal financial support for Indian Country is dramatically decreasing, Grand Ronde should be afforded the tools necessary to reduce its costs and 

maximize savings. 

I would now like to provide Grand Ronde’s views on S. 817. 

While Grand Ronde is opposed to S. 817 as currently drafted, we again reiterate 

our support for the legislation if it is amended to limit its scope to Lincoln County, 

consistent with the Siletz Indian Tribe Restoration Act. The legislation is materially 

different from Grand Ronde’s bill and would significantly infringe on the rights of 

Grand Ronde and other tribes in western Oregon. 

S. 817, too, has been the subject of four congressional hearings. However, unlike 

Grand Ronde’s legislation, significant opposition to S. 817 has been raised by Members of Congress, as well as counties and Indian Tribes directly impacted by the legislation. 

S. 817 is opposed by three of the six counties affected by the legislation (Yamhill, 

Tillamook, and Lane County), two Indian Tribes (Grand Ronde and Confederated 

47 

1Definition of ‘‘On-Reservation’’ for Land Acquisition Purposes at Siletz Reservation, Memorandum Opinion by the Assistant Regional Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior, June 1, 

1994. 2 Brief of U.S. Department of the Interior at 4, City of Lincoln v, Us. Dept. of the Interior and 

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon, No. 99–330 (D. Or. June 23,2000). 

Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians), and Representative Suzanne 

Bonamici, who represents Grand Ronde and Yamhill County, has expressed concerns with it. 

It should also be noted, Representative Peter DeFazio, then ranking member of 

the House Resources Committee, who represents Lane County and the Confederated 

Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians Tribe, both of whom are opposed to S. 817, made the following comments regarding the Siletz legislation in the 

House Resources Committee last year; ‘‘There have been concerns expressed to me 

by commissioners in six counties about this legislation and by other Representatives 

from Oregon who represent some of those six counties have also echoed those concerns. I’m not exactly certain how we satisfy the concerns of the counties but again 

that needs some work before this bill can move to the floor. So, I appreciate what 

the gentleman has done to accommodate me today, I appreciate the Chairman’s 

work on this but more needs to be done before we would want to see this bill on 

the Floor of the House.’’ 

As a result of erroneous claims made by the Siletz Tribe regarding their historical 

connection to Yamhill and Tillamook Counties, each of the counties invited both 

Tribes to appear simultaneously before an open and public commission meeting to 

provide their tribe’s legal, historical and cultural connections to each county. As a 

result of these meetings, Tillamook County and Yamhill County unanimously opposed the Siletz Tribe’s asserted connections and primacy to their counties and both 

reaffirmed their opposition to the Siletz legislation. 

Enclosed are letters of opposition from Yamhill County, Tillamook County, Lane 

County, Grand Ronde and the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and 

Siuslaw Indians to the Siletz legislation. 

Unlike Grand Ronde’s bill—which seeks to improve the process of acquiring lands 

in trust and return to reservation status those lands the Tribe reacquires within its 

original reservation—we believe the purpose of the Siletz legislation is to eliminate 

the historic claims of other tribes to the former Coast Reservation (which was set 

aside for all tribes in western Oregon) by equating the boundaries of the Siletz Reservation (established 1875) with the boundaries of the Coast Reservation (established 1855). 

The Coast Reservation, as described in the Executive Order dated November 9, 

1855, was never designated exclusively for the Siletz. It was set aside for Indians 

throughout western Oregon, including the antecedent tribes and bands of the Grand 

Ronde, such as the tribes of the Willamette Valley, Umpqua Valley, and Rogue 

River Valley. The Siletz are aware that Grand Ronde has made its own historic 

claims to the Coast Reservation. Their proposed legislation is nothing more than a 

veiled attempt to eradicate the claims of Grand Ronde and other western Oregon 

tribes to the Coast Reservation. 

The Federal Government has not supported the Siletz’s expansive view of its reservation boundaries, holding that the Tribe’s 1977 Restoration Act and its 1980 Reservation Act define its reservation boundaries. For example, a 1994 opinion issued 

by the Assistant Regional Solicitor of the Department of the Interior stated the following: 

. . . Congress made clear in the [Siletz] Tribe’s 1977 Restoration Act that ’any 

reservation’ for the Tribe is that established pursuant to § 711e of the Act. Thus, 

the reservation established pursuant to the 1980 Act adopting the reservation 

plan constitutes the Tribe’s reservation for purposes of the land acquisition regulations in 25 C.F.R. Part 151. 1 (citations omitted) 

In subsequent litigation by the Siletz, challenging the BIA’s interpretation of its 

land acquisition regulations, the Department of Justice supported the 1994 opinion 

by the Regional Solicitor. In a response brief filed on behalf of the Federal Government, the Department of Justice stated: 

[The 1994 opinion] analyzed the regulatory provision and concluded that it 

would not be consistent with the intent behind the regulations to consider all 

land located within the boundaries of the former Siletz or Coast Reservation to 

be within the Tribe’s reservation. 2

S. 817 is inconsistent with Section 7(d) of the Siletz Indian Tribe Restoration Act 

(25 U.S.C. § 711e(d)), which provides that ‘‘the Secretary shall not accept any real 

48 

3See Letter from Delores Pigsley, Tribal Chairwoman, Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, 

to The Honorable Ron Wyden, United States Senator, at 2, April 17, 2013 (The Siletz Tribe is 

the legal successor in interest to the historical Coos, Siuslaw and Lower Umpqua Tribes of Indians.) 

property in trust for the benefit of the tribe or its members unless such real property is located within Lincoln County, State of Oregon.’’ The property described in 

the S. 817 is much more expansive, covering Lincoln, Lane, Tillamook, Yamhill, 

Benton, and Douglas Counties. 

Moreover, since the legislation includes property in Tillamook and Yamhill Counties, the legislation infringes on sovereign interests of Grand Ronde. Specifically, 

Section 8 of the Grand Ronde Restoration Act (25 U.S.c. § 713f(c)), provides that ‘‘the 

Secretary shall not accept any real property in trust for the benefit of the tribe or 

its members which is not located within the political boundaries of Polk, Yamhill, 

or Tillamook County, Oregon.’’ 

Neither the authors of the Siletz legislation or the Siletz Tribe has ever been able 

to answer this fundamental question: What legal, historical or treaty obligation provides the authority for the Siletz Tribe to take land into trust under an expedited 

application process in counties specifically designated by Congress for the Grand 

Ronde Reservation in 1983? 

Yamhill County includes a significant portion of the Grand Ronde Reservation. 

While S. 817 allows for the easing of requirements to take land into trust for the 

Siletz in Yamhill County, no part of the Siletz Tribe’s reservation, however, is located in Yamhill County, nor to my knowledge, has the Siletz Tribe ever attempted 

to take land into trust in Yamhill County. 

Additionally, Tillamook County is also included in S. 817. Many members of the 

Tillamook tribes (Nestucca, Nehalem, Salmon River and Tillamook) married into 

families living at the Grand Ronde Reservation, while continuing to hunt, fish and 

reside along the Oregon coast. The Siletz Tribe does not have the sole claim to the 

entire Tillamook Territory of the Oregon coast, and it would be inappropriate to 

allow them to assert such a claim today. Also, Grand Ronde owns land in Tillamook 

County, one of the counties identified by Congress in the Grand Ronde Restoration 

Act as an area where the Tribe can acquire trust land to re-establish its Reservation. 

S. 817 is also opposed by the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and 

Siuslaw Indians, as it infringes on their historic lands. Even though the Coos are 

separately recognized by the United States as an independent sovereign, the Siletz 

Tribe takes the position that it is the legal successor in interest to this tribal confederation. 3

While Grand Ronde, Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indian and others opposed to the legislation can agree to disagree with the Siletz 

Tribe’s claim of primacy to the Coast Reservation, the simple facts are that S. 817 

is (1) is opposed by two Oregon Tribes with legitimate cultural and historical claims 

to the areas involved; (2) is opposed by three of the six counties affected by the legislation; and (3) Representative Bonamici who represents Grand Ronde and Yamhill 

County has expressed concerns with it. 

In conclusion, it has been insinuated the Grand Ronde and Siletz legislation are 

paired and that the Grand Ronde’s legislation cannot advance without an agreement 

to accept the Siletz legislation. 

If true, I find this to be an affront to our sovereignty and government-to-government relationship. Forcing Grand Ronde to have accept the Siletz Tribe’s rewriting 

of history and encroachment of its ceded and historical lands in order to rectify a 

serious wrong is inappropriate, violates tribal sovereignty and is plain just bad public policy. 

Representative Kurt Schrader, who represents both the Grand Ronde and Siletz 

Tribe and who has introduced both bills in the House of Representatives made it 

clear in his March 2013 letter to the House Resources Committee stating, ‘‘Whereas 

H.R. 841 and H.R. 931 were introduced to address the individual needs of each 

Tribe, I feel it is important that each bill be considered by the committee on its own 

merits and support and should not be considered paired.’’ 

For these reasons, we urge the Committee not to proceed with further consideration of S. 817 in its current form. 

I thank you for your time and consideration today. 

Attachments 

49 


1007c1.eps
50 


1007c2.eps
51 


1007c3.eps
52 


1007c4.eps
53 


1007c5.eps
54 


1007c6.eps
55 


1007c7.eps
56 


1007c8.eps
57 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LINDSEY MANNING, CHAIRMAN, SHOSHONE-PAIUTE

TRIBES OF THE DUCK VALLEY INDIAN RESERVATION

On behalf of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation 

(the ‘‘Tribes’’), I am pleased to submit testimony to the Committee on S. 1436, the 

‘‘Nevada Native Nations Lands Act.’’ I thank Chairman Barasso and Vice Chairman 

Tester for convening a hearing, and I want to especially thank Senators Reid and 

Heller for their leadership in introducing S. 1436. 

I join the other Nevada Indian Tribes covered under S. 1436 in supporting this 

bill and I urge the Committee and the Senate to approve it. Similar legislation, S. 

2480, was reported out of this Committee in 2014, and H.R. 2455 passed the House 

of Representatives and was pending on the floor of the Senate at the end of the last 

session. 

The lands we seek to have conveyed to us in trust for our benefit—approximately 

82 acres—are currently managed by the United States Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture. The parcel is located approximately three miles south of 

our Reservation and near Mountain City, Nevada. We seek this parcel of land for 

the 11 outbuildings, including housing units, detached garages, a corral and hay 

shed, for our use and management. The site was abandoned by the Forest Service 

in 2008 when the Service moved its District headquarters to Elko, Nevada. 

The Forest Service parcel constitutes a tiny portion of the 71,000 acres of mostly 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands that would be transferred to tribal control under the bill. The modest acquisition we seek will allow us to renovate some 

nine homes in close proximity to our Reservation and help us provide much needed 

housing, assist us recruit public safety, health professionals and other personnel to 

work on the Duck Valley Reservation and provide construction jobs to our members. 

The land transfer is supported by both local and national Forest Service officials 

and is not controversial. We, along with the Nevada Tribal Land Coalition Tribes, 

fully support S. 1436. The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes’ provision to S. 1436 (Sec. 3(b)) 

is required because the Service has limited statutory and regulatory authority to 

convey lands it manages to an Indian tribe and have such lands be held in trust 

by the United States for our benefit. The Service’s primary authority for conveying 

land to non-federal parties comes from the Forest Service Facility Realignment and 

Enhancement Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109–54, 119 Stat. 559, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

§ 580d), and legislation authorizing land exchanges. See 43 U.S.C. § 1716 (Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended). 

Restrictions in both laws limit the quantity of land the Service may transfer, impose other conditions on the Service’s conveyances and do not clearly provide that 

conveyance of Forest Service lands when made to a federally recognized Indian tribe 

are held in trust by the United States for the Indian tribe’s benefit. Section 3(b) of 

S. 1436 resolves this issue by providing that an approximately 82 acre parcel of U.S. 

Forest Service land in Elko County, Nevada is hereby declared to be held in trust 

by the United States for the benefit of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes and made part 

of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. We believe that the provision is entirely consistent with the government-to-government relationship that exists between the 

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes and the United States. 

The Duck Valley Indian Reservation is a remote, rural reservation that straddles 

the IdahoNevada border along the Owyhee River. The Reservation was established 

in 1877 and expanded in 1886 and 1910. Today, the Reservation encompasses 450 

square miles in Elko County, Nevada and Owhyee County, Idaho. 

Over 1,700 tribal members, out of a population of just over 2,000 enrolled members, reside on the Reservation. Tribal members make their living as farmers and 

ranchers, though many are employed by the Tribes. We are quite proud of the fact 

that for nearly two decades we have assumed the duties of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under Indian Self-Determination Act Self-Governance compacts. We also carry out federal 

programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Federal 

Highway Administration under agreements with those agencies. While we employ 

many tribal members, we also employ non-members who require affordable housing. 

Unfortunately, infrastructure on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation is in short supply, especially affordable housing. 

The closest communities to Owyhee with suitable housing are in Elko, Nevada, 

with a population of 51,000, located 98 miles to the south and Mountain Home, 

Idaho, with a population of 14,000, located 95 miles to the north. With abandoned 

improvements less than 20 miles from Owyhee that we can renovate, the Forest 

Service property would help us address our housing needs, provide construction and 

training jobs, strengthen our governmental services and programs by assisting us 

retain health care professionals, law enforcement and conservation officers and 

58 

other first responders and personnel and establish a presence on the site that has 

been absent for the last five years. 

Acquisition of the Forest Service parcel, located less than 20 miles from our tribal 

headquarters, elementary and high schools, health clinic, fire department, tribal 

court and public safety offices, would provide us with additional housing units close 

to the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. Many of our members live in homes that 

require major renovation and repairs and we cannot house many health care providers, law enforcement personnel or other first responders. 

The Forest Service property we seek to have placed in trust comprises a small 

portion of the Service’s Mountain City Ranger Station Administrative Site which the 

Service abandoned in 2008, when the Service relocated its District headquarters to 

Elko, Nevada, about 80 miles to the south. The improvements require repairs that 

we are eager to make to ensure that they can be used safely to house members and 

tribal personnel we need to recruit. 

The land transfer authorized by S. 1436 will permit us to administer this site, 

renovate and utilize the improvements for our benefit. The improvements we plan 

to make would provide an opportunity to put our local people to work and held reduce the near 75 percent unemployment rate on our Reservation. We plan to utilize 

the renovation work as a training exercise through our Tribal Employment Rights 

Ordinance (TERO). We also plan to implement a youth employment training program to assist in the renovation of the units and other buildings. The work and 

training will benefit our members, as will the required routine maintenance of the 

property and improvements. The close proximity of the property to our Reservation 

and administrative offices will better ensure that we properly operate and maintain 

the site. 

In conclusion, for the reasons detailed above, conveyance of the Forest Service 

parcel in trust for our benefit will assist the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes address our 

housing shortage, strengthen our tribal government programs by helping us retain 

personnel who require affordable housing only miles from the Duck Valley Indian 

Reservation and create construction work and job training opportunities for our 

members. 

We look forward to working with Senators Reid and Heller and the Committee 

to see S. 1436 enacted into law and to then work with the Forest Service, BLM and 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to survey the property and place it in trust for 

our benefit. 

The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes would be pleased to answer any questions that the 

Committee may have concerning S. 1436, or provide additional information regarding the Forest Service parcel. We again thank Senators Reid and Heller for introducing the bill and including the Forest Service land transfer in the legislation. 

Thank you for affording the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes the opportunity to submit 

testimony to the Committee concerning S. 1436. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DELORES PIGSLEY, CHAIRMAN, CONFEDERATED

TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS OF OREGON

Need for This Legislation 

The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon (‘‘Siletz Tribe’’) is seeking federal legislation to recognize the boundaries of the Tribe’s original 1855 reservation, 

for the purpose of being able to put former Siletz Reservation land to which the 

Tribe has re-acquired fee title, back into trust through the ‘‘on-reservation’’ process. 

It will put the Siletz Tribe on equal footing with other tribes in relation to their 

respective reservations. Our reservation was established by Executive Order of 

Franklin Pierce on November 9, 1855, pursuant to stipulations of several treaties 

of western Oregon Tribes. 

Because of our history of having been a terminated Tribe which has been ‘‘Restored’’ this legislation is needed in order to clarify the Secretary of Interior’s authority to take land into trust for the Siletz Tribe under the Interior Department’s 

fee-to-trust regulations at 25 C.F.R. Part 151. Enactment of this legislation will not 

create a reservation for the Siletz Tribe, and will not affect the jurisdiction or authority of state or local governments. Enactment of this legislation will also not affect the legal rights of any other Indian tribe. 

The purpose of the legislation is to allow for more timely processing of the Siletz 

Tribe’s fee-to-trust applications by allowing those applications to be approved at the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs’ regional level. Defining a geographic boundary for a tribe 

that lacks a recognized exterior reservation boundary provides an historical reference point for the Bureau to process those applications under the Department’s 

on-reservation rather than off-reservation criteria in 25 C.F.R,. Part 151. No land 

59 

acquired in trust by the Siletz Tribe under the proposed legislation may be used for 

gaming purposes. 

The Siletz Tribe’s modern situation is a product of a number of federal policies, 

laws and history that, have, adversely affected the Tribe over the last 175 years. 

Most Indian tribes have reservations with well-defined exterior reservation boundaries where the Tribe owns all or a large portion of the land within that boundary. 

While land within that boundary may have transferred to non-Indian ownership because of federal policies such as the Allotment Act, the reservation boundary remains intact for most federal purposes and for purposes of exercising tribal sovereign authority e.g.: if the Tribe reacquires fee title to a parcel within that boundary, it is treated as on-reservation fee to trust acquisition. The definition of ‘‘Indian 

country’’ under federal law, which defines the outer extent of tribal territorial authority, includes all land within the boundaries of an Indian Reservation. See 18 

U.S.C. § 1151. While this is a criminal statute, the definition has been applied by 

the U.S. Supreme Court in civil contexts also. 

The Siletz Tribe’s 1855 original 1.1 million acre reservation was reduced over time 

by Executive Order, statute, the Allotment Act, and was finally, was completely lost 

by the Tribe’s termination by federal legislation in 1954 (finalized 1956). 

When the Siletz Tribe was restored to federally recognized status in 1977 by federal statute, 25 U.S.C. § 711 et seq., no lands were restored to the Tribe although 

the Act called for the future establishment of a reservation. 25 U.S.C. § 711e. Congress created the new Siletz Reservation in 1980 and added to that reservation in 

1994. Pub.L. No. 96–340, Sept. 4, 1980, 94 Stat. 1072; Pub.L. No. 103–435, Nov. 2, 

1994, 108 Stat. 4566. Only a small percentage of the Tribe’s original reservation 

lands were restored to the Tribe. The Siletz Tribe’s reservation consists of approximately 50 separate, scattered parcels of reservation land. Each parcel has its own 

‘‘exterior’’ boundary; there is no overall reservation boundary currently recognized 

by the BIA. 

The Indian Reorganization Act at 25 U.S.C. § 465 authorizes the Secretary of Interior to acquire land in trust for Indian tribes. This provision was enacted as part 

of the IRA, to reverse the devastating loss of lands suffered by Indian tribes between 1887 and 1934 (over 90 million acres) and to restore a minimally adequate 

land base for those tribes. The Siletz Restoration Act expressly applies this Section 

to the Siletz Tribe. 25 U.S.C. § 711a(a). Federal regulations implementing this Section appear at 25 C.F.R. Part 151. These regulations distinguish between on-reservation and off-reservation trust acquisitions for purposes of processing tribal applications to take land into trust. These regulations do not establish or create a reservation or reservation boundary for land taken into trust. Because of the language 

in these federal regulations and the Siletz Tribe’s history, any additional land the 

Siletz Tribe currently seeks to have placed in trust status under federal law is considered to be ‘‘off-reservation’’ because the land is located outside the boundaries of 

what is recognized as the Siletz Tribe’s current reservation (each of the 50 scattered 

parcels of reservation land). 

There are no geographic limitations on the Secretary of Interior’s authority to 

take land into trust for an Indian tribe in under Section 465. No regulations implementing this provision of the 1934 IRA were enacted until 1980. See 45 Federal 

Register 62036 (Sept. 18, 1980). No distinction between on and off reservation feeto-trust requests by Tribes was included in the original regulations. It was not until 

passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988 and the subsequent requests 

from some tribes to place off-reservation land in trust for gaming purposes that 

changes to the regulations were considered. The Department began enforcing an internal on-reservation/off-reservation fee-to-trust policy in 1991, and in 1995 added 

this distinction into the fee-to-trust regulations. See 60 Federal Register 32879 

(June 23, 1995). No consideration or discussion of the disadvantaged situation or 

needs of terminated and restored tribes like the Siletz Tribe’s factual situation was 

included in making these regulatory changes. 

The current fee-to-trust regulations distinguish between on-reservation trust acquisitions (25 C.F.R. § 151.10) and off-reservation trust acquisitions (25 C.F.R. 

§ 151.11). The requirements for a Tribe obtaining land in trust off-reservation are 

more restrictive, more costly and time- consuming, and require additional justification. Because of the Siletz Tribe’s unique history, all fee-to-trust requests by the 

Tribe are currently reviewed under the off- reservation process, even within the 

boundaries of the Tribe’s historical reservation. This application of federal law and 

regulations discriminates against the Siletz Tribe in relation to treatment of other 

Indian tribes that can have fee-to-trust applications processed under the on-reservation provisions of the regulations within the boundaries of their historical reservations. 

60 

S. 817 will place the Siletz Tribe on the same footing as all other federally- recognized Indian tribes who did not suffer through the tragedy of termination or the 

complete loss of their reservations. It will treat the Siletz Tribe’s fee-to-trust requests within its historical reservation the same as fee-to-trust requests from other 

tribes within their historical reservations. It will facilitate the gradual re-acquisition 

of a tribal land base for the Siletz Tribe so the Tribe can meet the needs of its members. It will reduce cost, time and bureaucratic obstacles to the Tribe obtaining approval of its land into trust requests. The legislation is consistent with the definition 

of on- reservation as set out in the current fee-to-trust regulations at 25 C.F.R. 

§ 151.2(f). 

The Siletz Tribe has an ongoing critical need to acquire additional lands in trust 

to meet the needs of the Tribe and its members. The Tribe received a modest approximately 3630 acres in trust as a Reservation in 1980, comprised of 37 scattered 

parcels. This land was primarily former BLM timber lands, and was calculated at 

the time to allow the Tribe to generate revenue to provide limited services to its 

members and to support tribal government. The revenue generated from these parcels has been insufficient to meet growing tribal needs. The Reservation Act also 

returned a tribal cemetery and Pow-Wow grounds to the Tribe. Since 1980 the Tribe 

has obtained additional 804 acres of land in trust to meet some of the Tribe’s needs 

for housing, health and social services, natural resources, and economic development 

including a gaming operation. Currently the Tribe has a total of 63 separate trust 

properties, for a total acreage of 4434.01 acres. 

Tribal needs have not been met, however, and the Tribe has a continuing need 

to re-acquire former reservation lands and have them held in trust. This is a longterm objective of the Tribe because of the Tribe’s limited financial resources, which 

only allow it to purchase land a little at a time. S. 817 is identical to legislation 

introduced in House of Representatives by Congressman Kurt Schrader of Oregon. 

This legislation was also introduced in the 112th and 113th Congresses, where it 

received legislative hearings in the House Subcommittee on Indian & Alaska Native 

Affairs and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. 

The Administration testified in support of the Siletz bill in July 2012. In responses to questions for the record from the Subcommittee on Indian & Alaska Native Affairs, the Bureau of Indian Affairs put to rest allegations against the bill 

made by the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians, and 

the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community. The Bureau confirmed 

that the Siletz Tribe has always been the only recognized tribal governing body over 

the original 1855 Siletz Coast Reservation. 

In addition, at mark-up in June 2013, the House Natural Resources Committee 

amended the Siletz legislation to state that ‘‘nothing in this Act or the amendment 

made by this Act, shall prioritize for any purpose the claims of any federally recognized Indian tribe over the claims of any other federally recognized Indian tribe.’’ 

This amended legislative language was later included in H.R. 5701 (the Western Oregon Indian Tribal Lands Act), which passed the House of Representatives by Voice 

Vote in December 2014. This legislation lays to rest the spurious claims of other 

tribes that this Siletz legislation would somehow adversely affect alleged legal 

claims they have to the original Siletz Reservation. 

The legislative language in S. 817 is identical that passed by the House last year, 

and would have passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, if it had not been for 

an unfortunate, unrelated political situation in the final seconds of the Congress. 

Historical and Legal Background 

Numerous bands and tribes of Indians held territories in what became Western 

Oregon, from the crest of the Cascade Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. Early federal 

Indian policy was to enter into treaties with Indian tribes to obtain the cession of 

their aboriginal lands to clear title for non-Indian settlement. A ‘‘reservation policy’’ 

evolved to place the Indians who entered into these treaties on small remnants of 

their aboriginal lands, but to open most of those lands for future development and 

settlement by non-Indian settlers. In most cases each tribe that entered into a treaty had a small reservation confirmed somewhere within its aboriginal territory. Beginning in the 1850s, a new reservation policy was established, particularly along 

the west coast, to place as many tribes as possible on one reservation. This freed 

up additional land for settlement and simplified administration of the remaining Indians. See Charles F. Wilkinson, The People Are Dancing Again: A History of the 

Siletz Tribe (U. of Washington Press 2010). 

Treaties negotiated with western Oregon Indian tribes in the early 1850s by 

Anson Dart were rejected by the Senate because they did not implement this new 

policy and instead provided for individual reservations within a tribe’s historical territory. The subsequent Indian Superintendent in Oregon in the 1850s, Joel Palmer, 

61 

was given the task of negotiating treaties with all of the tribes in western Oregon 

and finding one permanent reservation where as many tribes and bands as possible 

could all be settled. Superintendent Palmer first considered moving all the western 

Oregon tribes east of the Cascade Mountains to the Klamath Reservation, but none 

of those tribes would agree to go there. In early 1855, Palmer unilaterally withdrew 

from non-Indian settlement what would become the Siletz or Coast Reservation, and 

communicated its suitability as the permanent reservation for all the western Oregon tribes to his superiors in Washington, D.C. Because of the long time lag in 

communication between the east and west Coasts in the 1850s, Palmer’s provisional 

set-aside of the Siletz Coast Reservation on his own authority on April 17, 1855 was 

not approved by the Department of Interior until July of that year. After further 

review and discussion, the Secretary of Interior recommended that this area of land 

be permanently set aside as a reservation for these tribes and bands, and this recommendation was confirmed by Executive Order on November 9, 1855. 

There was no single method or procedure by which the tribes and bands that are 

part of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians entered into treaties or came to 

the Siletz Coast Reservation. The Siletz Tribe is a legal successor in interest to 

tribes and bands of Indians that are parties to seven ratified treaties (Treaty with 

the Rogue River, Sept. 10, 1853, 10 Stat. 1018; Treaty with the Umpqua-Cow Creek 

Band, Sept. 19, 1853, 10 Stat. 1027; Treaty with the Rogue River, Nov. 15, 1854, 

10 Stat. 1119; Treaty with the Chasta, Nov. 18, 1854, 10 Stat. 1122; Treaty with 

the Umpqua and Kalapuya, Nov. 29, 1854, 10 Stat. 1125; Treaty with the Molala, 

Dec. 21, 1855, 12 Stat. 981; Treaty with the Kalapuya, Jan. 22, 1855, 10 Stat. 4 

1143), and one unratified treaty (Treaty with the Tilamooks and other confederated 

tribes and bands residing along the coast, Aug. 11,1855 (‘‘Coast Treaty’’)) , and who, 

in whole or in part, were subsequently removed to the Siletz Coast Reservation as 

their permanent treaty reservation. To complicate things further, there are also several additional unratified treaties negotiated in 1851 with the northern Oregon 

coastal tribes and bands, known as the Anson Dart treaties. Indians from all of 

these tribes and bands were also removed or ended up on the Siletz Coast Reservation over time. 

In some of these treaties, such as the 1854 Rogue River Treaty and the unratified 

Coast Treaty, all of the signatory tribes were ‘‘confederated’’ by the federal government into one new composite tribe. These confederated tribes became the tribal governing authority on the Siletz Coast Reservation. The federal government treated 

other tribes that were settled on the Siletz Coast Reservation as becoming confederated with this new tribal reservation-based confederation. The Confederated 

Tribes of Siletz Indians is the federally-recognized Tribe that is the legal and political successor to all of these original, historical tribes. See United States v. Oregon, 

29 F.3d 481, 485–86 (9th Cir.1994)(Yakama Nation comprised of all the bands and 

tribes of Indians who moved to the reservation under the Yakama Treaty; Nez Perce 

Tribe comprised of all Nez Perce Bands who signed Nez Perce Treaty and moved 

to diminished Nez Perce Reservation). 

Movement of the tribes, bands and Indians to the Siletz Reservation was also not 

clean or uniform. Some tribes moved in several waves to the Siletz Reservation, at 

different times. In some cases only parts of the tribe ended up on the Reservation. 

In other cases individuals or small groups who were moved to the Siletz Reservation 

sometimes left the Reservation and returned to their aboriginal areas; other (few) 

individuals hid and were never moved. Some of the individuals who left the Siletz 

Reservation and returned to their aboriginal areas were rounded up and returned 

to the Siletz Reservation. For example, individual members of Coos and Lower 

Umpqua ancestry who left the Siletz Reservation and returned to their aboriginal 

area were subsequently forcibly returned to the Reservation in round-ups conducted 

by the Interior Department with military assistance. 

In all of these cases and under all of these treaties, both ratified and unratified, 

the tribes and bands in question were moved to the Siletz Coast Reservation and 

became part of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians. This early history of the 

Siletz Tribe and Siletz Reservation is set out in various federal court decisions, including Rogue River Tribe v. United States, 64 F.Supp. 339, 341 (Ct.Cl. 1946); Alcea 

Band of Tillamooks v. United States, 59 F.Supp. 934, 942 (Ct.Cl. 1945); Coos, Lower 

Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indian Tribes v. United States, 87 Ct. Cl. 143 (1938); and 

Tillamook Tribe of Indians v. United States, 4 Ind. Cl. Comm’n 31–65 (1955). 

The settlement of various tribes on the Siletz Reservation is also documented in 

various academic publications such as a report prepared by Historian Dr. Stephen 

Dow Beckham. See ‘‘The Hatch Tract: A Traditional Siuslaw Village Within the 

Siletz Reservation, 1855–75,’’ prepared by Dr. Stephen Dow Beckham for the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw, Dec. 4, 2000, pp.12–14 (‘‘On 

July 20, 1862, Linus Brooks, Sub-Agent, confirmed that the removal of the Coos, 

62 

Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians onto the Siletz Reservation was complete,’’ and 

‘‘On July 21, 1864, Sub-Agent George W. Collins confirmed the presence of the 

tribes on the Siletz Reservation’’.). 

The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians was recognized as the governing body 

and tribe representing all of the tribes and bands settled on the Siletz Reservation 

as early as 1859. Traders License issued by the Siletz Indian Agent on June 16, 

1859, to trade with ‘‘The Confederated Tribes of Indians... within the boundary 

of the Siletz Indian agency district Coast Reservation.’’; Tillamook Tribe of Indians, 

supra, 4 Ind. Cl. Comm’n at 31 (‘‘Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, . . . a duly 

confederated and organized group of Indians having a tribal organization and recognized by the Secretary of the Interior of the United States’’ is the only entity with 

standing to prosecute claims against the United States involving the Siletz Reservation). 

It has consistently been recognized by the Interior Department as the only tribe 

representing the original Siletz or Coast Reservation since that time. As such it is 

the legal and political successor to all of the tribes and bands of Indians settled on 

or represented on the Siletz Reservation. This legal principle was established and 

has been repeatedly confirmed in the U.S. v. Washington Puget Sound off-reservation treaty fishing rights litigation. See, e.g., United States v. Washington, 593 F.3d 

790, 800 at n.12 (9th Cir. 2010)(‘‘Samish’’), citing to U.S. v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 

312, 360 (W.D.Wash. 1974)(Lummi) and to U.S. v. Washington, 459 F.Supp. 1020, 

1039 (W.D. Wash. 1978)(Swinomish)(Lummi and Swinomish successors in interest 

to tribes and bands settled on their reservations under Treaty of Point Elliott; both 

tribes successors in interest to the Samish Indian Tribe); Evans v. Salazar, 604 F.3d 

1120, 1122 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2010), citing U.S. v. Washington, 459 F.Supp. 1020, 1039 

(W.D.Wash. 1978)(Tulalip Tribes recognized governing body and successor to tribes 

and bands settled on the Tulalip Reservation under the Treaty of Point Elliott); U.S. 

v. Washington, 520 F.2d 676, 692 (9th Cir. 1975)(Muckleshoot Tribe, which did not 

exist at the time of the Treaty of Point Elliott and Treaty of Medicine Creek, recognized as a tribe by the United States and is a successor in interest to its constituent 

tribes which were settled on the Muckleshoot Reservation under the two treaties). 

Two other legal principles, confirmed by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decisions, 

also confirm the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians as the only federally-recognized Indian tribe representing the tribes and bands who were settled on the Siletz 

Reservation, and as the only Indian tribe with a legal interest in and title to the 

original 1855 Siletz or Coast Reservation. The first legal principle involves groups 

or bands of Indians who either refused or did not move to the reservation designated for them under a treaty or other federal action, or who subsequently left 

that reservation or refused to move to a reconfigured reservation. In U.S. v. Oregon, 

29 F.3d 481, 484–85 (9th Cir. 1994), the Ninth Circuit rejected the claim of the 

Colville Confederated Tribes to have treaty and successorship rights under the 

Yakama and Nez Perce Treaties of 1855 because bands of the tribes that had signed 

those treaties had refused to move to the reservations established under those treaties, or had subsequently left those reservations, and instead had ended up settling 

on the Colville Reservation. The Ninth Circuit concluded that those bands, by refusing to move to the treaty reservations or subsequently leaving those reservations, 

had abandoned their right to treaty status and had lost their right of successorship 

to the original tribes. The confederated tribes created by the United States and settled on a reservation acquired the successorship rights to all of those original tribes 

and bands of Indians. 

Like the situation of Lummi and Swinomish, whose reservations were set aside 

for all the Indians who signed the Point Elliott Treaty, both the Siletz and Grand 

Ronde Reservations were expressly set aside for settlement of the Willamette Valley 

Tribes, and members of those tribes settled on both the Siletz and Grand Ronde 

Reservations. Under the Ninth Circuit’s decisions in U.S. v. Washington, both the 

Siletz and Grand Ronde Tribes are successors to the historical Willamette Valley 

Tribes and the three ratified treaties signed by those tribes. There is no dispute in 

the federal case law on this point. 

This legal principle also applies to and refutes the alleged claims of the modern 

day Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians (comprised 

of individual Indians from those tribes who either refused to move to the Siletz 

Coast Reservation or who subsequently left the Siletz Reservation and moved back 

to the Coos Bay area) to have legal claim to the original Siletz Coast Reservation. 

It also applies to and refutes the claim of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand 

Ronde Community of Oregon to be a successor to the Rogue River Tribe (a remnant 

band or small group of the larger Rogue River Tribe refused in 1857 to move to the 

Siletz Coast Reservation, designated as the permanent reservation for that Tribe, 

and stayed instead on what later became the Grand Ronde Reservation; federal offiVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:18 May 09, 2016 Jkt 020036 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\20036.TXT JACK
63 

cials confirmed in correspondence that the Rogue River ‘‘tribe’’ moved to the Siletz 

Reservation in 1857), and the Siletz Tribe has a claim, through successorship to that 

tribe, to the Siletz Coast Reservation. 

The second additional legal principle that applies to the Siletz Tribe’s factual situation involves where one tribe is not originally settled on a reservation under a treaty, but individual members of that ‘‘unaffiliated’’ tribe end up on the reservation of 

another tribe, either by obtaining allotments on that reservation or for other reasons. This was the situation in United States v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 901 F.2d 

772, 777 (9th Cir. 1990), where the Ninth Circuit rejected the Suquamish Tribe’s 

claim to be the successor to the Duwamish Tribe on the grounds that ‘‘individual 

Duwamish had moved to and settled at’’ the Suquamish Reservation, obtaining allotments there. The court found that no group or band of Duwamish moved there. 

Id.2 This test was clarified in United States v. Oregon, supra, where the Ninth Circuit concluded that for one tribe to be able to claim successorship to another tribe, 

the first tribe would have to show ‘‘a cohesive communal decision by the Duwamish 

to unite with the Suqamish,’’ otherwise the Suquamish ‘‘could not successfully claim 

that it was a ‘political successor’ to the treaty time Duwamish Tribe.’’ 29 F.3d at 

484. Movement and settlement of individual Indians does not automatically result 

in successorship, under settled principles of law. 

This legal principle applies to and settles the claims of the Grand Ronde Tribe 

that it has an interest in the original Siletz Coast Reservation through its asserted 

successorship to the Nehalem Tribe, for example. Case law to which the Grand 

Ronde Tribe was a party and is therefore bound concluded that the Nehalem Tribe 

had moved as a tribe to the Siletz Coast Reservation, and that the Siletz Tribe is 

the successor to the Nehalem Tribe: ‘‘Plaintiffs Chinook, Clatsop and the Ne-ha-lum 

tribes were placed on the Coast Reservation.’’ Alcea Band of Tillamooks, supra, 59 

F.Supp. at 954. Grand Ronde claims successorship to the Nehalum Tribe only because a few individual Nehalem Indians allegedly moved at some point to the Grand 

Ronde Reservation and married Indians residing there. Under established federal 

precedent, the fact that some individual Nehalem Indians moved to the Grand 

Ronde Reservation does not make the Grand Ronde Tribe a successor to the 

Nehalem Tribe. Grand Ronde claims that the Nehalems and some others coastal Indians were counted under the Grand Ronde Agency’s census of Indians in the 1860s 

and 70s and therefore must have resided on the Grand Ronde Reservation, but the 

historical documentation shows conclusively that these Indians actually resided on 

the Siletz Coast Reservation or close by along the Coast, that they subsequently 

moved to the Siletz Reservation and were supervised by the Siletz Indian Agency, 

and that the Grand Ronde Indian Agency improperly attempted to assert jurisdiction over them, an assertion that was expressly rejected several times by his superiors, including Special Inspectors (after investigation) and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Censuses of Indians on the Grand Ronde Reservation in the early 

1900s that list tribal affiliation show no Nehalem, Tillamook or other coastal Indians. 

The Court in U.S. v. Oregon contrasted the factual situation of the Suquamish 

and Duwamish Tribes with that of the Muckleshoot and Tulalip Tribes, who were 

not tribes at the time of the treaty but became tribes recognized by the federal government comprised of small bands of Indians who signed the treaties and moved 

as bands to the designated reservation. 901 F.2d at 776. Those bands who resided 

together on the same reservation then ‘‘became known as the Tulalip and 

Muckleshoot Indians.,’’ Id., and were recognized by the federal government as their 

own Indian tribes with authority over their reservations. 

The Siletz Reservation has been referred to by the federal government between 

its establishment in 1855 and diminishment in 1875 as the Siletz or Siletz Coast 

Reservation. The appellation ‘‘Coast’’ Reservation was associated with the original 

reservation because it was located along the Oregon Coast and the original reservation was set aside in part for the Indian tribes and bands who were signatories to 

the unratified 1855 treaty, which was negotiated with the ‘‘chiefs and headmen of 

the confederated tribes and bands of Indians residing along the coast.’’ 

After official establishment by Executive Order on November 9, 1855, it was referred to variously as the Siletz, Siletz or Coast, or Siletz/Coast Reservation. Use 

of the term Siletz Reservation by itself was common, see, e.g., Letter dated July 20, 

1857 (Annual Report of Grand Ronde Indian Agency)(‘‘Early in the month of May 

the greater portion of the Rogue River and all of the Shasta Indians were removed, 

with their own consent, to the Siletz coast reservation . . . In consequence of the 

removal of the majority of these tribes to the Siletz reservation’’) , and Congress formally referred to the Reservation as the Siletz Reservation in legislation enacted in 

1868 and 1875. Act of July 27, 1868, 15 Stat. 198, 219(‘‘For Indians upon the Siletz 

reservation . . . to compensate them for losses sustained by reason of executive 

64 

proclamation taking from them that portion of their reservation called Yaquina 

Bay’’); Act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 420, 446(‘‘Secretary of the Interior . . . is authorized to remove all bands of Indians now located upon the Alsea and Siletz Reservation, set apart for them by Executive order dated November ninth, eighteen 

hundred and fifty-five’’[and place them within the remaining portion]). After 1875, 

the reservation was referred to exclusively as the Siletz Reservation. 

The Siletz Coast Reservation was established by Executive Order on November 

9, 1855 as a permanent homeland for all the Tribes and Bands of Indians in western Oregon, who pursuant to the unratified August 1855 treaty were to be confederated together and settled upon it. That treaty’s purpose was to make the remaining land in Oregon west of the Cascades available for non-Indian settlement. The 

original Siletz Coast Reservation stretched for over 100 miles along the central Oregon Coast, from the ocean to the western boundary of the 8th Range, west of the 

Willamette Meridian, around 1.1 million acres. 

Tribes with ratified treaties such as the Rogue Rivers, Shastas and Umpquas 

were moved to the Siletz Coast Reservation by May 1857 in fulfillment of the terms 

of their treaties to settle them on a permanent reservation. The Siletz Coast Reservation, under well-established case law, became a formal treaty reservation at 

that time. Portions of the Siletz Reservation were then opened to settlement over 

the coming years by various federal actions—an Executive Order in 1865, a federal 

statute in 1875, and an Agreement and legislation implementing allotment and 

surplusing of the remaining reservation in 1892, confirmed by Congress in 1894. 

Various Court of Claims and Indian Claims Commission cases have addressed 

whether the tribes and bands that were located on the Siletz Coast Reservation 

were entitled to compensation for the taking of their aboriginal lands or for the various diminishments of the Reservation. These cases—examples include the Rogue 

River, Alcea Band of Tillamooks, Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indian Tribes, 

and Tillamook Tribe of Indians, are cited above. These cases document the connection of the Siletz Tribe to the original Siletz Coast Reservation. As such, they also 

show that the original Siletz Coast Reservation meets the definition of on-reservation as set out in the fee-to-trust regulations at 25 C.F.R. § 151.2(f): ‘‘[W]here there 

has been a final judicial determination that a reservation has been disestablished 

or diminished, Indian reservation means that area of land constituting the former 

reservation of the tribe.’’ See Citizen Band Potawatomi Indians v. Collier, 17 F.3d 

1325 (10th Cir. 1998)(processing fee-to-trust request within former reservation of 

Potawatomi Tribe). Enacting S.817 will allow the Siletz Tribe to request fee-to-trust 

transfers on the same basis as other Indian tribes within their former reservations. 

Response to Specific Issues 

Some questions have been raised before this hearing about specific aspects of the 

proposed legislation. I want to address some of those issues here. 

1. Does this bill make the original Siletz Reservation into a reservation for the 

Siletz Tribe, or create tribal jurisdiction or authority over the original Siletz Reservation area? 

Answer. No. All S.817 does is to designate a geographic area within which the 

Siletz Tribe’s fee-to-trust requests will be processed under the BIA’s on-reservation 

rather than off- reservation fee-to-trust criteria. The jurisdictional status of individual fee-to-trust parcels changes once those parcels go into trust status, but that 

happens whether or not this bill passes, and whether or not the on-reservation or 

off-reservation criteria are used. 

The existing jurisdictional status of the original Siletz Coast Reservation is not 

affected by this legislation. This issue was addressed by the federal courts in 

Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky, 606 F.3d 994, 1013 (8th Cir. 2010)(‘‘While it 

is true that the original 1858 [reservation] boundaries are no longer markers dividing jurisdiction between the Tribe and the state, that does not mean they have lost 

their historical relevance for the Secretary’s discretionary acts [of taking land into 

trust pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 465]).’’ 

Under S. 817, the original 1855 Siletz Reservation will become an historical reference point for the BIA in deciding whether to process a Siletz fee-to-trust application as on- reservation or off-reservation under the fee-to-trust regulations at 25 

C.F.R. Part 151. The bill does nothing more. 

2. Does the Siletz Restoration Act limit the Siletz Tribe to taking land into trust 

only within Lincoln County? 

Answer. No. The original Siletz Reservation extends into six current Oregon counties, although the headquarters of the original Siletz Reservation ws located in what 

became Lincoln County when that portion of the Reservation’s settlers broke off 

from Benton County in 1893. A map overlaying the original reservation boundary 

with current jurisdictions shows that two of the counties have barely any land inVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:18 May 09, 2016 Jkt 020036 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\20036.TXT JACK
65 

volved. Some parties have alleged that federal law—the Siletz Restoration Act—limits the Siletz Tribe to taking land into trust only within Lincoln County. The section 

of the Restoration Act in question, at 25 U.S.C. § 711e(d), is addressed only to the 

original reservation plan called for by the Restoration Act. It limits any land designated under that reservation plan to Lincoln County. This plan was finalized in 

1979. 

The question of whether this provision of the Siletz Restoration Act, 25 USC 

§ 711e(d), limits the BIA permanently from taking land in trust for the Siletz Tribe 

beyond Lincoln County was addressed immediately after passage of the Siletz Restoration Act by the Office of the Solicitor for the Department of Interior, in 1978 

and 1979. Those opinions concluded that the statutory restriction at § 711e(d) applied only to the original Siletz Reservation Plan, and did not limit the authority 

of the Secretary from taking land in trust for the Siletz Tribe elsewhere. This conclusion was reached in part because the Siletz Restoration Act expressly makes 25 

U.S.C. § 465—Section 5 of the IRA—applicable to the Siletz Tribe, without restriction. There is no geographic restriction under that statute to taking land into trust. 

This is not true of any other restored/recognized tribe in Oregon; the other Oregon 

Restoration/Recognition Acts do not contain this express language. In its response 

to questions from the 2012 hearing on Siletz’s legislation, supra, the BIA reaffirmed 

its position on this issue. 

The Siletz Tribe has acquired land in trust outside of Lincoln County since Restoration. For example, the Tribe has a 20-acre parcel of land in trust in Salem, Marion County, Oregon, within the Tribe’s historical territory/ceded lands. 

3. Will H.R.6141 allow the Siletz Tribe to acquire land in trust and use that land 

for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act? 

Answer. No. There is an express prohibition in S. 817 on using land acquired in 

trust under the bill for gaming. The Siletz Tribe already has a successful gaming 

operation at Chinook Winds Casino Resort on its current reservation. The Tribe 

does not need to acquire land in trust for a gaming operation within its original reservation boundaries. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. STACY DIXON, CHAIRMAN, TRIBAL BUSINESS

COUNCIL, SUSANVILLE INDIAN RANCHERIA

On behalf of the Susanville Indian Rancheria (‘‘Rancheria’’ or ‘‘Tribe’’), I am 

pleased to submit the statement below on S. 1761, a bill that would place approximately 301 acres of federal land, comprised of rugged, rocky terrain, located in the 

Hidden Valley area in California into trust for the benefit of the Rancheria. This 

land, defined as the area in the ‘‘Conveyance Boundary’’ in S. 1761, is adjacent to 

existing Rancheria trust lands upon which tribal housing is located. Years ago, the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) identified the area in the Conveyance Boundary as suitable for disposal under the Federal Land Management and Policy Act because it is an isolated parcel of BLM land, making it difficult to manage. 

We thank Chairman John Barrasso and Vice Chairman Jon Tester for holding 

this legislative hearing on S. 1761. Further, we deeply appreciate the efforts of Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator Dianne Feinstein, our Senators, for introducing S. 

1761, which is the companion bill to H.R. 2212, introduced by Rep. Doug LaMalfa, 

our Representative in the House of Representatives. 

Background on Susanville Indian Rancheria 

The Rancheria is a federally recognized Indian tribe in rural Northeastern California with aboriginal ties to four distinct tribes: Mountain Maidu, Northern Paiute, 

Pit River and Washoe. These tribes’ treaties were among the 18 treaties negotiated 

with the U.S. between 1851–52 that would have created reservations in California 

totaling 11,700 square miles. However, with the discovery of gold in California in 

1848 and the interest of California lawmakers in accommodating the interests of 

large landowners, new settlers, and miners, none of these treaties were ratified by 

the U.S. Senate. On July 8, 1852, the U.S. Senate voted in executive session to reject the 18 treaties—a fact that would remain undisclosed until the U.S. Senate removed the injunction of secrecy in 1905. 

As a result of the unratified treaties and the Land Claims Act of 1851, our lands 

were taken from us. Our people became homeless and experienced extreme suffering, torture, and starvation through indentured servitude of Native Americans legalized in California in 1850. After 70 years of severe hardship, on August 15, 1923, 

the federal government purchased and put into trust 30 acres for the Rancheria 

under the Landless and Homeless Indian Act. Subsequently, on October 14, 1978, 

Congress enacted Public Law 95–459, which transferred 120 acres of BLM land into 

66 

trust for the Rancheria, which forms a portion of our Upper Rancheria. Tribal residential housing and our water storage tanks are located on the Upper Rancheria. 

The area in the Conveyance Boundary that would be placed into trust for the benefit of the Rancheria under S. 1761 is adjacent to our Upper Rancheria trust lands. 

Accompanying this statement are attachments that contain the map of the Conveyance Boundary referenced in S. 1761 and pictures of our Upper Rancheria and 

the area in the Conveyance Boundary. 

Susanville Indian Rancheria’s Connections to Area in Conveyance Boundary in S. 1761 

In 1887, Congress passed the General Allotment Act that divided lands into parcels for individual Indians. The Act forced the division of tribal government-held 

lands into individual Indian-owned parcels and opened ‘‘surplus’’ lands to non-Indian settlement. The area in the Conveyance Boundary and much of the land adjacent to it was tribally held land that was then allotted to individual Indians. The 

Peconom and Streshley families, whose direct descendants are Rancheria members, 

had allotments adjacent to the area in the Conveyance Boundary. Other ancestors 

of Rancheria tribal members that had allotments nearby included Alfred Foxey, 

Eliza Norman, Nettie Norman, Edith Buckskin, George Evans, Fred Wilson, Sally 

Norman, Charlie Jackson, Billy Harrison, Kitty Harrison, Birdie Norman, Will Norman, Cora Cook, Charley Norman, and William Taylor. Unfortunately, the land 

granted to most allottees in this region was not viable for grazing or farming, and 

division of land between heirs upon the allottees’ deaths resulted in land 

fractionalization and loss of land. Further, many Indian allotments were seized over 

time by predatory tax collectors for back taxes and sold to others. The Rancheria 

is committed to reacquiring aboriginal lands taken from us, including the land set 

forth in S. 1761 due to ill-conceived federal and state laws, forced relocation, massacre, starvation, and other atrocities. 

As you can see from the pictures in the attachments, the terrain of the area in 

the Conveyance Boundary is very rugged and hilly with large volcanic rock deposits. 

However, this land contains numerous cultural, historical, and archeological sites of 

great significance to the Rancheria. We seek to protect these sites and restore the 

natural ecological conditions of the land. The land and vegetation in area consist 

primarily of volcanic rock, juniper, sagebrush, bitterbrush, great basin wild rye and 

other herbaceous plants, bulbs, corms and roots that are important to the Rancheria 

for food, medicine, and basket-making. Some of the best Indian medicine grows in 

this vicinity, such as lokbom, an Indian tea that is boiled for stomach ailments and 

bukom, or ‘‘wild sunflower,’’ which is eaten to heal sore throats as well as Sego Lily, 

Wild Carrot, Camas, and Brodiaea. The area contains mortar rocks that were once 

used by Rancheria ancestors to grind seeds and medicine. 

Further, the area is an important traditional hunting ground for pronghorn antelope, deer, marmots, and groundhogs—traditional foods of Rancheria tribal members. Many historical hunting blinds and petroglyphs consisting of light inscriptions 

on rocks are located in the area in the Conveyance Boundary and other parts of Hidden Valley as well as deer and pronghorn trails. The area contains an ancient Native American trail with a rock alter used to pray for good hunting as well as projectile points and hammerstone used to make these projectiles along with obsidian, 

chert, and basalt chips. Rancheria tribal members continue to hunt in this area. 

Since time immemorial, Rancheria ancestors and members have conducted traditional ceremonies, including the Bear Dance, in this area. In addition, the remains 

of a historic Native American village, which the Maidu referred to as Supom, or 

‘‘Groundhog,’’ were located in this area. 

The Rancheria’s long-term vision for the area in the Conveyance Boundary is to 

build a recreational area (soccer fields, softball and baseball fields, and outdoor basketball courts), Pow Wow grounds, and a cultural center and museum. However, because the terrain is very rocky and hilly, use of the land will be very limited. Please 

find in the attachments accompanying this statement a letter to Rep. Doug LaMalfa 

discussing the Rancheria’s goals for use of the area in the Conveyance Boundary. 

The Rancheria has no intention of conducting gaming activities on this land, and 

the proposed legislation contains a gaming prohibition provision. 

Provisions of S. 1761 

S. 1761 is modeled after Public Law 113–127, which Congress passed in the 113th 

Congress to take certain BLM land in California into trust for the benefit of the 

Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians. We were very encouraged to see passage 

of Public Law 113–127 last year as it evidenced congressional support for taking 

certain BLM parcels into trust for Indian tribes. 

67 

Like Public Law 113–127, S. 1761 would take certain BLM land in California into 

trust for the Susanville Indian Rancheria. Further, similar to Public Law 113–127, 

S. 1761 contains a gaming prohibition, as mentioned above. 

The BLM Eagle Lake Field Office wrote a letter dated October 3, 2014, to the 

Rancheria, which is included in our attachments, expressing support for having the 

land set forth in the Conveyance Boundary taken into trust for the Rancheria. We 

very much appreciate BLM’s support, efforts, and collaboration with us on this bill. 

S. 1761 is slightly different from H.R. 2212 to make a minor technical change requested by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Department of the Interior, when 

Mr. Mike Black, Director, BIA, testified at a hearing on H.R. 2212 before the House 

Natural Resources Subcommittee on Indian, Insular, and Alaska Native Affairs on 

June 10, 2015. The only other difference between S. 1761 and H.R. 2212 is the insertion of the date of the map of December 31, 2014, which accompanies S. 1761 

and which is included in our attachments to this statement. Our goal is for these 

two minor changes to be made when H.R. 2212 is marked up in the House Natural 

Resources Committee so that H.R. 2212 and S. 1761 can be identical. We understand that the House Natural Resources Committee anticipates including H.R. 2212 

in its mark up scheduled for later this afternoon and tomorrow morning. 

Conclusion 

S. 1761 would allow the Rancheria to reacquire ancestral homelands taken from 

us due to misguided historical federal and state policies and allow us to protect 

areas of cultural, archeological, and historical importance to us. The Rancheria is 

thankful for the Committee’s efforts to hold this important hearing on S. 1761. We 

respectfully urge swift enactment of this bill. 

Attachments 

68 


1007d1.eps
69 


1007d2.eps 1007d3.eps
70 


1007d4.eps 1007d5.eps
71 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEONA A. IKE, MEMBER OF THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF

WARM SPRINGS

I am Leona A. Ike of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs in the great state 

of Oregon. I am a direct descendant of the Treaty Chiefs of Warm Springs and 

Yakama Nation who originate from the Columbia River. My father was head chief 

of the Mid-Columbia River until his death in 2003. 

I must relay a concern over this bill and I am obligated under our Covenant with 

our Creator to pass this on to you. Our tribal people have had this governed Covenant since the Creation of our peoples: 

‘‘Tribes gave their eternal spiritual promise to our Creator to always protect our 

Sacred Water and our lands and all that dwell within or reside upon our water and 

lands that includes our salmon and fish, small and big game, roots, medicines, rivers, small streams and all other natural resources and other life. We are governed 

by our Covenant to protect our people, from the oldest elder to the newest conceived 

child and all those who passed on to eternal life.’’ 

These words or words to this reference can be found in Treaties. Chiefs, like my 

father, advocated for the protection of our Covenant always. In President Clinton’s 

second term and at the inauguration hosted by Tribal Leaders, my father Chief 

Frederick Ike Sr. was asked to sing the ceremonial song to honor our President. 

72 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JON TESTER TO

MICHAEL SMITH


1007d6.eps
73 

Æ 


1007d7.eps