59–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 114–633 

LYTTON RANCHERIA HOMELANDS ACT OF 2015 

JUNE 21, 2016.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

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

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 2538] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 2538) to take lands in Sonoma County, California, into 

trust as part of the reservation of the Lytton Rancheria of California, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports 

favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the 

bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2015’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds the following: 

(1) The Lytton Rancheria of California is a federally recognized Indian tribe 

that lost its homeland after it was unjustly and unlawfully terminated in 1958. 

The Tribe was restored to Federal recognition in 1991, but the conditions of its 

restoration have prevented it from regaining a homeland on its original lands. 

(2) Congress needs to take action to reverse historic injustices that befell the 

Tribe and have prevented it from regaining a viable homeland for its people. 

(3) Prior to European contact there were as many as 350,000 Indians living 

in what is now the State of California. By the turn of the 19th century, that 

number had been reduced to approximately 15,000 individuals, many of them 

homeless and living in scattered bands and communities. 

(4) The Lytton Rancheria’s original homeland was purchased by the United 

States in 1926 pursuant to congressional authority designed to remedy the 

unique tragedy that befell the Indians of California and provide them with reservations called Rancherias to be held in trust by the United States. 

(5) After the Lytton Rancheria lands were purchased by the United States, 

the Tribe settled on the land and sustained itself for several decades by farming 

and ranching. 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-HSE
2 

(6) By the mid-1950s, Federal Indian policy had shifted back towards a policy 

of terminating Indian tribes. In 1958, Congress enacted the Rancheria Act of 

1958 (72 Stat. 619), which slated 41 Rancherias in California, including the 

Lytton Rancheria, for termination after certain conditions were met. 

(7) On August 1, 1961, the Lytton Rancheria was terminated by the Federal 

Government. This termination was illegal because the conditions for termination under the Rancheria Act had never been met. After termination was implemented, the Tribe lost its lands and was left without any means of supporting itself. 

(8) In 1987, the Tribe joined three other tribes in a lawsuit against the United 

States challenging the illegal termination of their Rancherias. A Stipulated 

Judgment in the case, Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Sugar Bowl 

Rancheria v. United States, No. C–86–3660 (N.D.Cal. March 22, 1991), restored 

the Lytton Rancheria to its status as a federally recognized Indian tribe. 

(9) The Stipulated Judgment agreed that the Lytton Rancheria would have 

the ‘‘individual and collective status and rights’’ which it had prior to its termination and expressly contemplated the acquisition of trust lands for the Lytton 

Rancheria. 

(10) The Stipulated Judgment contains provisions, included at the request of 

the local county governments and neighboring landowners, that prohibit the 

Lytton Rancheria from exercising its full Federal rights on its original homeland in the Alexander Valley. 

(11) In 2000, approximately 9.5 acres of land in San Pablo, California, was 

placed in trust status for the Lytton Rancheria for economic development purposes. 

(12) The Tribe has since acquired, from willing sellers at fair market value, 

property in Sonoma County near the Tribe’s historic Rancheria. This property, 

which the Tribe holds in fee status, is suitable for a new homeland for the 

Tribe. 

(13) On a portion of the land to be taken into trust, which portion totals approximately 124.12 acres, the Tribe plans to build housing for its members and 

governmental and community facilities. 

(14) A portion of the land to be taken into trust is being used for viniculture, 

and the Tribe intends to develop more of the lands to be taken into trust for 

viniculture. The Tribe’s investment in the ongoing viniculture operation has reinvigorated the vineyards, which are producing high-quality wines. The Tribe 

is operating its vineyards on a sustainable basis and is working toward certification of sustainability. 

(15) No gaming shall be conducted on the lands to be taken into trust by this 

Act. 

(16) No gaming shall be conducted on any lands taken into trust on behalf 

of the Tribe in Sonoma County after the date of the enactment of this Act north 

of a line that runs in a cardinal east and west direction from the point where 

Highway Route 12 crosses Highway 101 as they are physically on the ground 

and used for transportation on January 1, 2016, and extending to the furthest 

extent of Sonoma County. 

(17) Any agreement, now or in the future, regarding gaming restrictions between Sonoma County and the Tribe will be effective without further review by 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

(18) By directing that these lands be taken into trust, the United States will 

ensure that the Lytton Rancheria will finally have a permanently protected 

homeland on which they can once again live communally and plan for future 

generations. This action is necessary to fully restore the Tribe to the status it 

had before it was wrongfully terminated in 1961. 

(19) The Tribe and County of Sonoma have entered into a Memorandum of 

Agreement in which the County agrees to the lands in the County being taken 

into trust for the benefit of the Tribe in consideration for commitments made 

by the Tribe. 

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

For the purpose of this Act, the following definitions apply: 

(1) COUNTY.—The term ‘‘County’’ means Sonoma County, California. 

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

(3) TRIBE.—The term ‘‘Tribe’’ means the Lytton Rancheria of California. 

SEC. 4. LANDS TO BE TAKEN INTO TRUST. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The land owned by the Tribe and generally depicted on the map 

titled ‘‘Lytton Fee Owned Property to be Taken into Trust’’ and dated May 1, 2015, 

is hereby taken into trust for the benefit of the Tribe, subject to valid existing 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-HSE
3 

rights, contracts, and management agreements related to easements and rights-ofway. 

(b) LANDS TO BE MADE PART OF THE RESERVATION.—Lands taken into trust under 

subsection (a) shall be part of the Tribe’s reservation and shall be administered in 

accordance with the laws and regulations generally applicable to property held in 

trust by the United States for an Indian tribe. 

SEC. 5. GAMING. 

(a) LANDS TAKEN INTO TRUST UNDER THIS ACT.—Lands taken into trust for the 

benefit of the Tribe under section 4 shall not be eligible for gaming under the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). 

(b) OTHER LANDS TAKEN INTO TRUST.— 

(1) TIME-LIMITED PROHIBITION.—Lands taken into trust for the benefit of the 

Tribe in Sonoma County after the date of the enactment of this Act shall not 

be eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2710 

et seq.) until after March 15, 2037. 

(2) PERMANENT PROHIBITION.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), lands located 

north of a line that runs in a cardinal east and west direction and is defined 

by California State Highway Route 12 as it crosses through Sonoma County at 

Highway 101 as they are physically on the ground and used for transportation 

on January 1, 2016, and extending to the furthest extent of Sonoma County 

shall not be eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 

U.S.C. 2710 et seq.). 

SEC. 6. APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN LAW. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Memorandum of Agreement entered into by the Tribe and the County concerning taking land in the County into 

trust for the benefit of the Tribe, which was approved by the County Board of Supervisors on March 10, 2015, and any addenda and supplement thereto, is not subject to review or approval of the Secretary in order to be effective, including review 

or approval under section 2103 of the Revised Statutes (25 U.S.C. 81). 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 2538 is to take lands in Sonoma County, 

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

Rancheria of California. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The Lytton Rancheria is a tribe of approximately 270 enrolled 

members near the central California coast, with the tribal headquarters located in Santa Rosa, California. The original 50-acre 

Rancheria land, located approximately 20 miles north of Santa 

Rosa, was purchased and set aside by the United States in 1926 

pursuant to the Landless and Homeless Indian Act. From the late 

1930s to the late 1950s, the Rancheria was composed of two families and their descendants who moved to the 50-acre tract north of 

Healdsburg, California. In 1958, federal supervision of the 

Rancheria was terminated by an Act of Congress (Public Law 85– 

671, 72 Stat. 619). This occurred in the context of the ‘‘Termination 

Era’’ when Congress determined to end its policy of recognizing 

tribes, holding their lands in federal trust, and supervising their efforts. Subsequently, title to the Rancheria land was transferred to 

individual members, who subsequently sold the land to non-Indians. 

In 1987, aided by the California Indian Legal Services, the 

Lytton Rancheria joined as plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the 

United States challenging the Congressional termination. In 1991, 

the U.S. District Court for Northern California approved a settlement negotiated between the federal government and a number of 

terminated Rancherias under which the government would recogVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:30 Jun 23, 2016 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR633.XXX HR633

smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-HSE
4 

1Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Sugar Bowl Rancheria v. United States. No. C– 

86–3660 (N.D. Cal. 1991), at 3. 2 Id. at 4. 3 Id. at 5 and Exhibit B. 4 Id. at 5 and Exhibit C. 5 Id. at Section 819. 

nize the Rancherias as tribes.1 The settlement did not restore the 

original Lytton Rancheria property in Healdsburg, California, to 

the Rancheria or otherwise provide any land. The court did, however, recognize that the federal government and the Rancheria 

agreed that future lands could be placed in federal trust for the 

Rancheria within Sonoma County.2 At the insistence of Sonoma 

County, restrictions were placed on land acquired by the Lytton 

Rancheria in Alexander Valley and within the original Rancheria 

boundaries. These restrictions included a use requirement consistent with the Sonoma County General Plan within the original 

Rancheria boundary.3 Additionally, gambling was expressly prohibited on lands within the exterior boundaries of the original 

Rancheria lands in Alexander Valley.4

In the final days of the 106th Congress, the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act, was enacted (Public Law 106–568). One provision 

in the Act required the Secretary of the Interior to acquire title to 

a 9.5 acre parcel of land housing the Casino San Pablo cardroom, 

located approximately 60 miles south of the Lytton Rancheria tribal headquarters, in San Pablo (Contra Costa County), California, in 

trust for the benefit of the Lytton Rancheria. The Act further provided that ‘‘[s]uch land shall be deemed to have been held in trust 

and part of the reservation of the Rancheria prior to October 17, 

1988.’’ 5

The effect of backdating the trust acquisition was to grant the 

Tribe the right to operate a casino pursuant to the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701). The Tribe converted the Casino 

San Pablo cardroom into a class II casino. In 2004, the Tribe negotiated a class III gaming compact with the Governor of California; 

however the California Legislature never ratified the compact due 

to strong local concerns. In 2009, with the strong support of local 

officials, a bill to place restrictions on the San Pablo casino passed 

the U.S. Senate (S. 338, 111th Congress). 

In recent years, the Tribe has used revenues from its casino to 

purchase a number of parcels adjacent to the city limits of the town 

of Windsor, California, in Sonoma County. The town of Windsor is 

approximately 10 miles from the tribal headquarters in Santa 

Rosa, California. 

In 2009, the Tribe applied to the Department of the Interior to 

place title to approximately 127 acres of lands acquired in this area 

in trust. The application is still pending with the Department of 

the Interior. The Tribe has testified that it intends to use a portion 

of the lands for tribal housing, while the rest would support a diverse range of economic development including plans for a future 

resort and winery. Land held in trust for a tribe is not subject to 

local and state taxation and regulation, including zoning laws. 

H.R. 2538 would place approximately 511 acres of non-contiguous 

parcels of land owned by the Rancheria in trust, subject to valid 

and existing rights, contracts, and management agreements. Under 

the bill, gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act would be 

prohibited on these lands. 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-HSE
5 

6 Rep. Jared Huffman surprised at opposition to Lytton tribe’s plans near Windsor. The Press 

Democrat. August 28, 2015. http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/4398626-181/rep-jaredhuffman-surprised-at?artslide=0. 

Additionally, the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated 

March 10, 2015, entered into between the Tribe and Sonoma County concerning the taking of land into trust, would not be subject to 

review or approval by the Secretary of the Interior. The MOA between the Tribe and Sonoma County outlines commitments and 

procedures to mitigate impacts of economic development activities 

by the Tribe. Activities contemplated include a residential development project of 147 residential units and a winery and/or resort. 

Also outlined in the document is an agreement that the Tribe will 

pay $6.1 million for one-time impacts on the County and pay 30 

percent of the property taxes on the lands thereafter. The County 

additionally agrees to not oppose or issue negative comments on 

the Tribe’s efforts to seek additional trust lands in the future, 

through the administrative or legislative process. The MOA is binding for 22 years. 

Lastly, the Natural Resources Committee has received a relatively large number of communications from the residents of 

Windsor, California, in opposition to the bill.6

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 2538 was introduced on May 21, 2015, by Congressman 

Jared Huffman (D–CA). The bill was referred to the Committee on 

Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee 

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

the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On February 2, 2016, 

the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The 

Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent. Congressman 

Jared Huffman offered an amendment designated 132; it was 

adopted by unanimous consent. No additional amendments were offered, and the bill, as amended, was ordered favorably reported to 

the House of Representatives by unanimous consent on February 

3, 2016. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

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

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides 

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the ComVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:30 Jun 23, 2016 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR633.XXX HR633

smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-HSE
6 

mittee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 2538—Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2015 

H.R. 2538 would take into trust, for the benefit of the Lytton 

Rancheria of California, a federally recognized Indian tribe, certain 

lands located in the County of Sonoma, California. The bill would 

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

the tribe and the County of Sonoma. 

Based on information from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2538 would have no significant effect on the federal budget. CBO estimates that any change in the 

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

to appropriation, would not exceed $500,000 annually. Because enacting H.R. 2538 would not affect direct spending or revenues, payas-you-go procedures do not apply. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2538 would not increase net 

direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 

10-year periods beginning in 2027. 

H.R. 2538 would impose an intergovernmental mandate, as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), by preempting the authority of state and local governments to tax land 

taken into trust for the Lytton Rancheria. CBO estimates the costs 

of the mandate would not exceed the threshold established in 

UMRA ($77 million in 2016, adjusted annually for inflation). 

H.R. 2538 contains no private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Megan Carroll (for 

federal costs) and Rachel Austin (for intergovernmental mandates). 

The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required by 

clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 

this bill does not contain any new budget authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. The 

Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing the bill 

‘‘would have no significant effect on the federal budget’’. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

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

of this bill is to take lands in Sonoma County, California, into trust 

as part of the reservation of the Lytton Rancheria of California. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

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

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

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandate as defined by Public Law 

104–4. 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-HSE
7 

COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5

Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that this 

bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any specific 

rule-making proceedings. 

Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not establish or 

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

any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 

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

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

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

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

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

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

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

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-HSE