AMERICAN INDIAN AGRICULTURAL ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 1425 

TO IMPROVE THE MANAGEMENT, PRODUCTIVITY, AND USE OF INDIAN 

AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND RESOURCES 

73--728 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC 

JUNE 18, 1993 

Serial No. 103-32 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1993 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office. Washington. DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-041782-1 
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana DON YOUNG, Alaska, 

EDWARD J . MARKEY, M1188achuaetts Ranking Republican Member 

AUSTIN J . MURPHY, Pennsylvania JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands CRAIG THOMAS, Wyo11lling 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

Samoa KEN CALVERT, California 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SCOTT MciNNIS, Colorado 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii JAY DICKEY, Arkanaa.s 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Califo.,Ua 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM F ARR, California 

LANE EVANS, illinois 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J. BARLOW Ill, Kentucky 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisonsin 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Staff Director 

RicHARD MELTZER, General Counsel 

DANIEL VAL KlsH, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITI'EE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFADlS 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico, Chairman 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming, 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut Ranking Republican .Member 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American DON YOUNG, Alaska 

Samoa RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota KEN CALVERT, California 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

TADD JOHNSON, Staff Director 

STEVEN J.W. HEELEY, Counsel 

MARIE HOWARD, Professional Staff Member 

JUNE LoRENZO, Professional Staff Member 

BARBARA RoBLES, Clerk 

RICHARD HOUGHTON, Republican Counsel on Native American Affairs 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held: June 18, 1993 .................................................................................. . H.R. 1425: 1. Text of the bill ............................................................................................. . 2. Background memorandum ............................................ .............................. . 3. Section-by-section analysis ........................................................................ .. Member statements: Hon. Bill Richardson ....................................................................................... . Hon. Pat Williams ........................................................................................... . Witness statements: Patrick Hayes, Director, Office of Trust Responsibilities, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, Department of the Interior, accompanied by Ray Smith, Chief, 

Branch of Agriculture; Larry Morrin, Division Chief, Real Estate Serv-

~l~e~~. ~~~t~io~t~£1~£~ ~!f:SO~ .. ~~~~~~~~.' .. ~~~~~~~~~: .. ~~~~ .. ~~ Panel consisting of: Hon. Wainwright Velarde, Vice-President, Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 

Dulce, New Mexico ............................................................................... . Hon. Daniel Eddy, Jr., Chairman, Colorado River Indian Tribes 

(CRIT), Parker, Arizona, accompanied by Steven McHugh, Esq., Assistant Attorney General for CRIT ................................................ .. Hon. Mary V. Thomas, Lt. Governor, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona, accompanied by Ardell Ruiz, Tribal Councilman 

and Vice Chairman, Gila River Farm Board, and Harry Cruye, Chairman, Gila River Farm Board .................................................... .. Panel consisting of: Hon. Laurence Kenmille, Vice Chairman, Confederated Salish and 

Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, Montana ....................................................... .. Calvin E. Wain, Secretary, Intertribal Agriculture Council (lAC), Billings, Montana, accompanied by &bert Miller, President, lAC; and 

Greg Smitman, Executive Director, lAC ............................................ .. Hon. Ross Sockzehigh, Tribal Councilman, Yakima Indian Nation, Toppenish, Washington ........................................................... ............. . J ulia Mahsett, Secretary, Indian Soil Conservation Association, 

Anadrako, Oklahoma, accompanied by May Chubbee, Comanche 

Tribal Member ..................................................................................... .. Lupe Gooday, Ft. Sill Apache Tribal Councilman ................................ .. Material submitted for the hearing record from: Patrick Hayes, Office of Trust Responsibilities, BIA: "Report to Con- gress-B.I.A. Agriculture-Range Programs," submitted by Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, Washington, DC, September 1986 .................................... . Julia Mahsett, Indian Boil Conservation Association: Letter to Ms. Mahsett from Comanche Indian Tribe, Lawton, Oklahoma, dated June 

7, 1993 ........................... ................................................................................ . 

APPENDIX 

JUNE 18, 1993 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record from: 

Page 

1 

2 

29 

31 

1 

129 

35 

100 

111 

118 

130 

136 

146 

155 

173 

48 

168 

Department of the Interior: Letter from Thomas Thompson, Acting As- sistant Secretary, Indian Affairs, dated May 25, 1993 .............................. 187 

National Congress of American Indians: Prepared statement of 

Gaiashkibos, President . .... . . .. . . .. .. . .. . ... . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . ... . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . ... .. . . .. . .. . 190 

Navajo Nation: Prepared statement ................... ........................................... 192 

(III) 
IV 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record from-Continued 

Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc.: Letter from David Comberg, Ph.D., EduW~~ 2~~\~i~ ~lte~ ~:~cy .. M;;\d~~:-I,~e;~i<i~ni·;·c~~~Ci June 18, 1993 ............................................................................................... . 

Puo~t:!o~~~e~C::aa~t!a'M~~·s~i;93~~~~ -~~~~--~~~- ~~~:.~~~~~ Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Okmulgee, Oklahoma: Letter from BillS. Fife, 

Io~T:f~ ~~tiai~t;!=~~:·f::!3 ~;~~~e "M~~~;y:··ch~~~·; c~~~d May 28, 1993 ................................................................................................ . Rosalyn LaPointe, enrolled member, Rosebud Sioux Tribe: Letter dated 

April 13, 1993 ............................................................................................... . Vanous letters from tribal members in Oklahoma ....................................... . 

Pace 

200 

201 

203 

204 

205 

208 

209 
AMERICAN INDIAN AGRICULTURAL ACT 

FRIDAY, JUNE 18, 1993 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:45 a.m. in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bill Richardson 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL RICHARDSON 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I would like to welcome everybody here today 

to hear testimony on H.R. 1425, the Indian Agriculture Act of 1993. 

Native Americans suffer the highest poverty and unemployment 

rates in the country. Indian agriculture has been a longstanding 

source of employment and economic development for Indian tribes 

and Alaska Natives. Although farming and ranching have been 

major contributors to the economic and social welfare of Indians 

communities, there has been a steady decline in the conditions of 

Indian agricultural resources. In 1993, the BIA reports that over 

1.15 million acres of Indian agricultural lands are lying idle. 

The Federal Government has a trust responsibility for the management of all natural resources on Indian lands. Unfortunately, 

there are many instances where Indian agricultural lands have 

been severely mismanaged and their productivity destroyed. 

The Federal Government, as trustee, has been a party to the continuing mismanagement of Indian agricultural lands and rangelands. Indian agricultural lands and rangelands do not receive the 

same level of assistance from the BIA that other federally managed 

lands receive. 

I introduced H.R. 1425 to ensure that the Federal Government 

meets its trust responsibility to Indian tribes to improve the management of Indian agricultural lands and natural resources. H.R. 

1425 provides for improved management of Indian agricultural 

lands which will increase economic returns to Indian tribes and 

their members. And finally, it promotes Indian self-determination 

and increases employment opportunities for Native Americans. 

At this time, I ask that the bill, the background, and the sectionby-section analysis be made a part of the record. 

[The text of the bill, H.R. 1425, and accompanying material follow:] 

(1) 
103n CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION 

2 

H.R.l425 

To improve the management, productivity, and use of Indian agllicultural 

lands and resources. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARcH 18, 1993 

I 

Mr. RICHARDSON" (for himself, Mr. JOHJXSOJX of South Dakota, and Mr. Wrr... 

LWIS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To improve the management, productivity, and use of Indian 

agricultural lands and resources. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "American Indian Agri5 cultural Act of 1993". 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 (a) The Congress finds and declares that8 (1) the United States and Indian tribes have a 

9 government to government relationship; 
3 

2 

1 (2) the United States has a trust responsibility 

2 to protect, conserve, utilize, and enhance Indian 

3 rangelands and fannlands consistent with its fidu4 ciary obligation and its unique relationship with ln5 dian tribes; 

6 (3) Indian agricultural lands are renewable and 

7 manageable natural resources which are vital to the 

8 economic, social and cultural welfare of many Indian 

9 tribes and their members; and 

10 ( 4) increased development and intensive man11 agement of Indian agricultural lands will produce in12 creased economic returns, enhance Indian self-deter13 mination, promote employment opportunities, and 

14 improve the social and economic well-being of Indian 

15 and surrounding communities. 

16 SEC. 3. PURPOSES. 

17 The purposes of this Act are to--

18 (1) meet the trust responsibility of the United 

19 States and promote self-determination of Indian 

20 tribes by managing Indian lands and related renew21 able resources in a manner consistent with identified 

22 tribal goals and priorities and nationally adopted 

23 multiple use and sustained yield principles; 

24 (2) allow the Secretary to take part in the man25 agement of Indian agricultural lands, with the par-

•HR 1425 JH 
4 

3 

1 ticipation of the lands' beneficial owners, in a man2 ner consistent with the Secretary's trust responsibil3 ity and with the objectives of the beneficial owners; 

4 (3) provide for the development and manageS ment of Indian agricultural lands at a level commen6 surate with the level of development and manage7 ment afforded to federally owned or controlled lands; 

8 and 

9 ( 4) increase the educational and training oppor10 tunities available to Indian people and communities 

11 in the practical, technical and professional aspects of 

12 agriculture, natural resources, and land management 

13 to improve the expertise and technical abilities of In14 dian tribes and their members. 

15 SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. 

16 For the purposes of this Act: 

17 (1) The term "agricultural land" means land 

18 that is used for the production of agricultural prod19 ucts, and lands occupied by industries that support 

20 the agricultural community, regardless of whether a 

21 formal inspection and land classification has been 

22 taken. The term shall include farmlands and range23 lands. 

24 (2) The term "agricultural product" means-

•BR 1416 m 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

5 

4 

(A) crops grown under cultivated conditions whether used for personal consumption, 

subsistence, or sold for commercial benefit; 

(B) domestic livestock, including cattle, 

sheep, goats, horses, buffalo, swine, reindeer, 

fowl, cultivated fish, or other animals specifically raised and utilized for food, fiber, or as 

beast of burden; 

(C) forage, hay, fodder, feed grains, crop 

residues and other items grown or harvested for 

the feeding and care of livestock, sold for commercial profit, or used for other purposes; and 

(D) other marketable or traditionally used 

materials authorized for removal from agricultural lands. 

(3) The term "agricultural resource" means-

(A) all the primary means of production, 

including the land, soil, water, air, plants, watersheds, human resources, natural and physical 

attributes and man-made developments, which 

together comprise the agricultural community; 

and 

(B) all the benefits derived from agricultural land and enterprises, including cultivated 

and gathered food products, fibers, horticultural 

•HR 1425 m 
6 

5 

1 products, dyes, cultural or religious condiments, 

2 medicines, water, and other traditional values of 

3 agriculture. 

4 (4) The term "Bureau" means the Bureau of 

5 Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior. 

6 ( 5) The term "farmland" means land that is 

7 used for production of food, feed, fiber, forage and 

8 oil seed crops, or other agricultural products, and 

9 may be either dryland or irrigated. 

10 (6) The term "Indian" means an individual 

11 who is a member of an Indian tribe. 

12 (7) The term "Indian land" means land that 

13 is14 (A) held in trust by the United States for 

15 an Indian or Indian tribe; or 

16 (B) owned by an Indian or Indian tribe 

17 and is subject to restrictions agaim;t alienation. 

18 (8) The term "Indian tribe" means any Indian 

19 tribe, band, nation, pueblo, or other organized group 

20 or community, including any Alaska Native village 

21 or regional corporation as defined in or established 

22 pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

23 Act, which is recognized as eligible for the special 

24 programs and services provided by the United States 

25 to Indian tribes because of their status as Indians. 

•im t4.ZIIi m 
7 

6 

1 (9) The term "land management activity'' 

2 means all activities, accomplished in support of the 

3 management of Indian agricultural land, including 

4 but not limited to--

5 (A) preparation of inventories and manage6 ment plans; 

7 (B) agricultural land and infrastructure 

8 development, and the application of accepted 

9 soil or range management techniques to im1 0 prove or restore the productive capacity of the 

11 land; 

12 (C) protection against agricultural pests, 

13 including development, implementation, and 

14 evaluation of integrated pest management pro15 grams to control noxious weeds, undesirable 

16 vegetation, and vertebrate or invertebrate agri17 cultural pests; 

18 (D) administration and supervision of agri19 cultural leasing and permitting activities, in20 eluding determination of proper land use and 

21 proper stocking rates of livestock, appraisal, ad22 vertisement, negotiation, contract preparation, 

23 collecting, recording, and distributing lease 

24 rental receipts; 

·HR 1425 m 
8 

7 

1 (E) technical assistance to individuals and 

2 tribes engaged in agricultural production or ag3 ribusiness; and 

4 (F) educational assistance in agriculture, 

5 natural resources, land management and relat6 ed fields of study, including direct assistance to 

7 tribally controlled community colleges in devel8 oping and implementing curriculwn for voca· 

9 tional, technical and professional course work. 

10 (10) The term "landowner" means: the Indian 

11 or Indian tribe that12 (A) owns such Indian land, or 

13 (B) is the beneficiary of the trust under 

14 which such Indian land is held by the United 

15 States. 

16 (11) The term "rangeland" means land on 

17 which the native vegetation is predominantly 

18 grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs suitable 

19 for grazing or browsing use, and includes lands 

20 revegetated naturally or artificially to provide a for21 age cover that is managed like native vegetation. 

22 Rangelands include natural grasslands, savannahs, 

23 shrublands, most deserts, tundra, alpine commu24 nities, coastal marshes, and wet meadows. 

•HRICS m 
9 

8 

1 (12) The term "Secretary'' means the Secretary 

2 of the Interior. 

3 TITLE I-RANGELAND AND 

4 FARMLAND ENHANCEMENT 

5 SEC. 101. MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN RANGELANDS AND 

6 FARMLANDS. 

7 (a) llriANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.-The Secretary shall 

8 undertake rangeland and farmland management activities 

9 on Indian lands, either directly or through contracts, coop10 erative agreements, or grants as provided for under the 

11 Indian Self-Determination Act. 

12 (b) MANAGEMENT 0BJECTIVES.-Indian rangeland 

13 and farmland management activities undertaken by the 

14 Secretary designed to achieve the following objectives: 

15 (1) Protecting, conserving, utilizing, and en16 hancing rangelands and farmlands so that they are 

17 in a perpetually productive state through the appli18 cation of sound agronomic and economic principles 

19 to the planning, development, inventorying, classi20 fication, and management of agricultural resources. 

21 (2) Increasing production and expanding the di22 versity and availability of agricultural products for 

23 subsistence, income, and employment of Indians 

24 through the development of renewable agricultural 

25 resources. 

•HR 1426 m 
10 

9 

1 (3) Managing agricultural resources to protect 

2 and enhance other associated values such as wildlife, 

3 fisheries, cultural resources, recreation; to regulate 

4 water runoff; and to minimize soil erosion. 

5 ( 4) Enabling Indian fanners and ranchers to 

6 maximize the potential benefits available to them 

7 through their land by providing technical assistance, 

8 training, and education in conservation practices, 

9 management and economics of agribusiness, sources 

10 and use of credit .and marketing of agricultural 

11 products, and other applicable subject areas. 

12 (5) Developing Indian rangelands and fann13 lands and associated value-added industries of Indi14 ans and Indian tribes to promote self-sustaining 

15 communities. 

16 (c) INDIAN AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGE17 MENT PLANNING PROGRAM.-(!) The Secretary shall es18 tablish the Indian agricultural resource management plan19 ning program in order to achieve the objectives set forth 

20 in subsection (b). 

21 (2)(A) The Secretary shall provide for the develop22 ment of an agricultural resource management plan for any 

23 interested Indian tribe. The plan shall be developed by the 

24 tribe working cooperatively with the local personnel from 

25 the Bureau. The tribe and the Bureau shall conduct a seHR 1425 IH-2 
11 

10 

1 nes of public meetings to detennine and document the 

2 specific tribal agricultural resource goals and objectives. 

3 (B) The Secretary and the Indian tribe shall develop 

4 a 10-year agricultural resource management plan to attain 

5 the goals and objectives as developed pursuant to subpara6 graph (A). In the development of the 10-year plan, the 

7 tribe shall rely on the public meeting records, existing sur8 veys, documents, reports and other research from Federal 

9 agencies, tribal community colleges, and land grant insti10 tutions. 

11 (3) The Secretary shall ensure that each plan con12 tains specific agriculture and land management programs 

13 and activities which have been approved by tribal resolu14 tion. 

15 ( 4) Tribal agricultural plans developed under this sec16 tion shall provide the direction to the Bureau and the In17 dian tribes in the management and administration of trib18 al agricultural resources and lands. 

19 ( 5) The contract and grant provisions of the Indian 

20 Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act shall be 

21 applicable to the development of these management plans. 

22 SEC. 102. INDIAN PARTICIPATION IN LAND MANAGEMENT 

23 ACTIVITIES. 

24 (a) TRIBAL RECOGNITION.-The Secretary shall con25 duct all land management activities on the lands of an 

•HR 1426 m 
12 

11 

1 Indian tribe in accordance with goals and objectives set 

2 forth by the Indian tribe and in accordance with all tribal 

3 laws and ordinances except in specific instanc,~s where 

4 such compliance would be a violation of trust responsibility 

5 of the United States for Indian Trust Lands. 

6 (b) TRmAL LAws.-Unless otherwise prohibited by 

7 Federal law, the Secretary shall comply with adopted trib8 al laws and ordinances pertaining to Indian agriculture 

9 lands, including laws regulating the environment, historic 

10 or cultural preservation, and laws or ordinances adopted 

11 by the tribal government to regulate land use or other ac12 tivities under tribal jurisdiction. The Secretary shall13 (i) provide assistance in the enfomement of 

14 such tribal laws; 

15 (2) provide notice of such laws to persons or en16 tities undertaking activities on Indian agricultural 

17 lands; and 

18 (3) upon request of an Indian tribe, require ap19 propriate Federal officials to appear in tribal fo20 rums. 

21 (c) WAIVER OF REGULATIONS.-In any case in which 

22 a regulation or administrative policy of the Department 

23 of the Interior conflicts with the objectives of the manage24 ment plan provided for in section 101, or with a tribal 

25 law, the Secretary shall waive the application of ~mch regu-
13 

12 

1 lation or administrative policy unless such waiver would 

2 constitute a violation of a Federal statute or judicial deci3 sion or would conflict with his general trust responsibility 

4 under Federal law. 

5 SEC. 103. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INDIAN RANGELAND 

6 AND FARMLAND AND MANAGEMENT PR0-

7 GRAMS. 

8 {a) COMPARATIVE .ANALYSIS.-Within 90 days after 

9 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall as10 semble a 12 member Task Force consisting of 1 represent11 ative from each of the Bureau of Indian Mfairs, the Bu12 reau of Land Management, the United States Park Serv13 ice, and a national Indian agriculture organization, and 

14 8 representatives of Indian tribes to develop a comparative 

15 analysis of Federal investment and management efforts 

16 for Indian trust and restricted lands as compared to feder17 ally owned lands managed by other Federal agencies or 

18 instrumentalities. The Secretary shall request the Sec19 retary of Agriculture to make available on a 

20 nonreimbursable basis appropriate personnel from the De21 partment of Agriculture to assist in the development of 

22 such analysis. 

23 (b) PuRPOSES.-The purposes of the comparative 

24 analysis shall be-

•BR tdli m 
14 

13 

1 (1) to establish a comprehensive assessment of 

2 improvement, funding, and development needs for 

3 each reservation and tribal jurisdiction with Indian 

4 agricultural land; 

5 (2) to establish a comparison of management 

6 and funding provided to comparable lands owned or 

7 managed by the Federal Government through Fed8 eral agencies other than the Bureau of' Indian M9 fairs; and 

10 (3) to identify any obstacles to Indian access to 

11 Federal or private programs relating to agriculture 

12 or related rural development programs generally 

13 available to the public. 

14 (c) IMPLEMENTATION.-Within 6 months from the 

15 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall provide 

16 the Subcommittee on Native American Mfairs of the Nat17 ural Resource Committee of the House of Representatives 

18 and the Select Committee on Indian Mfairs of the Senate 

19 with a status report on the development of the compara20 tive analysis required by this section and shall file a final 

21 report with the Congress not more than 9 months from 

22 the date of enactment of this Act. 

23 SEC. 104. LEASING OF INDIAN RANGELANDS AND FARM24 LANDS. 

25 The Secretary-

•HR 14211 m 
15 

14 

1 (1) in accordance with a general policy estab2 lished by the tribal government having jurisdiction 

3 over agricultural lands as set forth by a tribal reso4 lution on record with the Secretary5 (A) shall promote the use of such agricul6 tural lands by Indian people, and 

7 (B) notwithstanding any other provision of 

8 law, may approve any agricultural lease or per9 mit which contains a provision authorizing the 

10 renewal or renewals of such lease or permit for 

11 a period of years determined by the tribal gov12 ernment to be necessary to meet the purposes 

13 of this Act, including any such lease or permit 

14 with a tenure up to 10 years, or a tenure longer 

15 than 10 years when, in the opinion of the Sec16 retary, such lease or permit requires substantial 

17 investment in and development of the lands by 

18 the lessee and such longer tenure is determined 

19 by the Secretary to be in the best interest of 

20 thelandownern; 

21 (2) may offer for lease or permit on the open 

22 market only those lands which are surplus to the 

23 needs of Indian communities; and 

24 (3) may lease or permit agricultural lands for 

25 rates which reflect local economy based rental rates 

, . 

•BR 14211 m 
16 

15 

1 of less than the Federal appraisal when such action 

2 would be in the best interest of the landowner, and 

3 in such instances, when such land has been satisfac4 torily advertised for lease, the highest reasonable bid 

5 shall be accepted. 

6 TITLE II-EDUCATION IN 

1 AGRICULTURE MANAGEMENT 

8 SEC. 201. INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE AGRICULTURE MAN· 

9 AGEMENT EDUCATION ASSIS1~o\NCE PRO10 GRAMS. 

11 (a) NATURAL RESOURCES INTERN PROGRAM.-(1) 

12 Notwithstanding the provisions of title 5, United States 

13 Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, 

14 the Secretary shall establish and maintain in the Bureau 

15 or other appropriate office or bureau within the Depart16 ment of the Interior at least 20 agricultural resources in17 tern positions for Indian students enrolled in an agri18 culture study program. 

19 (2) For purposes of this subsection, the term20 (A) "agricultural resources intern" means an 

21 Indian who--

22 (i) is attending an approved postsecondary 

23 school in a full-time agriculture or related field, 

24 and 

•HR 14211 m 
17 

16 

1 (ii) is appointed to one of the agricultural 

2 resources intern positions established under 

3 paragraph (1); 

4 (B) "agricultural resources intern positions" 

5 means positions established pursuant to paragraph 

6 ( 1) for agricultural resources interns; and 

7 (C) "agriculture study program" includes, but 

8 is not limited to, agricultural engineering, agricul9 tural economics, animal husbandry, animal science, 

10 biological sciences, geographic information systems, 

11 horticulture, range management, soil science, and 

12 veterinary science. 

13 (3) The Secretary shall pay, by reimbursement or 

14 otherwise, all costs for tuition, books, fees, and living ex15 penses incurred by an agricultural resources intern while 

16 attending an approved postsecondary or graduate school 

17 in a full-time agricultural study program. 

18 (4) An agricultural resources intern shall be required 

19 to enter into an obligated service agreement with the Sec20 retary to serve as an employee in a professional agri21 culture or natural resources position with the Department 

22 of the Interior or other Federal agency or an Indian tribe 

23 for 1 year for each year of education for which the Sec24 retary pays the intern's educational costs under paragraph 

25 (3) of this subsection . 

• im 1411 m 
18 

17 

1 ( 5) An agricultural resources intern shall be required 

2 to report for service with the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

3 or other bureau or agency sponsoring his internship, or 

4 to a designated work site, during any break in attendance 

5 at school of more than 3 weeks duration. Time spent in 

6 such service shall be counted toward satisfaction of the 

7 intern's obligated service agreement under paragraph (4). 

8 (b) COOPERATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM.·-(1) The 

9 Secretary shall maintain, through the Bureau, a. coopera10 tive education program for the purpose, among other 

11 things, of recruiting Indian students who are enrolled in 

12 secondary schools, tribally controlled community colleges, 

13 and other postsecondary or graduate schools, for employ14 ment in professional agricultural or natural resource relat15 ed positions with the Bureau or other Federal agency pro16 viding Indian agricultural or natural resource related serv17 ices. 

18 (2) The cooperative educational program under para19 graph (1) shall be modeled after, and shall have essentially 

20 the same features as, the program in effect on the date 

21 of enactment of this Act pursuant to chapter :lOS of the 

22 Federal Personnel Manual of the Office of Personnel Man23 agement. 

24 (3) The cooperative educational program shall m25 elude, among others, the following: 

~BR t~ m 
19 

18 

1 (A) The Secretary shall continue the established 

2 specific programs in agriculture and natural re3 sources education at Southwestern Indian Poly4 technic Institute (SIPI) and at Haskell Indian Jun5 ior College. 

6 (B) The Secretary shall develop and maintain a 

7 cooperative program with the tribally controlled cornS munity colleges to coordinate course requirements, 

9 texts, and provide direct technical assistance so that 

10 a significant portion of the college credits in both 

11 the Haskell and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic 

12 Institute programs can be met through local pro13 gram work at participating tribally controlled com14 munity colleges. 

15 (C) Working through tribally controlled commu16 nity colleges and in cooperation with land grant in17 stitutions, the Secretary shall implement an informa18 tional and educational program to provide practical 

19 training and assistance in creating or maintaining a 

20 successful agricultural enterprise, assessing sources 

21 of commercial credit, developing markets and other 

22 subjects of interest to the rural community. 

23 (D) Working through tribally controlled com24 munity colleges and in cooperation with land grant 

25 institutions, the Secretary shall implement research 

•HR 1011 m 
20 

19 

1 activities to improve the basis for determining ap2 propriate management measures to apply to Indian 

3 resource management. 

4 (4) Under the cooperative agreement program under 

5 paragraph (1), the Secretary shall pay, by reimbursement 

6 or otherwise, all costs for tuition, books, and fees of an 

7 Indian student wh()-

8 (A) is enrolled in a course of study at an edu9 cation institution with which the Secretary has en1 0 tered into a cooperative agreement; and 

11 (B) is interested in a career with the Bureau, 

12 an Indian tribe or a tribal enterprise in the manage13 ment of Indian rangelands, farmlands, or other nat14 ural resource assets. 

15 (5) A recipient of assistance under the cooperative 

16 education program under this subsection shall be required 

17 to enter into an obligated service agreement with the Sec18 retary to serve as a professional in an agricultural natural 

19 resource related activity with the Bureau, or other Federal 

20 agency providing agricultural or natural resource related 

21 services to Indians or Indian ·tribes, or an Indian tribe for 

22 1 year for each year for which the Secretary pays the re23 cipients educational costs pursuant to paragraph (3). 

24 (c) SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.-(1) The :Secretary is 

25 authorized to grant scholarships to Indians enrolled in ac-

. , •Hit 14211 m 
21 

20 

1 credited agriculture related programs for postsecondary 

2 and graduate programs of study as full-time students. 

3 (2) A recipient of a scholarship under paragraph (1) 

4 shall be required to enter into an obligated service agree5 ment with the Secretary in which the recipient agrees to 

6 accept employment for one year for each year the recipient 

7 received a scholarship, following completion of the recipi8 ents course of study, with9 (A) the Bureau or other agency of the Federal 

10 Government providing agriculture or natural re11 source related services to Indians or Indian tribes; 

12 (B) an agriculture or natural resource program 

13 conducted under a contract, grant, or cooperative 

14 agreement entered into under the Indian Self-Deter15 mination and Education Assistance Act; or 

16 (C) a tribal agriculture or natural resource re17 lated program. 

18 (3) The Secretary shall not deny scholarship assist19 ance under this subsection solely on the basis of an appli20 cant's scholastic achievement if the applicant has been ad21 mitted to and remains in good standing in an accredited 

22 post secondary or graduate institution. 

23 (d) EDUCATIONAL 0UTREACH.-The Secretary shall 

24 conduct, through the Bureau, and in consultation with 

25 other appropriate local, State and Federal agencies, and 

•HR 14211 m 
22 

21 

1 in consultation and coordination with Indian tribes, an ag2 ricultural resource education outreach program for Indian 

3 youth to explain and stimulate interest in all aspects of 

4 management and careers in Indian agriculture and natu5 ral resources. 

6 (e) ADEQUACY OF PROGRAMS.-The Secretary shall 

7 administer the programs described in this section until a 

8 sufficient number of Indians are trained to ensure that 

9 there is an adequate number of qualified, professional In10 dian natural resource managers to manage the Bureau 

11 natural resource programs and programs maintained by 

12 or for Indian tribes. 

13 SEC. 202. POSTGRADUATION RECRUITMENT, EDUCATION 

14 AND TRAINING PROGRAMS. 

15 (a) AsSUMPTION OF LOANS.-The Secretary shall es16 tablish and maintain a program to . attract Indian profes17 sionals who are graduates of a course of postsecondary 

18 or graduate education for employment in either the Bu19 reau agriculture or natural resource programs or, subject 

20 to the approval of the tribe, in tribal agriculture or natural 

21 resource programs. According to such regulations as the 

22 Secretary may prescribe, such program shall provide for 

23 the emplo:-,went of Indian professionals in exchange for 

24 the Secretary's assumption of the employee's outstanding 

•HR 1425 IH 
23 

22 

1 student loans. The period of employment shall be deter2 mined by the amount of the loan that is assumed. 

3 (b) POSTGRADUATE INTERGOVERNMENTAL INTERN4 SHIPS.-For the purposes of training, skill development 

5 and orientation of Indian and Federal natural resource 

6 management personnel, and the enhancement of tribal and 

7 Bureau natural resource programs, the Secretary shall es8 tabli!'!h and actively conduct a program for the cooperative 

9 internship of Federal and Indian natural resource person1 0 nel. Such program shall11 (1) for agencies within the Department of the 

12 Interior13 (A) provide for the internship of Bureau 

14 and Indian natural resource employees in the 

15 natural resource related programs of other 

16 agencies of the Department of the Interior, and 

17 (B) provide for the internship of natural 

18 resource personnel from the other Department 

19 of the Interior agencies within the Bureau, and, 

20 with the consent of the tribe, within tribal natu21 ral resource programs; 

22 (2) for agencies not within the Department of 

23 the Interior, provide, pursuant to an interagency 

24 agreement, internships within the Bureau and, with 

25 the consent of the tribe, within a tribal natural re-

~DR 1426 m 
24 

23 

1 source program of other natural resource personnel 

2 of such agencies who are above their sixth year of 

3 Federal service; 

4 (3) provide for the continuation of salary and 

5 benefits for participating Federal employees by their 

6 originating agency; 

7 ( 4) provide for salaries and benefits of partici8 patiilg Indian natural resource employees by the 

9 host agency; and 

10 ( 5) provide for a bonus pay incentive at the 

11 conclusion of the internship for any participant. 

12 (c) CONTINUING EDUCATION AND TRAINING.-The 

13 Secretary shall maintain a program within the Trust Serv14 ices Division of the Bureau and Indian natural resource 

15 personnel which shall provide for---

16 (1) orientation training for Bureau natural re17 source personnel in tribal-Federal relations and re--

18 sponsibilities; 

19 (2) continuing technical natural resource edu20 cation for Bureau and Indian naiu:·al resource per21 sonnel; and 

22 (3) development training of Indian natural re23 source personnel in natural resource based cnter24 prises and marketing. 

·Hit 1425 m 
25 

24 

1 SEC. 203. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DE2 PARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ANJ> INDIAN 

3 TRIBES. 

4 (a) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.-

5 (l)(A) To facilitate the administration of the 

6 programs and actiVities of the Department of the In7 terior, the Secretary is authorized to negotiate and 

8 enter into cooperative agreements with Indian tribes 

9 to10 (i) engage m cooperative manpower and 

11 job training, 

12 (ii) develop and publish cooperative envi13 ronmental education and natural resource plan14 ning materials, and 

15 (iii) perform land and facility improve16 ments, and other activities related to land and 

17 natural resource management and development. 

18 (B) The Secretary may enter into agreements 

19 when the Secretary determines the interest of Indi20 ans and Indian tribes will be benefited. 

21 (2) In cooperative agreements entered into 

22 under subparagraph (A), the Secretary is authorized 

23 to advance or reimburse funds to contractors from 

24 any appropriated funds available for similar kinds of 

25 work or by furnishing or sharing materials, supplies, 

26 facilities or equipment without regard to the provi-

•HR 1425 m 
26 

25 

1 sions of section 3324 of title 31, United States 

2 Code, relating to the advance of public moneys. 

3 (b) SUPERVISION.-In any agreement authorized by 

4 this section, Indian tribes and their employees may per5 form cooperative work under the supervision of the De6 partment of the Interior in emergencies or otherwise as 

7 mutually agreed to, but shall not be deemed to be Federal 

8 employees other than for the purposes of sections 2671 

9 through 2680 of title 28, United States Code, and sections 

10 8101 through 8193 of title 5, United States Code. 

11 (c) SAVINGS CLAUSE.-Nothing in this .Act shall be 

12 construed to limit the authority of the Secretary to enter 

13 into cooperative agreements otherwise authorized by law. 

14 SEC. 204. OBLIGATED SERVICE; BREACH OF CO!'.':TRACT. 

15 (a) OBLIGATED SERVICE.-Where an individual en16 ters into an agreement for obligated service in return for 

17 financial assistance under any provision of this title, the 

18 Secretary shall adopt such regulations as are necessary to 

19 provide for the offer of employment to the recipient of 

20 such assistance as required by such provision. Where an 

21 offer of employment is not reas~nably made, the regula22 tions shall provide that such service shall no longer be re23 quired. 

24 (b) BREACH OF CONTRACT; REPAYMENT.-Where an 

25 individual fails to accept a reasonable offer of employment 

. •HR1426 m 
27 

26 

1 in fulfillment 'of such obligated service or unreasonably 

2 terminates or fails to perform the duties of such employ3 ment, the Secretary shall require a repayment of the fi4 nancial assistance provided, prorated for the amount of 

5 time of obligated service that was performed, together with 

6 interest on such amount which would be payable if at the 

7 time the amounts were paid they were loans bearing interS _est at the maximum legal prevailing rate, as determined 

9 by the Treasurer of the United States. 

10 TITLE III-GENERAL 

11 PROVISIONS 

12 SEC. 301. REGULATIONS. 

13 Except as otherwise provided by this Act, the Sec14 retary is directed to promulgate final regulations for the 

15 implementation within 18 months from the date of enact16 ment of this Act. All regulations promulgated pursuant 

17 to this Act shall be developed by the Secretary with the 

18 participation of the affected Indian tribes. 

19 SEC. 302. TRUST RESPONSilliLITY. 

20 Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish 

21 or expand the trust responsibility of the United States to22 ward Indian trust lands or natural resources, or any legal 

23 obligation or remedy resulting therefrom. 

•HR 1425 m 
28 

27 

1 SEC. 303. SEVERABILITY. 

2 If any provision of this Act, or the application of any 

3 provision of this Act to any person or circumstance, is held 

4 invalid, the application of such provision or circumstance 

5 and the remainder of this Act shall not be affected there6 by. 

7 SEC. 304. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

8 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums 

9 as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. 

0 

•HR 1425 m 
29 

BACKGROUND FOR HEARING ON H R. 1425, 

mE AMERICAN INDIAN AGRICULTURE ACf OF 1993. 

Farming and ranching is the primary source of economic opportunity for many 

Indian people. There are over 33,000 individual and tribal agricultural enterprises 

nationwide. Of the 54.4 million acres of Indian-owned land held in trust by the Federal 

Government for individual Indians or Indian tribes, approximately 75 percent (47 million 

acres) is used for agricultural production and another 15 percent (5.8 million) are 

commercial forest lands. Although farming and ranching have been major contributors 

to the economic and social welfare of Indian communities, there has been a steady 

decline in the services to and profitability of agricultural businesses on reservations. 

According to a 1993 Bureau of Indian Affairs report, there are in excess of 1.15 million 

acres of Indian agricultural lands lying idle. 

The Federal Government has a trust responsibility for the management of all 

natural resources on Indian lands. Over the past 20 years, the Indian agricultural 

program in the BIA, which has responsibility for the leasing of farm and range lands, has 

become ineffective. Funding levels for the management of Indian agricultural resources 

have significantly declined due to inflation and increased administrative costs over the 

same period. The number of BIA personnel engaged in agricultural or natural resource 

management activities has dropped off dramatically and is not commensurate to the 

number of federal employees providing comparable natural resource services on public 

lands. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has not adequately developed educational programs 

and other opportunities for American Indians and Alaska Natives to pursue educational 

and training opportunities in the natural resource field. Futhermore, the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs has failed to develop proper agricultural and natural resource base line 

data to indicate condition and current productivity on Indian lands. The Federal 

government has developed similar data for all other Federal lands, but has failed to 

develop this badly needed information for Indian lands. Currently 12 million acres of 

Indian agricultural lands do not have the basic soil and range inventories necessary to 

develop tribal management plans for Indian reservations. 

AMERICAN INDIAN AGRICULTURAL ACf OF 1993 

On September 22, 1992, the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs held a 

joint hearing with the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs on HR 5744, the Indian 

Agricultural Resources Management Act of 1992. Testimony was heard from several 

tribal witnesses, the Intertribal Agricultural Council and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. At 

this hearing the Administration raised several concerns regarding the legislation. One of 

the major issues raised by the Administration was that certain provisions in the bill would 

result in a Fifth Amendment "taking". The Administration was concerned that the 

legislation did not require the Secretary to obtain the consent of the heirs who own a 

given tract of land before it is leased or permitted. The Administration stated that this 

provision may give rise to potential Fifth Amendment takings claims. The Administration 

also raised an objection to the bill because it significantly expands the Secretary's trust 

73-728 - 93 - 2 
30 

responsibility to manage Indian agricultural lands. The Administration was concerned 

that HR 5744 would impose new responsibilities on the Secreta!}' and would require him 

to "manage" Indian lands. 

On March 18, 1993, Chairman Richardson introduced HR 1425, the: American Indian 

Agricultural Act of 1993. It was co-sponsored by Representatives John:son and Williams. 

The purpose of the Act is to ensure that the United States meets its tniSt responsibility 

to Indian tribes and to promote tribal self-determination through the effective 

management of Indian agricultural lands and natural resources. The bill authorizes the 

Secretacy with participation of Indian tribes to take part in the management of Indian 

agricultural lands in a manner consistent with the Secretal}''s tniSt responsibility. It also 

provides for the development and management of Indian agricultural lands at a level 

commensurate with the level of development and management afforded to federally 

owned or controlled lands. The bill also increases the educational and training 

opportunities for Indian people in the professions of agriculture, natural resource and 

land management. This program shall improve the expertise and technical abilities of 

Indian tribes and their members. 

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING 

On June 18, 1993, the following witnesses shall be testifying at the hearing on HR 

1425, the Intertribal Agricultural Council, the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, the Seminole Tnbe, 

the Yakima Tnbe, the Gila River Indian Community, the Colorado River Tnbes, the 

Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, the Navajo Nation, the Shii Shi Keyah 

Association, the Indian Soil Conservation Asociation and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 
31 

March 18, 1993 

SEcriON 1 

SEcriON BY SEcriON SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF 

THE AMERICAN INDIAN AGRICULTURAL ACf OF 1993 

SHORT TITLE 

Section 1 cites the short title of the Act as the "American Indian Agricultural Act of 

1993." 

SEcriON 2 FINDINGS 

Section 2 sets out the fmdings of the Congress. 

SEcriON 3 PURPOSES 

Section 3 provides that the purposes of the Act promote Indian self-determination 

by managing Indian agricultural lands pursuant to tribal priorities and nationally adopted 

multiple use and sustained yield principles, to provide for the development and management 

of Indian agricultural lands at a level commensurate with the level of development and 

management of other federal lands, and to increase educational and training opportunities 

for American Indians in agriculture. 

SEcriON 4 DEFINITIONS 

Section 4 sets out the definitions used in the Act. 

TITLE I· RANGELAND AND FARMLAND ENHANCEMENT 

SEcriON 101 MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN RANGELANDS AND FARMLANDS 

Subsection (a) provides that the Secretary shall, either directly or through contracts, 

undertake rangeland and farmland management activities on Indian lands. 

Subsection (b) sets out the Indian rangeland and farmland management objectives. 

These objectives include protecting and conserving Indian agricultural lands, increasing the 

production and diversity of Indian agricultural products, and managing agricultural resources 

to protect and enhance other associated values. 

Subsection (c) provides that the Secretary shall establish the Indian agricultural 

resource management planning program to assist in the development of tribal agricultural 

resource management plans. It provides that the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the tribe 

shall conduct public meetings to identify tnbal goals and objectives. The Secretary and the 

tnbe shall develop a 10 year agricultural resource management plan based on the records 

of the public meetings and other reports and research. 
32 

SECI10N 102 INDIAN PARTICIPATION IN LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 

Subsection (a) requires the Secretary to conduct all land management activities on 

tribal lands in accordance with the tribal goals and objectives established under the Act and 

in accordance with all tnbal laws. 

Subsection (b) provides that the Secretary shall comply with tribal laws and 

ordinances pertaining to Indian agriculture. It further provides that the Secretary shall 

provide assistance in the enforcement of tnballaws and require appropriate federal officials 

to appear in tribal forums. 

Subsection (c) authorizes the Secretary to waive any regulation or administrative 

policy which conflicts with the objectives of the tribal management plan or tnbal laws. 

SECI10N 103 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INDIAN RANGELAND AND 

FARMLAND AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 

Subsection (a) authorizes the Secretary to establish a 12 member task force which 

consists of 8 representatives of Indian tnbes and a representatives of the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Park Service and 11 national Indian 

agriculture organization. This task force shall develop a comparative analysis of Federal 

investment and management in Indian agricultural lands and other federally managed lands. 

Subsection (b) provides that the purposes of the comparative analysis shall be to 

provide a comprehensive assessment of the improvement and funding needs for Indian 

agricultural lands, to compare management and funding policies on Indian agricultural lands 

and other federal lands, and to identify barriers to Indian access to agriculture or rural 

development programs. 

Subsection (c) provides that the Secretary shall provide the final comparative analysis 

report to the Congress within 9 months from the date of enactment. 

SECI10N 104 LEASING OF INDIAN RANGELANDS AND FARMLANDS 

Subsection 104 provides that the Secretary may approve any agricultural lease for a 

term of 10 years and for a longer term where in the opinion of the Secretary such lease 

requires substantial development of and investment in the lands by the lessee and it is in the 

best interest of the landowner. The Secretary is also authorized to offer lands which are 

surplus to tnbal needs, for lease or permit on the open market. Further, the Secretary is 

authorized to lease Indian agricultural lands at rates below the Federal appraisal when it is 

in the best interest of the landowner and reflect the local economy. 

TITLE ll - EDUCATION IN AGRICULTURE MANAGEMJB:NT 

SECI10N 201 INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE AGRICULTURE MANAGEMENT 

EDUCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS 
33 

Subsection (a) authorizes the Secretary to establish in the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

at least 20 Indian agricultural resources intern positions. It provides that the Secretary shall 

pay costs of tuition, books, fees, and living expenses of an intern. It further provides that 

an Indian agricultural resources intern shall be required to enter into an obligated service 

agreement to serve as an employee within the Department of the Interior for one year for 

each year that their educational costs are paid. 

Subsection (b) requires the Secretary to maintain a cooperative education program 

in the Bureau of Indian Affairs to recruit Indian students for employment in professional 

agricultural positions within the Bureau of Indian Affairs and other federal agencies. 

Subsection (c) authorizes the Secretary to grant scholarships to Indians for 

postsecondary or graduate programs in the area of agriculture. Scholarship recipients shall 

be required to enter into an obligated service agreement to serve as an employee with a 

Bureau or tribal agriculture or natural resource program. 

Subsection (d) authorizes the Secretary to conduct an agricultural education outreach 

program for Indian youth. 

Subsection (e) requires the Secretary to administer the programs until there is an 

adequate supply of professional Indian natural resource managers for Bureau of Indian 

Affairs and tribal natural resource programs. 

SE<.IION 202 POSTGRADUATION RECRUITMENT EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

Subsection (a) provides that the Secretary shall establish and maintain a recruitment 

program for Indian professionals for employment in a Bureau or tnbal agriculture or natural 

resource program. 

Subsection (b) provides that the Secretary shall establish a cooperative internship 

program for Federal and Indian natural resource personnel in other agencies of the 

Department of Interior or with Bureau or tribal natural resource programs. 

Subsection (c) provides that the Secretary shall maintain a continuing education and 

training program for Bureau and tribal natural resource personnel. 

SE<.IION 203 COOPERA~AGREEMENTBETWEENTHEDEPARTMENTOF 

THE INTERIOR AND INDIAN TRIBES 

Subsection (a) authorizes the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with 

Indian tribes to engage in cooperative manpower and job training, perform land and facility 

improvements, and other activities related to land and natural resource development. 

Subsection (b) provides that Indian tribes and their employees performing work under 

a cooperative agreement shall not be deemed to be Federal employees except for purposes 

of sections 2671-2680 of title 28 and section 8101-8193 of title 5 of the United States Code. 
34 

Subsection (c) provides that nothing in the Act shall be construed to limit the 

authority of the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements otherwise authorized by law. 

SEcnON 204 OBLIGATED SERVICE; BREACH OF CONTRACr 

Subsection (a) provides that the Secretary shall adopt regulations to provide for an 

offer of employment to an individual who receives financial assistance in exchange for a 

service obligation under the Act. It further provides that where an offer of employment is 

not reasonably made, the regulations shall provide that such service is no longer required. 

Subsection (b) provides that where an individual fails to accept a re:asonable 'offer of 

employment, unreasonably terminates, or fails to perform their duties, the Secretary shall 

require repayment of the prorated amount with interest calculated at the maximum legal 

prevailing rate, as determined by the Treasurer of the United States. 

TI'ILE Ill • GENERAL PROVISIONS 

SEcnON 301 REGULATIONS 

Section 301 direets the Secretary to promulgate final regulations within 18 months 

from the date of enactment of this Act. 

SEcnON 302 TRUST RESPONSmiLI1Y 

Section 302 provides that nothing in this Act shall be construed to dimini.~h or expand 

the trust responsibility of the United States to Indian trust lands or natural resources. 

SEcnON 303 SEVERABILI'IY 

Section 303 provides that if any provision of this Act is held invalid the remainder of 

this Act shall not be affected thereby. 

SEcnON 304 AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS 

Section 304 authorizes to be appropriated such sums as are necessa1y to carry out the 

provisions of this Act. 
35 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I would like to remind all the witnesses that 

your entire written statements will be made a part of this committee hearing record, so you will be asked to summarize in five minutes your statements. The hearing record will remain open for two 

weeks. 

I would like to recognize the gentlelady from Arizona who has already left her mark in the Congress in her four months in this 

body. 

The gentlelady from Arizona. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you for holding 

the hearing and I have little to say except I am anticipating, looking forward to the testimony, and reading the witness' comments 

later. 

Thank you. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I thank the gentlelady. We are going to have 

four panels today and I would like to ask Mr. Patrick Hayes, the 

Director of the Office of Trust Responsibility of the BIA, Department the of Interior to please step forward. 

Mr. Hayes, as you know, we ask you to summarize within five 

minutes. Welcome to this subcommittee, and we ask you to proceed. If you could identify the individuals with you just for the 

record. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK HAYES, DlRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

TRUST RESPONSIBILITIES, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY RAY 

SMITH, CHIEF, BRANCH OF AGRICULTURE; LARRY MORRIN, 

DIVISION CHIEF, REAL ESTATE SERVICES; AND DAVID 

ETHERIDGE, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR, ENVIRONMENT, LAND 

AND MINERALS, DIVISION OF INDIA.."'J AFFAIRS 

Mr. HAYES. I will do that, Mr. Chairman. I am accompanied 

today, Mr. Chairman, by, on my right, Mr. Ray Smith, who is the 

Chief of our Branch of Agriculture and Range with the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs. To my immediate left is Mr. Larry Morrin, who is 

the Division Chief for our Division of Real Estate Services, and to 

his left is Mr. David Etheridge, who is an attorney in the Solicitor's 

Office for Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior. 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I 

am pleased to be here this morning to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 1425, the American Indian Agricultural Act of 1993. The bill is one to improve the management, 

productivity and use of Indian agricultural lands and resources. 

I have already introduced the individuals that I am accompanied 

by, and as the chairman has pointed out, I have submitted a prepared statement that I would ask be formally entered into the 

record and I do have a summary that I would like to present. 

We are highly pleased, Mr. Chairman, to see the interest you and 

the members of this committee have taken in Indian agriculture. 

We are particularly pleased that you have called for an early hearing on this legislation because it covers a subject that is critical in 

Indian country and should receive widespread input and comment. 

You and other members of this committee have been strong supporters of Indian ranchers and farmers. You, too, recognize that 

they are the backbone of Indian reservation economies all across 
36 

this Nation. Mr. Chairman, we are supportive of H.R. 1425, generally, but we do have some concerns which we would urge the 

committee to consider and address. 

Last year, Mr. Chairman, similar legislation was introduced in 

the 102d Congress and hearings were held. The administration at 

that time took a different position, one opposite to that being taken 

at this time. I believe that this change of position ils a tribute to 

one thing primarily, and that is the level of effort undertaken by 

the staff of this committee and your counterpart committee on the 

Senate side, along with the staff of the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

and key individuals from the Intertribal Agricultural Council to 

work out our differences. 

We committed at last year's hearing to working with you on this 

legislation and our joint efforts have brought us a lot closer to resolution of the issues than we were a year ago. We are not yet in 

total agreement, but we believe that our differences can be worked 

out. 

I would start, Mr. Chairman, by urging the committee to give 

some consideration to possibly looking at a demonstration project 

or projects. Because this legislation has potentially far-reaching impact on the individual rights versus tribal authority, we believe 

that demonstration projects would provide us all with a realistic 

assessment of the effectiveness of H.R. 1425. Annual reports and 

a final summary report could be required. The demonstration 

project could be short-term in duration, say, 3 to 5 years. 

We would like to see a number of terms and phrases tightened 

up or defined, such as the definition of Indian tribe only including 

federally recognized tribes. 

We believe that a definition or clarification of a couple of phrases would be helpful, particularly the phrases at Section 101(b)(5), "associated value-added industries," and at Section 104 (2), "surplus 

to the needs of Indian communities." The latter phrase may have 

as its purpose and meaning that Indian preference is intended. 

While in and of itself there is nothing wrong with Indian preference, such an intended result may or may not be beneficial to individual Indian landowners. 

Development of an agricultural resource management plan is 

consistent with our efforts to see integrated resource management 

plans developed by tribes across the country. In the past 5 years 

or so of effort to get IRMPs in place, we have only 9 so far. There 

are 7 in our Albuquerque area, and 2 in the Billings area. I am told 

that there are 4 more plans, 2 in each of the Billings and Albuquerque areas, which are essentially completed which would in short 

order bring us to a total of 13. 

It needs to be understood that a resource plan standing by itself 

will not mean an automatic improvement in management practices 

or enhanced productivity. It is a start. There needs to be a commitment to follow and abide by the terms of the plan itself from not 

only the Secretary, but also the tribe and the tribal members. It 

is often tempting to go with the expedient solution rather than the 

solution provided in the plan. There also needs to be an awareness of the physical costs associated with plan development and that they are not done quickly or 

without a tribal buy-in to the process. We are greatly concerned 
37 

about the requirement for the Secretary to provide all manner of 

notice about a wide variety of tribal laws covering a wide variety 

of topics to persons undertaking activities on Indian agricultural 

lands. 

How far is the Secretary administratively required to go? Do we 

need to provide a copy of every appropriate tribal law to every prospective lessee or merely post a listing on the bulletin board in 

every realty office of every pertinent law? The answer I am sure 

lies somewhere in between and includes some contribution and responsibility for some of this by the cognizant tribal government. 

The requirement that the Secretary shall waive any regulation 

or policy at Section 102(c) causes us some concern. In order to minimize these types of conflicts which would give rise to the need for 

a waiver, we think it is preferable that the plan be developed with 

a broad range of consulted agencies and the conflicts worked out 

beforehand. We understand that the waiver provision could include 

other Interior agencies who operate in close proximity to Indian 

lands and thus its scope should be clarified to apply only to Indian 

lands. We further are concerned about the mandatory nature of the 

waiver provision and would urge greater discretionary authority for 

the Secretary. While agriculture is important and is a priority, that 

is not to say that it is the only priority, as the tribe may have other 

equally pressing needs and priorities, so may the Secretary. 

Mr. Chairman, there are some costs associated with the imple- mentation of this legislation which need to be identified and ad- dressed consistent with the President's deficit reduction plan. We 

believe the educational provisions of the bill are extremely worthwhile. We have been as supportive as our resources permit to a 

similar effort to retrain and retain . Indian youth in all the dis- ciplines within the natural resources field. 

And finally, Mr. Chairman, we would urge that you consider, and 

you can be assured of our full cooperation, holding additional field 

hearings on this legislation. This legislation impacts on a time-test- ed relationship between the rights and authorities of a tribe and 

the rights and authorities of individual Indian landowners and the 

expectations of Indian farmers and ranchers. Throw in a changed 

role of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and potential problems will 

surely arise, even though all of our intentions are good. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my summary statement. I would 

be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have. I believe 

that if I· cannot personally answer your question, then I have great 

faith that the gentlemen who are at the table with me can. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Hayes follows:] 
38 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK HAYES, DIRECI'OR, OFFICE OF TRUST 

RESPONSmn.rriES, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF 

THE INTERIOR, BEFORE TilE HOUSE SUBCOMMI'ITEE ON NATIVE 

AMERICAN AFFAIRS, ON H.R. 1425, THE "AMERICAN INDIAN 

AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 1993". 

June 18, 1993 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am here today to present the views 

of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 1425, a bill "To improve the management, 

productivity, and use of Indian agricultural lands and resources." 

We commend the Committee for their interest in the management of Indian 

rangelands and farmlands and while we have a number o(concems with the bill, we 

could support H.R. 1425 if amended to meet our concerns. 

In light of several · controversial issues within the proposed legislation relating 

primarily to individual landowner rights and tribal authority, we strongly recommend 

that before moving to a full scale program the Committee authorize two to three 

demonstration projects to study the effect and impact H.R. 1425 could have on a 

particular reservation. We recommend a three- to five-year tenure for the 

demonstration projects to obtain a realistic assessment of the effectiveness of H.R. 

1425. 

In authorizing the demonstration projects we suggest that the bill include a provision 

reqUiring each participating project to provide an annual report to the Secretary on 

how the project has accomplished the following: (1) protection of Indian resources; 

(2) improvement of Indian income; (3) improvement of Indian employment; and (4) 

clarification of the relationship between tribal authority and the rights of Indian 

landowners. In addition. it would be desirable for a final report to the Secretary to 

include specific recommendations as to how to proceed with permanent legislation. 

In conjunction with the demonstration project, we suggest that a provision be added 

requiring an objective analysis to be conducted which quantifies and compares the 

expected costs of the bill to the expected benefits. 

H.R. 1425 involves very complex issues that will affect many parties and completely 

restructure the relationship between the tribes and individual Indian landowners. 

H.R. 1425 will increase tnbal authority over individual Indian landowners and over 

their decisions to lease their lands. We are aware of Department of Justice concems 

that H.R. 1425 could generate a substantial amount of breach of trust litigation. The 

Department of Justice will provide the Committee a separate report articulating its 

concems. · However, we believe these concems could be alleviated if the 

Department's concems are met. 

Many terms and phrases used in the bill are undefined and are left open to 

interpretation. Section 4(8) defines "Indian tnbe" as including any "other organized 

1 
39 

group or community." This language leaves the definition open to interpretation 

which could include non-federally recognized tribes. We recommend this language 

be changed to include Federally recognized tribes only. Section 104(2) includes the 

phrase "surplus to the needs of Indian communities." Agilln, this phrase is undefined 

and left open to interpretation and could be taken to mean Indian preference in 

leasing. 

Section 10l(b)(5) includes the term "associated value-added industries". This 

language is vague and undefined We therefore recommend that the Committee 

clarify what is included under the term "associated value-added industries". 

Section 101(c)(2)(B) directs the Secretary to provide for the development of an 

agricultural resources management plan for any interested In~ tribe. We agree 

there is a need for sound resource planning. Since 1988, the Bureau has strongly 

emphasized the Integrated Resources Management Planning initiative. To date, 

nine of these reservation plans have been completed. The purpose of this initiative, 

in cooperation with the tribe and the local Indian communities. is to prepare an 

integrated management plan for each reservation. These management plans include 

specific information on demographics, renewable and non-renewable natural 

resources. transportation, existing businesses and business opportunities. educational 

facilities. and economic and marketing data. These plans outline the various options 

available to tribal decision makers for developing resources on a reservation in an 

integrated fashion to improve the economic well-being of the local Indian population. 

Section 102(b )(2) directs the Secretary to provide notice of all tnbal laws relating to 

the environment, historic or cultural preservation, zoning and land use, and Indian 

agriculture to all persons or entities undertaking activities on Indian agricultural 

lands. This provision would greatly increase our administrative responsibilities. 

Providing due notice should be a local tribal government responsibility. The tribal 

governing body would be in the best position to provide notice to individuals rather 

thar. requiring the Secretary to do so. This is particularly significant when tribes are 

administering Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) programs under compacts and 

contracts. 

Section 102(c) requires the Secretary to waive the application of any regulation or 

administrative policy that conflicts with objectives of a management plan, unless the 

waiver would violate a Federal statute or judicial decision or would conflict with his 

general Federal trust responSibility. We fully support mutual consultation, 

coordination and participation in development of management plans under this bill 

by land and resource management agencies. We strongly recommend requirements 

for participation and consultation with Department of the Interior agencies as well as 

other affected land managers in development of the management plans. It is our 

understanding, as currently drafted, the requirement to waive regulations and policies 

may be applicable to all land-managing agencies under the jurisdiction of the 

Secretary within the ~cinity of Indian lands. For this reason we recommend that 

section 102(c) be clarified to apply only to Indian lands. Section 102(c) provtdes that 

2 
40 

the Secretary "shall waive" regulations or administrative policies which conflict with 

the objectives of the management plan or a tribal law. We recommend that the 

waiver provision be made discretionary not mandatory because the policy priority it 

creates in favor of agriculture may well be inconsistent with other tribal needs as well 

as important Secretarial policies. 

We also recommend the inclusion of a new subsection 102(d) as follows: 

"Nothing is this Act shall constitute a waiver of the sovereign immunity 

of the United States nor authorize tribal courts to review actions of the 

Secretary." 

Section 103 directs the Secretary to assemble a Task Force to develop a comparative 

analysis of Federal investment and management efforts for Indian trust and restricted 

lands as compared to federally owned lands managed by other Federal agencies or· 

instrumentalities. In 1990, the 81A completed a Position and Land Analysis Survey 

comparing staffing levels for Indian agricultural and range trust land to staffing levels 

for similar agricultural and range management activities on other Federal and private 

lands. The analysis revealed that the 81A would have to double its range and soils 

staffing levels in order to maintain a staff-to-acreage-managed ratio similar to other 

agencies. The data collected in this analysis is still valid as staffing patterns in the 

agricultural and land range disciplines have remained fairly stable in the last few 

years. If an additional study is necessary, we recommend that a provi'>ion be added to 

require that the comparative analysis address similar Federally owned land in the 

same geographic area as those Indian lands being studied. 

Section 104(1)(8) authorizes the Secretary to approve any lease or permit on Indian 

lands containing a provision for the renewal or renewals of such lease or permit for a 

period of years determined by the tribal government. We feel it is not prudent to 

provide rights of renewal as a provision of the lease agreement given that the 

conditions under which the lease was agreed to and the desires and needs of the 

landowner may change over the course of the lease. 

We therefore recommend section 104(1)(8) be amended by strikiJ:tg the following 

language: 

''which contains a provision authorizing the renewal or renewals of such 

lease or permit for a period of years determined by the tnbal 

government to be necessary to meet the purposes of this Act, including 

any such lease or permit" 

Section 104 directs the Secretary to promote the use of agricultural lands by Indian 

people and authorizes the Secretary to offer for lease only those lands surplus to the 

needs of Indian communities. In other words, the best bid from an Indian would be 

accepted even if there were better bids from non-Indians. This implies that Indian 

preference in leasing will be instituted in accordance with a tnbal resolution. Indian 

3 
41 

preference in leasing will restrict the economic market for the Indian landowner and 

may result in a decrease in rental income. We therefore recommend that the 

allottees be allowed the opportunity to opt out of the mandated Indian preference in 

leasing. 

While at this time there is no cost analysis of H.R. 1425, it is evident from the 

creation of the task force outlined in the bill, the intensive expanded management 

requirements, and the educational initiative, that implementation of H.R. 1425 would 

require the investment of significant amounts of money above and beyond the tens of 

millions of dollars already spent in this area. The Federal cost of the Indian 

agricultural bill should recognize the efforts by the President and Congress to reduce 

the Federal deficit and not create unrealistic expectations among tribes and their 

members. 

Section 101 directs the Secretary to undertake rangeland and farmland management 

activities on Indian lands and sets out the objectives of such undertakings by the 

Secretary. We do not interpret the objectives under section 101 to define or extend 

the Secretary's trust responsibilities beyond its current level. We favor exploring 

whether adopting the objectives set out in section 101(b) would produce the desired 

results and would support a demonstration project to resolve this issue. 

Because H.R. 1425 could have a substantial impact on the rights of the tribe vis-a-vis 

the rights of Indian farmers and landowners, we recommend that field hearings be 

conducted to allow these individuals to fully express their views and concerns. 

We also recommend a provision be added to clarify that the Act is not intended to 

exclude the applicability of any other Federal agricultural programs for which the 

Indian farmers and landowners may be eligible. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any 

questions the Committee may have. 

4 
42 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Hayes. Before we get into some 

substantive questions, I want to discuss a matter that troubles me. I know that Secretary Babbitt is making significant improvements 

in the BIA and I know that the Assistant Secretary of Indian Mfairs is not yet in place. 

I also know that you are known for running yow~ division well 

and you have actually submitted substantive testimony on this bill 

with suggested amendments, which is something wB haven't seen 

from BIA witnesses in about 12 years, so I am commending you before I express some very serious concerns. The concerns that I am expressing relate to a BIA memorandum 

dated March 31 of this year from the acting director of your office 

to all area directors. Basically this memo tells allotte1es to lobby me 

and Senator Inouye on the Indian agriculture bill, and I would like 

you to explain this memo and whether you think this was proper 

for the executive branch to do. Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I am very much aware of the memorandum to which you refer. The memorandum, as you mention, is 

one dated March 31, 1993, and was a memorandum from our office 

to all area directors to the attention of their realty officers. It was the furthest thing from our intent that this memo would 

have the result of lobbying either you or Senator Inouye. It is not 

the purpose of the memorandum. The purpose of the memorandum 

was to disseminate the legislation which was currently before the 

Congress on the Senate side, and we wanted to do the same thing 

with the House side, to ask our area offices to make this information about this legislation available as best they could to all individual Indian landowners. 

We are of the belief that most, if not all of the tribes, are aware 

of this, but the individual landowners I think are not so much 

aware. We wanted them to be aware that this had some fairly farreaching impact on them and their relationship with their land, 

and if they wanted to provide comment, then your name and Senator Inouye's name were included in there. 

In retrospect, I regret that we did that; however, it was not intended as a lobbying effort. That was the furthest thing from our 

intention, Mr. Richardson. Mr. RICHARDSON. Well, Mr. Hayes, I am not comfortable with 

your answer, because in the last two days, the subt:ommittee received 30 telefaxes from allottees, which normally we don't mind, 

but every one of them was faxed from the BIA Anadarko agency. 

Some are form letters and the language is pretty explicit about 

what they want us to do. I have read your memo, and while I understand this was not 

your intent, the language in the memo is quite specific about what 

you want these allottees to do. The proposed bill may affect the 

real property rights of Indian allottees. We are concerned that the 

Indian allottees may not be aware of this proposed legislation. We have got enough lobbyists here in Washington and we have 

got enough people lobbying me and Congressman Thomas and 

Faleomavaega and Representative English. I am concerned about 

it because this does not seem to be proper. Is it your view that 

these faxes from the BIA Anadarko agency are proper to be sent 

to me on behalf of Indian allottees? 
43 

Mr. HAYES. I don't believe it proper that they have come from the 

Anadarko area office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I am aware 

and have been provided with copies of a couple of the documents 

that were faxed to you. Late yesterday afternoon, I checked into 

that matter and the situation was, as I essentially suspected, that 

individuals from the Anadarko area came into the Bureau of Indian Affairs office and asked if the agency office would fax these 

to you. 

Providing assistance of one sort or another to Indian people at 

an agency or area or even in the Washington office is not uncommon. I worked for a few years at the Colorado River agency in 

Parker, Arizona, and was with some regularity asked to do this, 

that or some other thing for Indian people. 

I don't think that we are ever asked to telefax anything to a congressman or to a senator, but we are often asked by an individual 

who will walk in and they will ask if they can make a telephone 

call or if we might type a letter or if we might notarize something 

for them, a whole variety of things. Mr. RICHARDSON. Let me read you one BIA Anadarko agency fax 

to me. "Honorable sir, in opposition to H.R. 1425, I oppose this bill 

and I want my people's land to remain under the BIA Anadarko." 

The letter is from AO Spotted Bird, Hobart, Oklahoma. I mean, I have bunches of letters and they are lobbying. They are 

telling us they don't like the bill, in handwriting. I will provide 

these to you. You know, Mr. Hayes, I was hoping that you would 

say that you were wrong, this will not happen again, and the people involved are going to be disciplined. 

I am a little perturbed that you are coming to me and saying 

that this was not the intent when these letters are all over and 

have been documented. I am trying to get you to assume respon- sibility for this and tell me that this will not happen again and 

that those involved are to be disciplined. 

This is not right. Area offices of the BIA should not be used to 

lobby Members of Congress. BIA should not be lobbying the Congress. That is not your role. Mr. HAYEs. Mr. Chairman, if I might respond, I agree with you, it is not right, and I believe that I can assure the chairman that 

we will look into why these letters in opposition were telefaxed to 

you from the agency office. If there has been some violation, then 

we will take appropriate action. 

It is improper for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to lobby the Congress, as you correctly point out. In fact, I believe it is probably 

against the law for us to do that, and I just was attempting to 

point out to the chairman that it was not our intention to lobby 

Congress and we will do whatever is appropriate to see that this 

does not happen. If it is necessary for us to rescind this memorandum and provide some greater clarification to our field offices, we 

will do so. But we will stop this lobbying. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Will the chairman yield? 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Yes, and let me say to the gentleman from 

American Samoa, the chairman has to make a quick one-minute 

statement on the floor of the House, and I would ask the gentleman to proceed with the questions and assume the chair for a 

few minutes until I return. 
44 

Let me say to Mr. Hayes, I will take what you said under advisement. I like your later answers a little better. Let me just ask the 

gentleman from American Samoa to proceed. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA [presiding]. Thank you, and l will be very 

happy to do so. 

I would just like to ask Mr. Hayes if, for the record,, that you will 

give assurance that there will be disciplinary action taken against 

the people who are responsible for this memorandum and this development. Do I hear that correctly or does it merit this kind of an 

investigation by the Department? 

Will the Inspector General be involved in the process or is this 

just going to be done on a casual basis? I would just like to know 

for the record what you intend to do definitely with this matter. 

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, yesterday afternoon I was visited by 

two attorneys from our Solicitor's office, one from the Indian Mfairs Division and one from General Law, and we had some discussion about this memorandum and what was being considered to be 

done. 

At the conclusion of our discussion, they were going to go back 

to their offices and develop a memorandum. I am not sure of the 

precise contents of that memorandum, but they were going to develop a memorandum to our field offices, instructing them to disavow the memorandum in question and to rescind it so that there 

would be no further lobbying either factually or not factually. By 

that, I mean by sending in letters of opposition to either committee. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I can understand what you intend to do 

after we are discussing this issue, but what I want to know, assurances from you, will there be disciplinary action taken against 

those who are responsible for this memorandum and its activities? 

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I can't sit here and give you an assurance that a disciplinary action will be taken. I can assure you that 

the matter will be investigated and action appropriate to the results of that investigation will be taken. 

Whether that involves some Inspector General action or not, I 

can't tell you. I can only go back to the intent of the memorandum, 

which was far from trying to lobby the Congress. That was not our 

intention at all. 

Mr .. FALEOMAVAEGA. Am I to understand that the regional offices 

had no knowledge or understanding of this kind of activity if they 

were to do this kind of coaching or being involved in the process? 

Is this correct? Are you saying that the regional offices had no understanding of the ramifications of what they have done? 

Mr. HAYES. I can't--

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. What I am saying is: Is there some regulation within the Department of the Interior that says you cannot do 

this kind of thing? 

Mr. HAYES. I believe there is a prohibition against lobbying. I believe it is contrary to the law. Mr. Chairman, our reading of this 

memo is, we are not lobbying. We are trying to get information out 

to individual Indian landowners so that they can make informed 

decisions and they can take whatever action they feel appropriate. 

We don't want to be involved in lobbying. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. We will have to proceed on with this issue. 

I do have a couple questions I would like to ask, Mr. Hayes. 
45 

There have been extensive environmental impact statements developed for all public lands during the 1980s and in the process, 

these statements included inventories of natural, cultural and fiscal resources. How many acres of Indian trust lands have been 

similarly inventoried? 

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, the Bureau has not undertaken a 

massive effort to perform environmental impact statements on Indian trust lands. Many of our environmental impact statements are 

project-specific and cover a certain number of acres or a certain 

project on reservations across the country. 

We do believe that there are approximately 20 percent of the Indian trust lands that have had some sort of environmental assessment, environmental impact statements done, and much of this activity is undertaken through the auspices of the development of resource management plans. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I see. In the communications with this committee, the Bureau has taken the position that the Federal Government has no general trust obligation to use its funds to manage, 

make improvements upon, or develop Indian lands or resources. 

Isn't it true, however, that there are 164 Indian irrigation 

projects operated and maintained by the Bureau and the Federal 

Government has failed to complete even one of these projects? 

Mr. HAYES. That is correct. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So where do we go from there? 

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, Indian irrigation projects was the 

subject of an oversight hearing a couple of years ago, and at that 

time the Bureau testified that none of the Indian irrigation projects 

have been completed. None have been completed for any one of a 

number of reasons, primary among them is fiscal. 

We have had over the past decade or so great difficulty in obtaining monies to move forward on irrigation construction. Irrigation 

construction has not been a real high priority within the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs or within the Department of the Interior. Much 

of the effort and progress has been attributable to the Congress 

with the Congress appropriating funds for irrigation construction. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. There is a manual issued by the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, No. 55 to be specific, and it includes requirements 

that the BIA shall conduct interior natural land and rangeland 

plans for Indian trust lands. 

Does this seem to agree with what we are discussing here with 

reference to this legislation or do you differ in opinion in terms of 

what we are trying to project here as far as giving this kind of assistance to develop trust lands for purposes of agricultural enhancement? 

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I agree that the Bureau of Indian Mfairs is obliged to work with tribes or individual Indians in the development of management plans. Tribes and individual Indians put 

their property into units and we participate with them in the development of use plans. If that constitutes management activity, then, 

yes, we are involved in management activity. 

However, management activity in a real strict definitional sense, 

I think, involved some direction, some requirement that whoever is 

the manager give direction to whoever is using it. 
46 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Hayes, how many years have you been 

with the Bureau of Indian Affairs? 

Mr. HAYEs. I have been about 20 years, sir. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And Director of the Trust Land Responsibilities for--

Mr. HAYES. I have been Director of the Office of Trust Responsibilities for about four years, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Four years. 

Mr. HAYES. Yes. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Do you consider this piece of legislation is 

a new, novel idea about trying to promote agricultural development 

in trust lands? Do you consider this to be a good idea, or do you 

think it is a lousy idea to have the Indians be more self-supporting 

in that respect with the use of their lands for purposes of agricultural enhancement? 

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I think the legislation is probably a 

good idea in that it will set out the parameters of responsibility 

and it will require, if you will, the tribes to have a greater say and 

more self-determination in what happens to their trust land. 

It has some effects which I have testified to discomfort about. 

There are some matters contained within the legislation that we 

would be happy to work with this committee and the committee 

staff to alleviate our concerns. We think that there is a great deal 

of potential in this legislation, but it is going to be (lssentially a different ball game and it is going to require a greater amount of understanding by individual landowners as to their relationship with 

their tribal governments in regard to their land. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. All we are trying to do is to provide a little 

more than one option for some of these landowners and those of the 

trust lands to give the Indian community another opportunity 

other than just, you know, for what it is. 

And I realize that perhaps the BIA is not the expert agency that 

could provide guidelines and expert advice on how best to utilize 

trust lands for purposes of agricultural development, and all this 

piece of legislation attempts to do is to bring about this added ability and perhaps to work with your agency. 

Quite obviously, the Department of Agriculture probably is aware 

where the possible resources can lay, but we can do that on an 

interagency basis. But what I am not getting clearly from you is, 

Can you see this to be a viable option where trust lands and Indian-owned lands can be used for agricultural development in a 

good, positive way? . Not that it means that we are going to alienate the Indian landowners from the land, but for purposes of enhancing the value of 

the land for agricultural purposes, is this a bad idea? 

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, no, it is not. We applaud that intent 

in this legislation. We support that intent in this legislation. We 

are supportive of Indian agriculture and Indian ranching. As I have 

testified earlier, we believe that Indian ranchers and farmers are 

the backbone to economic stability on Indian reservations. They 

contribute greatly to the reservation economies, and we recognize 

that. 

We make no pretense that we have provided a service, provided 

counsel and advice to individuals and tribes which has been 100 
47 

percent good with no comments or no problems. We don't make 

that claim and we would never make that claim. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. See, but here is the problem I am faced 

with. All we are simply trying to do is give this opportunity, let the 

Indian farmers and the ranchers say, hey, this may be another way 

to help you develop your lands in the best way possible, whether 

it be for farming or ranching or what it is. 

And we get memos like this going around issued by the Department saying they are going to take away your lands. You are going 

to have problems. In other words, rather than being part of the solution, we make even more problems and this was never the intent 

of this piece of legislation. It was to give assistance, to provide help 

for the Indian farmers and ranchers, to enhance the value of whatever could be the most they use and the lands could be provided 

for. 

So what I am still trying to get from you, sir, is that you do approve the principle behind this piece of legislation? 

Mr. HAYES. That is correct. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGJ... We want to help the Indian farmer, the Indian ranchers. We want to enhance the use of the trust lands. Now, 

perhaps as a matter of record, can you share with us what has 

been the BIA record in promoting farming and ranching among the 

Indian people? 

Has the BIA been responsible for this over the years, to give assistance to the ranchers and the farmers? 

Mr. HAYEs. Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has been 

responsible. There is a great deal of commentary available which 

addresses the quality that has been provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, well, quality and quantity: There was a report to the 

Congress in 1986, and we would be happy to submit that again to 

this committee, which addressed many of the problems in Indian 

agriculture. It pointed out many of the shortcomings and made a 

number of recommendations on how to fix problems. [The report follows:] 
48 

REPORT TO CONGRESS 

B.I.A. AGRICULTURE - RANGE PROGRAMS 

Submitted by: 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Washington, D.C. 

September, 1986 
49 

FOREWORD 

The conservation and management of nearly 47 lllillion. acres of Indian 

farmland and rangeland, and the economic health of the Indian 

agriculture/range industries is a primary concern of the Indian 

community and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Tribes and their individuAl 

tribal members have long depended on reservation renewable natural resources for food and fiber. Recently, tribes have also begun to 

realize how important income from their agriculture/range resources is, 

when developing annual tribal budgets. For a majority of tribes in the 

United States, the income used to support tribal government comes from 

their renewable natural resources. 

In December 1985, Congress passed Public Law 99-190 providing an appropriation of $6,000,000 for the purchase of hay and its 

transportation in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota to mitigate 

drought impacts on· Indian reservations. The Act directed the Secretary 

of the Interior to submit a report to Congress by September 1, 1986, on the use of the emergency hay appropriation and the effectiveness of 

carrying out the roles of the Federal and tribal governments in 

agriculture and ranching throughout the United States. This report 

addresses the four Congressional questions, and the additional questions 

submitted by the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs. 

Farming and range issues cannot be addressed by themselves. They 

need to be considered with other economic, social, cultural and 

environmental questions, if long-term strategies to f1t ·the needs of 

individual tribal governme11ts are to be developed. This report will 

address the issues in broad terms except where speci.ic tribal problems are addressed or where issues deal specifically with one Area Office. 
50 

~ ..................................................... . 'I:ABIE ()f' ~ ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •·. • • • • • • • 1 1 

I. ~IW ~-·······•••••••····•••••••••••••••·••••••••• 1 

I I. INJ:R:I:(O'I~ AND ~ •••••••••••••••••••• , • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4 

II I. 1HE sma.TE SELEO' CU.r.tiTIEE' S ~leN) AND 

ll.lf(EAlJ ~~. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 6 

IV. LEiiiSL\TIVE 

~ 

~ P.L. 99-190 AID~ BllRFJ.I.I .................................................... 16 

A. 'lhe use of the appropriations for the Emergency 

liay' P:t-ograu. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • 16 

B. bnpacts of Drought Disaster.............................. 17 

c. Long-Tenn Strategies to avert the cyclic phenatenon of 

future disaster {droughts)............................. 20 

D. Effectiveness of the roles of the tribal and federal 

govenmants in agricultural and ranching operations.... 21 

V. &J;MARY OF fU!LlC."mrrlMNY CN 'IHE J3URF.AlJ J:P.AFr REPrnr '10 

CIN1lESS al 'IHE E!'t£R»Ci' HAY Pfi:XJ'!M1.- P.L. 99-190.......... 33 

A. Emergency Hay Program bnpacts............................ 33 

B. Asricul1~ Development.................................. 33 

c. ReHrvation Financing -General O:aments................. 35 

D. Technical Assistance..................................... . 37 

E. Perudt Adttdnistration.................................... 38 

F. Errors and Qnissions.............................. ... • • • . • 39 

ii 
51 

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Through Public Law 99-190 enacted in December 1985, Congress 

appropriated $6,000,000 to provide emergency hay relief to drought 

stricken Indian livestock producers on reservations in Montana, 

North Dakota, and South Dakota. The appropriation required that 

the Secretary of the Interior submit a Report to Congress on: 1) 

the use of the emergency hay approp.riation: 2) the impact of the 

drought on the a!fected Indian reservations: 3) lonr-term st!'ategies 

to address the disaster, and 4) the effectivene11 of federal and 

tribal roles in resource management related to ranching, 

agriculture, and other land use on Indian reservations throughout 

the United States, with recommendations to improve that 

effectiveness. 

In addition to the report requirements stated above, the United 

States Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs in a letter dated 

March 17, 1986, provided recommendations !or the report preparation 

and additional specific questions to be answered in the report. 

A report was prepared by each reservation (Blackfeet, Crow, Fort 

Belknap, Fort Peck, Northern Cheyenne, Rocky Boys in the 

Billings Area and Cheyenne River, Crow Creek, Lower Brule, Fort 

Berthold, Standing Rock, Rosebud and Pine Ridge in the Aberdeen 

Area) receiving assistance from the hay program and consolidated 

into an Area Office report by each Area • The Area Office reports were consolidated into a single draft report by the Central Office 

and provided to all tribes and interested parties for review and 

comment. Public hearings were held in BUlinp, Montana, and 

Aberdeen, South Dakota to solicit comments and testimony on the 

Central Office draft report and the general state of agriculture and 

ranching on reservations in the Billings and Aberdeen Areas. · 

The individual reservation reports, public teatimony, additional 

tribal and individual comments, and inputs from other Federal 

agencies which supply services to on reservation agricultural 

producers, have • been. consolidated in this report with 

recommendations for improvement. 

Agric:ultural and ranching pursuits are a major aource of income to 

reservation economies throughout the United States. On the 

Northern Great Plains reservations, beef cattle production and 

deyland farming of small grains are the major qric:ulture pursuits 

and the primary source of income and employment to the Indian 

people. The primary source of income to Indian land owners is 

provided through the leasing of their lands for . agric:ulture or grazing purposes. 

The impact of the drought on the subject reservations has been ·severe in both resource and economic terms. Loss of production 

income is estimated at $14.9 million from both small grain and beef 

losses for 1985. Landowner income losses due to reduction in lease 

and permit payments total $2.2 million for the same period. Total 

crop failures of small grains and hay were realized over much of 

1 
52 

Northern Montana, but these resources will rec:over quickly 

following increased rainfall. Drought damages to rangelands is 

severe on the Fort Peck Reservation, and on areas of' the Rocky 

Boy's Reservation and Blackfeet Reservation. SeVt!ral years of 

intensive management including shortened grazing seasons and 

reduced livestock numbers will be necessary to restore the grazing resource to pre-drought condition. 

Indian farming and ranching enterprises differ signili'!a.."ltly from 

off-reservation operations. Smaller scale, lack of sufficient capital, 

isolation, increased distance to markets, and re.duced land tenure 

terms contribute to a lack of long-term stability and increased 

impact from short-term market fluctuations or adverse weather 

conditions. A general lack of resource development increases 

drought impacts on Indian land, and results in a longer recovery 

period. 

A primary reason for the differences between Indian and non-Indian 

agriculture enterprises is that undivided heirship and tribal 

ownership prevents Indian operators from acquiring tltle to most of 

the lands in their operation. Indian farmers and ranchers are therefore dependent on leased lands with a term limited to fiv~ 

years by regulation. · This results in a lack of collateral to support 

necessary capital acquisition and reduced involvement in USDA 

programs requiring long-term land tenure. As a whole, these 

influences result in under capitalized, small scale operations with 

minimal on-farm development, little stability, and complete 

dependence on fluctuating markets. 

The Bureau has a primary responsibility to protect the interests of 

the trust landowner as established through treaty, Executive 

Orders, court. decisions, and regulation. This responsibility may 

place the Bureau in direct conflict with the interests of the land 

user, most frequently an Indian farmer or rancher. Under the 

Indian Selt'-determination Act and the Indian Priority System. of 

budgetary formulation, Bureau agriculture program:; have been 

given low priority. Over the past decade, total agriculture 

programs have been funded at only 2% of the total Bureau budget, even though 87\ of the 54 .5 mUllen acres administered by the 

Bureau .ll.l'e used for agricultural purposes. 

Other federal agencies with a responsibility to on-reservation 

agriculture have. also been ineffective due to a lack of Indian 

participation on local boards or committees,' and the expectation that 

Indian needs are met through Bureau programs. 

In order to improve conditions on Indian reservatiuns and resolve 

problems with Indian agriculture . and range pursuits, it is 

important to take the fo,Jowing actions: 

1. Establish a Commission similar to the Intertribal Timber Council on a .National/ Regional level for Agriculture/ Range. The 

Commission will be established to review Bureau and tribal 

policy, the rapidly changing goals and objectives o! tribal 

2 
53 

governments, and recommend changes tn Bureau/tribal policy to 

effectuate improved opportunities for management and increased 

productivity from Indian agriculture/range resources. 

2. Establish a schedule to continue the hearing process on a regional basis to obtain testimony from other tribes concerning 

improving the effectiveness of the Federal and tribal role in 

Indian agriculture. 

3. Review and recommend actions to improve the availability of coat 

effective long-term financing for the Indian agricultural 

community. ·This will include improving coordination with 

Federal and private lending institutions, improving land tenure 

regulations, establishing an Agriculture Lending Title tn. the 

Indian Financing Act, and investigating options !or the 

protection of Indian lands from alienation of trust status. 

4. Review the Bureau's mission and goals relative to encouraging 

tribal participation in the management of reservation lands 

including enforcement services on lease and permit lands. 

5. Identify requirements and needs for the Bureau's agriculture 

program and provide funding for seed money and/or cost share 

assistance for agriculture resources development and Indian 

range and farm management improvement projects. 

6. Include an agriculture extension service activity in the Bureau's 

Agriculture Program budget to improve and enhance Indian 

agricultural education programs for the needs of the Indian 

people through copperative agreements with the Department of 

Agriculture and land grant universities. This program must 

include reestablishment of Extension Agents at the reservation 

level to provide Agriculture Extension assistance and 

re-implement the FFA and 4-H programs for Indian youth. 

7. Set aside a percentage of the Bureau . scholarship fund for 

Indian students to complete degrees in the renewable natural resources sciences. 

a. Modify Department of Agriculture programs and procedures at 

the county or local level to enhance Indian agricultural p:roducer involvement in agriculture programs administered by 

the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), Agricultural Stabilization 

and Conservation Service (ASCS), and the Cooperative Extension Service (CES). 

9. Review the Agriculture/Range programs and projects to 

encourage cost sharing with trust land owners, individual land users and other Federal, state and local agencies. Projects 

with cost sharing potential should be given priority which wiU 

enhance the Bureau's funding for Agriculture/Range projects 

throughout the reservations. 

3 
54 

II. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 

Adverse drought conditions in the States of Montnna, North Dakota 

and South Dakota have threatened massive failures in the Indian 

ranching industry and concurrent financial crisis to tribal 

governments. Drought conditions in several locations have been 

long and continuous and described by some as the worst since the 

1930's. Forage and hay production has been reduced, on the 

average, by 50 percent. Decreased hay production has caused hay 

prices to more than double the ccst for normal years. Auding to 

this situation, a very harsh early winter starting in November 1985, 

reduced hay supplies fut:ther, which in turn, created a longer and more costly feed period. Snow coverage of 20 to 30 inches, and 

subzero temperatures early ttJ.s last winter prevented the use of 

the range for winter forage. 

During early fall and late winter of 1985, the Governors of 

Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota declared large portions of 

their states as disaster areas. The Department of Agriculture 

concurred that the reservations were drought-disaster al'eas and 

the Farmers Home Administration made low-interest emergency loans 

available. Indian ranchers could not access this program because 

they were unable to service any additional debt load. At the 

request of· tribal governments, the Bureau arranged for the 

Commodity Credit Corporation to provide surplus grain under the 

Indian Acute Distress Donation Pror-am· (lADDP). 

Feed grain assistance was badly needed; however, cows as ruminating animals also require roughage in order to survive. In 

order to utilize the sparse range vegetation, Indian tribes and the 

Bureau delayed spring livestock turn-out dates in Montana; 

·operators reduced herds up to 50 percent, most gruing fees were deferred; and for most of the three state area, the overall grazing season was reduced. 

Indian tribes brought their concerns and needs to the attention of 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Congress in late 1985. 

The Congressional Record - Senate, December 10, 1985, in 

testimony by Senator John Melcher, describes the conditions of the 

sitUation: 

"The only options which remain are to completE!ly eliminate 

herds, thereby ·forcing Indian ranchers out of business, or to implement a hay supplement program. However, let us make no mistake--Indian ranchers have already 

tolerated all they can take. If they go out of business, 

they will not re-enter the industry. They will join State, 

Federal, and tribal welfare rolls, swelling the 

overcrowded ranks of American Indians who are without 

opportunity to provid~ for themselves or their families." . 
55 

On December 19, 1985, the President approved H.~. Resolution 465 

(the Continuing· Resolution) (Public Law 99·190). The Act provided 

for an appropriation of $6,000,000 to purchase hay and its 

transportation for the drought disaster on Indian reservations in 

Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. 

The Act also directed the Secretary of the Interior to make a report, or reports, to the Congress by September 1, 1986, on (l) 

the use of the appropriation !or an emergency hay program, (2) the 

impact of the drought disaster on the Indian reservations in 

Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota, (3) long-term strategies 

to address the disaster on ·each of the reservations, and ( 4) the 

effectiveness of the carrying out of the roles (including resource J'!'lanagement and the establishment, waiver, and collection of grazing 

fees and rents or other payments) of the Federal and tribal 

governments in ranching, agriculture, and other land use on Indian 

reservations throughout . the United States, with recommendations to 

improve that effectiveness. 

The four (4) mandated requirements of P.L. 99..:190 are discussed in 

detail in the text of this report. Meetings were held with 

representatives of tribal governing bodies and farm and ranch 

operators concerning the preparation of this report. Hearings, in 

accordance with Section 16 of P.L. 73-383 (25 U.S.C. 476), the 

Indian Reorganization Act, have · been held to solicit further 

comment and input. Hearings were held in Billings, Montana, and 

Aberdeen, South Dakota, on July 10-11, 1986, respectively. A 

summary of testimony received is included in Section V of this 

report. Copies of the hearings proceedings are available upon 

request. . The United States · Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs 

provided guidance to the Bureau in a letter dated March 17, 1986, 

to the Assistant Secretary !or Indian Affairs. The letter reaffirmed 

the requirements of the Continuinr Resolution, made recommendations for preparation of the report, and recommended that additional 

items be addressed Jn th& report due on September 1, 1986. The 

Senate Select Committee questions are discussed in Part UI of this 

report. 

5 
56 

lii. THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE'S QUESTIONS AND BUREAU 

ANSWERS 

On March 1'7, 1986, the United States Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs provided the Bureau with additional items to be 

addressed. Those questions are discussed in this section. 

guestion 1: What is the Bureau policy for protection of truot land 

Ul the event of foreclosure on b.nd which has been mortgaged for 

Federal loans? What is the Bureau role in conjunction with other 

Federal agencies when foreclosure is threatened? 

Answer: Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 483a, any individual Indian owner of land held in trust or that is subject to restrictions against 

alienation may execute a mortgage against such land, subject to the 

approval of the Secretary of the Interior. 

Once an encumbrance has been approved by the Secretary, the 

Bureau's trust responsibUity does not extend to preventing 

foreclosure by bona fide lenders; however, the Bureau has an understanding with lenders in each of the Areas teo notify the 

particular tribe and the Agency office when a defaulted loan is in 

danger_ of being foreclosed. The Bureau will assilt the tribe in an attempt to obtain funds to purchase the land from the borrower if 

the tribe so · desires. 

The Bureau will also assist the borrower and the lender to work out a solution which protects trust land from foreclosure action. Tribal 

council officials and Bureau employees have succeeded in limiting 

trust land foreclosures to less than one (1) percent of the total 

number of acres currently under mortgage. The Bureau's Indian 

Financing Act and the FmHA Land Acquisition Program is availal:>le 

to assist the Tribal Land Acquisition Programs. 

~uestion 2: It appears to the committee that ther·e is a disparity 

etween the animal unit month {AUM) rates for allotted tribal land, as opposed to the A UM rates for other Federal land in nearby 

locationa. ··How does the Bureau establish AUM rates for allotted 

Indian land and how does this compare with the method for 

establishing AUM rates for other Federal land, for example BL.\t 

land? How does the AUM rate which the Bureau establishes for 

allotted land a!fect the establishment of tribal AUM rates? 

Answer: Indian lands are private lands held in trust by the 

reaerai Government, not public lands. The Leuing and Permitting 

Regulations (25 CFR 162) and General Grazing Regulations (25 CFR 

166) require that allotted land be leased and permitted at a fair 

annual rental return to land owners. The method for establishing 

annual rental value is a fair market value determined by using arms length transactions of leases and pennits on and off the reserva- tion. After a fair market value is established, there are several 

deductions, such as Bureau execution fees and advance payments of 

rentals, before a minimum rate per animal unit month is established. 

6 
57 

The method of establishing· grazing rental rates on public lands 

administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is provided 

in Section 6 of the PubUc Rangelands Improvement Act (P.L. 95-

514). The BLM determines fair market value, then uses a formula 

provided in Section 6 of the Act to establish the rental value per 

AUM. The BLM rate takes into consideration public use of the 

rangeland and cost of operations on pubUc land. 

The establishment of grazing rental rates on tribally owned lru1d:: is 

the responsibility of tribal governments. Rental rates at fair 

market value or a rate below fair market (subsidized rate) may be 

set for enrolled tribal members. Rental rates for non-Indians using 

tribal land will not be less than the minimum rate established for 

allotted land throughout the reservation. The Area Director and 

Agency Superintendent will provide the tribe with all available 

appraisal data and recommended minimum grazing rental rates. 

Question 3: What is done to train existing natural resources employees to further working relationships with tribal governments 

in the areas of trust responsibility and management of the range 

and agricultural land resource? 

Answer: There is a lack of specific on-the-job or .other training 

!or eJOsting or newly recruited natural resources staff regarding 

working relationships with tribal governments, or concerning the 

trust responsibility. Professional staff persons recruited by the 

Bureau are generally equipped with skills and knowledge on the 

management of range, agriculture, and resources. The scope of 

natural resource work on Indian owned land has no counterpart in 

the practice of agriculture and land resource management on lands 

administered by other public .agencies. Indian lands are unique 

privately-owned lands, where beneficial ownership is in the name of 

tribes or allotted individuals or heirs, but where legal title is held 

in trust, restricted from alienation by the United States. 

Bureau Manuals, su~h !l$ . .55 BIAM - Land Operations, and the Code 

of Federal Regulations, Title 25 - Indians, are the only existing 

natural resource prolrl'am guidelines available as training material 

for c:urrent or new employees. The Land Operations part of the 

Bureau manual has not been completely updated since the early 

1950's. It needs revision to reflect current policies and objectives 

for carrying out the Bure~u's Indian· Agriculture/Range Program. 

Question 4: What system and standards does the Bureau use to 

detenmne staffing requirements for ranre and agricultural positions? How many Indians are c:urrently employed in these positions? 

What is being done to train and recruit Indians for employment in 

natural resources positions? Do you have any plans to establish a 

para-professional tr~g program for natural resources careers? 

Answer: The Bureau of Indian Affairs' Personnel staff 

recrera:I Position Classification System Occupational 

designing professional and technician positions at 

Position Classification Standards establish the complexity 

7 

utilize the 

Codes in 

Agencies. 

and grade 
58 

level of each job in the Bureau organization at each reservation 

location. Position staffing ceilings are based upon Full Time 

Equivalency (FTE) hours allocated to each Agency Superintendent 

by the Area Director. Decisions to fund Agency poRi tiona are made 

using the Indian Priority System (Banded Funds). The authorized 

FTE for the Agriculture/Range program for FY 1981 1a 506. The 

following Figure identUles the present staftlng at 750 poettions 

itemized by managerial, professional, technical/aid, clerical and blue 

collar. 

Figure 1. BUREAU-WIDE STAFFING PERCENTAGES IN 

AGRICULTURE RANGE PROGRAMS 

TEOfllCAI./llO 33. DU 

These staffing categories are def"med a.s follows: 

Managerial: Classified as General Management (GM), these are distinguished from professional positions by policy formulation 

responsibilities. These positions are generally claalifted in the 

General Biological Science Series ( 401), 

Professional: Life Sdence, Engineering, and Natural · Resources 

positions with specialized disciplines applicable to the Bureau 

Agriculture and Range Programs. These positions are classified as General ~!=hedule (GS) and generally at a mid-level grade (9-12). 

Technical/ Aid: LiCe Sdence, Engineering·, and Natural Resources 

positions with generalized responsibilities implementing Bureau 

Agriculture and Range Programs. These positions are cla.ssified as General Schedule (GS) and generally at grade levels of 1 to 7. 

Clerical: Secretarial, Stenographic, Clerical staff, and Data 

Transcribers with assigned responsibilities of Arrtculture/Range 

staff support. These positions are classified a.s General Schedule 

and generally at grade levels of 2 to 5. 

Blue Collar: Wage Grade and Wage Supervisory p01dtions such as Ec:tuipment Operators, Mechanics, Pest Controllers and Laborers. 

8 
59 

The following Table indicates the distribution of these positions to 

the various areaa throughout the Bureau: 

Table 1. STAFFING OF AGRICULTURE/RANGE PROGRAMS BY AREA 

Mlii8ii- Profess- feChiiicai/ Blue 

rial tonal Aid Clerical Collar 

ASei"deen 4 45 81 25 15 170 

Albuquerque 2 48 30 15 52 14'1 

Anadarko 0 15 10 9 u 34 Billi~ 0 30 21 14 4 15 

East em 0 0 0 0 3 3 

Juneau 0 1 0 0 0 1 

Mimeapolis 0 0 0 0 0 0 

M.tskogee 1 8 11 8 0 . 28 

Navajo 4 41 52 20 5 128 

Phoenix 1 35 . 21 11 24 9ll 

Portland 3 30 15 11 3 63 

SacriiDI!I'lto 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Central Office 2 1 0 0 0 3 

'IOrAlS 17 260 248 119 ros 75o 

Figuns represent positions rather than FIE's. Figures are based on Position Listing. R!port Format 6 (5/29/86 and 6/13/86). 

The difference between the allowed FTE and the n~ber of positions 

listed reflects the extensive use of seasonal and short-term 

temporary employees ln field operations in Agriculture/Range . The 

following figure illustrates the Agriculture/Range positions by 

tenure categories ln · permanent, career-seasonal, or temporary 

positions: 

Figure 2. TENURE CATEGORIES OF AGRICULTURE-RANGE STAFF 

AT THE AGENCY LEVEL BUREAU-WIDE 

IWtUEII%AI. 

• saa tiO 200 uo 210 

liMIER ... POSlTliiiS 

9 
60 

Within Agriculture/Range in the Buret~u, non-Indians are frequently 

employed in managerial or professional positions, while Indians are most 

frequently employed in the technician, blue collar, and ·clerical posiLions. 

Managerial and professional positions in Agriculture/Range established 

through the Federal Position Clusification System have specific formal 

education requirements, usually tied to the spee!tlc area of expertise. 

Non-Indians frequently occupy these positions because Indian college 

students have not trad~tionally studied these subjects. The figures 

below compare Indian and non-Indian staffing in managerial, professional, and technical positions. Blue collar and clerical po&ations are not 

represented graphically as they are virtually 100\ Indian. 

Figure 3. COMPARISON OF INDIAN AND NON-INDIAN 

EMPLOYMENT IN AGRICULTUR~/RANGE POSITIONS 

NON-INOIAN NON-INDIAN 112~ 

~P«liAN (41 

MANAGERIAL 

INDIAN/NON-INDIAN 

PROFESSIONAL 

INOIAN/NON-INOIAN 

INC IAN 

DlllAN (!53I.ON-1NDIAN (41 

TECHNICAL/AID 

INDIAN/NON-INDIAN 

TOTALS 

INDIAN/NON-INDIAN 

CI.~ICAL J.KJ BLUE COl.l.AR POSlTIONS NOT INCI.UCEII 

FIGURES BASED ON REPORT FORMAT & POSITION LIST. 

10 

1501 

(1481 
61 

There are no formal programs to train and recruit Indiana for 

employment in Natural Resource positions. There is, however, an 

avenue for recruiting Indians through the Indian preference 

requiremen_t. By exercising Indian preference rights, minimally 

qualified indian applicants for Bureau Natural Resource positions 

positions are selected in preference over higher qualified non-Indian 

applicants. 

Question 5 : Since drought is a cyclical phenomena in the Great 

Plains area, what specific activities are recommended for long-:term 

agricultural planning? 

Answer: Long-term strategies to avert the cyclic phenomenon of 

!Uture disaster (drought) are discussed in detail in Section IV of 

this report. Existing Bureau grazing permits issued to Indian and 

non-Indian livestock owners provide a conservative stocking rate, 

using Soil Conservation Service standards designed to take cyclic 

weather patterns into consideration; This system is used throughout the Country; however, under long-term drought conditions 

experienced in Montana over the past five years, there is no specific program in place to protect the livestock owners or rangeland -resourc~s. 

Research in range management conducted by universities and 

Agricultural Research Stations over the past 50 years has concluded 

that rotational grazing systems with sufficient stockwater 

development offer the best opportunity to mitigate long-term 

drought impacts, without signi1icant loss of income to livestock 

producers and land owners. Where these systems are not in place 

it is recommended that livestock ·operators reduce the size of their 

livestock herds and that agencies reduce stocking rates on range 

unit permits, to meet severe or long-term drought condi.ions. 

Today's high · technology agriculture provides several alternatives to 

traditional dryland farming practices. Very little can be done to 

increase rainfall, but much can be done to conserve stored soil 

moisture and to improv;e management. Under an intensive management system, a more efficient cropping system can be carried out. 

The use of conservation tillage has increased in recent years due to 

the awareness of the on-site cost of erosion and the need to cut 

agriculture operating costs. The practices consist of a multitude of 

tillage patterns designed to reduce the number of tillage operations 

and· leave significant amounts of residue on the surface. Indian 

and non-Indian operators on Indian lands must be encouraged to 

incorporate new conservation practices and cooper_ate in ASCS and 

SCS !arm programs. 

In summary, recent investigations on Indian reservations in the 

Northern Great Plains indicate that improved on-farm management can reduce drought impacts on crop production and stored soil 

moisture. Similarly, improved ranch management, coupled with. good cross fencing, spacing of livestock water developments and 

crop /pasture rotations can reduce deterioration of forage and 

livestock production during long periods of drought. 

1~ 

73-728 - 93 - 3 
62 

Question 6: What Is the current acreage of trust land under 

mortgage to federal and private lenders, and what percentage Ia at risk? Please provide estimates on a reservation-by-reservation 

basis. 

Answer: Aa of December 31, 1985, there were 800,3:11 acres of 

tniit'lind mortgaged in the Aberdeen and Billinp Areas. 

The foUowtnr Tables will illustrate acres by reHrvation, amount of 

loans by reservation and lender, and totala by Area, The Tables 

also ahow the acres purch&Hd by tribes and the amounts of each 

tribal loan. While it Ia important to note that tribal income has 

been pledged as security for many tribal loans, some tribes have 

also mortrared lands as security for FmHA Joana. Due to the 

Lender/CUent relationship, the Bureau does not know the 

percentage of loans at risk. 

Table 2. 'lRm' INC> PIIESENll.Y lNEl M:Riti'IG: IN nlE ABmEEN AREA 

No. of 

Private 

Lender 

Mlrt~s Acres lm:lunt Financed (lndiviQ.lal) PCA 

Cheyenne River 1 133,68§.85 $13,834,955.23 1s,ooo.oo 4.103,327.95 6,865,140.00 

442,780.00 

58.700.00 

2,700.00 

.00 

Crow Creek 17 9,336.88 885,303.75 

I.Dwer Brule 7 1, 071.05 · 259, 300. 00 

Fort Totten 1 35.20 2,700.00 

Winnebago 0 . 00 • 00 

Sisseton 13 744.98 335,511.20 

Rosebud 40 11,613.11 1,710,053.72 

Yankton 28 580.12 809,340.00 

'tUrtle Mtn. 32 371.09 805,648.00 

Stndg Rock 126 52,756.60 3,519,331.46 

Ft.Berthold 268 93,901,10 13,702,397.19 

.00 .00 

.00 52,000.00 

.00 .00 

.00 .00 

.00 .00 

.oo .oo 

5,000.00 .00 

.00 .oo .00 24,099.88 

.00 161,129.52 

91,810.00 

952,500.00 

329,140.00 

234,650.00 

Pine Ridp 264 159,272.40 9,401,680.33 

mrALS m 463,372.38 . m.m,22o.n 214,339.50 1,560,320.01 297,339.50 5,900,817.36 

2,969,222.05 

11,900,300.92 

3,833,501.79 

27,681,044.76 

Carmercia1 Indian 

Lender Federal Credit 

(Banks,etc.) Land Bank Co~. SB.\ BIA 

0\eyenne River 578,829 •. 68 1,3so,ooo.oo 58.2 .38 m,7oo.oo 469,300.00 

Crow Creek 268.72%.00 46,100,00 .oo .00 109.701.75 

Lower Brule .00 28,000.00 .00 .00 120,600.00 

Fort Totten .00 .oo .00 .00 .oo Winnotb&go .00 .oo .00 .oo .oo Sitae ton 216,473.86 .oo 27,227.34 .oo .oo Rosebud 691,053.72 22,500.00 .oo 44,000.00 .oo 

Yankton 475,200.00 .oo .00 .00 .00 

'tUrtle Mtn. 115,698.00 9,000.00 .oo 66,000.00 380,300.00 

Stndg Rock 129,315.63 86,000.00 310,693.90 .oo .00 

Ft .Berthold 489 '785 .so 606.700.00 252,920.58 45,000 .oo 197,110.67 

Pine Ridp 1,524,259.57 . 1.930, 700.00 113,559.46 215,000.00 .00 

'lOIALS 4,48§,337.96. 4,o79,ooo.oo 762,656.66 649,7oo.uo 1,271,012.42 

12 
63 

Tr I ba I Land Acgu i s i t ion l.Qans 

Owy!Me River 

Crew Creek 

Lower· Brule 

Fort Totten 

Sl11eton 

lloaebucl 

Yankton 

Standing Bock 

Fort Bertoold 

Pine Ridge 

~ Acres w:n1 

9,336 

1,071 

9,884 

}mount 

1~00 

4,240,000 

3,280,000 

1,250,000 

1,500,000 

9,000,000 

11,826 

11,435 

3,558 

52,7U 

93,901 

158,152 

n'!";"§'i'' 

800,000 

4,300,000 

1, 700,000 

16,000,000 

43,070,000 

m.:sT VN> PRE:SENILY INIR ~t:RI'Ci'oGE IN UlE B!U.lta> IJ'IEA 

Individual 

~eet l.Qans Acres Total I'CA Rlti\ Banks 

m- 1 I3";"n'7 $18';ni7756 $6,3R7290 $6,5'7'r,270 $3. 22'§";"R' 

Crew 143 101,105 9,100,083 316,860 1,614,744 4,539,898 

Flathead 35 8,118 2,173,559 412,497 909,238 207,326 

Fort Bell<nap 175 TO ,415 7,628,604 781,954 4,416,923 943,437 

Fort Peck 22 29.393 5. 710,546 786,139 1,654,540 636,660 

N. Oleyenne 33 12,655 3,076,037 1,656,902 1,22&,130 ~-

Wind River 17 1,696 898,116 

NOn::a:u=eau 

-o- 295,230 397,386 

Lenders 579 336,949 46,835,701 10,320,442 16,696,073 9,954,603 

Rrlolvi~ 

Credi t l.Qans ~ 5,335,563 

'lmAL Individual 

M:>rtgages 377,449 52,171,244 

Tribal Credit 

(Cont'd) ~ ax:. 5BA ProgrB Loans ~ 

Blackieet 25,000 $1,421,524 10,368 

Crew 214,282 835,730 11,577 

Flathead 

Fort Bellcnap 898,689 8,319 

Fort Peck 76,398 39,010 1,092,640 6,799 

N. Oleyenne 193,005 417,037 3,000 

Wind River 669,943 427 

NCn:aGreau Lenders m.m 64. o to s.m.m 40,490 

1JUlW. VN> ~SIT!CN I.I:W6 . 

Blackfeet 

Crow 

Fort Peck 

N. OleyerJ'le . Wind River · 

BlflA. Acres - st:nS 

39,834 

68,692 .. 9,464 

10,139 •• 184 ,644 · •1'0 Real Estate M:>rtilli'ls 

••Real Estate Mortgages 

Jmcunt $4.~0 

4,548,000 

6,000,000 

250,000 

2,500,000 

19,189,000 

B!A Revolvi~ ~ /tftull' 

Pund · 1'0 Real Estate M:>rtpge $1,100 ,GoO 

970,000 

926,950 

2,996 ,9,50 

13 

nB 

$2,0U";'300 

2,414,500 

644,500 

1,486,290 

2,517,799 

~-

205,500. 

9,316,889 
Question 7 : What is the current loss of income to individual 

8llottees and tribal governments from existing agriculture leases . and permits, including both range and farm land? 

Answer: Figures tor projected Joss of 1988 income from leases 

and permits are contained in the accompanying Table for those 

reservations assisted through the Emergency Hay Program. 

The losses to allotted land owners and tribal governments are a result of unsubsidized stocking reductions, grazing deferments, 

and lapsed leases and permits due to reductions and liquidations 

of agricultural operations on the reservations. Projected 

figures were provided by Agency and tribal staffs in May 1986 

based on the best information available at that time. 

Table 3. 1986 U\ND O'NR INDE UEm flDf RNa t.NIT l'mtliTS 

AN> ~IaJLlUW. LFASES IN 'IHE BILLINJS AID Am'mEEN 

IRA RESERVAl'IQ6 lN\a.VED IN 'IHE lMl'aN:Y ~ PIDJiWd 

Billings: 

WVAtttN 

P1ne Rtage, SOUth DBkSta 

Rosebud, South Iakota 

Fort Berthold, North Dakota 

Oleyenne River, South Iakota 

Standing Rock, ~rth Dakota 

Total 

Blackfeet, Montana 

Fort Belknap, Montana 

Fort Pec:k, Montana 

Northem Oteyeme, Montana 

No loa& of incane fo~ ·Total 

$673,000 

168,000 

18,000 

102,000 

7,000 $§68,000 

621,000 

245,000 

325,000 

40,000 s1,23l,ooo 

reservations not reported. Orand Total $2,i99,000 

Question 8: To what extent are tribes contractinr with the 

Bureau for agricultural programs? What limitations are there on contracting by virtue of trust responsibility? 

AnawH: Contracting is an expression of support for Indian 

seti-determinatlon. Indian tribes throughout the country have 

been evaluating the overall agricultural prorrams for 

contracting purposes; however, over the past year, most tribes 

have only contracted for non-technical, labor-intensive 

prorrams. Moat tribes have not developed the technical 

capabilities, nor expressed the desire to contract for more technically oriented resource programs. They have difficulty 

acquiring or retaining qualified staff when technical programs are contracted. 

Bureau natural resources programs can be contracted as outlined . in 25 CFR Section 271, Subpart C • Range and soil 

inventories, plans, assessments and compliance are all 

14 
65 

contractible. The Bureau cannot contract its approval authority on leases and permits. · 

Question 9: Can the Bureau comment on the issues 

surround1lig competency leases on the Crow Reservation in 

Montana? wm it affect the abWty to provide resource management? 

Answer: Specific policy and direction is contained in :5 CFR 

162.15. Competent Crow Indians owning land with less than five 

heirs can lease their lands without Secretarial approval. Full 

responsibility for obtaining compliance with lease terms lies with 

the individual Crow lessor, Conservation stipulations are not 

required, however, they may be incorporated and made a part 

of the lease by the lessor. According to the regulations, the 

Secretary of the Interior is not precluded from ·taking action to assure conservation and protection of these lands, However, 

protection is the responsibility of each Crow lessor since he or she has the right to manage the property - free, clear, and 

unencumbered for farming or grazing purposes. A copy of 

each lease is to be recorded with the Crow Agency 

Superintendent after it has been completed and signed. 

The Competency Lease Act severely impacts the Burttau in 

providing resource management. Abuse or mismanagement of 

land occurs without the knowledge of the Agency Superintendent. Legislation and its regulations pertaining to the 

Competency Act do not clearly define the responsibility of the 

Secretary of the Interior to manage these lands, . Lessee and 

lease brokers tend to interpret the regulations and legislation to 

their own benefit. As a result of land abuse, the Bureau has 

exercised authority on several competent leases, and appeals 

have been generated, challenging Bureau authority. It is 

anticipated that litigation will be filed in the near future. 

15 
66 

IV. LEGlSLATIVE REQUEST, P.L.- 99-190 AND ABSTRACT BUREAU RESPONSE 

A. The Use of The Appropriation For The Emergency Hay Pro!fl'am 

The six million dollar appropriation waa divided equally between 

the Aberdeen and BU!ings Areu. Through Public Law 93-638 

grant proviaions, aeven tribes In the Aberdeen Area and six 

tribes In the Bil.li.!lp Area received a pro-rata share of the 

Congressional Appropriation, baaed on Indian livestock 

ownership, drought severity, and need. 

Tribes designated Emergency Hay Committees to detennine 

operator and livestock elisibiUty, baaed upon requirements 

within the I!Tant special provisions. The Hay Committee& and 

Bureau staff reviewed terma and conditions of contraet:s or requests for bids from hay sources available In the Areas. 

Tribal personnel administered the program functions of hay 

purchase, hay receipt and distribution, financial records, and 

report requirements. The · tribes, Agencies and recipients 

contributed cash or labor to take care of secondary coats involved in unloading, storage, local handling, and delivery of 

the purchased hay. Tribal committees and Agency staff 

cheeked emergency hay applleaticn information with Indian 

Acute Distress Donation Program (IADDP) applications and 

affidavits, range unit allocaticns, and range unit stock counts. Bureau and tribal field eta!! conducted ·simultaneous oversight 

inspections and spotehecks of the participant, for livestock 

numbers, hay on hand, and feeding rates. In ease" of 

discrepencies or incorrect information provided by recipients, 

further investigations were conducted and the Information 

referred to proper authorities for action. The 1986 emergency 

hay program expenditures by reservation are as follows: 

Table 5. ~ ~ m:::aw.t EXI'fN>I'lUlES 

Indian No. Live- Tons 

Rec!olents stock Ha~ 

214 26,000 13,43 

NrFA Reservation 

JISEldEfl'Hme Ri age Rosebud 

Oleyeme River 

St andlng Rock 

Fort Berthold 

em. Creek 

Lower Brule 

71 11.464 4 • 024 

106 30,506 5,973 78 13,873 5,311 

69 11,189 3,489 

9 1,500 395 

19 4.290 1,430 

5R '§T.1n 3'i';Til 

BlLLilG-Black!eet 206 

em. 94 

Fort Belknap 94 

Fort Peek 61 

Northern Oleyenne 61 

Rocky Boy's ~ 

19,819 

13 , 809 

6 '767 

6,194 

8,875 

2,308 

-rr;m9,984 

4,953 

3 ,1.76 

4,176 

3,176 

1,208 

26";"6'1'! 

SI.BIOIAL: 

GWM-Rln!AN REII:CI'IQI: 

lNl3LIG\lm RE'lUND 10 1HE 'IRF.ASt.Et': 

'IOIAL m::x::RN¥1 AIJIHP.l Ul'IQI: 

16 

Total 638 

Granted 1'rlbe s79,ooo365,000 

585 '500 

543,769 

222,524 

54,275 

86.068 

sr,nr.n-g 

1,068,288 

529,971 

339,832 

446,832 

339 '832 

129 '256 s~I 

$5,690,147 

292,000 

17,853 

$6,000,000 
67 

B. lr!t?acts of the Dro\li!,ht Disaster 

The national agriculture (fann, livestock and feed) systan is 

one of the largest sectors in the thi ted States econauy. Indian 

agriculture alao provides the largest econanic inpact on IIX)St 

reservations. 

The Bureau adninisters 54.5 million acres of lndian•acled land 

held in trust by the Federal Clovemnent. This land Qaq)rised 

of both allotted and tribally owned land, ia primarily used for 

agricultural production. As indicated in the following figure, 

69\ of all- Indian lands are rangelands and 10\ is non-ccmnercial 

forest lands used for the grazing of livestock, 13% are commer- cial and forest lands, 4\ are used for dryland fanning, 2\ are irrigated fa:nn lands, and less than 2\ are used for all other 

purposes. 

Figure 4. 1.00 t:sE oom::RIES KR ALL I.A!-n3 l.Nll:R 

BlA nt!SDICil~ 

TOTAl. U.NJ USES 

~~.5 MILLION ACRES 

I.A.1.1.,__ ... .,_, 

Baaed on 1984 figures, agricultural products grao.n on Indian 

lands are valued at $548.6 mi 11 ion annually; oil, gas, and 

mineral incane totals $230.7; and forest products (stuq:>age) 

are valued at $61.5 million. -

In addition to the actual proc!uction incane, Indian land owners 

and tribes receive $50.5 m:i Ilion in agricultural lease lncane 

and range unit pemit fees, cmpared with $17.6 in business 

lease incane, and $2.9 .in all other lease categories. 

1he faming and ranching sector also provides the I!Bin source. entrepreneurial opportunity to the Indian people, with 33,572 

individual Indian fani lies and tribes engaged in agricultural 

pursuits. 

17 
68 

The full inpact of the drought in the northem Great Plains IIBY 

not be evident for any years; txMever, it is CCX'lCW.Tent with 

the qricultural financial crisis ~Ung the Nation. All 

sectors of the agricultural econauy are aftected, inc hiding farm 

supply stores, tractor dealers, fertiliser distribl.ltors, and 

f&l'lll laple:D~nt 11111:11facturing plants. Extending forward th1'ougb 

the chain are all activities tbat are involved in food and 

nbir. frcm the flll'ID to the dinner tl!)le or the clothes closet. 

01 the food aide, processing, transportation, and distribution are ajor parts of the IyStaD and all these activities interface 

with each other on and off the reservation. 

Altl'w&h all aspects of the national agriculture cazmmity are i!Jllacted by the problaDI of poo~ narketa and drought, the 

on-reservation Indian farming and ranching CCDIDJnity is iapacted 

nuch IJI)re severely due to the differences between Indian and 

non-Indian operations. 

Off-reservation agricultural operations pnerally consist of 

large private land holdi.np supphmented with au,ch 81D11Ier 

acreages of crop-share or leased land. Tradit lond ly, the fam~er or rancher will am their croplands, haylands, and 

i!Jllroved pasture land. Leases are generally 1 imi ted to SI.DJDer 

pastures on Federal lands. In low crop years a f&l'llllr may seek 

out additional acres to flll'ID or crop-share to i~Jllrova his cash 

flow in the short-tel'ID. Ranchers in the sane at tuation IIBY 

atteirpt to cut addi Uonal hay for livestock feed tJuoouah cropshare agreanents. n. to the large land holdi.np ILSsoclated 

with these agricultural operations, there is sismficant 

collateral to support lq-te:nn ccmuercial financillJ of 

acquisition and operational costs. 

Qmaercial farming and ranching enterprises ONled and operated 

by Indiana on the droulht i~Jllacted reservations in Billings and 

Aberdee.p. Areas do not fo11ow the national trend. n~e to the 

nult!ple heirship status of a majority of the allotted land, and 

legal barriers preventing sale of tribally-owned land, Indian 

flll'!llers and ranchers do not CMn and can not acquire the majority 

of their land holdings. Consequently, the tmjori ty of land 

crappad by Indiana is leased land. 'lbe following Table provides 

acreaps and percentapa of land Olllled and leased by Indian 

tamers and ranchers in the Aberdeen and Bi 11 ings Areas: 

Table 5. OldPARis:N a QtMD AN> ~ I..'N:6 IN OOIAN 

IICRICtJLlUW. CHMTI~ IN BILLIN:lS AN> ABCR:mN AREAS 

a.nea IAu«l 'l'otai PircentiAu«< 

sraeen 

Cropland 67,921 87,090 155,011 56\ 

Grazing Land 1.179,858 2,891,486 3,071,344 71\ 

Billi.np 

Cropland 110.725 320,297 431,022 74\ 

Grazing land 345,536 3,285,707 3,631,243 80% 

18 
69 

Because Indian agriculture producers do not own the majority of 

their operation lanc!.a as indicated above, they do not have the 

same collateral position to acquire financial backing. This 

results in many operations being under-capitalized, with 

resultant marginal financial security from year-to-year. 

Additionally, impacts are caused by the cost of leasing 

compared to owning. The Bureau is legally required to obtain 

fair market rental for the allotted land owner, basl!!d on appraisals of on and off reservation lease rates. The com- bination of this established minimum rate and the dependency on lease lands to maintain operational scale may result in an artifically high competitive rate. 

The result is a smaller scale of operations, less long-term 

stability, more direct impact from short-terni market 

fluctuations, more severe impact from drought or other crop 

reducing influences, which combined, cause an increased rate of 

operational failures. 

Indian farmers and ranchers are liquidating both livestock 

herds and farming equipment at an accelerated rate, due to 

deflated prices within the commodities and beef industry. 

Production costs have been compounded by t.he drought, 

increasing crop losses, feed costs, livestock death losses, lower 

calving percentages, lighter weaning weights and lack of 

livestock subsidies. 

The fll'st and most noticeable impact of the drought was the 

loss of livestock water withj.n range units. Under stress 

conditions, the need for new sources and reconditioning of the 

existing structures for livestock watering became apparent. 

Since Agriculture Conservation Practices (ACP) payments have 

been cut back, development of these structures has decreased 

significantly and need is beyond the funding capability of the 

Bureau and tribal, range improvement funds. The estimated 

cost to provide adequate water developments to range units in 

the Billings and Aberdeen Areas is $14,000,000. 

Another critical impact is the loss of forage fur winter feed, 

which means longer feeding periods that, in turn, create a high 

demand for existing scarce supplies, thus inflating prices. 

Lo8s of income to land owners is seen through liquidation of 

farm and ranch operators who are defaulting on leases and 

permits. For small grain operators, the 1985 gross value of 

production losses was estimated at $4,588,000 for hay program 

reservations in Aberdeen, and $10,320,000 for hay program 

reservations in Billings. A list of rental loss of lands not 

leued or permitted was presented earlier and totals S968 ,000 

and $1,231,000 for Aberdeen and Billings Areas, respectively. 

Losses in beef production are estimated at $2,520,000 for reser- vations in the Aberdeen Ares, and $1,200,000 for reservations 

in the Billings Area which participated in the hay program. 

19 
c. 

70 

Drought has a cumulative negative . impact upon range 

conditions, usually causing deterioration; however, this becomes 

somewhat limited when the drought occurs over only one growing season u ill the situation in the Abe!rdeen Area. 

Short-term drought has less harmful effect on rangelands when 

stocking rates are conservative, which 1a the Bureau's policy. 

A drought which continues over a five-year period s.uch as in 

northern Montana, impacts in combination with the d~:!pressed 

commodity prices and beef industry, creating a situation so severe that all but the most proficient managers may become 

insolvent. 

Many Indian livestock operators are experiencing decreased 

productivity levels in cow herd siz:e, calving percentages and 

weaning weights. Under drought conditions, these problems are amplified and are attributed to the lack of range improvements, which includes poor livestock water distribution systems, 

low quality and quantity feed for calving and tlushing, limited 

pasture rotation areas to defer grazing, and incn!ased cost to 

control nqxious weeds and rodents. 

Studies and actual field investigation provide evidence that the 

effect of short-term droughts can be completely avoided or significantly mitigated. In order to accomplish drought avoid- ance or mitigation, proper management techniques and practices 

must be utilized. For the moat part, effective management and 

agricultural practices are non-existent on Indian lands. Listed 

below are a number . of methods that are available to avoid/ 

mitigate drought effects, provided that adequate funding and 

expertise are made available: 

1. Reduce livestock numbers to the point where they are in 

balance with the reduced levels of forage produced during a drought period. 

2. . ~lay turning livestock onto range lands until cool season vegetation has matured during the critical spring growing season. 

3. Perform annual range readiness examinations and vegetative 

transect studies to determine proper livestock turn-out 

dates, determine range condition and trend, lLSsess stock ·water needs and availability, and to determine if livestock 

reductions are required. 

4. Improve livestock water supply and watering structures to 

avert/mitigate drought effects. Current water developments are . inadequate. Windmills, spring developmEmts, dams, 

dugouts and wells are few in number on Indian lands. 

Their scarcity limits the use of grasslands remote from 

water, and precludes the use of pasture rotation. 

20 
71 

5. Develop hay lands to provide adequate hay production for 

wintering livestock and to supplement periods of low forage 

production. Many Indian grazing units, and even entire 

reservations, lack adequate hay production and .tame grass 

pastures. Tame grass pastures allow livestock a place to 

grue in early spring, prior to the native range readiness 

date, and consequently promote better utilization of existing 

forage, extend the grazing season, reduce hay feeding 

periods and enhance range conditions. 

6. Establish and maintain proper range unit stocking rates. 

Establish a conservative stocking rate that will ensure forage reserves to make it through short-term droughts. 

7. Improve recordkeeping capabilities of farmers and ranchers. 

Where available, direct operators to the Extension Services 

!or training in record keeping related to breeding, weight 

gains, grazing management (new systems such as savory 

grazing method) and other general business and 

recordkeeping requirements. Tribes should strive to 

increase funding for agriculture extension programs. 

8. Establish · a conservation/range improvement fund !or 

development projects, and reserve funds to be utilized i,n 

emergencies and drought. Encourage land owners to allow a portion of their lease income to be placed into an account 

for the development of water facUlties, cross fencing or other management tools that will help in livestock 

distribution and use of forage production. In addition, a percentage of this fund should be p18.ced in an account for emerge~cie~ and drought. 

9. Increase Bureau funding for agriculture/range programs 

and rehabilitate areas on a priority system or cost/benefit 

return. 

10. Remove Agriculture from the present priority system in the 

Bureau for determining funding. · 

11. Implement as appropriate, new technologies to preserve soil 

moiature and reduce soU erosion on farm lands. Continuous 

cropping, stubble mulch farming, chemical weed control, etc., are some of the methods that can be utilized. 

Educational/technical expertise is required by the Indian 

people and can be acquired from the Bureau, Extension 

Services and SoU Conservation Service. 

D. Effectiveness of the Roles of the Tribal and Federal 

Governments m AgncUlture and Ranching Operations 

Public Law 99-190 required that comments be provided on the 

effectiveness of the carrying out of the roles (including resource management and the establishment, waiver and 

collection of grazing. fees and rents or other payments) of the 

21 
72 

federal and tribal governments in ranching, agriculture, and 

other land use on Indian reservations throughout the United 

States, with recommendations to improve that effectiveness. 

There are, in addition to tribal governments, a number of 

Federal agendes who have roles in the management and 

develop.ment of Indian . lands. Below are discussions of the 

effectiveness of the tribal governments and Federal agencies, 

including the Bureau of Indian Affairs, in administration of 

Indian lands held in trust 'by the United States Gc-;o.rnment. 

1. Tribal Governments 

Through treaty, historical practice, and the President's 

policy statement on Indian Affairs, it is and has been the 

policy . of the United States to maintain a government-togovernment relationship with the tribal government on each 

reservation. Implied in this statement is the recognition of 

the sovereign right of the tribal councils to go'rern their 

respective reservations. 

In this brief discussion, it is important to consider that 

each tribe is a unique entity. As each tribe is unique, 

each tribal government is also unique, having its own strengths, weaknesses, and characteristics. It is, therefore, necessary to generalize . on tendendea perceived in 

these governments, with the understanding that what may 

be a weakness in one g-overnment may be a strength in 

another. 

In general, and despite the previously mentioned policy 

statement on sovereign rights, tribal governments are not 

empowered to take direct ·and effective action in land 

management, impacting the agriculture industry on the 

reservations. 

Tribal governments may take action directly in establishing 

rental terms and conditions on leases to tribal members on tribally owned lands. However, in many instanc•!S, Great 

Plains reservations contain a majority of allotted or fee land over which the counc:U does not have direet authority. 

Land use provisions, including stocking rates and season- of-use, rental rates on allotted lands, rental rates on tribal 

lands permitted and leased to non-Indians, &IId actual 

approval of the lease contract all rest with the Sec:retary of 

the Interior by reiulation. 

As sovereign entities, tribal counc:Us have been effective in 

acquiring needed assistance for their agricultural communities through the political process and direct access to 

Congress as evidenced by the Emergency Hay Program . However, once Congressional assistance is obtained, the 

tribes are invariably directed in the use of the usistance 

by Executive Branch agencies, and are monitored 

extensively by the Inspector General's office. 
73 

Tribal council members, as elected officials, represent their 

constituents and the best intere!lt of the tribe, In many 

cues, tribal government does not regulate allotted land 

owners, but" serves in an advisory capacity. Tribes and 

allotted land owners compete for funds and other services 

provided by the Bureau. Due to political pressure from 

their constituents, tribes sometimes take action which may 

violate existing statutes, regulations, tribal constitutions or tribal ordinances. This places the tribe in clirP.ct cenfllct 

with the Agency Superintendent, who must advise the tribe 

of any violations and the consequences of their actions. 

Examples of weaknesses in tribal governments include some of the following: 

- Tribal business enterprises are frequently uot free from 

tribal political interference. 

- Tribal government programs lack continuity. 

Few tribal representatives have formal education in 

natural resource disciplines. 

- There is no Tribal Civil Service Personnel System to 

maintain trained and qualified tribal staff free of political 

pressure. 

- There is limited accountability for actions. 

- There are limited long-range plans for resourc& 

developm!!nt and related budgeting. 

2. Bureau of Indian Affairs 

It cannot be clearly stated that the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs is as totally effective now as ·it has been in the past 

in carrying · o.ut its management roles in the fields of resource· management and economic development of the 

Indian agricultural community. 

Public testimony on the draft of this report and specific 

comments contained in Congressional testimony on P. L. 

99-190, expressed concern that the Bureau has not been as responsive as it should be in protecting the Indian 

agricultural community from the economic impacts of drought or the current agricultural crises. Public testimony also . pointed out that the Bureau was not aa · effective in 

providing direct or technical assistance to Indian 

agricultural operators. 

Reported lack of services to individual Indians and tribes 

from other Federal agencies, is blamed on the Bureau 

because the Indian people and other agencies believe that 

the Bureau is responsible ·for coordinating those services. 

23 
74 

Some comments from publlc testimony indicate that the 

Bureau has also been ineffective in ·developing the 

airleultural resources of the reservations. 

There are three primary reasons why the Bureau has not 

been totally effective in the roles liated above. These are: a) existing regulations prevent accompliahment in those 

areas; b) the Indian Priority System has estabUahed other 

iOala for the Bureau; and c) Bureau programs hav~ been 

discontinued or rejected based on standards developed in 

off-reservation situations and miaapplled to reservation 

economies. 

a. Regulations 

The authority of the Secretary of Interior for range 

and agriculture on Indian lands is contained in the 

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 25, Part 166.2. This 

is "to protect individually owned and tribal lands 

against waste." Waste is further defined u ":Improper use which threatens destruction of the range and soU 

resource." In the same regulation it states, "It is also 

the Secretary's responsibility to improve the economic 

well being of the Indian people through proper and 

efficient resource use." 

In the regulations on Farm/Pasture Leases (25 CFR, 

Part 162), there is no provision for leasing lands at 

less than fair market rental and no authority to grant 

preference to Indians in the awarding of leases. These 

examples are provided in this report to illustrate that 

existing regulations prevent the Bureau from taking 

logical actions necessary to uliat Indian farmers and 

ranchers in surviving drought and economic crises. 

The regul~tions require protection of the land base and 

economic well being of the land owner, not the land user. 

b. Current Priorities 

Program priorities for the Bureau as a whole, and for 

each individual reservation, are set through the Indian 

Priority System. In recent years, Agriculture has 

generally been given a low priority and agricultural 

funds have gradually been moved into higher priority 

programs. Although agriculture is the primary 

contributor to reservation economies and employment. 

funding for all agriculture programs has averaged only 

2.25\ of the total Bureau budget for the past ten 

years. Since the Bureau has a statutory requirement 

to protect land owner interests, and tribes have 

formally expressed higher priorities in other prOfl'&mS, 

technical assistance programs such as agricultural 

extension services have been curtailed or discontinued. 

24 
75 

As a result of lower priority and resultant reduced 

budget levels, staff has been reduced, and direct 

services not required by regulation have been 

discontinued. Program funds previously available to 

Area Offices for technical assistance and resource management projects have been. eliminated or redirected 

to the Agency level to maintain staff to meet 

administrative requirements. 

c. Application of Off-reservation Standard; 

Attempts by tribes and Agencies to obtain or continue 

development projects have been. thwarted by the application of off-reservation economic standards to cost/ 

benefit ratios. For example, in public testilllony, the 

need for development or rehabilitation of irrigation 

systems was stated several times. However, irrigation 

construction funding has not been requested nor appropriated by Congress other than in the "Jobs Blli" of 

1983. Part of this lack of priority may be because of 

fiscal constraints and the need to fund higher priority 

programs based on an Inspector General's finding that 

irrigation on Indian lands is generally not cost effective 

in the traditional sense. This is due to the low value 

placed on Indian lands, the generally low value of crops 

produced under irrigation on Indian lands, and. the 

distance to markets from isolated reservation 

communities. No consideration is given to the fact that 

without "low value" hay crops grown under irrigation on the arid or semi-arid reservations, the entire Indian 

livestock industry collapses or is dependent on federal 

"emergency" programs such as the IADDP. 

The Bureau is, and has been, effective in t'ulf11ling its 

role in protecting the resources and economic interest 

of the land owners. Reservation rangelands remain, 

generally, in much better condition than off-reservation 

privat-e · of federally-owned rangelands. Due to 

conservation stipulations substantially fewer acres of 

erodable soils are fartDed on trust lands than in 

neighboring off-reservation areas. 

The Bureau responded to the drought on heavily 

illlpacted reservations by applying established range 

management practices to protect the forage resource. These practices included deferral of all livestock 

grazing in some units, large reductions in the number 

of cattle permitted into non-deferred units, and 

postponement of the start of summer grazing on rangelands until after the critical growth period of 

native grasses was complete. These actions were taken 

to protect the long-term productivity of the trust resources even through there was strong opposition 

from some tribes, Indian livest9ck operators, and 

allotted land owners. 

25 
76 

Even with little reductions in funding and staffing, land owners are receiving permlt/leue income, fees and 

bonds are ·not routinely waived, collection actions on rentala 1a continuing even againat insolvent Indian 

farmers threatened with foreclosUl'e by FmHA, and the 

trust resources are being protected against wute and 

abuse. 

These actions, required by regulation, do not enhance 

the use of Indian lands by indiana, do not provide 

technical or direct uaistance to· Indian farmers and 

ranchers, and do not assist the Indian agr:tcultural 

community in developing a self-sut'fldent economy on the 

reservations. 

Recommendations: 

If it 1a to become a goal of the Bureau to actively usist 

the ·Indian community in fully developing its natural 

resources, provide technical assistance, de,relop a stable Indian agrlculture community on the rese:L"Vation, 

and provide assistance to individual Indian farmers and 

ranchers in mitigating disaster impacts such u the 

recent drought, then several interrelated actions are necessary. 

·.'Ill 

(1) Redefine the Bureau's role in agrlculture and 

land management on the reservation. 

(2) Review and modify u necessary ·existing 

Federal regulations pertaining to leasing and 

permitting of trust lands. 

(3) Prioritize resource and agriculture prognms 

to reestablish operable funding and staffing levels u funds permit 

( 4) Increase the priority of resource development on Indian lands . (5) :Establish realistic criteria for evaluating 

Indian development projects on the basis of 

lone-term impacts on the affected community, 

In the public testimony , several indi:vlduals suggested 

establishment of an Indian Agricultural Commission. That 

commission, ·if established, may be effective in offering 

direction and solutions on the iasues raised above, 

3. Corps of Engineers 

The United States Army Corps of :Engineers is responsible 

for activities relating to rivera, harbors and waterways; 

administration of lawa for protection of and preservation of 

navigable waters and related resources such as wetlands, 

It is recommended that a Memorandum of Agreement or Memorandum of Understanding be developed at the Central 

26 
77 

Office level to handle the return of title to lands "taken" 

for flooding by main stem dams and for bank protection 

where erosion is occurring on trust lands below several 

major dam sites. 

4. A(l'icultural Stabilization and Conservation Service 

The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service 

(ASCS) administers commodity and related land use programs designed for voluntary production adjustment, resource protection, and market price and farm income 

stabilization. 

Indian land owners have benefitted through the El)lergency 

Assistance and Agriculture Conservation Program which has 

complemented the Bureau renewable natural resource program goals for many years. This program has recently 

been greatly reduced through budget cuts. Programs 

available through ASCS have been limited because 1), most 

of the ASCS p.rogram assistance is directed to offreservation land owners due, in part, to a lack of Indian 

representation on county committees, 2) short-duration 

leases established by regulation on Indian lands which do 

not provide for their inclusion in long-term programs and, 

3) the ASCS has not publicized progriii!ls or assistance 

available to Indian operators in a manner. which could 

increase reservation involvement. 

To resolve these problems the following actions are recommended: 

a. In tnose counties containing Indian reservations 

establish positions on county committees exclusively ior 

Indian representatives. Base the Indian/ non-Indian 

ratio for the committee on the demographics of the 

county in question. 

b. As recommended elsewhere iri this report, review and 

modify as necessary the land tenure portions of 25 CFR 

162 and 25 CFR 166 to provide for inclusion in 

long-term ASCS programs. 

c. Develop a procedure for the dissemination of program 

information at the Washington level for channeling to 

county and Agency offices. 

5. Soil Conservation Service 

The Soil Conservation Service (SCS), which has responsibility 

for developi.'lg and carrying out a national soil and water 

conservation program in cooperation with land owners and 

operators, other land users and developers, and with community 

planning agencies and regional resource groups, has exhibited a 

27 
78 

good worlring relationship with the Burea1,1, Indian tribes; and 

individual land owners. However, due to personnel cuts and 

reduced funding, the Indian land owners requests for 

assistance have. been drastically reduced. 

The Great Plains program administered by the SCS has been of 

great value . in resource development on reservation lands. 

Unfortunately, .this program has not been widely applied due to 

short duration Bureau of Indian Affairs leases, and curtailment 

of SCS funding. The SCS also conducts soil aurveys under the 

National Cooperative Soil Survey Program, which is a cost share 

arrangement between the Bureau, tribes and SCS, but this 

program has been severely curtailed by funding and staffmg 

cuts. 

Recommendations for improvement are include'd under the ASCS 

discussion. 

6. Fanners Home Administration 

The Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) providE!S credit for 

those in rural America who are unable to get credit !rom other sources at reasonable rates. It is the. major lender for 

agric.ulture loans on Indian reservations. To be eligible for a loan !rom FmHA, the borrower must be unable to obtain 

financing from other lenders, 

FmHA is considered to be a very conservative lende·r, with very 

few delinquencies and foreclosures. However, in r·eeent years, 

the number o! loans has increased significantly because of the 

emergency and disaster programs. 

The size of FmHA staff in the county offices has not increased 

in relation to the workload, and this has resulted !n delays in 

processing loans. Delays of several months for approval action 

may put a new loan in financial trouble from the stsll't. 

FmHA has required that borrowers' real estate be mortgaged, 

regardless of the amount of the loan and the value of the land. 

They inform the Indian borrowers that this is a requirement to 

approve the loan . 

Many loans have been made to farmers and ranchers who are now unable to meet their commitments due to the general 

agriculture crises compounded by drought or other disasters. 

In many eases, these emergency loans were secured by second 

position collateral with only limited repayment ability. 

As a result of several years of drought and other weather 

related disasters, this lender now has over 60 perc:ent of their 

loans in delinquent status and may be forced to foreclose on a large percentage of these loans. As pointed out previously in 

• this report, almost one million acres of trust land are mortgaged 

28 
79 

in the drought impacted Billings and Aberdeen Areas. It is 

possible that significant acreages of trust Indian lands could 

be foreclosed upon by FmHA in the immediate future. 

The involvement of FmHA on reservation lands could be 

improved through the following steps: 

a. In reservation areas, require that an FmHA loan officer 

maintain an on-reservation office at the Agency 

headquarters, and be present in that office a percentage of time equal to the percentage of Indian 

clients served. 

b. As recommended under the ASCS comments, ~stablish 

positions on county committees exclusively for Indian 

representatives based on the area demographics. 

c. .At the national level, FmHA and Bureau directors 

should meet to determine what actions can or should be 

pursued to prevent alienation of trust lands threatened 

with foreclosure. 

7. Agriculture Extension Service 

The Agriculture Extension Service program used to provide a variety ·of agricultural technical assistance aids to Indian 

people in concert with allied Bureau programs. These 

services included educational assistance in agricultural 

matters, help in preparing and maintaining farm plans and 

financial documents, direction of Indian 4-H and FFA youth 

activities. and coordinating the needs of individual Indian 

farmers and ranchers with services available throughout the 

agricultural community. 

Cooperative Extension Agents assigned to specific reserva- tions have been well received and - largely successful in 

their programs. A major reason for this is that they are not involved ·1n the enforcement of Federal or tribal 

regulations and therefore do not have the negative 

encounters common to Bureau employees. Unfortunately, 

changed priorities and decreasing federal assistance in the 

last decade have resulted in almost total absence of 

Extension Agents within reservation areas. 

Numerous requests for bringing the Extension Service 

program back into the reservations were received during 

the public hearings held July 10-11, 1986. The Bureau 

agrees that the lack of Extension Service programs are detrimental to the overall efficiency of agricultural 

operations on reservations and supports tribal requests to 

have funding added to the Bureau's budget for supporting 

the Extension Service. 

29 
80 

It is recommended that the Agriculture Extension Service 

activity be included as a line item in the Bureau's 

Agriculture Program budget, and that monies so 

appropriated be used to reestablish resident Extension 

Agents at reservations through cooperative agr·eements with 

the USDA and land grant universities. 

8. U.S . Department of Justice 

All court cases involving Indians and the Bur1!au of Indian 

Affairs are handled by the United States Attorney General. 

The only major problem is the reluctance t)f the U.S. 

Attorney General to take many cases, due to shortage of 

staff and the present emphasis on negotiated settlement. 

9. State Historic Preservation Offices 

The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) E!Stablished in 

each state is organized primarily to insure COI:Dpliance with 

Section 106 of the National Historic Presuvation Act. 

Problems with this office occur for several reastms: 

a. The tribes distrust the SHPO because the very name of 

the organization i.inplies state juriatiction. 

b . . Coordination and consultation with the SHPO often takes 

significant periods of time which serve to delay projects 

relating to management and development of Indian 

lands. 

c. Controversy exists whether Sections 106 shtluld apply to 

individual Indian land owners. At this time, an individual Indian is required to have an archeological 

examination performed on his/her land priot· to any land 

disturbance. 

This requirement is additional to any requirement 

imposed on non-Indians and · does impede Indian land 

usage. 

The SHPO is only marginally effective in dealing .with Indian 

needs and requirements. Increased educational efforts and a possible exception of rules on Indian land is ·equired. 

10. Bureau of Land Management/U.S. Forest Servic:e 

There is generally little or no formal assistance to 

reservation agriculture from either the Bureau of Land 

Management {BLM) or the Forest Service {USFS). On 

reservations which share boundaries with national forests or BLM resource districts, informal cooperative agreements 

frequently exist between the local Bureau agency and the 

neighboring jurisdiction to handle problems of mutual concern such as livestock trespass. 

30 
81 

The BLM is responsible for providing all cadastral surveys 

on federal trust lands, including reservatiuns. These 

surveys are accomplished uainr Bureau of Indian Affairs 

appropriated monies, under agreement between the twu 

Agencies. 

The establishment o( grazing rates· on BLM and USFS 

administered land has caused major conf'lict with Indian 

livestock operators and tribes. The Bureau of Indian 

Affairs is required by regulation to set minimum rates which 

provide fair market return to the Indian land owner based on rental appraisal data. These rates are invariably 

several times higher than BLM or USFS rates and place 

Indian livestock producers at a competitive disadvantage in 

the market ·place. Indian livestock producers and livestock 

associations frequently use comparisons with BLM/USFS 

rates in their efforts to have Bureau of Indian Affairs 

grazing rates reduced. 

11. Bureau of Reclamation 

The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) has provided some technical assistance in irrigation-related studies on some reservations. Most BOR irrigation projects which impact 

Indian lands are accomplished with· tribal input. 

Cooperation has improved since a Federal court judge in 

Montana admonished the Regional Director, BOR, that the 

trust responsibility applies to all federal agencies, not just 

to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

The BOR is frequently accused of insensitivity to Indian 

needs a:1d water rights in their operation of river systems 

and storage facilities used by Indian and non-Indian 

irrigation projects. Until recently, BOR appeared to be 

concerned with the needs of the non-Indian districts, leaving the Bureau of Indian Affairs to represent often 

conflicting ee~ of the Indian districts. 

Since these problema are more attitudinal than procedural or regulatory, direetora of the two Bureau's should meet to 

formulate worlcinr policies and agreements for transmittal to 

Area and Regional offices. · 

12. U.S. Department of the Interior Solicitor's Office 

The Solicitor's Office provides legal service to Bureau 

oUiciala. While legal advice is sound, &Ome ofticea have 

slow response times. 

13 . The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of 

the Department of Agriculture provides for insect and 

31 
82 

animal damage control for the Department of the Interior 

through a Memorandum of Agreement. Their lll!Sistance has 

been adequate and timely even though the Agency suffers 

!rom lack of sta!t' and uncertain budgets. 

14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The Fish and Wildllt'e Service (FWS) is recognized as the 

fact-finding arm of the Department of the Interior on aport 

fishery and wildlife matters. FWS policy states that the 

costs of services provided by the FWS to th1! Bureau be 

reimbursed by the Bureau. The nature and scope of 

activities performed by the FWS is defined in memoranda of 

agreement negotiated annually between the two agencies. 

The Bureau supports the reimbursement of t he FWS for 

technical fish and wildlife services provided to tribes in cases where the Bureau cannot provide such services and 

where the tribes have not as yet developed the capabilities 

to perform such services !or themselves. The Bureau 

recommends that its limited resources be utilized in 

developing full tribal capability in the management of fish 

and wildlife resources through tribal contracting. 

15. United States Geological Survey 

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) provides the 

Bureau with water investigations, data for . water rights 

cues, topographic and other map outputs and digitized data 

bues for geographic information system applications. The 

services received by the Bureau are prof1!ssional and 

timely. In the last year, this agency hu become more visible and accessible in the promotion of their services and 

products. All direct services provided by USGS are funded 

by the Bureau. 

32 
83 

V. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THE BUREAU DRAFT REPORT 

TO CONGRESS ON THE EMERGENCY HAY PROGRAM - P.L. 99-190 

Hearings: July 10, 1986, in SWings, Montana and July 11, 1986 in 

Aberdeen, South Dakota 

Public hearings to obtain tribal and public input on the · report to 

Congress mandated by P .L. 99-190, were held in Billings, Montana, on July 10, 1986, and in ·Aberdeen, South Dakota on July 11, 1986. 

These hearings were attended by 176 participants, of which 84 gave oral 

and/or written testimony. The record wa.s kept open until July 25, 

1986, to provide increased opportunity for tribal input, and two tribes 

submitted additional testimony during that period. 

Tribal Chairmen, or their designated representatives, presented 

testimony on behalf of their tribes in the morning sessions. The 

afternoon sessions on both days provided opportunity for testimony from 

other tribal officials and the general public, which included Indian 

ranchers and land owners. 

All of the Billings Area tribes, one tribe in the Portland Area, and nine 

of the Aberdeen Area tribe_s presented formal testimony. 

The comments received are summarized below and incorporated into the 

body of the report, where appropriate. Comments received prior to the 

public . hearings and previously submitted for inclusion in the draft 

report are not repeated here. 

A. Emergency Hay Program Impacts 

Twenty (20) ·respondents testified that the Emergency Hay 

Program authorized through P.L. 99-190 wa.s of great benefit to 

the Indian livestock owner recipients. These comments are largely summarized by the statement of Mr. Paul Iron Cloud, 

Vice-Chairman of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, who stated that the 

program "saved numerous tribal member stockgrowers from total 

liquidation of ·their herds." Every tribe presenting testimony 

expressed gratitude to Congress for the appropriation. 

Two individuals commented that the program wa.s beneficial but was not a long-term solution to agricultural problems in Indian 

country. 

Two comments were received that the hay should have been 

made available also for the horse, buffalo, and elk herds. 

There were no negative comments on the program~ 

B. Agriculture Development 

The topic with the largest number of comments (104) was agricultural programs on the reservations. These comments are broken down as follows: 

33 
84 

1. Importance of Agriculture to Reservation Economie.! 

Twenty-one (21) respondents, consisting of nine tribal 

chairmen, the Executive Director of the United Sioux Tribes 

Development Corporation, two presidents of Indian Livestock 

Aaaoc:iations, and nine Indian ranchers or land owners, 

provided testimony that "Agriculture is the main source of 

income for Tribal Governments and individual land owners." 

Included in this testimony is the explanation that earned 

income from agricultural resources includes direct b1come 

from !a.rtting and ranching enterprises and indirect income 

from the leasing of B.iricultural lands or range units. 

2. Requests for development programs in Natural Ret;ources/ 

Agnculture 

Seventy-one (71) comments were received requesting 

significant resource improvement programs related to 

agriculture. Four tribes submitted extensive proposals 

covering several aspects of agricultural development, 

complete with multi-year funding levels. 

The number of requests for specific projects iall into the 

following categories: 

a. General rlingeland ia;>rovement progr!ml (10) 

b. Weed control (l.O) 

c. Irrigation construction/rehabilitation ( 9) 

d. Stock water developnent ( 9) e. Cros.s fencing and grazing systems ( 9) 

f. Proposals !or smell agri-business 

ventures ( 6) 

g. Hay base developnent ( 5) 

h. Insect control ( S) 

i. Rodent control (prairie dogs) ( 4) 

j. Erosion/saline seep control ( 4) 

One tribal chairman indicated that many of the programs 

requested by his tribe had already been proposed in prior 

years and submitted through Bureau channels or directly to 

Congress, with little result. 

All the requests for programs included statement11 such as: "Additional Feder &.I funding over and above the existing 

Bureau budget must be provided to meet the needs I have 

mentioned." Mr. Rocky Stump, Chairman of the Rocky 

Boy's Chippewa-Cree Tribe summarized aa follows: "In 

short, we are a proud people. We would prefer not to need or use programs such as the hay program or IADDP. A 

long-term strategy of rangeland improvement allowing our operators to balance their needs with availability of the resource would be one preference. However, the magnitude 

of the funds required is far beyond our capability." 

34 
85 

; 

An additional pertinent comment made by Celeste Eagleman 

of the Fort Berthold Reservation was that "conservation 

seems to outweigh economic prosperity as the Bureau goal." 

3 • Lease Compliance 

One tribal chairman and one land owner commented on the 

need for improved lease compliance and enforcement actions 

on trust lands. 

4. Implementation 

In order to implement the recommendations listed above, as well as some to follow in this report, specific COI'\lments on the need for an "Agriculture Commission" and an "Indian 

Natural Resources Development Act" were made by various 

tribal officials. 

Six tribal chairmen, the Executive Director of the United 

Sioux Tribes, and the president of the Northern Cheyenne 

Livestock Association recommended the establishment of an agricultural comm1ss1on at the national level to 

"re'l(iew ••• policies, plans, rules, regulations and laws," 

and to provide guidance in the implementation of 10-year 

development programs on the reservations. 

A fmal comment on agricultural programs, repeated by many 

in the testimony, but first stated by Mr. Michael T. Pablo, 

Vice-Chairman of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai 

Tribes was: "A blanket policy for all reservations, handled 

out of the Central Office, on land use and policy will not 

work." 'There must be flexibility in addressing each 

reservation's needs and goals. 

C. Reservation Financing - General Comments. 

Ninety-two (92) comments were received on the agricultural 

financing needa. of Indian borrowers. Tribal council 

representatives indicated that credit is a major problem on the. reservations and a determining factor for survival of the Indian 

rancher. 

1. Lack of Financing in A![l"iculture 

Twenty-nine {29) people commented on the lack of financing 

availAble to Indians. Comments were made that when 

lenders began to curtail loans to agriculture because of the 

depressed economic conditions. the Indian borrowers were the first to be dropped. The lack of operating capital was reported to have crippled the farmer and rancher to the 

point where they cannot plant crops or produce winter feed 

for their livestock. 

35 
86 

Mr. Dennis Huber, Fort Berthold Tribal Council, stated 

that the major lender on reservations is the Farmers Home 

Administration (FmHA) and that they have refused to 

provide operating loans to Indians. 

Seventeen (17) operators said it is very difflc\lLlt to receive 

loans from commercial lenders who make loans to non- Indians. 

2. Indian Financing Act. 

Eighteen (18) people commented on the Indian Financing Act 

of 1974. A concern was that the processing time on a request sent to Washington was too long. They suggested 

that approval authority be delegated to the Area Director 

for improved service. Six (6) persons requested legislation 

to amend the Indian Financing Act to provide lower interest 

rates and to establish a separate title for agricultural loans 

with special funding. 

Twelve (12) people stated a need for better lc·an servicing 

by the B1:1reau loan programs. 

Mr. Norman Hollow, Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board, was critical of the policy established by the Washington Office 

concerning Bureau guaranteed loans. 

3. Land Protection Consolidation. 

Fourteen ( 14) people expressed concern about the amount of 

trust land that is in danger of foreclosure. It was suggested that funds be established in the Re·volving Loan 

Fund for tribes to purchase land in danger of foreclosure 

in order to maintain the trust status. · 

There were three people, including one trib1!1l chairman, 

that took exception to the draft . report statement that the 

Bureau's trust responsibility does not extend t<> maintaining 

the Indian land base. 

·mx people testified that they would like the Bureau and 

FmHA people to consider the transfer of problem loans with 

trust real estate mortgages from FmHA to the Bureau. 

4. Revolving Loan Programs. 

The court system was discussed several times with an expressed desire to have tribal courts handle foreclosure 

and bankruptcy cases. 

Eleven (11) people requested the restructuring of their 

existing livestock loans to a lower interest ratl! and a new repayment schedule. Six (6) tribes with rev<>lving ·credit 

loans requested a set aside of their interest for at least 

36 
87 

three years to allow the borrowers to reduce their principal 

or increase their . livestock numbers to improve repayment 

abllity. 

Four (4) tribal members said that the tribal relending 

programs have very limlted funds and do not adequately 

ftnance Indian operators. 

Four ( 4) respondents indicated a need for financing for 

small agriculture-related businesses. 

D. Technical Assistance 

Twenty-one (21) respondents requested that the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs greatly increase ita level of agriculture technical 

assistance to the tribes. 

Three respondents requested that the Bu.reau increase staff 

positions . and funding levels to provide the needed technical 

assistance to operators of Indian lands. 

Mr. Michael Pablo, Flathead Vice-Chairman, stated, "The 

Flathead Agency, with approximately 57 4, 000 acres of 

tribally-owned land, and 47,000 acres of allotted land to 

administer, is extremely short-handed and swamped by the 

workload." Thia shortage results in land transactions that are two to three years behind schedule. 

The need for a close relationship between the individual 

operator and the Bureau was voiced by four of the respondents. 

The nature of technical assistance in natural resources requires 

that it be given on a cue-by-case basis. 

Mr. Calvin Waln, Rosebud Sioux Councilman, stated: "We've got some younger people coming into our BIA office, our land 

operations, and they are willing to sit down and listen to us, 

listen to our ideas. We listen to them ••• we can sit down and 

talk to each other ••• but, together we can possibly come up with a solution." 

Twenty respondents cited a void in the technical assistance 

offered by the state and Federal extension agencies. These 

extension services were noted to be virtually non-existent on many reservations. The agricultural extension services that are existent were reported to be much more responsive to the 

non-Indian sector. 

Mr. Phil Beaumont, a rancher from Crow Agency summarized 

the problem: "I would like to somehow get the extension 

service back into the Bureau of Indian Affairs. And I'd like to 

somehow see agricultural education having a little more emphasis 

in the Bureau of Indian Affairs.· Because that's the only 

agency where I could go and receive the kind of services that I 

37 
88 

desire. And if they don't have it, I don't think I could 

possibly find it anywhere. 11 

Slx respondents also stated that the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

should take a more active role in fosterin1r agricultural 

education programs. Mr. Orville Hicks, Natural Resources 

Specialist of the United Sioux Tribe Development Corporation of 

South Dakota, stated: 11 ••• The BIA has withdrawn from the 

education field, from educating the youngsters. Many of these 

reservations no longer have a 4-H, FFA, nothing !n the ~~ehools 

to tell a kid what's going on in agriculture. We're doing a f'lirly good job of educating the Indians, but they're all coming 

out of the school teachers and social workers, 11 

Mr. Morgan Garreau, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Chairman, augge~ted that the Bureau provide funding for scholarships in 

renewable natural resource sciences students, and Mr. William 

T. Main, Fort Belknap Tribal Chairman suggested a cooperative 

effort between Indian community colleges and state universities 

in of!ering resource training on the reservation. 

E. Permit Administration 

Twenty-three respondents voiced concerns pertaining to the 

Bureau administration of grazing permits. Qne tribal council- man expressed his preference for the allocation system over the 

competitive bidding system as a mode of promoting Indian use of 

Indian lands. Thirteen respondents called for greater flexibility from the agency in administering grazing permits. One 

tribal councilman requested that the Agency Superintendents be 

given more authority to approve leases, especially where tracts 

with many heirs are involved. 

The length of the permit term wu a concern of seven respondents, who stated that the five year permit period is too 

short to obtain optimum financing terms or to participate in 

ASCS programs. As stated by Mr •. Stanford Stephens, Crow 

tribal member, "To organize an economic unit, it is necessary to assure the lender you are going to be in business long enough 

to re~ay the loan. BIA's live year leasing regulation should be 

waived in some instances and this provision extended, so all 

ASCS programs could be utilized to the maximum by the 

operator and land owner. 11 

It was also expressed that ranchers are hesi'tant to make 

expensive improvements such as cross fe!fcini and water 

developments, on the land due to the landowner's ability to 

withdraw their allotments from the range unit pursuant to 25 

CFR 166.15. The rancher is then stuck with the coat of the 

improvement, but hu lost the use of the allotment. 

Slx respondents complained that the Bureau's minimum rate for 

allotted land was substantially more expensive than that on 

38 
89 

federal land available through the U.S. Forest Service or the 

Bureau of Land Management. Some complained that due to the 

Bureau's higher rates, some of the rangeland 1a not being 

permitted. 

One respondent, Mr. Aljoe Agard of the Standing Roc:k Sioux 

Tribe requested a "freeze on existing grazing rates due to the 

economy." Two respondents suggested that the appraised rates 

should reflect the productivity of the land. Mr. Ralph Walker, 

of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe stated, "The gruf_'lg rates 

should be determined by what the cattle operator 1a earning, 

what he can afford ••• " Mr. Everett Hunt, of the Cheyenne 

River Sioux Tribe, requested that the Bureau develop a flexible 

gruing formula for setting grazing rates. He noted that the 

Bureau muat have some flexibility, "looking out !or allottees as well as the individuals that lease that land." 

Eight respondents also leveled criticism against the requirement 

that all farm/paature leases obtain surety bonds to insure 

payment of the lease pursuant to 25 CFR 162, They requested 

that the Bureau drop this requirement because many Indian 

operators have difficulty obtaining a bond or paying the lease 

and the extra amount for the bond. Mr. Pat McLaughlin, 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Councilman affirmed that there were 45 farm/pasture leases that cannot be approved because the 

Indian lessees cannot secure bonds. 

F. Errors and Omissions 

There were eleven responses which pointed out errors or omissions in the draft report. 

Six individuals from Northern Cheyenne Livestock Association 

disagreed with revenue sharing of lease income to support 

development projects, and expressed a desire to take over the 

Range Program on that reservation. 

One individual took exception to language in the draft report 

which proposed discontinuing the allocation process on Range 

Units. 

There were three tribal representatives who pointed out specific 

errors, including conflicting recommendations, and these have 

been corrected in the final report. 

The tribal representative from the Wind River reservation in 

Wyoming requested that all data or reference to that reservation 

be excluded tram the report because they were not included in 

the hay program. 

Additional specific action categories to supplement the above 

recommendations are contained in the body of this report. 

39 
90 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Let me share with you something that really disturbs me quite a bit. In almost every foreign country, there 

is an attache representing the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Every month, we send expert agricultural specialists to just 

about every foreign country that asks for our advice and actual 

farmers are out there that help these foreign countries with all the 

expertise and the resources that we have within our own capability 

as a country. 

Yet I am sensing from what I hear from Indian country, we cannot even help the Indian people in the trust lands or landowners 

to develop their own expertise in farming, provide them with this 

kind of services as we are able to provide for foreign countries. 

Am I wrong in this assessment? Do you feel that the BIA is 

doing a sufficiently good job giving assistance to our farmers and 

Indian farmers and ranchers at this point in time? Because the 

basis of this legislation is to enhance that opportunity. 

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I don't think that there is any question but that the quantity and quality of services to Indian land 

owners, be they tribal or be they individual, can be improved. The 

federal trust responsibility is a responsibility of the Federal Government and we, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, are obliged under 

the trust responsibility to provide services to these landowners, and 

we do so within our available resources. We do so within not only 

the fiscal resources, but also the personnel resources and the resources of equipment and things of that nature. Those resources 

have not, going back many years, have not been commensurate 

with the need in Indian country. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Let's say the Bureau does have limited resources, and this is the factor. This bill would say, okay, we would 

like to allocate a certain amount of funding so that we could enhance Indian farming and ranching. The Bureau has the capacity 

then to get real experts, because obviously the Bureau does not 

have farm experts, right. So you need to go to the Department of 

Agriculture. 

So rather than just continuing issuing reports, are you authorized to seek expert assistance from the Department of Agriculture 

to provide assistance to Indian farmers and ranchers in that regard? 

Because obviously you don't have the expert resources for farming purposes, but we have the experts in the Department of Agriculture. Have you sought their assistance in that regard currently 

as a matter of policy, or interagency assistance? 

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, yes, we have. We have an ongoing 

Memorandum of Understanding between us and the Department of 

Agriculture to address many of the things that you are talking 

about. We recognize that we don't have all the resources, all the 

technical capability that agriculture does. That is their primary responsibility and we attempt to tap into that as best we can. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So what is really your bottom line objection 

to this legislation, Mr. Hayes, or if the Department does have a 

problem with it, what are the concerns? You are concerned that we 

might alienate the Indian people from their lands or Congress 

might do something wrong with the trust land that the Indians 
91 

have; is this your concern right now? Is this the problem with this 

legislation? 

Mr. HAYES. That is a part of it, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Can you provide the committee with clarifying language that maybe can resolve the problem of your concern. 

Mr. HAYES. We would be happy to work with the committee and 

the committee staff to resolve our concerns. 

[The information follows:] 

[EDITOR's NOTE.-Information not provided at time of printing.] 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. That is the only problem or concern you 

have with this legislation? 

Mr. HAYES. No, sir, that is not the only problem. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Tell me another one. 

Mr. HAYES. There are concerns with definitions. There are 

phrases within the existing legislation which we would feel a lot 

more comfortable with if definitions were developed for them. We 

are concerned about some of the requirements laid on the Secretary 

to do things without any discretion permitted to the Secretary. 

We have some other concerns, Mr. Chairman, but as I mentioned, we would be more than happy to continue working with the 

committee. It is not as though this is the first time that we have 

met with the committee staff. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I really appreciate this. Do you think in a 

matter of the next couple of months that we can be working over 

the language problems with this piece of legislation? Do you think 

that we can put something in place by then? 

Mr. HAYES. That is a goal that we can shoot for and we would 

be happy to work with the staff and try to meet that goal. Not only 

the staff of this committee, but also your counterpart committee on 

the Senate side has some interest in this also, as does the Intertribal Agriculture Council. We would want all of the players that 

have an interest in this to be at the table when we talk about it. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I just want to say that we are joined this 

morning by our dear friend and a colleague, the distinguished gentleman from the State of Hawaii, Congressman Abercrombie. 

I have a bunch of questions, maybe just a couple more, Mr. 

Hayes. Please bear with me. I am sure that the list will be submitted at a later time for puryoses of the time that we have taken. 

In the testimony, you indicated that in 1990 the BIA studied and 

compared the Bureau's staffing patterns with the staffing patterns 

of other Federal agencies for agricultural lands. This 1990 report 

recommends the doubling of the Bureau staff in order to reach 

staffing levels of other Federal agencies. 

What has the Bureau done since issuing that recommendation in 

1990? 

Mr. HAYES. The study that was done by the Bureau of Indian Mfairs was an attempt to determine staffing comparisons and land 

use comparisons. The other land managing agencies of the Federal 

Government oftentimes manage their lands for purposes which are 

different than what the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian tribes 

and Indian individuals want to have their lands managed as. Our concern is the comparative analysis that is recommended 

and suggested in the legislation. We are only concerned that we 

compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. We want to 
92 

assure that there is a valid comparison in the study. That is our 

concern with that portion of the legislation. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. In your best judgment, how many acres of 

Indian trust lands are currently laying idle? Do we have some stats 

on that? 

Mr. HAYES. Yes, sir. The latest information we have from our 

natural resources report indicates that a bit in excess of 1.1 million 

acres is being carried on that r~_port as idle lands. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I see. What steps has the Bureau taken to 

ensure that the Indian lands are being leased and that they are 

productive? Do you have some kind of a measurement system devised to see how the trust lands and the Indian-owned lands are 

being utilized under the jurisdiction of your office, or the Bureau, 

for that matter? 

Mr. HAYEs. If I understand your question correctly, Mr. Chairman, the information on usage of Indian trust lands is carried on 

our NRIS report, our Natural Resources Information Report. And 

that has all the categories of usage at an agency, at an area, on 

a national basis. That type of information can be supplied to the 

committee. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Maybe I can reword this. The total amount 

oflndian trust lands that we now have is 1.7 million acres you said 

earlier. 

Mr. HAYES. Lying idle is a bit in excess of 1.1 million. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How about the total, both use and non-use; 

what is the total amount of just lands that we have regardless of 

its use? 

Mr. HAYES. There is about 54 million acres. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. 54 million acres? 

Mr. HAYES. That is correct. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And of the 54 million acres-we are just 

talking about trust lands-how much of that is bein~~ leased? 

Mr. HAYEs. The total acreage under a lease or grazing permit, 

according to the data that has been provided to me, is about 42.6 

million. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. 42.6 million acres are being leased for grazing purposes? Are these the leases about a dollar a year from the 

ranchers? I am being facetious. I was just curious, what are the 

leases of these ranges? I mean, is this part of the Indian lands that 

are being leased at almost a penny an acre or something like this? 

Mr. HAYES. These are for both farming and grazing purposes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So 54 million acres of trust land--

Mr. HAYES. And that does not include commercial timberland. 

There is about 6 or 7 million acres of commercial timberland. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. As the Bureau, I am sure you have an assessed value of this 54 million acres of trust lands that Uncle Sam 

currently holds in trust for the Indians. 

Mr. HAYEs. Not that I have ever seen. I have never seen an evaluation done of that 54 million acres. 

Mr. F ALEOMA v AEGA. How many acres are currently used for 

farming? 

Mr. HAYEs. Total acres of Indian-operated leased farmland is 

478,000, and total acres of non-Indian operated leased farmland is 

a bit in excess of 781,000 acres, for a total of 1.259 million acres. 
93 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And currently 1.7 million acres are idle? 

Mr. HAYEs. That is correct. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Not being utilized? 

Mr. HAYES. That is correct. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Unbelievable. 

The gentleman from Hawaii. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Hayes, I want to make sure I understand. 

Did you say there is in excess of 50 million acres leased that are 

trust lands? 

Mr. HAYEs. No. The total acreage under a lease or grazing permit is 42.6 million acres. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That is currently under lease? 

Mr. HAYES. That is correct. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Does the Bureau of Indian Affairs have control over those leases? 

Mr. HAYES. Well, the Bureau of Indian Affairs administers the 

leases, yes, sir. We are involved in all aspects of the leasing process. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Well, why don't we simplify everything and 

turn all this land over to the Indian tribe. Period. Get out of the 

leasing business. I don't understand why you are involved in it at 

this stage of our history? 

I am looking at your testimony, I understand your situation, and 

my question is a serious one because I have the same views with 

respect to the Native Hawaiian situation and leases. Everybody is 

always deciding for the Indians what they should do and not do 

and what the money should be and not be. 

And every time there is testimony like this which says, you 

know, protection of Indian resources, improvement of Indian income, employment, the relationship between tribal authority and 

rights of Indian landowners, why don't you let the Indians settle 

it? Why don't we have some simple legislation, take all lease land 

that the Bureau of Indian Affairs is involved with, and tum it over 

to the various Indian tribes? You want to have an argument about 

who owns what, we will settle that in legislation, we will vote it 

here. Mr. HAYEs. Mr. Abercrombie, the reason that the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Secretary of the Interior is involved in leasing 

is because of statutes. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I understand that. 

Mr. HAYEs. The Secretary is required by virtue of those statutes 

to do what he does, what that office does through delegated authority to our agency superintendents who maintain and operate leasing programs at the agency level. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I understand. 

Mr. HAYEs. The idea of the suggestion of turning the leasing 

process over entirely to Indian tribes, the authority already exists 

to do that. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. And why don't we do it? 

Mr. HAYES. Public law 93-638 itself allows Indian tribes to enter 

into contracts to run realty programs, and-! don't have the number that I can give you off the top of my head-but a number of 

tribes do have realty programs. 

73-728 - 93 - 4 
94 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Your testimony says that and I agree. I am 

not suggesting this in any pejorative way. For purposes of my question, I am not intending to go into a recitation or have you go into 

a recitation of the history of why the Bureau of Indian Affairs finds 

itself in this position, or as to the particular history associated with 

what you call compacts and contracts. 

You would have to enlighten me at some time about what the 

difference between a compact and a contract is or why one was put 

in at one point rather than another, why one kind of program was 

put under a compact and why one was put under contract. But I 

am asking the question quite seriously, precisely because of the intricacies that you cite in your testimony with respect to trying to 

settle all these issues. You find yourself in the position of trying 

to be Solomon, and probably with less resources than Solomon had 

at his command, among other things, because you can't command 

much. You can cajole, you can mitigate, you can try to act as an 

intercessor, you can do all kinds of things. 

But I guess I am more or less, Mr. Chairman, malting the statement from my point of view as I sit on this committee, and you will 

hear it from me in time to come if I am still in the Congress, that 

my experience over the past 20 years of dealing with these issues 

as an outsider, that is to say, as a legislator having the responsibility but not being a member of either of the tribes or being ethnically or racially related to the entities which have evolved down 

from previous history, that the best possible solutio111 is for the government to get out of the way of the tribes or the aboriginal contemporary and original entities, get out and let them make such 

arrangements as they will and let them negotiate as sovereign entities with the United States or with the private entities and let 

them settle their o\vn problems internally. Not that that will be 

easy, not that that will be free of rancor or suspicion or difficulty, 

but at least they are settling their own problems and somebody 

else isn't coming in to do it for them, which in my estimation always puts one, the tribal entities, at not only a disadvantage in 

terms of negotiations, but is a not-too-subtle indication that they 

are still being patronized and condescended to. So why don't we 

have testimony that says, Look, why don't we get out of all this? 

Mr. HAYES. I don't have an answer for you. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Okay. That is a reasonable answer, considering that you weren't looking for this question when you walked in 

today. But maybe you can go back to the Secretary, and I will tell 

you, it may seem to others at this particular stage that my position 

may be a somewhat esoteric one, but I am willing to bet by the 

time I get through, that my view maybe will be shared by a lot of 

people before this is over and maybe shared more quickly than people think. Now that we have this committee operating, I intend to 

pursue it relentlessly. I am going to work as hard as I can in as 

many different venues as I can to get the United States Government out of making decisions for tribes or Native Americans or Native Hawaiians or any other entity group or community. I realize 

that your testimony there is on the mark, too, as to what those 

definitions are or should be, but we need to settle all that and get ourselves out of the decision-making process. 
95 

If you could go back to the Secretary and indicate that that is 

at least one point of view and that I believe it is one that will be 

shared more widely in the Congress in the immediate future, I 

would be appreciative. 

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Abercrombie, I would be happy to take that message back. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. It is no reflection on your efforts or the sincerity or good will or good faith that you bring to the table, Mr. Hayes, 

I assure you. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I appreciate the gentleman's comments and 

opinions concerning this issue. 

I don't mean to simplify the issue, but I just want to get some 

basic figures again in my mind. We have got 54 million acres of 

trust Indian lands currently under your administration or by the 

BIA; am I correct on that? 

Mr. HAYES. That is correct. There are 54 plus million acres of 

land held in trust by the Federal Government for either individual 

Indians or Indian tribes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. When you say plus, how many additional 

acres is that to the 54 million? 

Mr. HAYES. I don't have the precise number on my list, but I 

could provide it. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am just trying to get some general view 

of this. And 400,000 acres are currently being leased or used by Indian farmers? 

Mr. HAYES. 478,371 are the total acres of Indian-operated leased 

farmland. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Okay. How many acres are being used by 

non-Indian farmers or ranchers? 

Mr. HAYES. Total acres of non-Indian-operated leased farmlands 

is 781,722. 

Let me provide two more numbers for you. The total acreage 

under lease or permit-this is not a farm lease-under lease or permit by Indian operators is 37,861,977. Total acreage under lease or 

permit, not a farm operation, by non-Indian operators is 4,757,494. 

These figures have been obtained off of our NRIS report, the Natural Resources Information Report. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And I assume with all the leasing and the 

money and the revenues collected from whatever processes, this 

goes obviously to the tribes, but does some of it come also to the 

Department or what? Is it being held in trust? What is your collection every year on this, all this trust lands' use and everything? 

Has there been any--

Mr. HAYES. The total annual rental from grazing permits is 

$22,678,000. Total annual rental from Indian operators, grazing, is 

$8,234,924. Total annual rental from non-Indian operators, 

$14 443,000. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The Bureau collects this money, Mr. Hayes? 

Mr. HAYEs. We collect most of it. Some of this money is direct 

lease between individuals and the lessee. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How much of it comes to your office, I mean 

to the bureau? 
96 

Mr. HAYES. I don't have a number. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Can we have some kind of input on this for 

the record? If you could submit that, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. HAYES. We will provide that. [Additional information follows:] 

Our tracking systems do not differentiate between the amow1t of income generated from leases that are paid directly to the Indian landowners and the amount 

processed through the BIA for disbursement. We will request mon~ information from 

the field and prepare a follow-up report. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Here is what I am trying to get at, Mr. 

Hayes. Suppose there is 10 million acres out of the fi4 million that 

is a~culturally prime land that can be used, get the Indian farmers m there. Would the Bureau have any objections to that if this 

legislation attempts to provide this kind of enhancement of these 

trust lands for the Indians, for the benefit of Indian people? 

Mr. HAYES. We are supportive of Indian ranchers and farmers. I have mentioned that a couple of times. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes, you have. 

Mr. HAYES. The more Indian farmers and ranchers that we can 

get into those types of entrepreneurial activities, WE~ support that 

effort. We also have an obligation, a trust obligation, to both the 

tribes and the individual Indians, to assure the greatest benefit 

from their ownership of that land. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And that is the very point I am making, Mr. 

Hayes. Shouldn't we let the Indians make that determination, what 

would be the best economic benefit that could be gotten? 

Let me tell you the problem. We had the Trail of Many Tears, 

Indians were chased from the east coast, even to parts of Texas 

and Oklahoma. They settled in prime lands. What happens, they 

were chased out of there again. 

The same things happens to Native Hawaiians. They were encouraged to do farming, get back to the land, really be more selfsufficient, and what happens? The big landowners, non-Hawaiians, 

took the best agricultural lands available, and the poor Hawaiians 

had rocks to farm. 

I want to ask you if this is the same mentality that seems to go 

through the years. Can the Bureau give us an assessment of what 

is agriculturally potentially rich lands out of this 54 million acres? 

Do you have an assessment of this in terms of what can be used 

for good farmi~g and good ranching of the 54 million acres? 

Mr. HAYES. We can provide estimates of that. 

[The information follows:] 

According to data presented in the Natural Resources Information System (NRIS) 

report, there are approximately 19,000,000 acres that could be considered agri- culturally rich lands. Of this amount 1,500,000 acres are agrio::ulture land and 

17,500,000 acres are range lands 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please, provide that for the record. I would 

love to have that. 

Mr. HAYES. As the committee is aware and as we have discussed 

briefly, there are 160-plus irrigation projects out there. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And not one of the projects was completed. 

Mr. HAYES. At the present time, a number of those irrigation 

projects have land that is not at the highest and best-use potential 

as it would be if the water were able to get there. 
97 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Why do we build 164 irrigation projects and 

not one is completed? Maybe I am a simpleton in this, Mr. Hayes, 

but it doesn't make any sense to me at all. 

Probably that is really the reason why these projects cannot be 

completed, because there were not any good enough for purposes of 

farming. Could that be the reason? 

I mean, how do we end up giving money to provide for these 

projects and not one project completed? Can you explain what really is the actual reason? We can start maybe with two projects and 

we couldn't do it because we didn't have enough money, but 164 

irrigation projects and not one is completed, can you give me some 

reasoning on this? I am at a loss. 

Mr. HAYES. Well, some of the reason is obviously resources. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Resources? But, Mr. Hayes, pleaseMr. HAYES. Fiscal resources. And I think the responsibility for 

that lack of resources is the responsibility of both the executive and 

legislative branches, because we participated together in authorizing these projects. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Let's say we have got two irrigation projects 

going on. How could we possibly start another irrigation project 

when we hadn't even finished the first two? And now we end up 

with 164. Couldn't we just wait until we finished the first two before we get to the third, the fourth and the fifth? 

Mr. HAYES. I don't think the tribes that are number three, four 

and five would be very appreciative of them having to wait to get 

something. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But then the first two tribes who never completed their project, they will be just as unhappy, too. 

Mr. HAYES. I agree. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So can we develop a policy that we can complete the first 2 of the 164? Can you put a priority on this? 

Mr. HAYES. I don't know that we can do it by policy. It would 

require a commitment on the part of both the executive and legislative branches to make sure that the resources are available for 

completion of those projects. The tribal chairman for the very first 

project is in the audience and is on one of the panels and his irrigation project is well over 100 years old. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And it has not been completed? 

Mr. HAYES. Has not been completed. It was first authorized back 

in the mid-1800s, and has not been completed. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And supposing that one project was completed, what would have been the potential for those Indian farms 

if that one irrigation project was completed? 

Mr. HAYES. It would have been significant. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And then the second irrigation project, it 

would have been just the same, too. 

Mr. HAYES. That is correct. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, can you help us 

in finding a way to finish at least 2 of those 164 irrigation projects? 

If it means funding, can you give us some sense of evaluation, 

what it would require for each one of those 164 projects? Maybe 

some of them are 90 percent completed or maybe all it needs is just 

a dollar more or a hundred dollars more. But, Mr. Hayes, I am 

completely at a loss in how we can initiate an irrigation project 
98 

that has taken over 100 years and we still have not completed it. 

And it goes back to the very essence of why this legislation was 

drafted, because we want to give assistance to the Indian farmers, 

we want to enhance their economic well-being. But for the administration to say, ''Well, there are some legalities 

and there is a problem of interpreting this one phrase or this 

comma or this dot or something here." I just like to see if we can 

complete that one project first and then go on to the 163 and 

maybe count the numbers, start with 164 and count down, and 

then complete the 163 down to the first one. Or maybe we could 

help the first farmer that lived for 100 years. I can't believe this, 

Mr. Chairman, 164 irrigation projects and not one has been completed over the last 100 years. 

And I hope, Mr. Hayes, that maybe we ought to consult very 

closely with Secretary Babbitt on this issue. And this is the very 

essence and the reason why, no wonder the Indians are not farmers. We can't even complete one irrigation project. 

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time. 

Mr. RICHARDSON [presiding]. I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate him chairing during my absence. We always appreciate his 

very specific and positively oriented questions. 

Does my colleague from Hawaii have any further questions? 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I have already asked my specific and pointed 

and detailed questions, thank you. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Then the chairman will ask his concluding--

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, Mr. Hayes, please don't take my thoughts in any personal sense. I am 

just expressing my sense of frustration. Whatever has been the 

institution--

Mr. HAYEs. I don't do that, sir. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Okay. I have the highest respect for you and 

your colleagues, but let's get these figures going so we can work 

something. I would love to visit that first irrigation project that has 

taken over a hundred years, personally. What State is this in? 

Mr. HAYES. Arizona. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I would like to visit that first irrigation 

project, see what seems to be the problem. Then I would also like 

to visit the 164th irrigation project. What State is that? 

Mr. HAYES. I don't know. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Could you provide that for the record? I 

really would like to know what these projects are and what have 

been the problems with them over the years. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Hayes, in prior hearings the committee has 

received testimony that a substantial amount of Indian land can't 

be leased because the lands are highly fractionated and the BIA 

policy regarding fractionating heirships is inconsistent. 

What is your policy on these highly fractionated heirships? Is 

this policy applied evenly in all the area offices? 

Mr. HAYES. Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman. I assume you are referencing the leasing policy--

Mr. RICHARDSON. Yes. 

Mr. HAYES [continuing]. Relative to fractionation. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Go ahead. 
99 

Mr. HAYES. The policy is found in regulation and that authorizes 

the leasing official to enter into a lease on behalf of all of the landowners after a 90-day notice period has expired. Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, is there any requirement in the statute 

or regulation that the Secretary must obtain the consent of Indian 

landowners prior to leasing their lands? 

Mr. HAYES. Yes, there is. The Secretary is obliged to obtain the 

consent of the Indian landowners, and as I just mentioned, except 

in those instances where you have a number of landowners who 

cannot or will not come to agreement on the leasing of the land, 

after a 90-day period has expired, then the lease can be consummated by the agency superintendent. Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, is there any requirement in statute or 

regulation that the Secretary must receive maximum value for 

leases of Indian trust lands? Or is the requirement more a fair 

market value? 

Mr. HAYES. The language speaks more to the fair rental value 

rather than the maximum rental value. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. So the answer is fair market value? 

Mr. HAYES. That is correct. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, is there a liability for the Secretary if the 

land does not receive maximum value? 

Mr. HAYES. The Secretary has no liability if the land is leased 

at fair market value. That may or may not be the appraised value. 

As the chairman is aware, we do appraisals when leases are contemplated. We provide appraisal information to individuals concerned or participating in that lease process. And we oftentimes 

enter into leases when the bids which establish actual fair market 

value come in, and they are below the appraised value as the appraisal is done by federal appraisers. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, how many acres of Indian trust lands are 

currently lying idle, Mr. Hayes? 

Mr. HAYES. A little bit in excess of 1.1 million. That information, 

based upon our Natural Resource Information System report. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. And what steps have you taken at the BIA to 

make sure that these lands are leased and are productive? Do you 

have an active outreach effort? 

Mr. HAYEs. Well, each agency, Mr. Chairman, hopefully in cooperation and consultation with the tribes, endeavors to the best of 

our collective ability to get those lands under some sort of produc- tive use. 

The 1.1 million-acre figure is one that is currently not susceptible 

to a common definition. Our NRIS report gives one definition for 

idle lands and the survey which we have recently undertaken gives 

some further definition and makes some further exclusions from 

that. So I think the survey will eventually come to the conclusion 

that that 1.1 million-acre figure is somewhat high. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Okay. Mr. Hayes, thank you for appearing before the subcommittee. Again, we look forward to working with you 

on this issue. This is a priority matter for this subcommittee. We 

hope to move this legislation soon, and we do appreciate the substantive suggestions you have made to us. So thank you all very 

much. 

Did you want to say something? 
100 

Mr. HAYES. Just to thank the Chair. I appreciate the opportunity. Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you. 

Our second panel, we will have the Honorable Wainwright 

Velarde, Vice President, Jicarilla Apache Tribe, from Dulce, New 

Mexico; the Honorable Daniel Eddy, Jr., Chairman of the Colorado 

River Indian Tribes, Parker, Arizona; and the Honorable Mary 

Thomas, Lieutenant Governor, Gila River Indian Community, 

Sacaton, Arizona. 

Would you please step forward. Now that I have got you seated, 

let me just ask you to get very comfortable in your chairs because 

I have to run and vote. It should take me about five minutes. And 

the hearing will resume at exactly 11:05. My apologies. We are 

going to have a series of votes today. These votes are very popular, 

voting to cut White House staff, congressional staff. Everybody is 

very eager to take these votes and you don't want to risk missing 

them. So let me just say the hearing will resume at 11:05. 

[Recess.] 

PANEL CONSISTING OF HON. WAINWRIGHT VELARDE, VICEPRESIDENT, JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE, DULCE, NEW MEXICO; HON. DANIEL EDDY, JR., CHAIRMAN, COLORADO RIVER 

INDIAN TRIBES (CRIT), PARKER, ARIZONA, ACCOMPANIED 

BY STEVEN McHUGH, ESQ., ASSISTANT A'ITORNEY GENERAL 

FOR CRIT; AND HON. MARY V. THOMAS, LT. GOVERNOR, GILA 

RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY, SACATON, ARIZONA, ACCOMPANIED BY ARDELL RUIZ, TRIBAL COUNCILMAN AND VICE 

CHAIRMAN, GILA RIVER FARM BOARD, AND HARRY CRUYE, 

CHAIRMAN, GILA RIVER FARM BOARD 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Vice President Velarde, please proceed and 

welcome. We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WAINWRIGHT VELARDE 

Mr. VELARDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My 

name is Wainwright Velarde and I am the Vice President of the 

Jicarilla Apache Tribe. I am very pleased to be here this morning 

to testify on behalf of H.R. 1425, and to urge this committee toreport favorably on this long overdue measure to the House. At least 

portions of it can be enacted into law without significant opposition 

from the administration. 

My prepared statement, which has been submitted for the record, 

contains more detail regarding the reasons for the comments I 

would like to make this morning. And I would like very briefly to 

state for the committee the views of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe with 

respect to this measure. 

The technical assistance provisions, the educational components, 

and the financial assistance to tribes that will be made available 

under this law for management and development of their agricultural and rangelands are very sorely needed by every tribe in the 

country. As I have indicated in my prepared statement, the 

Jicarilla Apache Tribe has already committed substantial resources 

of our own in an effort to develop an experimental and development farm and livestock enterprise on our tribal lalllds. We have 
101 

engaged the services of the New Mexico State University and scientists from that institution to develop a feasible plan for turning 

one of the Tribe's ventures into just such an experimental farm to 

provide young Jicarilla Apache men and women with the training 

and practical experience necessary to prepare those who are interested for the productive careers to be derived from lands that have 

supported my people for hundreds of years. 

I realize that a similar measure to H.R. 1425 passed the Senate 

last year, but without significant time for the House to act upon 

it. That measure contains some of the provisions that the Department of Justice took great exception to in a letter dated October 

5, 1992. Some of those provisions which are objectionable to the 

Justice Department are to be found in this present bill as well. 

I realize the importance to many tribes in dealing with the difficult legal and constitutional issues that may be presented by 

those portions of the bill that deal with the Secretary's appearance 

in tribal forms, the leasing of individually owned -lands to Indians, 

and the leasing of lands for less than federally appraised values. I want to make the point here today that to the extent that the 

Congress and the administration cannot agree on a mutually acceptable approach to these difficult issues, the rest of Indian country shouldn't be held hostage to the very clear benefits which this 

measure otherwise affords even those tribes who have need for 

those legal issues to be resolved. I would like to ask the committee to tell us whether or not there 

is an interest in attempting to move this bill with respect to those 

objectionable provisions if there are difficult issues that cannot be 

agreed to by the Congress and the administration. The Jicarilla 

Appache Tribe is very anxious to work with the committee and the 

committee staff to move this bill forward if there is a reasonable 

prospect of seeing it enacted into law in this Congress. On the other hand, if the resource enhancement and management assistance provisions at the Bureau are going to be held hostage to the difficult legal issues that the bill also addresses, I must 

ask this committee to accord my Tribe the courtesy of letting us 

know at the earliest possible opportunity. 

We have a great deal of very important work to do on our reservation in terms of improvement, development, and managing our 

agricultural rangeland resources. This bill would provide enormous 

assistance to us in these areas, but we cannot devote important 

time and sacred resources to the legal issues that divide communities from their tribal governments in many parts of their country. 

The Jicarilla Apache Tribe simply does not have a dog in that 

fight. Our reservation was allotted at one time, but my parents' 

generation voluntarily returned every parcel of land that the government had allotted to it and individual Jicarilla Apaches back to 

the common tribal ownership about some 60 years ago. 

Consequently, the challenge for the Jicarilla Apache Tribe today 

is rather more straightforward: One of prudent, sustainable resource management and development and these portions of these 

bills that we are very anxious to see this committee report to the 

House and to see enacted into law. 

Finally, I would like to make one other point at this time and 

that has to do with the constant suggestion throughout the bill that 
102 

it is the Secretary of the Interior who is the ultimate manager of 

our agriculture rangelands. We realize that the Secretary of the Interior is an important trust responsibility and has been neglected for generations. We do not accept, however, the p1·oposition that it 

is the Secretary or his agent who are the managers of our land. 

As I pointed out in my prepared statement, my Tribe spends a 

small fortune already in protecting ourselves from the effort of this 

Secretary and previous Secretaries to manage our oil and gas resources, our trust lands and our water resources. We absolutely do 

not want any suggestions in this or any other bill that the Secretary of the Interior should impose the same caliber of management upon our rangelands and our agriculture lands as well. 

What we do want and expect from this bill is technical assistance, educational opportunities, and the financial resource to assist 

the Jicarilla Apache Tribe in carrying out its own management programs and prerogatives with respect to our agriculture lands. 

I want to thank this committee for the initiative that is reflected 

in the development of this bill. The Jicarilla Apache Tribe looks forward to working closely with this committee and staff in developing 

this bill in a way that could be passed by both houses of Congress 

and signed by the President. 

That concludes my summary of the prepared statement which I 

have submitted for the record, and I will be happy to answer any 

questions the Chair or committee may have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Velarde follows:] 
103 

THE .JIC\RILL.\ .\P.\CHE TRIBE 

\ I ( I ! I\ I Ill Ill I ' 

: ) . .~ ·, :. '\ ~· ',\ \1 

I ~ : :' ' - :' •)- \ ~ .,l ~ 

TBSTIXOIIY 01' 

WAXHWRXGBT VELARDE, VXCB-PRESXDBNT 

JXCARXLLA APACHE TRXBB 

Reqardinq B.R. 1425 (103D Conq., 1at aeaa.) 

The American Indian Aqricultural Act of 1993 

Before the 

SOBCOMMITTBE OB NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

of the 

COMMITTEE OB BAT111lAL RB8011RCB8 

U.S. BOUSE 01' RBPRESBNTATIVBS 

waahinqton, D.c. 

June 11, 1993 
104 

Mr. Chairman: 

My name is Wainwright Velarde, and I am the Vice President of 

the Jicarilla Apache Tribe located in northwestern New Mexico. I am pleased to be here today to testify on behalf of H.R. 1425, the 

American Indian Agricultural Act of 1993. 

I believe a brief description of the Jicarilla reservation 

will be useful before I proceed to the substance of my remarks. 

The Jicarilla Apache Reservation lies in northwestern New Mexico at 

elevations ranging from 5,000 feet on the southern end to almost 

9, 000 feet on the northern end. The entire reservation encompasses some 830,000 acres which lie astride the Continental Divide. Some 

600,000 acres lie west of the Divide and 200,000 acres east of the 

continental Divide. As people familiar with the West will readily 

appreciate, the lands of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe are at once harsh and unforgiving, and at the same time represent parts of a most fragile ecosystem. Native vegetation ranges from the sagebrush savannah, common to the Colorado Plateau in the southern 

reaches and gradually give way to pinon-juniper woodlands in the 

middle reaches and culminates in ponderosa-fir forests in the 

highest elevations adjacent to the Colorado boarder. 

Even though this land supported my people for hundreds of 

years, most of it was not considered suitable for domestic 

cultivation during the early westward migration of the non-Indian 

population of this country. Nevertheless, this land today supports 

my tribal population of some 2,500 Jicarilla Apache Indians, and is 

home to a profusion of wildlife that would be considered a national 

treasure were it a part of a public domain. The Bureau of Indian 

Affairs presently classifies some 350,000 acres of this reservation as suitable for open grazing, and approximately 406,000 acres as suitable for forest grazing lands. At the last count, there were slightly more than 400 sheep and goats being grazed by Jicarilla 

Apache Indians on my reservation, 380 horses, and 3,682 cattle. I am pleased to report that all of this livestock is husbanded by members of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe. Viewed strictly as range land, my reservation is considered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

to be capable of supporting between 7,800 and 7,900 animal units. 

The reservation is presently divided by the Bureau into 63 range 

units, and is considered to be no more than 50 percent stocked by domestic livestock. The Jicarilla Apache Reservation is presently 

subject to only 90 farm assignments, each of which has been given 

to an individual member of the tribe. Out of this more than 

830,000 acres, at present fewer than 1,500 acres are under 

cultivation. Of these 1, 500 acres, more than 900 acres are planted in alfalfa for the purpose of growing hay for domestic livestock . Fewer than 500 acres of the Jicarilla Apache Reservation are currently under cultivation for cash crops other than alfalfa hay. 
105 

This is not to say that the Jicarilla Apache Reservation is 

not suitable for immensely valuable agricultural and livestock 

production. It is to say, however, that this reservation has not 

since its inception been generally made available for sustainable, 

renewable , and annually productive agricultural use, except for the 

very earliest days when vast portions of the reservation were granted by the local Indian agents to neighboring non-Indian 

ranchers, timber interests and homesteaders for their use at the 

expense of the availability of their own lands to the Jicarilla 

Apache people. Even today my tribe continues to pay the price for 

the gross mismanagement of these agriculture and rangelands in the 

early days of the reservation. It is against this background that 

I would like to discuss briefly today the importance of H. R. 1425 

for the Jicarilla Apache Tribe and its ability to recapture the 

inherent values of our agricultural reservation resources . 

As written H.R. 1425 reflects both the promise that the 

agricultural potential of Indian lands affords to their Indian 

owners throughout the country and, at the same, time, reflects much 

of what we consider to be the historical constraints that exclusive 

federal management has imposed upon the ability of Indian tribes to 

realize the potential of their own lands. For example, much of 

Title I is devoted to making sure that the Indian tribes themselves 

will play a significant role in the future management and 

development of their reservation rangelands and farmlands. The 

ultimate effect of the Bill as written, however, may well be to 

require the Secretary to take a more heavy-handed approach to the 

management of these lands. I want to make it very clear that the 

Jicarilla Apache Tribe, at least, does not want the Secretary or 

his agents trying to manage our lands. We spend a small fortune 

already trying t o protect ourselves from his efforts on oil and gas 

activities and trust funds management. He has already wrecked much 

of our forests, stopped us from using our water, and we do not want 

him ruining our agricultural potential as well. We want the 

technical assistance, education and training and the financial 

assistance this Bill provides. But ~ will manage our lands. 

In this regard, I would like to respectfully suggest that the 

findi ngs and purposes secti ons of the Act should make it clear that 

the Congress has determined that historically the exclusive 

reliance upon federal management of Indian rangelands and farmlands 

has led to the very problems which the Act seeks to correct. In 

this regard, the provisions of Section 101(c) (2) (B) that require 

the Secretary and the Tribe to rely on existing documents, reports, 

and research from other Federal and State agencies carry the seeds 

of importing into the new program contemplated by this Bill the 

very mistakes that have led to the historic mismanagement of Indian 

agricultural lands. I realize that this is not the intention of 

the authors of this Bill, but I caution the committee that many of 

these very federal agencies are sti l l staffed by individuals whose 

career choices have already established the direction upon which 

2 
106 

Indian agricultural and rangelands are presently managed, and those are the very directions that Indian tribes and the Intertribal 

Agriculture council seek to change in urging the adoption of this measure. 

Likewise, the apparent requirements of Section 101(c) (4) which 

appear to require the Bureau and Tribes to adhere slavishly to 

agricultural plans developed pursuant to this measure should also 

provide for modifications to such plans, changes in direction, and 

such innovative approaches to increasing the sustainable 

productivity of these lands as may present themselves during the 

implementation of such plans. In other words, we must be careful 

that we do not provide an already ossified bureaucracy with the 

opportunity to claim that it is locked into a single course of 

action for ten year periods. 

I think, perhaps, an example of the reasoning underlying my concerns will be useful here. The Jicarilla Apache Tribe recently bought a neighboring ranch that we call the Willow Creek Ranch. 

The Willow Creek Ranch consists of 14,178.08 acres. This Ranch was operated as a cow-calf operation before the tribe purchased it, and 

presently some 100 acres are devoted to the production of irrigated 

alfalfa. The tribe is presently under an engagement with New 

Mexico State University to determine the feasibility of developing this Ranch as a tribal Agricultural Science Center and 

Demonstration Farm. In determining the feasibility of this use for 

the Willow Creek Ranch, the tribe does not want to be constrained 

by any of the historic uses or previous reports developed either by 

federal or state agencies regarding their view of the most suitable 

productive uses of these lands. 

In significant respects, small farms and ranchE!S in northern 

New Mexico are unique insofar as livestock and crop production 

enterprises are concerned. The rugged terrain, the sparse 

availability of water for irrigation, and the non-agricultural uses of these lands for hunting and fishing, big game habitat, and 

native vegetation gathering must all be factored into the most 

suitable uses for these lands. In this regard, it must be 

understood that the most suitable uses may not be the most 

productive uses from a purely economic perspective. Indigenous and 

colonial peoples have cultivated small tracts of irrigated land in 

the small river valleys in this semi-arid mountai n region for 

hundreds of year, and it is the intention of the Jicarilla Apache 

Tribe to make the most suitable, sustainable use of this land 

consistent with the social and cultural values, as well as the 

economic values, of the peoples indigenous to this region. 

Depending upon the outcome of the feasibilitJr study being 

conducted by the tribe and New Mexico State University, it is the 

present intention of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe to utilize the 

Willow Creek Ranch for the establishment of a tribal enterprise 

that will be used almost exclusively for the career development of 

3 
107 

young Jicarilla men and women who are interested in pursuing careers in agricultural and related fields. This means almost by 

definition that even under the larger perspective of this game 

plan, that the actual uses to be made of the lands contained in 

this Ranch may very well change from year-to-year as experience 

teaches both the tribe and our scientific partners what works and 

what does not work in this fragile region. 

By the very nature of an experimental and demonstration 

agricultural enterprise, the tribe must insist on maintaining 

sufficient flexibility to profit from mistakes made, lessons 

learned, and even to undertake heretofore untried risk ventures in 

the development of this property. Because of the very limited uses 

that have historically been made of the lands within this Ranch, we know that there is more unknown than there is known about the 

agricultural potential of these lands. The tribe intends to 

experiment with alternative as well as traditional crops on these 

lands. The tribe inte~ds to experiment with alternative 

technologies, and perhaps even with alternative livestock mixes in 

order to determine just what the best and most sustainable uses of 

these lands may be, from our perspective. All of this is to say 

that the Jicarilla Apache Tribe does not want to be bound by the 

book learning of midlevel, career civil servants who may very well 

have received their training in climates and geographical areas far 

removed from the semi-arid mountain reaches of the Jicarilla Apache 

Reservation in the Southern Rocky Mountains. 

This is not to say that the Jicarilla Apache Tribe takes 

particular exception to those Bureau of Indian Affairs employees 

presently stationed on the Jicarilla Apache reservation. To the 

contrary, the Jicarilla Apache Tribe is most anxious that those 

cooperative and intellectually curious and scientifically trained 

Bureau employees who are available to assist the tribe in these 

endeavors not be stymied in their efforts to assist the tribe in 

experimental and developmental programs simply because the Congress 

of the United States has inadvertently constrained the exercise of 

their creative powers in an effort to make sure that full advantage 

is taken of their powers of memory. 

In fact, the Jicarilla Apache Tribe is already spending a substantial amount of our own money to develop an Integrated 

Resource Planning and Management Model, utilizing world-renowned 

scientists from the private sector and from the University 

Consortium for Atmospheric Research. This is precisely the kind of 

planning assistance the Secre tary should be making available to all 

tribes, and which this Bill would require him to provide for 

agricultural lands. We should not have to be spending our own 

resources to protect ourselves from our trustee, and we want to 

make sure that, for our tribe at least, we view this Bill as 

offering us assistance in QJU: management of our lands, not as 

offering us a land manager in the form of the Secretary. We 

4 
108 

believe this is also the objective of the Committee. We simply 

need to be sure that the Bill is worded so that the present and 

future Secretaries understand it the same way. 

Having said all this, I am most anxious to commend this 

Committee and to urge the immediate enactment of those provisions 

of this Bill which provide for increased federal expenditure and 

education and technical assistance for the development of Indian 

agricultural lands. 

In particular those portions of Title II that deal with the 

creation of agricultural internship programs, cooperative education 

programs with accredited institutions of secondary education, 

scholarship programs, including those for post graduate education, 

continuing education for employees working in natural resource related fields with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the program 

for outreach on the part of the Department to attract and recruit 

those people trained under these programs could not have been more carefully designed to meet the needs of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe. 

We suspect that every tribe in the country will likewise applaud 

these initiatives as contemplated in the Bill as written. It is, 

in fact, precisely to meet such needs that the Jicarilla Apache 

Tribe on its own initiative entered into a cooperative agreement 

with New Mexico State University to provide just such a training 

program for young Jicarilla men and women, to determine in 

conjunction with the best scientists the academic world can offer 

the most suitable, future uses of the agricultural lands of the 

Jicarilla Apache Tribe. 

Now, finally, let me turn to some portions of the Bill that 

give use some concern. Under the previous Admini1>tration, the 

Department of Justice took vigorous exception to certain language 

of a similar Bill in the last Congress that appears in this Bill as 

well. Section 3(3) for instance, which provides for the 

development and management of Indian agricultural lands at a level 

commensurate with that provided to federally-owned lands was found 

to be very offensive to the Department of Justice in a letter dated 

October 5, 1992. In that same letter, the Department of Justice 

also took exception to those provisions of the B:lll presently 

contained in Section 102(b) regarding the Secretary's acceptance of 

tribal law and the requirement that he make federal officials 

available to appear in tribal forum. I understand that the 

Department of Justice and the Bureau of Indian Affairs also had 

difficulties with those provisions of the Bill that provided the 

Secretary may offer for lease or permit on the open market only 

those lands which are surplus to the needs of any Indian operator 

who may desire to use the lands. 

on behalf of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, I would like to urge 

this Committee not to let the important benefits that this Bill 

represents for Indian tribes in the development of their 

agricultural lands to be held hostage to these or any other 

5 
109 

peculiarly legal issues which the Administration and the Congress 

may not be able to resolve. As a member of the Intertribal 

Agriculture Council, the Jicarilla Apache tribe is very familiar 

with the enormously complex problems represented by the 

fractionated ownership and the multiple heirship issues which 

plague many reservation lands throughout the country. 

I am anxious that this Committee understand that the Jicarilla 

Apache Tribe is not faced with these legal difficulties. The 

Jicarilla Apache reservation was allotted at one time but upon the 

passage of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, every allotted 

member of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe voluntarily turned his 

allotment back into common tribal ownership. I hope I do not have 

to report to my tribe that the wisdom of our ancestors has gone for 

naught, because the government of the United States and the members 

of other tribes cannot bring themselves to an acceptable resolution 

of problems that our parents had the foresight to avoid. 

Section 1 of this Bill, dealing with the findings of Congress, 

makes no mention of these peculiar legal difficulties, and the 

principal benefits to be derived from this Bill can be enjoyed by 

every tribe in the country even without resolution of these 

difficult legal issues. On behalf of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 

I commend this Committee and its leadership for the courage to 

acknowledge the shortcomings of generations of exclusively federal 

management of Indian agricultural lands; I commend this Committee 

for its willingness to take on the apparently intractable 

difficulties of dealing with the legal consequences of nowrepudiated federal policies of more than a century ago; and I urge 

this Committee to report favorably those provisions of this Bill 

such as can be cleared with the Administration for prompt enactment 

into Law. 

In conclusion, I would like to urge the Committee also not to 

be seduced by the careless use of important terms, no matter how 

venerable or politically correct they may presently seem to be. 

Section 3(1) of the Bill as written, for instance, constrains the 

Secretary to manage Indian agricultural lands in a manner 

consistent with "nationally adopted multiple use" principles. 

Adherence to the concept of "multiple use," was for much of this 

Century considered almost a religious sacrament by the 

environmental community as a way of preventing the wholesale 

despoliation of the public domain. Today, the entire concept of 

multiple use is being seriously reconsidered by the Clinton 

Administration in light of a competing doctrine of "dedicated use" 

of particularly sensitive or otherwise unique lands. 

Speaking for the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, and I suspect for a 

good many other tribes, whether or not any given piece of land is more suitable for multiple use or a dedicated use is a decision 

that can ultimately be made only by the tribe itself. In our case, 

we are convinced that the use of our lands for the cultivation of 

6 
110 

cash crops, for instance, will almost certainly hav•~ an immediate 

and direct impact on the amount of water available for other uses, 

on the quality of wildlife habitat, and even on the availability of 

the land itself for homesite or other commercial or industrial 

uses. These are decisions that each tribe must make for itself. 

The general thrust of this Bill is to recognize the prerogatives of 

tribes themselves in this area, and I want here merely to caution 

the Committee not to take away with the left hand what appears to 

be offered with the right. 

If our hoped-for objectives prove feasible, we look forward to 

developing an agricultural enterprise that utilizes state-of-theart technology; that permits low-impact and relatively small-scale 

projects to be profitable; makes maximum use of indigenous crops 

and labor; that requires a minimum infusion of external capital; 

and, in short, permits us to utilize modern technology in the everchanging marketplace to sustain the ancient values and traditions 

of the Jicarilla Apache people. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today and 

present the views of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe. We are most 

anxious to secure the technical assistance, the manaqement advice, 

the educational training, and the financial assis1~ance that is 

contemplated by this Bill for Indian tribes in the dnvelopment and 

management of their agricultural lands. 

Please feel free to call upon the Jicarilla Apache 

any assistance that we might provide to this Committee or 

staff for the purpose of preparing this Bill for 

enactment into law. 

7 

Tribe for 

committee 

immediate 
111 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Velarde. 

The Chair now recognizes Chairman Daniel Eddy. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL EDDY, JR. 

Mr. EDDY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Daniel Eddy, Jr. I am the Chairman of the Colorado River Indian Tribes. With me today is Mr. Stephen McHugh, 

our Assistant Attorney General of the Tribes. 

First of all, we thank you for the opportunity to address the committee on this very important issue concerning agriculture in Indian country. It is important to us because of the fact that agriculture is our economic base. 

I think that at this point I want to mention that we are the reservation, we are the first and the oldest irrigation project in the 

country. The tendency of the tribal governments and people to form 

cooperative forums and organizations should not impede the Federal Government's recognition that it possesses distinct and solemn 

obligations to each Indian nation. 

For example, the Indian members of the Colorado River Indian 

Tribes have waited over 128 years for completion of an irrigation 

project that was promised by the Federal Government. We understand that there is an attempt to establish a formula to prioritize 

the funding of Indian irrigation project construction. We do not 

wish to see such a formula require the Colorado River Indian Irrigation Project to compete with other tribal projects. 

The obligations the Federal Government may undertake with 

other Indian tribes should not impede the obligations it has undertaken to each individual tribe. As you all know, many of the general federal laws dealing with agriculture and other issues were 

written in past eras, with little direct tribal input. In our effort to 

replace these laws, we should not repeat their common mistake of 

assuming that all reservations are the same. 

To provide you with some information that will assist you in putting this testimony in context, I should point out that approximately 134,787 acres are developed on our 268,500-acre reservation. Of the developed land, 84,000 acres are used for nonpasture 

agriculture. The remaining developed land is in commercial uses, 

residential uses or pasturage. Much of this land is owned solely by 

the Tribes and is leased through long-term development leases to 

non-tribal member agribusiness. Well over 10,000 acres of that is 

used by CRIT farms, the tribal enterprise farming operation. 

Also, individual tribal members lease and farm over 10,000 

acres. Getting back to allotments, 8,410 acres are divided into 10-

acre allotments, with almost 900 individuals owning interests. Almost all of those acres make up part of the 80,000 acres in production. 

Where acres are not in production, it is almost always the choice 

of the landowners. Because of the value of the farmland on the reservation and the fact that allotted land has access to completed 

portions of the irrigation system, those growers interested in leasing allotted lands often put much effort into obtaining allottee interest-holder consent. Generally, this results in a course of dealings. I should point out that the interest holders may be willing to 
112 

take a lower price from a grower who has always paid rent rather 

than taking a chance with someone new. 

In listening and talking to other tribal leaders, it is clear that 

the Colorado River Indian Tribes do not have the same problem 

with fractionated heirships. There are two reasons. 

First, relatively few acres on the reservation are allotted and relatively few owners possess interest in those allotments. 

Second, the Colorado River Indian Tribes make use of the C-272 

process, which allows for a fee to be charged for processing allotment leases. This allows for us to employ and maintain a staff to 

manage allotment leasing. 

Also, the Tribes have provided staff and resources, such as computers, to expedite their work. It is my understanding that few Indian tribes make use of this program, which could provide muchneeded resources for leasing programs. Also, it allows each individual tribe to construct a program that 

addresses its unique circumstances. In dealing with allotted lands 

held in highly fractionated heirships, such tribal discretion is extremely important. 

Due to the fact that the allotted land represents a relatively 

small part of our reservation's land base, our tribal government 

generally approaches leasing decisions as as the sole owner of the 

land in question. Thus, the following comments on specific portions 

of the proposed bills should be viewed with that in mind. 

Number one, we believe that standing authorization is necessary 

to provide funding for agricultural resource management plans. We 

are, of course, concerned that there is not presently an appropriation for this program. 

Number two, we agree tribal members should have access to the 

education and training that will enable them to provide the technical and policy advice necessary to make agricultural management 

decisions. Therefore, we support provisions in both bills that will 

provide or enhance such programs. 

Number three, both versions of bills provide for the creation of 

agriculture resource management plans. We prefer the language in 

S. 410 which establishes that each individual tribe will provide policy direction in this process. 

Number four, in that regard, we also preferS. 410, Section 202, 

rather than H.R. 1425, Section 102, because it provides a greater 

recognition of tribal authority. Currently, Federal law fails to define the relative authority of the BIA and the Indian tribes in the 

leasing process. 

Number five, as I mentioned initially, each reservation has 

unique landownership patterns. Since our reservation has only limited allotments and a thrivirtg agriculture economy on mostly tribally owned lands, we believe that provisions of S. 410 regarding allotment lands were drafted with other circumstances in mind. 

Several of the provisions will, however, be beneficial. These include Section 204(c)(2) which recognizes the right of those holding 

a majority interest in an allotment to enter into an ag lease which 

provides protection for any mortgage interest holders by requiring 

that such a lease provide them with at least fair market value. 

This would effectively freeze into Federal law the current policy at 

our reservation. 
113 

B, we appreciate the language in section 204(e)(l) affirming that 

it is not intended to alter the rights of a allottee. We believe, however, that it may be helpful to amend this provision in order to provide tribal governments with the opportunity to establish policies 

allowing majority interest holders to farm their own land, whether 

or not this results in fair market value. 

C, we agree with the idea that tribal governments should have 

the discretion to waive or modify bond or surety requirements. Again, this freezes arrangements that are already in place in our 

government's dealings with the local BIA office. Surety bonds are 

generally not required for tribal members. 

That completes my statement to the committee this morning. I 

will answer questions. [Prepared statement of Mr. Eddy follows:] 
114 

COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES 

Colorado :River InJian :.R.esen'atio~ 

ROUTE 1, BOX 23-B 

TELEPHONE (602) 669-9211 

PARKER, ARIZONA 85344 

STATEMENT 

OF 

In r~ply, 

refer to: ____ _ 

DANIEL EDDY, JR., CHAIRMAN, TRIBAL COUNCIL 

COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES 

BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

JUNE 18, 1993 

Thank you for this opportunity to address the Committee. At 

the outset, I would like to express appreciation for tiose who have 

worked hard to address some of the issues impeding agriculture 

development on Indian reservations. At the same time, it is 

important to point out that each reservation has its own unique 

history, land-ownership patterns, resource base, and aspirations . 

Any attempt to define the priorities of such a large and diverse 

group will result in a winnowing effect, where intensely desired 

needs on one reservation are "cancelled out• simply because they 

are not concerns on other reservations. For that reason, 

legislation proposed by "Pan-Tribal" organizations will generally 

address what might be called the "lowest common denominator" of 

reservation concerns. 

The tendency of tribal governments and people to form 

cooperative forums and organizations should not impede the federal 

government's recognition that it possesses distinct and solemn 

obligations to each Indian Nation. For example, the community 

members of the Colorado River Indian Tribes have waited over 128 

years for completion of an irrigation project that was promised by 

the federal government. We understand that there is an attempt to establish a formula to prioritize the funding of Indian irrigation 

project construction. We do not wish to see such a formula require 

the Colorado River Indian Irrigation Project to compete with other 

tribal projects. The obligations the federal government may 

undertake with other Indian tribes should not impede the 

obligations it has undertaken to each individual tribe. 

As you all know, many of the "general federal laws" dealing 

with Indian agriculture and other issues, were written in past 

eras, with little direct tribal input . In our effort' to replace 

these laws, we should not repeat their common mistake of assuming 

that all reservations are the same. 
115 

One way to balance the need for general federal standards with 

the right of each tribe to address its specific concerns would be 

to provide discretion in programs and allow each tribe to make 

adjustments so the law conforms with its individual needs. This 

will require BIA personnel, especially at the local level, to listen to tribal governments and to follow tribal direction, rather 

than to lead. We do not believe that this is such a bad idea. 

For these reasons, 

instances, both versions 

tribal governments with 

provision of the bill is 

I am pleased to note that in most 

of the proposed bill provide individual 

the discretion to determine whether a 

applicable to their reservation . 

To provide you with some information that will assist you in 

putting this testimony in context, I should point out that 

approximately 134,787 acres are developed on our 268,500 acre 

Reservation . Of the developed land, 84,000 acres are used for 

nonpasture agriculture. The remaining developed land is in 

commercial uses, residential uses, or pasturage . Much of this land 

is owned solely by the Tribes and is leased through long· term 

development leases to nonTribal member agribusinesses. Well over 

10,000 acres of that is used by CRIT Farms, the Tribal farming 

operations. Also, individual tribal members lease and farm over 

10,000 acres. Getting back to allotments, 8,410 acres are divided 

into 10 acre allotments, with almost 900 individuals own>ng 

interests. Almost all of those acres make up part of the 80,000 

acres in production. Where acres are not in production, it is 

almost always the choice of the landowners. 

Because of the value of farmland on the Reservation and the 

fact that allotted land has access to the completed portions of the 

irrigation system, those growers interested in leasing allotted 

lands often put much effort into obtaining allottee interest-holder 

consent. Generally, this results in a course of dealings. I 

should point out that interest holders may be willing to take a 

lower price from a grower who has alway.s paid rent, rather than 

"taking a chance• with someone new. 

In listening and talking to other tribal leaders, it is clear 

that the Colorado River Indian Tribes do not have the same problem 

with fractionated heirships. There are two reasons. First, 

relatively few acres on the reservation are allotted and relatively 

few owners possess interests in those allotments. 

Second, the Colorado River Indian Tribes make use of the C-272 

process, which allows for a fee to be charged for processing 

allotment leases. This allows us to employ and maintain a staff to 

manage allotment leasing. Also, the Tribes have provided staff and resources, such as computers, to expedite their work. It is my 

understanding that few Indian Tribes make use of this program, 

which could provide much needed resources for leasing programs. 

Also, it allows each individual tribe to construct a p~ogram that 

2 
116 

addresses its unique circumstances. In dealing with allotted lands 

held in highly fractionated heirships, such tribal discretion is 

extremely important. 

For example, even though it was not required to do so by the 

1982 Land Consolidation Act, the Colorado River Indian Tribes chose to compensate individual owners whose interest in land returned to 

Tribal control under the terms of the Act. During times when 

financial resources existed, we also established a general policy 

of buying interests in allotments and at times, entire allotments 

at their assessed value. Word of this program spread fast on the 

Reservation and soon the Tribes were themst!lves the owners of 

significant numbers of fractionated interests in allotm·ents as well 

as entire allotments that are part of consolidated leasing units. 

In many instances, then, our Tribal government, and I assume 

many other tribal governments, are also minority interest holders 

whose interest must be balanced against majority interest holders 

and the interests in the entire tribal community that may wish to 

see the land developed or to remain in an unaltered state. 

Due to the fact that allotted land represents a relatively 

small part of our Reservation's land base, our Tribal government 

generally approaches leasing decis>ons as the sole owner of the 

land in question. Thus, the following comments on specific 

portions of the proposed bills should be viewed with that in mind. 

1. We believe that standing authorization is necessary to 

provide funding for agricultural resource management plans. We 

are, of course, concerned that there is not presently an 

appropriation for this program. 

2. we agree tribal members should have accGss to the 

education and training that will enable them to provide the 

technical and policy advice necessary to make agricultural 

management decisions. Therefore, we support provisions in both 

bills that will provide or enhance such programs. 

3. Both versions of the bills provide for the creation of 

agricultural resource management plans. We prefer the language in 

S. 410, which establishes that each individual tribe will provide '

1 policy direction« in this process. 

4. In that regard, we also prefer S. 410's section 202, 

rather than H.R. 1425 §102 because it provides greater recognition 

of tribal authority. Currently, federal law fails to define the 

relative authority of the BIA and the Indian tribes in the leasing process. 

5. As I mentioned initially, each reservation has unique land 

ownership patterns. Since our Reservation has only limited 

allotments and a thriving agricultural economy on (most~¥) Tribally 
117 

owned lands, we believe that provisions of S. 410 regarding 

allotment lands were drafted with other circumstances in mind. 

Several of the provisions, will however, be beneficial. These 

include: 

A. Section 204 (c) (2) which recognizes the right of those 

holding a majority interest in an allotment to enter into 

an agricultural lease and which provides protection for 

minority interest holders by requiring that such a lease 

provide them with at least fair market value. 

This would effectively "freeze" into federal law the current policy 

at our reservation . 

B. We appreciate the language in Section 204(e) (1) affirming 

that it is not intended to alter the rights of an 

allottee . We believe, however, that it may be helpful to 

amend this provision in order to provide tribal 

governments with the opportunity to establish policies 

allowing majority interest holders to farm their own 

land, whether or not this results in fair market value. 

C. We agree with the idea that tribal governments should 

have the discretion to waive or modify bond or surety 

requirements . 

Again, this "freezes " arrangements that are already in place in our 

government's dealings with the local BIA office . Surety bonds are 

generally not required for Tribal members. 

Although, I should point out that the current limitations on the 

availability of credit combined with this requirement sometimes 

make it difficult for farmers to borrow both the capital they need 

for farming and the required surety. This Committee may wish to 

spend time exploring ways of addressing this "credit crunch" within 

Indian country. 

-F : \DOCUHEHT\COUNC I L \J NOAGL EG\STATEHEN\SJH\6\ 16\93 
118 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Eddy. 

I will now hear from the Honorable Lieutenant Governor of the 

Gila River Indian Community, Mary Thomas. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARY V. THOMAS 

Ms. MARY THOMAS. Good morning, Mr. Faleomavaega. I hope I 

didn't destroy that name. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You did just fine. 

Ms. MARY THOMAS. And special greetings this morning from our 

community to our tribal member who is serving on your staff, Ms. 

Barbara Robles, and Pete Overton, who is an employee out at Gila 

River, and also Steve Heeley, who was a former employee but 

moved on to bigger and better things. God knows we had enough 

work for him to do. 

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Gila River Community, we have submitted our written testimony for the record with your approval. 

With me this morning to my extreme left are Mr. Harry Cruye, Jr., 

Chairman of the Gila River Farms Board, and next to me is Mr. Ardell Ruiz, vice chair of the board and distinguished member of 

the tribal council. 

The Gila River Indian community is represented here today in 

support of H.R. 1425, the American Indian Agricultural Act of 

1993. 

Our earliest recorded history by Spanish explorers and missionaries in the early 1500s illustrate the strong agricultural bonds we 

have with the lands on Gila River. Recent research reveals that our 

bonds go even further, to an era 2,000 years ago. The conservation 

principles practiced, although very primitive, by our ancestors has 

left us with some of the best agricultural lands in the Southwest. 

Our recent signing of the Central Arizona Project and pursuit of 

our water rights assures us of adequate water supplies to secure 

the future of our children in agriculture. Our goal is to increase 

fivefold the amount of farmland we are currently farming. We have 

been limited because of the scarcity of water. 

Our long-term goal is to farm a quarter of a million acres. This 

bill will help us to achieve our goal with everyone's cooperation. 

And at this time, I will turn over some of my time to Mr. Harry 

Cruye, to mention some projects that the farms have instituted at 

Gila River, which are very beneficial to our commtmity, I believe. 

Harry. 

Mr. CRUYE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

On the education for agriculture, there is a great need for it. And 

we have a get-together with Colorado River Tribe and Gila River 

Farms, Gila River Tribe, we started the Southwest Indian Ag Association about five years ago and the idea was to gather what information we have and pass it on to other individual people that will 

be interested in agriculture. We meet once a year. 

There is a need to get that information out to more people that 

would like to get into agriculture. It is not a 1,000-acre farm; it is 

somewhere you can start with certain crops, you can do 1 acre or 

5 acres, still subsidize your income. So that is one way we are 

working on agriculture education. 

The other one is we are working with juveniles and hope it will 

be a pilot project, the Juvenile Rehab Program. We helped to get 
119 

in fruit trees; we brought in other Federal agencies, the USDA, Department of Agriculture, Communities Extension Service for these 

youth sent to the juvenile home. Instead of just sitting there in the 

day room watching TV,' now they are out in the fields, they are 

planting. They planted fruit trees, they planted corn, 

If I heard the Lieutenant Governor correctly last night, they sold 

$200 a day in corn to the local people. So this is the first year of 

that program. I think as we work with them and the people work 

together, we can educate our youth and our individuals that would 

like to get back into agriculture. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. MARY THOMAS. Ardell? 

Mr. Rmz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to comment a little bit on why we support this legislation. 

At Gila River we have been fortunate to establish a very sophisticated farm. But yet on the other hand, our irrigation district has 

been poorly managed due to various reasons, inadequately staffed 

by the bureau, inadequate funding, and always has been a low priority. 

I think that explains partially what is happening in all these different projects. But if it became a higher priority, I think we can 

address those needs and pursue agriculture, It is an economic development and it will address those social and other important 

parts necessary for our community's livelihood. 

The other thing that I want to mention is that we are working 

closely with our Bureau of Indian Affairs agency to try to address 

some of these problems. But I think it is going to take more than 

just one group such as us at Gila River. And we need to include 

everybody across the country. 

Thank you. Ms. MARY THOMAS. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I strongly commend this committee for their concern about the regulations that 

are being adhered to or are not being followed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and other governmental agencies in regards to agriculture. I will go back to my tribe and express the concern this 

committee has on behalf of Indian tribes. I strongly support all 

tribes who will benefit from this Act. 

Right now we are in the middle of harvesting our watermelons 

and if I had a purse big enough, I would have brought you one as 

a sample. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Thomas follows:] 
120 

TESTIMONY OF 

MARY V. THOMAS, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR 

GnA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY 

TO THE 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

HEARING ON H.R. 1425 

THE AMERICAN INDIAN AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 1993 

JUNE 18, 1993 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee on Native American 

Affairs and staff of this Committee. on behalf of the Pimas and 

Maricopas of the Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona, I 

thank you for this opportunity to present our views with respect to 

H.R. 1425, the American Indian Agricultural Act of 1993. 

The Community strongly supports H.R. 1425 and commends this 

Committee for its strong interest and commitment toward reducing 

and eliminating bureaucratic and administrative barriers to the 

development and management of Indian agricultural lands. 

Enactment of H.R. 1425 will afford Native Americans the 

opportunity to wisely utilize and develop our pr:imary natural 

resource that we have been blessed with. 

Pimas and Maricopas have farmed the Gila and Salt River valleys 

since time immemorial. We are agrarian people and even at the 

present time our economy is primarily based on our agricultural 

enterprises. We own some of the best farmland in the United States 

and we are limited in agricultural pursuits only by the lack of a finn 

and stable supply of water. We are working very hard to vindicate 

our water rights and claims through litigation and through the 
121 

water negotiation process. We believe that we will soon achieve an 

assured and finn supply of water. The Community recently signed a 

water delivery contract for Central Arizona Project Water ("CAP") for 

173,100 acre feet per year. Although CAP water is expensive, we are 

steadily making progress to achieve our agreed upon water budget 

amount of653,500 acre feet a year. 

H.R. 1425 and S. 410 are bills that the Community strongly 

support. H.R. 1425 is intended to improve the management, 

productivity, and use of Indian agricultural lands and resources. 

Section 101 sets out a process for the management of Indian 

Rangelands and Farmlands. We believe it very important that the 

Secretary establish an Indian agricultural resource management 

planning program and that the Secretary and tribes develop ten 

year management plans. This plan would be extremely helpful at 

Gila River as it would complement our existing Reservation-wide 

planning process for the future. 

Of special importance is Title II entitled "Education in Agricultural 

Management" and particularly Section 201. There is no more 

important effort that the Community could make but to assist and 

encourage Pima and Maricopa youth to participate in farming 

activities and to continue their post-high school education in Native 

American Agricultural Management Programs. The Community 

now and in the future desperately needs the services of Indian 

professional resource managers. The issue of leasing of Indian lands 

is a complex and perennial problem. nus issue is made even more 

complex and difficult when the issue of allotted lands is considered. 

Of the approximately 372,000 acres of the Community's 
122 

Reservation, approximately two-thirds of this amount is owned by 

allottees and individual landowners. Approximately 266,000 acres 

of the Reservation is capable of being farmed. However, the primary 

problem with allotted land is the fractionated undivided heirship 

problem. At Gila River original allotees were allocated two ten acre 

allotments. It is not unusual for a ten acre allotment to have 

hundreds of owners. Obviously, this land fractionated problem 

makes efficient development and management of farmland difilcult. 

Section 204 of S. 410 seems to set forth more clearly the attempts to 

deal with problems caused by allotments than Section 104 of H.R. 

1425. Section 204 entitled "Leasing of Indian Rangelands and 

Farmlands" poses some significant problems. Section 104 (a) (2) 

allows leasing of agricultural land at less than the Federal appraisal 

when such action would be in the best interest of landowners. This 

is a difficult call to make. There is no doubt that the individual 

landowner seeks the highest possible lease rental Jrate and would 

feel aggrieved if the approved rental rate was less than the appraised 

rate. The problem may very well be an incomplete Federal land 

appraisal but the Secretary must have a very good reason to 

authorize a lease at less that the Federal appraisal. A second major 

issue is the power of the Secretary to authorize a lease when the 

majority of owners desire to enter into a lease. This contemplates 

that fifty-one percent of landowners could cause a lease to be 

binding upon the minority landowners. This again is a very difilcult 

decision to make. The Secretary must have a very good reason to 

approve a lease in these circumstances. The broad discretion allowed 

the Secretary must be limited by requiring the Secretary or his 
123 

authorized representative to make findings justifying his decision 

to approve a lease. 

Tribe should be encouraged to develop policies for the leasing of 

Indian agricultural lands and Indian operators should be afforded a 

preference. However. the interests of the individual Indian 

landowners must be carefully respected and evaluated. Only if a 

Tribe develops such a leasing policy and only after the Secretary has 

carefully considered the interests of the individual landowners and 

makes appropriate findings, should a lease be approved. 

The Community strongly supports development of the 

Comparative Analysts of federal investment and management in 

Indian agricultural lands and other federally managed lands as set 

forth in Section 103. This Analysis should prove helpful in 

identifying problems in federal Indian leasing policy. 

I thank you for this opportunity to comment on H.R. 1425 and if 

you have any questions I will respond or provide you a written 

response in the near future. 
124 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you very much, Lieutenant Governor. 

I was really hoping that I would be privileged to eat a watermelon from the Gila River reservation. But maybe when I do visit 

Arizona, especially when I committed myself, I want to visit the 

first irrigation project that still has not been completed in over 100 

years. And I mean that. I am going to really make it a point to see 

this. 

Thank you very much for the testimony that has been presented 

before the committee. 

I do have a couple questions I want to raise. You have heard the 

testimony earlier from Mr. Hayes representing the Department of 

the Interior, and in line with the dialogue that we have established 

with Mr. Hayes, the problems that the administration has with the 

provisions of this bill. As always, I say here in the committee, this 

bill was not written in heaven and cannot be changed. I mean, we 

are very flexible in that regard. 

If there were some very serious concerns about the ownerships 

of these lands held in trust by the Federal Government for the benefit of the Indian people, but in opposition to that, as was expressed earlier by Congressman Abercrombie, we could just as well 

give you all the land and make your own development. And, of 

course, Mr. Hayes was not in a position to express the position of 

the administration in that regard. But I also am in line with that 

thinking. 

Of course, we do have a serious boundary problem attending to 

the ownerships of these lands, and pretty much that the responsibility of the Federal Government has not been a very nice record 

in my humble opinion. But in your opinion, what has been the 

record in your dealings in the past? 

I assume that all of you are involved currently in both farming 

and ranching in some way or somehow by the use of your lands. Have you had a positive relationship with the Bureau of Indian Affairs over the years in dealing with this very issue of providing the 

kind of assistance that you need? I just want to hear some feedback 

from you, if I could, Mr. Velarde. 

Mr. VELARDE. For the record here, with the Jicarilla Apache 

Tribe, what we had to do is go across to ask SCS to help us with 

some of the technical problems that we were having, and if it 

wasn't for the lAC, which is the Intertribal Agricultural Council, 

to bring us the relationship that we have with the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, those agencies that were brought into our reservation, that is how we got some technical assistance. But as far as the BIA was concerned, there has been very little. For example, a case in point, they said we were trying to do an 

eradication of our carp situation on one of our fishery lakes and we 

asked them for some money and technical assistance and they sent 

the problem up here to the main office here in Washington DC and 

nothing happened. So we had to fund it ourselves again, you know? 

And this is what we are talking about. 

If they could just at least supplement us or give us some people, 

give us some lAPs or whatever they call it, to help us out, we could 

manage on our own. We have our own integrated resource management plan in place too and we are getting people from the Atmospheric Research Center in Fort Collins, Colorado, to help us out 
125 

too, and we are getting our own people to do all this. But it is costing us money and we are just asking BIA to meet us halfway and 

they haven't met us halfway yet. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So, in effect, the very agency that is administering the 54 million acres of trust lands has exactly the same 

problem we are faced with. Of course always they claim limited resources, we don't have enough money, so go do it yourselves, don't 

bother us. They say, we will issue a report in two years and that 

report will tell you what your problems are, but never a solution 

to the problems. 

Mr. VELARDE. Exactly. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So your contact over the years has been 

minimal really with the Bureau; they have not really been an agency that you can count on for assistance. · Mr. VELARDE. No. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. With regard to agricultural development? 

Mr. VELARDE. No. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Eddy. 

Mr. EDDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Over the past few years, 

I guess as I pointed out in the statement and for the record, we 

have the old irrigation project that exists out there. It was within 

the last 10 years, I guess, where we began to really get a handle 

on trying to correct some of the deficiencies on our irrigation 

project itself, this, I guess, more through the effort of the Tribes 

than through the efforts of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Office. 

Special appropriations were sought, I guess, to help us along 

those lines, and we began a process of putting the study together 

on what really needed to be done to handle our critical needs at 

that point. We have just completed that process. That was a twoyear project that has been done. 

We are ready to move onto the second phase. The second phase 

would be to apply some actual construction or renovation, if you 

will, to the areas that are in dire need right now at this point in 

a critical stage. I would say that would help get waters to our 

lands. 

So through it all, I guess asking the question of whether or not 

we have had positive results in dealing with the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, I would have to say also like the representative on my 

right here that it has been very minimal as far as the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs is involved. Much of the effort that is being put forward now is the effort of 

the Tribes. We have begun to seek alternatives other than relying 

solely on the assistance of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We utilize 

them as much as possible. We take advantage of the utilization of 

the Public Law 93-638 process as much as possible, all this done 

to really shorten time frames, which is what we have to deal with 

down there in our part of the country on a constant basis. So that 

basically is what our situation is. ······ · 

Mr. RICHARDSON [presiding]. Thank you. Lieutenant Governor 

Thomas, did you want to answer this question? 

Ms. MARY THOMAS. Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman. Our relationship with the Bureau has improved lately. In the past, we have 

had to litigate and had to come up with some sort of justification 

for why we were dissatisfied with the Bureau. We have been in73-728 - 93 - 5 
126 

volved with other tribes in Arizona to assert some action on the 

part of the Bureau so that we can get satisfaction on how they are 

dealing with us in Arizona. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. We are joined by the distin{~ished Member 

from Montana who has been very active on this e1ubcommittee on 

Indian Affairs over the years, Indian education, many others. I had 

the good fortune of visiting his State recently. He has got vast agriculturalland, a large population. 

I wondered if the gentleman from Montana wanted to ask questions now or did he wish that I proceed. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Please proceed, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

kindness in recognizing me. I have looked over the testimony of 

these and other witnesses, but why don't we just proceed. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Okay. Let me ask all the witnesses if they can 

answer the question about surety bond requirements. In your judgment, who should have the authority to waive requirements for the 

surety bonds? The tribe or the Secretary? 

Mr. Velarde. 

Mr. VELARDE. Yes, Mr. Richardson. I think it should be the tribe, 

because of the fact that we have let BIA manage a lot of the stuff 

that has been happening on our own reservation and it hasn't been 

very productive. So we would like to take control of everything we 

are doing, and we are gearing up to do everything on our lands in 

that manner also, including our resources, including our monetary 

management and we would like to have that controL 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you. 

Chairman Eddy. 

Mr. EDDY. I believe that authority should rest with the tribes 

also. We have worked both ways in the past. I mentioned earlier 

in my statement, a lot of what is contained in the bill now has been 

practiced on our SCS reservation in the past few years. To us, it 

is a matter of putting all this practice, policies, procedures in writing before us right now. But I believe that authority should rest 

with the tribes. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Lieutenant Governor Thomas. 

Ms. MARY THOMAS. It is our belief also that the tribes should 

have a say in that and make the decision. But dght now, it is 

working the other way and we are still having a lot of problems. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Let me now start with you, Lieutenant Governor Thomas. Would your tribe be concerned that without therequirements of some security, a lessee would not undertake specific 

improvements such as lining an irrigation ditch that are currently 

required under the lease? 

Could this type of security to the tribe and the l8.111downer be provided without requiring surety bonds? 

Ms. MARY THoMAS. I would have to refer that question to Ardell. 

Mr. Rmz. Mr. Chairman, in the past, we have been able to go 

ahead and develop, even though there is a requirement that was 

set forth, but the way it is managed is the problem. Many times, 

even though when you put up a bond, it could be for a short period 

of time, yet the length of the development could be for a number 

of years. 
127 

And because of I guess either shortness in staff or incapability 

or whatever, it just doesn't work out, and it needs to be established 

where it can be managed. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Chairman Eddy, what is your view? 

Mr. EDDY. The requirement on the surety bonds? 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Yes. Some tribes have expressed concerns that 

without the requirements of some security, that a lessee would not 

undertake infrastructure improvements that are required under 

the lease. 

Mr. EDDY. We would have to go back and take a look at the type 

of agreement it is. I guess what we work with down there, shortterm lease agreements, 5-year term, which is standard; 10-year 

lease agreements are what we call improvement leases; between 

10- and 25-year, long-term development leases. Each lease is dif- ferent. They have specific terms that the farmer has to abide by 

within them. 

We do have our own people who make compliance checks to 

make sure that the terms of the agreement are being met and so 

forth. I might just point out here that, a couple years ago, we are 

one of the tribes who did contract the responsibilities of doing the 

realty services away from the Bureau on our reservation. We handle that function at this time. 

But the reason that we have just recently made it mandatory, I 

guess on the surety bonds, in our case is because of the fact that 

we have been burned a couple times by farmers not doing what the 

lease agreement called for and so forth, and at the termination of 

the agreement, leaving us with the same result that the farmer entered into in the beginning with no improvements to the land and 

so forth. 

But it really has not been that much of a problem, although we 

do have a large number of acres to look after. We get our personnel 

right on top of it. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, you touched on your testimony, Chairman Eddy, regarding the BIA leasing, regulation, and appeals process. Do you think that the current leasing process and appeals 

process protect the interests of the tribes and a lessee when a lessee declares bankruptcy, for instance? 

Mr. EDDY. That was an issue a few years ago. We went through 

an experience where exactly that particular situation took place. 

The appeals process we were in disagreement with at that point because of the time frame. This allows for a dead space there in 

which absolutely no benefit comes to the tribe as the land lays 

waiting for the bankruptcy procedures to complete themselves, I 

guess. We have had land tied up, I think, for a period of 8 years 

before we learned our first lesson where we couldn't do anything 

with it. 

Immediately after that, or during that interim, we began making 

some decisions as to how we are going to handle these type of situations when they arise, so the bankruptcy problem on our reservation, I believe, has been taken care of. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Chairman Velarde, do you think the Bureau's 

leasing regulations and appeals process adversely affect any management efforts on your reservation? 
128 

Mr. VELARDE. One in particular is with the other agencies that 

we deal with in the Department of Agriculture and that is in the 

area of, you have 5-year leases and 7-year lease.s and 10-year 

leases and BIA has 5-year leases. So when you ar•~ trying to pay 

the money back or something like that and you try to set up a program with, for example, the great plains that SCS has, they have 

a 7-year program and it conflicts right there. 

So, you know, you can't get that service because of the lease 

problems right there. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Lieutenant Governor Thomas, this is my last 

question before I see if Mr. Williams has any. Does: the BIA process, in your judgment, guarantee fair market value for leased 

lands? 

Ms. MARY THOMAS. I will have Harry Cruye answer that question. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Would you identify yourself also, Harry, and 

both of you just for the record. 

Mr. CRUYE. I am Harry Cruye, Chairman of the Farm Board. 

Also, I do lease 700 acres on my own farm. I really believe they 

do in the realty section of the agency. In fact, sometimes I think 

they protect the landowner more than the farmer, but that is the 

responsibility. 

A good example is on the federal appraisal. They will go out and 

appraise off the reservation a fully developed farm, a 300- to 500-

acre farm. You take that same per-acre value and apply it to, say, 

the appraisal on the leases I am looking at. I might be leasing 6 

acres here, 10 acres there, 12 acres there. The plots of land are just 

scattered all over where the basic appraisal is on a 300- or 500-acre 

fully developed farm. So I think that is why this language is in 

there. 

But I do feel that they do at least get a fair markE~t value for the 

per-acre. They don't consider your crops and all that. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Okay. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Do any of you, or a couple perhaps may wish to 

respond, if you had to identify one major problem with regard to 

the management of agriculture lands in Indian country, one major 

problem, one major suggestion for the BIA, what would it be? 

Somebody want to take a shot? 

Ms. MARY THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, from Gila River's perspective, 

I guess it is the identification of our water rights and how we have 

struggled for many years to have that resolved through litigation 

and through negotiation. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Anyone else? 

Mr. EDDY. I would say it is our irrigation system. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I want to thank this very good group of witnesses. We apologize for the interruptions. We thank you. 
129 

PANEL CONSISTING OF HON. LAURENCE KENMILLE, VICE 

CHAIRMAN, CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI 

TRIBES, PABLO, MONTANA; CALVIN E. WALN, SECRETARY, 

INTERTRIBAL AGRICULTURE COUNCIL (lAC), BILLINGS, 

MONTANA, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT MILLER, PRESIDENT, 

lAC, AND GREG SMITMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR; HON. 

ROSS SOCKZEWGH, TRIBAL COUNCILMAN, YAKIMA INDIAN 

NATION, TOPPENISH, WASHINGTON; JULIA MAHSETT, SECRETARY, INDIAN SOIL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, 

ANADRAKO, OKLAHOMA, ACCOMPANIED BY MAY CHUBBEE, 

COMANCHE TRIBAL MEMBER; AND (MR.) LUPE GOODAY, FT. 

SILL APACHE TRIBAL COUNCILMAN 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Let me just now tum to our third panel, the 

Honorable Lawrence Kenmille, vice chairman, Confederated Salish 

and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, Montana; Honorable Ross Sockzehigh, 

tribal councilman, Yakima Indian Nation; Toppenish, Washington; 

Mr. Calvin Wain, Secretary, Intertribal Agriculture Council from 

Billings, Montana; and Ms. Julia Mahseet, Secretary, Indian Soil 

Conservation Association, Anadarko, Oklahoma. Ms. Mahseet will 

be accompanied by Mr. Lupe Gooday, Ft. Sill Apache tribal councilman, and Ms. May Chubbee, Comanche tribal member. 

So if we could have all of these witnesses please step up to the 

microphone and I will recognize first the gentleman from Montana 

in case he wishes to introduce or say something about obviously 

two of his constituents here. Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join in 

welcoming all of the panelists in the several panels that are before 

you today, but take particular note of the two Montanans, one an 

old friend and one an acquaintance who have traveled back here 

to be with us. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your willingness to invite 

both of these Montanans to testify today. Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Williams. Your 

statement will be fully inserted in the record. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:] 

STATEMENT OF PAT WILLIAMS ON H.R. 1425, TilE AMERICAN INDIAN AGRICULTURAL 

ACT 

I'm pleased to see that we're coming together to discuss Indian Agriculture. Agriculture has been an important source of income for Native Americans across the 

country. I know that Montana's tribes are quite concerned with the lack of resource management that has been provided by the Federal Government through the BIA 

and the subsequent denigration of Indian lands. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, economic development is a big issue for the nation's First Americans. When the subcommittee came to Fort Peck Reservation in northeastern Montana earlier this year, we discussed many alternatives for economic development. While industrial development is an alternative, I believe we should not 

forget the businesses that exist, that are primarily agricultural. Through better BIA 

management productive capacity of agricultural land will most definitely be improved. The trust responsibility is a real one and the BIA has not lived up to its 

part of the bargain regarding land management. I look forward to hearing from each of the witnesses. I especially welcome Mr. 

Lawrence Kenmille of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. We will start with the Honorable Laurence 

Kenmille. 
130 

STATEMENT OF LAURENCE KENMILLB 

Mr. KENMILLE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Laurence Kenmille, Vice Chairman of the Confederated Salish and 

Kootenai Nation, and good morning, Honorable Pat Williams. Ap- preciate you being in attendance today. 

The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead 

Nation strongly support the Indian Agricultural Resources Management Act of 1993, however, under H:R. 1425./ as presently structured, we believe that language needs to be adaed which more specifically addresses the concerns and goals of Indian people who 

wish to see the reservation homelands protected. 

In addition, we believe H.R. 1425 needs language to more effectively establish identifiable management planning processes for 

tribal agricultural lands with tribal control, language to better 

modernize outdated BIA policies and regulations for these lands, 

and establish educational opportunities needed in management of 

natural and agricultural resources. 

Most importantly, we believe H.R. 1425 could in the long run 

more effectively promote tribal self-determination. 

Some of the specific comments I would like to address, we strongly support the provisions found in Section 102 of the H.R. 1425 

which requires the Secretary to abide by tribal law and also specifically provide for assistance with enforcement of tribal law and create special notice provisions which will be very beneficial to the 

tribes enforcing their laws over non-Indians on tribal lands. 

The tribes also wish to comment on the definitions of agricultural 

lands found in Section 4(1) of H.R. 1425. Forested lands should be 

included in the defmition of agricultural lands. A significant por- tion of our tribe's grazing resources comes from grazable forest 

lands. 

Traditional agricultural activities, such as grazing and berry picking do occur in the forest and should be acknowledged as agncultural activities. Therefore, we believe forested lands should be 

included in the definition of agricultural land. 

We also suggest that Indian lands be defined consistent with the 

widely utilized definition as found in 18 U.S.C., subsection 1151, 

Indian country defined. Alternatively, the Indian lands definition 

contained in the Native American Free Exercise of Religion Act 

would be suitable. 

All lands within the limite of any Indian reservation, public domain Indian allotmente, all other Ianda title to which iB either held in tnllt by the United States for 

the benefit of any Indian tribe or individual or held by Indian tribes or individuale 

subject to restriction by the United States against alienation; all dependent Indian 

communities and all fee lands owned by an Indian tribe. 

The defmition of farmland needs to be revised. H.R. 1425 requires farmland to be actively used in order to meet the defmition. 

Some agricultural lands within our reservation may not be in current use or could be lying fallow due to enrollment in the CRP or 

other USDA programs or for other reasons. Nonetheless, the lands 

are still farmlands and we believe it is only proper that such lands 

be defmed as suitable for use as farmlands. 

The tribes would also like to emphasize support for language 

which defines the role of the tribe and BIA in land management 

activities. The tribes are the proper local authority to be respon-
131 

sible for land management activities and regulation of agricultural 

lands on the reservation. 

Furthermore, the tribes support and concur with language to be 

included which discusses application of tribal law. The House definition appears to limit authority of the tribes over tribal lands. We 

believe lands under tribal jurisdiction should be subject to this bill. 

We ask for langua~e in H.R. 1425 which will allow the tribes to 

establish local leasmg policies relating to Indian preference, 

fractionated ownershiP., appraisal value of agricultural lands and 

terms of lease. Our tnbe actively addresses the fractionation of Indian lands problem by buying up fractionated interests in allotments. 

On allotment tracts, the tribes are majority owners, yet we have 

only a limited voice in how these lands are to be leased and managed due to existing BIA policies and CFR requirements. In many 

cases, the tribe owns 98 percent of a tract, but under BIA regulation, the tract is viewed as an individually owned tract not subject 

to tribal policies. 

Finally, the tribe would like to include language which expands 

the definition of agricultural study to include natural resources 

study. The tribes believe that all natural resources management 

activities require an interdisciplinary planning process and input 

from all resource disciplines. 

Limiting areas of study to agriculture would severely limit the 

involvement of additional areas and fields of specialized expertise 

which we believe greatly enhances the management of our large, 

multifaceted and environmentally complex blocks of agricultural 

land. 

Right now, I would like to say thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this 

opportunity. The tribal mayor chairman who has been involved in 

the agricultural bill from its inception, you know, is really following 

this very, very closely. He is a rancher and an agricultural user 

and appreciates the time you have allotted us to provide this testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you Mr. Vice Chairman. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Kenmille follows:] 
132 

TESTIMONY OF LAURENCE KENMILLE, VICE CHAIRMAN 

OF THE CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES 

BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN 

AFFAIRS REGARDING H.R. 1425, 'l'HE AMERICAN INDIAN 

AGRICULTURE ACT OF 1993. 

FRIDAY, JUNE 18, 1993. 

The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead 

Nation strongly support the •Indian Agricultural Resources 

Management Act of 1993." However, as presently structured, we 

prefer the version of this Act currently being debated in the 

Senate (S. 410) to the House version discussed today (H .R. 1425) . 

We believe that S.410 more specifically addresses the concerns and 

goals of Indian people who "'ish to see the reservation homelands 

protected . . In addition, we believes. 410 more effectively 

establishes an identifiable management planning process for Tribal 

agricultural land, with Tribal control. It better modernizes 

outdated BIA policies and regulations for these lands and 

establishes educational opportunities needed in management of 

natural and agricultural resources. Most importantly, we believe 

s. 410 more effectively promotes tribal self-determination. 

Specific comments 

We strongly support the provisions found in both Section 202 

(a) of s . 410 and Section 102 (a) of H.R. 1425 which require the 

Secretary to abide by Tribal Law, and also specifically provide 

for assistance with enforcement of Tribal Laws and create special 

•notice· provisions which will be very beneficial to Tribes 

enforcing their laws over non-members on Tribal lands. 

The Tribes also wish to comment on the definition of 
133 

•agricultural land• found in Section 4 11) of H.R. 1425. Forested 

lands should be included in the definition of agricultural land. 

A significant portion of our Tribe's grazing resources come from 

grazeable forest lands. Traditional agricultural activities such 

as gr-azing and berry picking do occur in the forest and should be 

acknowledged as agricultural activities. Therefore, we believe 

forested lands should be included in the definition of 

agricultural land. 

We also suggest that "Indian lands" be defined consistent 

with the widely utilized definition as found in 18 u.s.c. § 1151 

(Indian Country Defined l . Alternatively, the "Indian Lands • 

definition contained in the Native American Free Exercise of 

Religion Act would be suitable. 

"all lands Hithin the limits of any Indian 

reservation; public domain Indian allotments; 

all other lands title to which is either held 

in trust by the United States for the benefit 

of any Indian tribe or individual or held by 

any Indian tribe or individual subject to 

restriction by the United States against 

alienation; all dependant Indian communities 

and all fee lands owned bY an Indi<m tribe. • 

The definition of farmland needs to be revised. H.R. 1425 

requires farmland to be actively used in order to meet the 

definition. Some agricultural lands within our reservation may 

not be in current use and could be lying fallow due to enrollment 

in CRP or other USDA programs or for other reasons. Nonetheless, 

these lands are still farmlands, and we believe it is only proper 

that such lands be defined as •suitable" for use as farmland. 

Testimony of Laurence Kenmille -Page 2 
134 

The Tribes would also like tc emphasize support for the 

language used in Section 202 (a) of s . 410 which defines the roles 

of the Tribe and BIA in land management activities. The Tribes 

are the proper local authority to be responsible for land 

management activities and regulation of agricultural lands on the 

Reservation. 

Furthermore, the Tribes support and concur with Section 202 

(bl of s . 410 which discusses application of tribal law. The 

House definition appears to limit authority of the Tribes over 

Tribal lands. We feel the definition used by the Senate is more 

appropriate. We believe all lands under Tribal jurisdiction 

should be subject to this bill . 

We support Section 204 of s. 410 which allows the Tribes to 

establish local leasing policies relating to Indian preference, 

fractionated ownership, appraisal value of agricultural land, and 

term of leases. Our Tribe actively addresses the fractionation of 

Indian lands problem by buying up fractionated interests in 

allotments. On many allotted tracts, the Tribes are a majoritY 

owner, yet we have only a limited voice in how these lands are to 

be leased and managed due to existing BIA policies and CFR 

requirements. In many cases the Tribes own 98% of a tract, but 

under BIA regulation the tract is viewed as an individually owned 

tract not subject to Tribal policies. 

Finally, the Tribes support and concur with Section 30l(c) of 

s . 410 ·,1hich expands the definition of agriculture study to 

include natural resources study. we suggest the definition used 

by the Senate should be adopted by the House. The Tribes believe 

that all natural resources management activities require an 

interdisciplinary planning process and input from all resource 

Testimony of Laurance KenmiRe - Page 3 
135 

disciplines. Limiting areas of study to agriculture would 

severely limit the involvement of additional areas and fields of 

specialized expertise which we believe greatly enhances the 

management of our large, multifaceted and environmentally complex 

blocks of agricultural land. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views to this 

commir.r.ee. 

Testimony of Laurence Kenmille -Page 4 
136 

Mr. RICHARDSON. The Chair recognizes Mr. Calvin Wain, Secretary, Intertribal Agriculture Council, Billings, Montana. 

Welcome, Mr. Wain. 

STATEMENT OF CALVIN E. WALN 

Mr. WALN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to acknowledge the president of the 'IAC, Mr. Robert Miller, who is with me, 

and Harlan Beaulieu from the Red Lake Tribe, ancl the executive 

director, Greg Smitman. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for introducing us and getting us this 

far and I greatly appreciate the questions that were asked this 

morning. You basically got everything on the table, the issues that 

are affecting us. I am an enrolled member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, and I am 

a landowner, but the most important part of that is that I am a 

tribal member. By virtue of that, I am a landowner, even if I was 

not an allottee. I am a landowner within that tribe. 

A little over 200 years ago, the Indian nations were sovereign because we controlled over 500 million acres of landl here. As you 

heard this morning, we control a little more than 54~ million acres, 

of which we are not sovereign, of which we do not make our decisions upon that land. We have forfeited to the Federal Government 

and ceded the most productive farm ground that we had, a lot of 

our water and our minerals, and what little we have left we do not 

control. This bill has been mailed out in the last five years since 1989 

to every single tribe in the country for comment on it. We have 

worked hard on this bill, we have cooperated with the committees 

in both houses, we have cooperated with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but the Federal Government has always made the decisions 

for Indian country. Economic development, you name it, whatever 

it is, it comes from here and the Bureau controls that. 

The tribes have never been given the opportunity, and the tribal 

people, to say, this is what we want, let us fix our problems. The 

management section of this bill needs to be added onto like bill S. 410 that gives the tribes more control to manage and develop their 

plans. Let the people put these plans together and let them decide 

what they want. 

The community, by developing these, will take into consideration 

the unique status of each tribe. Each one being different, each tribe 

is going to have a different plan and they will be able to put their 

own things together. 

The bill this morning talked a little bit about some of their concerns. They were talking about Indian preference being one of their 

concerns. Their current regulations allow for Indian preference. 

When you talk about allottees, the problem that we have, the regulations say a majority of the interest holders. We have some areas 

that are requiring 100 percent of the ownership. So we have 1.1 

million acres of land sittin~ idle. 

Some of the problems With idle land is no water, noxious weeds, 

prairie dogs. The Bureau sits on that land, says it is worth x number of dollars per acre. If you don't want to pay that, we let it sit 

idle. That is their way of managing the rate. They can drop the 

rate on these lands if they want to get them developed. 
137 

The tribal goals and objectives and tribal law should control the 

resources of the reservation and all tribes. The IRMPs that bill has; 

that is, the technical inventory of what is there. It doesn't say, here 

is the potential that you have, let's develop this. Do something with 

it. If we wait for them, we wait for another 100 years before we 

get anything done. 

The regs are only used against us, and what we are saying is, 

let us do this. Let's complete some regs, let's make some stuff happen. A question I would like to see asked of the Bureau this morning is: How does this bill change the relationship between the tribe 

and the allottees? I would like to see the Bureau respond to that 

to see what they would come up with. 

The Bureau came up with leasing regs in 1988. They came out 

of a 1986 report by the BIA which was followed by a 1987 report 

by the Indian land working group, all spelling out the needs and 

changes in the leasing regs. We need 10 years to stabilize things. 

As you heard this morning, some tribes are giving 10- to 25-year 

leases. The Bureau says that can't happen, but it is happening because these tribes are taking the lead and taking control, and they 

are being successful at what they are doing. 

The value-added industries that the Bureau talked about this 

morning, they want them identified. Speaking with a friend of 

mine yesterday, Mr. Pete Taylor, he said that is horse shit. Then 

he laughed and said, but horse shit could be a value-added industry. 

So it is a broad range of things that are out there for value-added 

industries that we need to take into consideration. 

The heirship problem that gets addressed in here, we talked 

about surplus. The heirship problem, the fractionation problems 

that we have, the majority of the land is so fractionated that the 

individuals cannot use it. They actually don't know what the economic value of their land is if it was consolidated. If the Bureau 

was doing their job assisting people in consolidating their lands, 

they could have some usable, manageable tracts that could be 

worth a lot more money than what they are getting right now. 

You ask a question about fair annual rental. Just to give you a 

guick example, right now the current rate on BLM land is I believe 

$1.98 an animal unit. In Montana, they are paying $7 an animal 

unit, and we are on lands that aren't developed. We are underdeveloped. We are working with. the USDA to bring them in and 

make some things happen, but we are a long ways away. 

The Bureau talked about demonstration projects, they would like 

to see them. You give the Bureau a chance to put in three or four 

demonstration projects and five years to complete them. You get 

two or three reports and they are going to say they have done their 

job and it is over. This planning process needs to happen in the 

short term, in three years. Let's make something happen and get 

things going. 

The field hearings, that has happened. The 1986 report, read 

through the reports. You will see the field hearings, everything has 

taken place in there. 

You have heard a lot about irrigation this morning, the Bureau 

not implementing and doing their job. You look at the Winters Doctrine that was put in place by the Supreme Court. If the Bureau 
138 

would have implemented that decision, which they didn't and 

didn't know how, we wouldn't have the water rights problems we 

are having today with tribes to develop their agricultural lands. 

The limited resources, the Bureau talks about what they have to 

operate with. The Bureau does not come into Cong:ress during appropriations and re<J.Uest money. They are just not doing it. 

And with that, Congressman, I see my time has run out here, 

but I want to express the appreciation of the lAC, the 60-some 

tribes that we represent and thanks to all the Indian people and 

leaders that have come here today and expressed their concerns 

and support for this bill. 

And with that, thank you very much. And I would like for us to 

be apprised of the answer that the BIA gives to you in response 

to the questions that you had this morning. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. We certainly will do that. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Wain follows:] 
139 

~., .··~_-··.·lntert~ib~ Ag-;ic~ lt~-~~-Council : W _100 North 27th Strc~~-~uitc~99, Billill~, J\.1on~.rul ~~1:2054 (~~~9~3525 .. 

·ii\\ 

,~, 

Introduction 

Prepared Statement of the Intertribal Amculture 

Council for the ,Jupe 18. 1993 Hearipg on H.& 1425, 

the American Indian Agricultural Act of 1993 beld 

by the House Commjttee on Natural Resources. 

Submmmittee on Natiye American Affairs. 

Mr. Chairman, I am Calvin E. Wain, a member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe of South 

Dakota and Secretary of the Intertribal Agriculture Council (lAC). I am an Indian 

rancher, and an allotted land owner. I have eight years of service on the Rosebud 

Sioux Tribal Council where I served on the Land and Natural Resources Committee 

and on the Board of Directors of Tribal Land Enterprise. In these positions I have 

considerable experience leasing land as a land user, writing grazing and leasing 

ordinances and laws, overseeing land purchases and land consolidations on behalf of 

the Tribe and the Individual Allottee and, therefore, can speak knowingly of the 

frustrations of my people and myself. 

I want to express the warm gratitude of lAC's 65 member Tribes for your 

sponsorship ofH.R.1425. This critical legislation tums around the mismanagement of the two greatest assets oflndian Country, their human and natural 

resources. 

Native American agriculturists have played a great role in forming America. Indian 

people fed the first European settlers of our country and developed food products 

that today make up over 50% ofthe world food supply. However, the majority of our most fertile and mineral-enriched lands were ceded to the Federal Government by 

treaties in return for the lands we now call reservations. In exchange for ceding our lands, we were promised that the reservation would be ours forever, and would be 

protected for our exclusive use. This has not happened and is a major reason why 

84 Tribes came together in 1987 to found the Intertribal Agriculture Council. 

Backgroupd 

The "American Indian Agriculture Act of 1993" continues the long-term efforts of 

Congress to improve Indian Agriculture which originated with the passage ofPL 99-

190 in 1985. That legislation resulted in the 1986 Report to Congress on BIA 

Agriculture-Range Programs, and the recommendations in that report with the 

subsequent findings of the National Indian Agriculture Working Group and more recent Congressional Testimonies form the basis for H.R. 1425. The Intertribal 

Agriculture Council is proud to support this important legislation. 
140 

2 

As Congress has started the process of improving the conditions on reservations and 

in the Indian community by correcting barriers that have kept the Indian 

agriculture community from fulfilling its potential, significant change has been 

forced on the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Cooperative Extension Service 

and USDA farmer programs are improving cooperation with Indian Communities as 

a result oflegislation in the 1990 FACT ACT. Congress has also been in the lead in 

correcting Agriculture Credit problems of Indian people in dealing with Farmers 

Home Administration. The recent entry of Tribally Controlled Community Colleges 

into USDA services has been entirely due to the work of the Congress, and the 

members of the lAC are sincerely grateful for these efforts. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is not the only federal agency with specific 

authorities and responsibilities in Indian agriculture, however. Numerous recent 

and historical reports document the reliance of Indian people on agriculture for 

their sustenance, livelihood, and employment. Many of these documents were 

prepared or contracted by the BIA and report that the major stumbling blocks to 

Indian success in rural America are artificial barriers imposed by the BIA. 

The BIA exerts significant influence on the Indian Community duE• to its 

administration and management of Indian lands, its control of Indian budgets and 

its formal participation with elected tribal governments. Therefore, it is 

appropriate that after serious attention to problems within the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, attention should be closely focused on the major Indian agency of the 

federal government and on improvements that can be made in canying out the 

duties assigned by Congress. 

Unfortunately, the improvement of agricultural resources is not a BIA priority 

despite agriculture's role as the primary land use and main source of employment 

and income in Indian communities. As a result of reduced management and low 

priorities, Indian agricultural lands are not only under-developed but have been 

increasingly idle and decreasing in productivity and value in recent years, according 

to the BIA. It is ironic that the stated purpose of the Allotment Act was to make 

farmers out of the Indians while today the BIA program for Agriculture and Natural 

Resources is effectively non-existent. 

Rather than promoting the use of Indian resources by Indian people, the current 

lack oflong-term development and management ensures that the economic benefit 

of the land is lost to the owner. In 1896, Dr. Charles F. Meserve, President of Shaw 

College, in Raleigh, North Carolina noticed that the acreage of allotted Indian lands was dwindling and wrote, "This property all belongs to the Indian, but it is the 

white men who are felling timber, harvesting the com and cotton from his rich 

acres, white men pasturing his beautiful waving prairies and shipping the fat herds 

to the stockyards of Kansas City and Chicago. The Indian is well-nigh alien in the 

land of his fathers." 

The problem Dr. Meserve addressed in 1896 continues to plaque Indian Country in 

1993. It is still the non-Indian who predominately works our land!!. A non-Indian 

farmer or rancher, with his access to credit, can purchase or lease Indian lands 

much easier than an Indian. It is not difficult for a tribal member to sell or lease to 
141 

3 

a non-Indian; but it is next to impossible for another Indian to purchase or lease 

these interests under current BIA policies and practices. 

The "Meriam Report" released in 1928 reported problems with the management of 

Indian lands and indicated that if not addressed these problems would continue to 

grow along with conditions of poverty, disease, poor education and very low 

economic opportunity. That report concluded that the federal government should 

"encourage Indian use of Indian lands and strengthening of Indian community life." 

In 1975 a major report by the GAO titled "Indian Natural Resources: Opportunities 

for Improved Management and Increased Productivity" was prepared for the Senate 

Interior and Insular Affairs committee. This report identified three major issues 

damaging Indian land and resource management. These three were lack oflong· 

term planning for resource development; lack of personnel for technical assistance 

and advice; and, conflict of tribal and individual Indian desires with accepted 

resource management practices. 

Not much has changed on many reservations since the 1975 report or even since the 

1928 report. In fact, conditions have grown considerably worse between 1975 and 

today, as indicated in the BIA's "1986 Report to Congress on Agriculture Range 

Programs." 

This legislation is the first effort at implementing these recommendations, made 

almost twenty years ago, and repeated by both BIA and tribal leaders over the past 

ten years. Its purpose is very simple: since the BIA has not, can not, and will not 

take action to protect the landowners' interests, stabilize the communities and 

provide the realistic incentive for self-determination and economic development it is 

necessary that Congress empower the Tribal Governments to take action. 

Mission and Goals 

As pointed out in the previously cited BIA Report to Congress and the Findings of 

the National Indian Agriculture Working Group, there is no overall mission or goals 

for the BIA Land Operations program, generically referred to as "agriculture." A 

formally proposed mission statement, with supporting policy and goal statements, 

was created by the National Indian Agriculture Working Group but has not been 

adopted or discussed. 

The need to develop a formal process to clearly define and document Tribal, 

Community and Bureau goals for the reservation land base is established by both 

the BIA reports and numerous tribal testimonies before Congress. Clearly defined 

and documented goals can serve as the overall foundation for the Bureau (or Tribe) 

to design the specific land management programs, complete with staffing, funding 

requirements and short and long-term objectives, which are the critical first step in 

rebuilding the failed BIA Land Operations program. Section 101(c) of the proposed 

legislation will accomplish this while providing for the unique situations of each 

Tribe. 

To be successful, long-range management programs must reflect community goals 

and values, and be approved at the local level. There are numerous examples of 
142 

4 

well designed and well meaning projects in Indian country that have failed because 

they reflected the goals of the BIA or the consultant, not the goals of the local 

community. We believe that a cooperative working partnership involving the Tribal 

Government, land owners and land users, the BIA, and other members of the 

community is necessary and can be achieved. 

Successful resource management programs in Indian country are those directed by 

the local Tribal Governments, not the BIA. For example, Seminole Tribe of Florida, 

Ak-Chin of Arizona, Colorado River Indian Tribes of Arizona, Gila River Tribe of 

Arizona, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs of Oregon, and the Red Lake Tribe 

of Minnesota are a few who have taken active control oftheir resources to achieve 

their success. This Act will empower all Tribes in the United Statt!S to exercise local 

authority on the wise and prudent use of their resources and is one reason that the 

lAC strongly supports it. 

Since 1988, the IAC has repeatedly proposed a program designed to bring the 

management oflndian-trust lands closer to the level enjoyed by all other Federal 

lands. This cannot be accomplished in a single year or two, nor can it be done on a wholesale basis from a nationally dictated program. The diversity of the lands, the 

climate, and the cultures of the Indian people, as well as the overwhelming scope of 

such a project, precludes short-term solutions. We, therefore, propose a program 

which will begin this rebuilding process through the involvement of the Tribal 

Governments and local residents in the decision making process. 

Many reservations have obtained resource surveys, inventories, or studies as part of 

other programs over many years. In some areas, emphasis has been on water rights 

litigation and documentation of potentially irrigable acres. In other areas, 

recreation or forest management has been the driving force in data acquisition and 

resource planning. At the same time, some reservations are lacking even the most 

basic resource data, such as Public Land Survey and SCS Soil Surveys. Currently, 

few Tribes have had either the capability or resources to combine these myriad 

reports into a meaningful working reservation program. 

Some Tribes do not have agricultural resources or have strong intE!rest in other 

primary resources or land uses. This approach grants all the Trib,~s the leadership 

role in defining their long-term goals and strategies for their resources without 

dictating what direction these goals should take. Forest Management plans are largely in place, but no full Natural Resource or Land Management Plans have yet 

been completed on Indian Lands. This program would provide for equal treatment 

of all land resources, including soils, water, wildlife, vegetation, minerals, esthetics 

and so forth, and all proposed uses from agricultural to recreational, cultural 

preservation, tourism, and numerous alternatives in defining reservation goals and 

potential uses. 

Guidelines and criteria for these plans already exist in the BIA's Land Operations 

Manual, and can be used with minimal deviation by the Tribes in this effort. We 

estimate the cost of this planning phase at $10 million a year for 3 years, or less 

than 1% of the BIA budget, based on a BIA estimate of$.37 cents per acre adjusted 

for inflation, to establish a new direction for the Bureau and to provide a structured, 
143 

s 

sanctioned method for the Tribes to clearly define and express their long-term goals 

and objectives and to plot a course for achieving them. The results would be orderly 

reservation development that reflects community goals and objectives, and 

marshals the commitment of tribal and federal resources to meet these objectives. 

This is the necessary first step toward the reality of tribal self-determination. 

For the past two decades, Tribal Leaders have been in the unenviable position of 

seeking congressional action for even their smallest needs. Without a realistic 

method to clearly document tribal needs, and in the absence ofBIA leadership or 

responsiveness, only those few Tribes which can afford repeated trips to 

Washington, D.C. and can retain the most successful lawyers receive some redress. 

The vast majority of Tribes have seen their resources diminish and BIA services curtailed. This portion ofH.R. 1425 can go along way toward returning the BIA to 

its established role and relieving the Congress of the need to take action 

individually on virtually every tribal concern throughout the United States. 

At least 95% of the appropriated funds should go directly to the Agency/l'riballevel 

to achieve maximum efficiencies in the use of program dollars with no 

administrative hold back in Central Office and not more than 5% at area offices for 

planning support. It is suggested that 50% of the above funds be provided directly 

to the Tribal Governments in the form of block grants to ensure that the Tribes are active participants and maintain the leadership role in this effort. The block grant 

method is preferred as it allows Tribes the freedom to contract with universities, 

private consultants or other sources without the difficulties encountered in 

subcontracting a 638 contract. The remaining 45% should be provided to the BIA 

agencies to support the tribal efforts, and should be available for 638 contracting at 

the Tribe's request. It is our recommendation that any funds provided for these 

programs be kept separate from existing BIA funds for accounting purposes and 

that formal reports of activities and progress be required by the Congress. 

The result of this three-year program will be specific, documented agriculture and 

land management programs, created and approved by the local community, which 

address specific community concerns for land use and development. The individual 

reservation or tribal planning documents will provide the direction and guidance to 

the BIA and the Tribes in the management and administration of the Indian-owned 

trust resources. These program documents will also provide the basis for the 

applica tion of Indian Self-Determination through the tribal contracting of 

Agriculture and Natural Resources Programs under the new Self-Determination Act 

amendments contained in PL 100-472. This is exactly the process which has been 

successful in the development and implementation of the Forest Management Plans 

which have so greatly contributed to the well-being of the Timber Resource Tribes. 

The BIA reports that it is already engaged in this process through its so-called 

Integrated Resource Management Plan program. However, published results of this 

effort, which we have reviewed, are merely highly technical resource inventories 

that require extensive computerized data from numerous sources including satellite 

imagery. This high technology is very exciting, but after spending millions of 

dollars, there have been only a total of nine plans completed in 6 years, almost 

entirely based on already existing Forest Management Plans. Additionally, there is 
144 

6 

no evidence of meaningful community input or understanding of these products of 

computer and satellite technology. At the current rate of accomplishment we can expect to have preliminary inventories of this caliber for only the la rgest 

reservations completed in the year 2042- a long time to wait for simple goal setting. 

The altemative to waiting another 50 years for the advent of expensive 

computerized mapping systems is provided for in this legislation. This Act will 

establish the necessary mission and goals on an individual reservation basis and 

embark on community-based resource planning which has been successful for both 

the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management . 

.Leasing and Permitting 

Due to tribal constitutions preventing the sale of tribally owned lands, the small 

scale of Indian allotments and the fractionated- heirship common to Indian land 

ownership, and a general lack of credit, Indian farmers and ranchers do not own 

and cannot buy the majority of the land on which their enterprises are located. 

Rather, they must lease their lands through the BIA under regulations which 

originated when a primary function of the federal relationship with Indian people 

was the sale or lease oflndian lands to hasten settlement of the West. Under these archaic regulations, reservation lands are leased by the BIA to off-reservation 

interests who harvest the benefits of the land, while the landowner and community receive the pittance supplied to a disenfranchised landowner. 

Section 104 contains specific authorities for the Secretary to implement tribal 

ordinances, based directly on the recommendations of the BIA in the 1986 Report to 

Congress on Agriculture/Range Programs, and the Final Findings of the National 

Indian Agriculture Working Group of 1987. These specific items are also included 

in the BIA draft of proposed new BIA leasing and permitting regulations which 

have been the topic of questions at every Congressional hearing on Indian 

Agriculture since the BIA first announced them in 1988. One of the reasons given 

for not publishing these draft regulations for public comment has been the need for 

statutory authority for longer term leases, and specific Indian preference to Indian use of Indian lands (although Indian preference in employment, contracting, 

education and retail supply is clearly established by law and upheld by the courts). 

We strongly support the efforts of Congress to provide the statutory authority for 

the Bureau to implement these changes, which it has recommended in its efforts at 

self-improvement. Specific recommendations originate on page 24 of the 1986 BIA 

Report to Congress on Indian Agriculture/Range Programs and are expanded on 

pages 24 through 30 of the 1987 Final Findings of the National Indi an Agriculture 

Working Group, submitted by the BIA leadership to Congress in direct response to 

Congressional requests originating with PL 99-190. These recommendations have 

also been specifically included in testimony by several parties before the Senate 

Select Committee Overf'ight Hearing on Indian Agriculture, the Senate Select 

Committee Oversight Hearings on Indian Irrigation, the Joint Senate Select and 

Senate Agriculture Committee Oversight Hearings, and each year since 1988 in 

testimony before the House Appropriation Subcommittee on the Interior. 
145 

7 

Most importantly, this section allows the Secretary to implement tribal policies for 

the leasing and use of reservation lands when the elected Tribal Government has 

passed such laws, unless the landowner of a specific tract disagrees. Solutions to 

long-standing problems can be achieved with an authorization to lease highly 

fractionated lands under tribal ordinances unless the landowners disagree. This 

one provision will substantially reduce the acreage of idle Indian lands in 

Oklahoma. A second solution would provide for the granting of Indian preference in 

leasing when authorized by the elected Tribal Government, when the landowners 

don't formally disagree, and when a fair rate of return will be achieved for the 

landowners. 

This section can clearly protect the interests of the landowners to ensure that they 

retain full ownership rights over their lands, firmly establish that the American 

method of majority rules in issues of equity applies in Indian issues as well, and 

establish a procedure for the individual landowners to remove their land from 

jurisdiction under tribal ordinance while finally providing for the Indian use of 

Indian Resources. 

Education 

It has been reported by the BIA that almost half of their land-resource professional 

positions are vacant, and that as many as half of the existing staff is eligible for 

retirement at the end of this year. Despite the stated concern which has been 

repeated since the 1986 report to Congress, the Bureau has taken no action to 

prepare for this exodus of qualified individuals to manage Indian resources. The 

proposed educational component of this legislation is the first federal effort to 

recognize this upcoming personnel shortage and to establish a vehicle for developing 

a professional cadre of Indian Natural Resources managers to begin to fill the vacancies within Indian Country and the Bureau of Indian affairs. 

Conclusion 

This simple legislation, the result of several years of work and Indian involvement, 

is the next logical step in empowering Tribal Governments to take responsibility for 

their futures, and we strongly support that effort. The "Indian Agriculture 

Resources Management Act of 1993" will resolve long standing and welldocumented mismanagement of trust lands by utilizing the elected local 

governments, with their contact in the local community and on the ground 

knowledge of local situations, to correct the plague of Bureau imposed issues that 

have stripped Indian people of their vested ownership in the use and management 

of their lands. The proposed legislation puts oversight of basic land use at the 

elected Tribal Government level, similar to the local government authorities 

throughout the non-Indian community, and only when the Tribal Government and 

affected landowners choose to exercise this option. In short, it puts control in the 

hands oflocal governments elected by Indian land owners. Those very same land owners do not have the opportunity to elect BIA officials whose management for the 

last 150 years has accomplished nothing to enhance the rights of individuals or Tribal Governments. 
146 

Mr. RICHARDSON. The Chair recognizes the Honorable 

Sockzehigh, Tribal Councilman, Yakima Indian Nation, Toppenish, 

in the State of Washington. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF ROSS SOCKZEHIGH 

Mr. SOCKZEHIGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A13 you indicated, 

my name is Ross Sockzehigh. I am a member of the Yakima Tribal 

Council. Mr. Chairman, in general, the Yakima Nation is supportive of the language in H.R. 1425, the American Indian Agricultural 

Act of 1993. 

After review and discussion with various landowners, BIA representatives, and others in the northwest area, I feel that I can 

support current Indian agricultural legislation. 

At this time though I would like to inform you that I am more 

supportive of the Senate bill, S. 410, although both bills have similar language. Given the two-week period in which fUrther written 

testimony may be submitted, I plan to offer more detailed comments or suggestions for H.R. 1425. 

Agricultural land resources on the Yakima Reservation include 

141,775 acres of irrigated land and 31,817 acres ofidle land. There 

are also 430,000 acres of grassland. Therefore, the implications of 

language in this bill will be considered more carefully within the 

given time for submission of written testimony. 

I feel quite strongly about the benefits of a tribally adopted 10-

year agricultural resource management plan. Thi8 management 

plan would give the Yakima Tribe and its members a better idea 

in land use plans for the future. Most of the item1~ addressed in 

H.R. 1425 are already in place on the Yakima Reservation. However, I understand that there are some agencies where staff 

are not supportive, cooperative, or informative to our Indian landowners and this Act would put more emphasis on the responsibilities of these BIA staff people. Establishing a task force with purposes stated in the bill would 

be a positive step for all tribes and individual Indian landowners. 

AB to Section 104, leasing of the Indian rangelands and farmlands, which would allow tribes to develop policies for leasing trust 

lands, including individual lands, I believe this will be acceptable. 

However, each tribe must work with their own landowners. This 

could be a very positive step toward allowing individuals an opportunity to give their opinions on land use. 

On the Yakima Reservation, the land committee policy regarding 

leases of tribally owned lands is that leases are not to extend beyond 10 years. The Yakima Tribal Council Land Committee recognizes self-management of lands under its control in the exercise of 

enterprise. Therefore this policy is used to maintain the ability of 

the Yakima Nation land enterprise to operate and manage the agricultural lands which they own or have controlling interest in on 

behalf of the tribe. 

However, the Yakima Tribe, through its land committee will, and 

does, work with individual tribal members owning farmland in regards to leasing of farmland. The grazing and land c=ommittees object to Section 104, Subparagraph 3, "May offer for lease or permit 
147 

on the open market only those lands which are surplus to the 

needs of Indian communities." 

I am definitely for educational opportunities which will result 

from this Act, and I feel that this type of opportunity is long past 

due. With the amount of agricultural land on Indian reservations 

and the diversity of the agricultural products, the education to 

allow Indian people to have the expertise to manage the lands is 

crucial. 

A reason for this legislation is due to the lack of support and cooperation by BIA staff. If tribes or the BIA had tribal members in 

responsible positions with a vested interest in the outcome of the 

management and leasing of agricultural land, then some of these 

problems might not have come about. 

The purposes of this legislation sound good but as in any legislation, with good intentions, nothing can be done unless funds are 

appropriated for the programs. Currently at the Yakima agency there is need for more realty specialists to deal with complex land 

lease issues. If there were adequate appropriations for the programs involved, then once again, problems addressed in this legislation may not have arisen. 

And Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to present the 

position of the Yakima Nabon on this legislation. There is still time 

to work out problems or supply amendments to H.R. 1425 and your 

consideration of our input is appreciated. I thank the Chairman. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you very much, especially for summarizing so succinctly. lPrepared statement of Mr. Sockzehigh follows:] 
148 

Testimony of 

Ross Sockzehigh 

Yakima Nation Tribal Council 

Hearing on HR 1425 

American Indian Agricultural Act of 1993 

June 18, 1993 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Native American Affairs 
149 

In general, the Yakima Nation is supportive of the language in H.R. 1425, the 

American Indian Agricultural Act of 1993. After review and discussion with various 

landowners, BIA representatives, and others in the Northwest area, I feel that I can 

support current Indian agricultural legislation. 

At this time though, I would like to inform you that I am more supportive of 

the Senate bill, S. 410, although both bills have similar language. Given the two 

week period which further written testimony may be submitted, I plan to otTer more 

detailed comments or suggestions for H.R. 1425. 

Agricultural land res,.,urces on the Yakima Reservation include 141,775 acres 

of irrigated land and 31,817 acres of idle land. There are also 430,000 acres of 

grassland. Therefore the implications of language in this bill will be considered more 

carefully with the given time for submission of written testimony. 

I feel quite strongly about the benefits of a tribally adopted 10 year 

agricultural resource management plan. This management plan would give the 

Yakima tribe and its members a better idea in land use plans for the future. 

Most of the items addressed in H.R. 1425 are already in place on the Yakima 

Reservation. However, I understand that there are some agencies where staff are 

not supportive, cooperative, or informative to our Indian landowners. This act 

would put more emphasis on the responsibilities of these BIA staff people. 

Establishing a task force with purposes stated in the bill would be a positive 

step for all tribes and individual Indian land owners. 

As to Section 104, Leasing of Indian Rangelands and Farmlands, which would 

allow tribes to develop policies for leasing trust lands, including individual lands, I 

believe this will be acceptable. However, each tribe must work with their own 

landowners. This could be a very positive step toward allowing individuals an 

opportunity to give their opinions on land use. 

On the Yakima Reservation the Land Committee policy regarding leases of 

tribally owned lands is that leases are not to extend beyond 10 years. The Yakima 

Tribal Council Land Committee recognizes self-management of lands under its 

control in the exercise of enterprise. Therefore, this policy is used to maintain the 

ability of the Yakima Nation Land Enterprise to operate and manage the agricultural 

lands which they own or have controlling interest in on behalf of the tribe. 

However, Yakima Tribe through its Land Committee will, and does work with 

individual tribal members owning farm land in regards to leasing of farm land. 
150 

Page 2 Ross Sockzehigh, Yakima Nation 

The Grazing and Land Committees object to Section 104 subparagraph (3), 

" ... may offer for lease or permit on the open market only thos1~ lands which are 

surplus to the needs of Indian communities." 

I am definitely for educational opportunities which will result from this act 

and I feel that this type of opportunity is long past due. Wi1th the amount of 

agricultural land on Indian reservations and the diversity of' the agricultural 

products, the education to allow Indian people to have the expertise to manage the 

lands is crucial. A reason for this legislation is due to the lack of support and 

cooperation by BIA staff. If tribes or the BIA had tribal members in responsible 

positions with a vested interest in the outcome of the management and leasing of 

agricultural land, then some of these problems might not have come about. 

The purposes of this legislation sound good but as in any legislation with good 

intentions, nothing can be done unless funds are appropriated f'or the programs. 

Currently, at the Yakima Agency there is need for more realty specialists to deal 

with complex land lease issues. If there were adequate appropriations for the 

programs involved, then once again, problems addressed in this legislation may not 

have arisen. 

I appreciate this opportunity to present the position of the Yakima Nation on 

this legislation. There is still time to work out problems or supply amendments to 

to HR 1425 and your consideration of our input is appreciated. 
151 

INDIAN AGRICULTURE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1993 (S 410) 

THE BILL WOULD: 

Reaffirm the federal trust responsibility to protect and enhance 

Indian farm and rangelands; Good 

Define the management objectives of Indian farm and rangeland 

activities; Good 

Require the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the 

Tribes, to develop an agriculture land management plan for each 

reservation. This would include a three year plan to define local 

goals, and a ten year management plan This planning function could 

be contracted under the Self-Determinati~n Act; This would be an excellent idea not only to have the plan in place, but to create 

jobs in the natural resource area. Require the Secretary to comply with Tribal land use laws, unless 

prohibited by federal statute or judicial decision; Okay - however, at Yakima we already cooperate and recognize Tribal land 

use, and zoning 

Require the Secretary to waive federal regulations which conflict 

with tribal land use laws, unless such a waiver is barred by 

federal statute or court case, or would conflict with the trust 

responsibility; This can already be done; however, maybe more BIA people would be forced into recoqnizing needs of owners. Provide for the establishment of a Task Force - to include federal 

and tribal officials - to compare federal efforts on farm and range 

management on Indian lands with those on federally owned 

lands; This would be a positive step for Indian/Tribes 

Authorize agricultural leases of up to ten years, or, where the 

secretary determines that the investment so requires, for up to 25 

years (This is already provided in 25 CFR 162.8 (c) and is used at 

Yakima in orchard, hops, asparagus, or business leases. 

Authorize leasing at less than fair market appraisal, where land 

has been satisfactorily advertised; (25 CFR 162.5 (b)(3) already in place. 

Authorize waivers of surety and performance bonds; (25 CFR 

162.5(c) (1) Prepaid (advance) rental in lease contract). 

Authorize Tribes to develop policies for leasing trust lands 

(including individually owned C?l trust lands) which may include 

(a) Indian preference in agriculture leases, (b) waiver of bonding 

requirements; (If assurance is given that tribes cooperate and 

give individuals an opportunity to withdraw their lands). 

Authorize the owners of a 50% or more interest in any tract to(a) 

lease the tract without the consent of the minority owners and (b) 

opt out of the tribal provisions under the Act which would 

otherwise be applicable. (Some individual owners may oppose or feel this is unfair). 

Establish a program of natural resource interns at the BIA and 

other federal agencies, as well as a cooperative eduction program and a scholarship program for Indian students for the natural resource fields, and establish natural resource eduction programs in tribally controlled community colleges. (Any educational funds 

and benefits in this area is strongly recommended.) 
152 

'~~oo,;,~:;;',}:::;.~,';~-- _ ({; {Q; fPJY ;:;:-::-1,~ ~',.,_, 

Written Testimony of Ross Sockzehigh, Yakima Nation Tribal Council 

H.R. 1425, The American Indian Agricultural Act of 1993 

The current Indian agricultural legislation purposely leaves out some important issues 

that are fundamentally related to agriculture. Water, irrigation, 0 & M assessments, and the 

lack of a federal forum for the criminal taking by non-Indians the benefit of crops, livestock, 

or natural r-.sources from an Indian landowner are a few of the issues. 

The significance of these issues to the Yakima Nation ~nd the Yakima people are of 

great importance. But, it is understood that solving the problems caused by these issues 

through the legislative process can be lengthy and may require different strategies in order 1o 

be dealt with at all. 

At the Hearing on H.R. 1425, the American Indian Agricultural Act of 1993, before 

the Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Native American Affairs, I mentioned 

that I would be providing further comments on the bill following further review and 

comparison with S. 410, the Indian Agricultural Resources Management Act. 

Following are my comments on H.R. 1425: 

Findings: Section 10l(a)(3) of S. 410 has language which states that the trust 

responsibility of the United states "extends to all federal agencies. • This 

language is not included in H.R. 1425. We would like to see all 

departments, as extensions of the federal government, to honor the 

federal trust responsibility to American Indians. 

Purpose: Section 102(4) of S. 410 intends to "improve Indian access to federal 

agriculture, rural development and related programs which are available 

to the American society at large through the various-departments of the 

Federal Government." We are in agreement with the inclusion of this 

language inS. 410 and ask that such a provision be added to H.R. 1425. 

Definitions: "Indian forest land. • The definition of Indian Forest L~nd 25 

USCS § 3103(3) "Indian Forest Land" means.Indian lands, including 

commercial and non-commercial timberland and woodland, that are 

considered chiefly valuable for the production of forest products or to 

maintain watershed or other land values enhanced by a forest cover, 

regardless whether a formal inspection and land classif\cation action has 

Post Office Box 151. Fort Qoad, Toppenish. WA 98948 (509) 865·5121 
153 

been taken.· S. 410 makes sure agricultural lands do not include forest 

land in order not to conflict with the Indian timber management 

legislation passed in 1990. H.R. 1425 does not include this exclusionary 

language. 

"Indian Tribe. • Language in H.R. 1425 does not include dependent 

Indian community as found in the definition of Indian country, IS USC 

1151. 

Rangeland and Farmland Enhancement: Include in Title I of H.R. 1425, 

Management Activities, language found in Sec. 201(b)(5) of S. 410, 

• ... also the benefit of the labor and profit that such land is capable of 

producing, • and (b )(6) "to as>ist trust and restricted landowners in 

leasing their limnland and rangeland for a reasonable annual return, 

consistent with prudent management and conservation practices, and 

community goals as expressed in the tribal management plans and 

appropriate tribal ordinances. • 

Development of Management PiaRs: In Section 20l(b) of S. 410, there is no 

section which establishes an Indian agricultural resource management 

planning oromm to achieve the Management Objectives. What S. 410 

does provide is a "closed-term three year effort" for the obligation to 

develop tribal agricultural resource management plans. The Indian 

agricultural resource management planning program, Section 101(c) of 

H.R. 1425 gives no length of time to complete the objectives of Section 

!Ol(b). The effect of these differences in the language of the bill is 

unknown. Perhaps this should be discussed further to include the 

language that would most benefit tribes. 

Indian Participation in Land Management Activities: Section 202(a) of S. 

410 provides that "the Secretary shall recognize tribal governments as 

the governmental entities with the authority to enact and enforce, fl1l: 

lands un!ler their jurisdiction ... • Section 102(a) of H.R. 1425 provides 

"The secretary shall conduct all land management activities on the lands 

of an Indian tribe . . • The language in S. 410 recognizes that the laws 

of the tribe extend to all lands under the tribes jurisdiction and is not 

limited by the interpretation of "lands of an Indian Tribe. " Therefore 

the Senate language is the preferred language. 

Also in the Section 102(a) of H.R. 1425 the requirement of Secretarial 

compliance with tribal laws or ordinances or the resource management 

plan "in soecjfic instances where such comoliance would be a violation 

of the trust resoonsibilirv .. . • is waived. During the 102d Congress, 

2 
154 

language like this was included in Indian agricultural bill but was deleted 

because it created an inherent tension between the Depanment of Interior 

and Indian tribes. This language should be removed from H.R. 1425 

for the same reason. 

Leasing or Indian Rangelands and Farmlands: Section 204 of S. 410 is 

divided into (a) Authority of the Secretary, (b) Authority of the Tribe, 

and (c) Rights of the Individual landowner. 

Section 204(b) of S. 410 authorizes tribes to adopt general policies 

relating to the leasing of Indian lands which would be followed by the 

Secretary in performing his leasing responsibilities. At this time! we 

agree with 204(b)(l) "shall provide a prefervnce to Indian ooeratoa.Jn 

the issuance and renewal of agriculture leases and permits so lone as 

the lessor receives fair market value for his prooenv" and (3) ·~ 

such tribal resolution sets fonh a tribal definition of what constj~ 

"hiehly fractionated undivided hejrshjo lands" m order to pw~ 

waste reduce idle land acreage ~od ensure income." 

A hearing for Yakima tribal landowners regarding this legislation was 

held this past May. At that time tribal members asked how their rights 

would be affected by this bill?" The language of Section 204(c)(l) of 

S. 410, "Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting or altcu 

the authority or right of an individual allottee jn the use of his 01~ 

own land or to enter into an agricultural lease of the surface interest of 

his or her allotment under any other provision of law," would be a good 

inclusion to the agricultural bill. 

We strongly object to the inclusion of the language in Section 104(2) of 

HR 1425, ' may offer for lease or permit on the open market only those 

lands which are surplus to the needs of Indian communities. • 

Education in Agriculture Management: Section 301(a) of S. 410 has a 

broader scope for the educational opponunities by jncluding 'natural 

resources " along with "agricultural resources. • Education in all natural 

resource professions would help Indian people, including fisheries 

management and wildlife biology. Please consider adding these study 

programs in Section 20l(a) of H.R. 1425. 

3 
155 

Mr. RICHARDSON. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Julia Mahseet, 

the Secretary, Indian Soil Conservation Association, Anadarko, 

Oklahoma. Please proceed, Ms. Mahseet. 

STATEMENT OF JULIA MAHSEET 

Ms. MAHSEET. Mr. Chairman, I am Julia Mahseet, an original allottee under the Dawes Act. I represent the Comanche Tribe of 

Oklahoma and the Indian Soil Conservation Association, of which 

I am secretary and treasurer. I have served in this capacity since 

the organization formation in 1952. My sister Irene and I still actively farm our allotment and have a major concern for our natural 

resources. 

In Oklahoma, we have a unique situation as we have no reservation and the majority of the land is controlled by individual Indian 

landowners. In my home capacity in Anadarko, Oklahoma, individual Indians control about 97 percent of the land base and the Tribe 

controls only 3 percent. 

My Tribe already has ·the authority through Public Law 638 to 

contract natural resources, real estate property management, social 

service, education, law enforcement, and any program that is administered for the benefit of Indians. My Tribe has already contracted several programs such as housing, law enforcement, education, social services and courts. 

The Comanche Tribe has talked in the past about contracting 

natural resources and real property management, but they do not 

have support from us as individual landowners. 

The implication of this Act is that it makes it easier for tribes 

to enforce its will on us as individuals where there already exists 

adequate means to control the natural resources that we as conservationists hold so dear. There are many features of this Act that 

have an impact on us as individual allottees. Section 201 of H.R. 

1425 is positive, as we do need to train our young Indian people 

in proper management and utilization of our land. 

The negative impact is that resource management may infringe 

upon an individual the right to negotiate leases and to make decisions about the care and use of my own land if the tribe's resource 

plan does not meet my personal use of my land. 

If you proceed to pass this legislation, individual landowners in 

Oklahoma, where no formal reservation exists, will not be allowed 

to assist the secretary in addressing our concerns in leasing of idle 

land through formation of our own section of the 25 CFR that deals 

with our unique circumstances. 

Idle lands are a major concern to all of us as Indians. We have 

several cases like no access routes that are caused by no roads, no 

bridges and other Indians not willing to grant easements. Another 

cause of idle land is requiring 100 percent of owners' signatures to 

lease in negotiating leases, where we would prefer a simple majority as long as it is fair market value. 

Heirship problems exist where families are divided and do not 

agree on property use and who to lease to. We expect to get fair 

market value of our property, but we also expect that we leave the 

property in better shape when we lease. This would be for the benefit and use of our future heirs. 
156 

I thank you for your time and enter these comments in your 

records, plus these facts and figures. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you very much, Ms. Mahseet, for your 

statement. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Mahseet and attachments follow:) 
157 

MS. JULIA !WISEE:J.' 

Rl' • #1 t ll)X 211 

APACliE, Ol<Ulli:Jo!A 73006 

(405) 588-2363 

'IOPICAL OOILINE OF MATERIAL :mESENl'ID 

I. Speech presented by Ms. Mahseet 

II. Anadarko Agency I..and Base Figures 

III. Report on SerVice Population and labor Force 

by Tribe (March, 1991) 

73-728 - 93 - 6 
158 

Mr. Olairman: 

I am Julia Mahseet - an original allottee urrler the Dawes Act. I represent the 

Cclnanche Tribe of Oklahc:rna an:l. the Irrlian Soil Conservation Association of 

which I am Secretary-Treasurer. I have served in this capacity since the 

organizations's formation in 1952. 

My sister, Irene an:l. I still actively fann our allotment ani have a major 

ooncen1 for our natural resources. In Oklahana, we have a unique situation as 

we have no reservations an:l. the majority of the lan:l. is controlled by 

individual IJrlian larrlowners. In my hare agency in Anadarko, Oklahana, 

individual Irrlians control almost 97 percent of the lan:l. base an:l. the Tribes 

control only 3 percent. My Tribe already has the authority throogh Pir638 to contract Natural ResaJrces, Real Prqlerty Management, Social Services, 

El:iucation, Law Enforcement or any program that is administered for the benefit 

of In::lians. My Tribe has already contracted several programs such as Housin3', 

Law Enforcement, El:iucatiori, Social Services an:l. <XJurt.s. '!he Comanche Tribe has 

talked in the past about contractin3' Natural ResaJrces an:l. Real Property 

Management, rut they do not have !;UppOrt fran us as individual lan:l. owners. 

'!he inplication of this Act is that it makes it easier for Tribes to enforce 

its will on us as irdividuals where there already exists a:iequate means to 

control the natural resources that we as conservationist hold so dear. '!here 

are many features of this act that have inpacts on us as individual allottees. 

'!he portion of Section 201 of H.R. 1425 is positive - as we do need to train 

our yOlll'q . Irrlian peq>le in proper management an:l. utilization of our lan:l.. '!he 

negative inpact is that resource management may infrin3'e upon my individual 

rights to negotiate leases an:l. to make decisions about the care an:l. use of my 

C1Nn land, if the Tribe's resource plan does not meet my personal use of my 

lan:l.. 

If you proceed to pass this legislation - irdividual lan:l.owners in Ok.lahana 

where no formal reservations exist - will not be allCMe:i to assist the 

Secretary in addressin3' our concerns in leasin3' an:l. idle lan:l. through formation 

of our C1Nn section of the 25 CFR that deals with our unique circurrstances. 

Idle lands are a major concern to all of us as Indians. We have several causes 

like no access route that is caused by no roads, no bridges an:l other Irrlians 

not willin3' to grant an easement. Another cause of idle lan:l. i:s requiring 100% 

of the C1Nners signature to lease in negotiated leases - where wa would prefer a silllple majority as long as its fair market value. Heirship problems exist 

where families are divided an:l. do not agree on property use or who to lease 

to. We expect to get fair market value of our property, rut we also expect 

that we leave the property in better shape when we lease - this would be for 

the benefit an:l. use of our future heirs. 

I thank you for your time an:l. enter these COimllel1ts in your reo:>rds, plus these 

facts an:l. figures. 
159 

ANADARKO AGENCY LAND BASE 

TRIBE ACRES PER CENT PER CENT 

APACHE 

TRIBAL 82 0.0317% 

INDIVIDUAL 11,295 4.3659% 4.3976% 

FT. SILL APACHE 

TRIBAL 36 0.0139% 

INDIVIDUAL 3,585 1. 3857% 1. 3996% 

CHEYENNE-ARAPAHO 

INDIVIDUAL 160 0.0618% 0.0618% 

CADDO 

TRIBAL 37 0.0143% 

INDIVIDUAL 25,092 9.6989% - . 9.7132% 

COMANCHE 

TRIBAL 199 0.0769% 

INDIVIDUAL io7,375 41.5042% 41.5811% 

DELAWARE 

TRIBAL 10 0.0039% 0.0039% 

KIOWA 

TRIBAL 337 0.1303 % 

INDIVIDUAL 76,104 29.4168% 29.5471% 

WICHITA 

TRIBAL 10 0.0039% 

INDIVIDUAL 26,472 --10.2323% 10.2362% 

JOINT HELD 

KCA 5,449 2.1062% 2.1062% 

wco 2,466 0.9532% 0.9532% 

TOTAL 258,709 100.0000% 100.0000% 

TRIBAL 8,626 3.3342% 

INDIVIDUAL 250,083 96.6658% 
160 

--'~------------------------~--------------------r~C~o~un~t~y~( l-es-)',~~,a~d~d<o~-'~~i~ov:~a------ · 

R~PORT ·OS S~RVICE POi'UL\TlO~ ASD LA!l0R FOP.CE Apache Collauche - Cotton - Till.aan 

Stotc(s ) 

Data are Cor _...;Ka=r-"c"-h _______ (oonth) 1991 (yea r) Oklahona 

--~------------------------------------------r-~T~O~T~AL~--1--~~~'~L~----I--~~E~:~~~L~o 

A Total Resident Indian PooulaUon (b+c uctUDl~G d) 

b Wi.thin the ruervat ton:·,., •••• ••••• •, ••••• • • • • • 

c Adjacent to the reservation Cia Okla. • Indians 

in former reservation areas) . . ................ . 

d Other Indians, not included in lines b and c above 

- trn ·california, rural parta of counties with 

reservations or ranc::herias) •••••••••••• ••••••••• 

e Total under 16 rears of oge included in line "A" 

RESIDE!;! INDIA.~ POPUL.\TIOM OF 1/0IUCING ACE 

(16 vears old and ovn) 

F Total 16 years and Over (A minus e) •••••••••••••••• 

(Au Classes g + h + i + j + It) 

g 16 - 24 years •••••••• ••••••••••• · ••••••••••••••• 

h . 25 - 34 - .... ............................. . 

i 35 - 44 - ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 

j 45 - 64 - •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 

k 65 - vears and over •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 

M Not in Labor Force (16 years. end over), 

total (n + o + p + q) ........................ . 

n Studen:s (16 years And OYer, including those 

away a: school) •••••••••••• ., • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . 

o Men, physically or Hnt.ally disabled, retired, 

institutionalized, etc ...................... . 

l~omen for vbo:s. no child-care substitutes are 

a vdbble ....................... .. . .......... . 

Women, housevius, physically or me:r..tally 

disabled institutionalized etc.- .......... . 

Potential Lzbor Force (16 vrs. and over) F ~!nus H 

Er:o1oyed Total (t + u) ........................... . 

Eo~lo yed, earnins $7,000 or core • )"tar 

(all jobs) ....... ...... ...................... . 

u Employed, earr.tng less than $7,000 a year (all io!:s) .......... . . ........... .......... .. 

::ot ern:olo\·e d (a ~ninus S) .... . ...... . ...... . ........ . 

\1 Of these. :terso:ts activelv seeking vork • • • • •••••••• 

924 446 478 

350 183 167 

xxxxx:ocxxxxxxx xx.xxxxxxxxx XXXll'OCXX.'~ 

XlCXlC<XXXXXXXX'( = lOCXXXJCXJtY 

574 263 311 

~;~ :: o5 

103 

114 53 61 

91 39 52 

29 IQ 1n 

121 so 71 

52 31 21 XJClCXXXXl(X: 

19 19 XJCXXX.XX.~X: 

XXJCJCJCXXXXXX 

40 Xlt'OOC.XX.'<XXX 40 

XXXXXXXlCXXX 

10 XXlOOOOOlXXX 10 

453 213 240 

233 130 103 

201 112 89 

32 18 14 

220 83 137 

131 50 81 

621 652 

Suptri ntc:ndcnt 's Ev.:tl..,;.!tion 

of Oi'ta 
161 

REPORt OX SeRV ICE PO?UL\TIO~ A~D l/,~ QR FOP.CE Caddo 

Data C\re Cor _,Ha=rc:.c!!h ____ (oonth) 1991 (yea r) 

A To tal Re sident Indian PooulaHon (b+c ClUD !~ G d) 

b 1li.thin the reservation~· ••• ••• • ·; ••• • • • • · • • • • • • • • • 

c Adjacent to the rese r vation (i n Okla., Indians 

in forcer reservation areas) •.•••••. •••. ••• ·•• 

d Other Indians, not included in lines b and e above 

· \l'a ·califoruia, rural porto of counties with 

reservations or rancher! as) ••.•••.•••••••••••.•• 

e Total under 16 years of age included in line .. A H 

County{l~s) 

Caddo-kiowa-Comanche-cotton-Tillman 

Statc("S"f·· Oklahoma 

TOTAL 

924 461 463 

--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=-------~~~2~78~-~~~!5_,1~~~~!~27~~ RESIDENT l~llU.~ POPULA!!ON OF WORKING AGE xxxxx.'(J(l(J()(Xxxx XJ(J(J(£'()(J()O(J(I XY.XX..'OlXX.'~ 

(16 vears old and over) XXXJC<XXX.XXXXXX XXlCXXlQO(X)(X XXXXXXXX.'·. 

F Total 16 years and Over (A minus e) • •• •• ••••••••••• 

(Aoe Classes g + h + 1 + 1 + k) 

g 16 - 24 years •••• • •• ••••••••• ••••••• ••• •••••••• 

h . 25 - 34 • • ........... ... ........... ....... . 

1 35 - 44 • • ••• •• •••• ••••••••••.•••••••••••••• 

j 45 - 64 • • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 

k 65 - vea:-s and over •• ••• ••• •• ••••••••••••• •••• • 

M Not in Labor force (16 years . and over), 

total (n + o + p + q) •••••••••• • •• • •••• ••••••• 

n Stude n: s (16 years and over, including thos e 

away a:: school) •. • •• ••••• • •..: ••••.•••••.•••••• 

o Men, phy sically or c:;ent_a lly disabled, retired, 

inst 1 tutionalized, etc • •.• •••••••.••••••••••• 

\\'omen for who:!!. no child-care substitutes are 

availa!> le ••• • ••••• , •••••.•••••••••••••••• •• ••• 

Women, houseW'b.·es, physically or cer.tally 

disa bl ed institutionalized etc • •••••••••••• 

R Potential La,.,or Force (16 yrs . anG over) F' oinus M 

Ecoloyed Total (t + u) •••• ••••••• ••••••••••••••••• 

Ei:l;>loyed, earning $7,000 or ~r:ore a year 

(all jobs) ........ ... .................. ...... . 

Employed, ~arni:tg l ess than $7,000 a year 

(all i~ ~s) . •. . . ...•. . .•• .. •....••• •. •• •••...• 

:;ot emoloYe£! (:t min•JS 5) •• •••• • •• • • • ••••• • ••••••• •• 

{...' Of t hese, ::>ari~:ls a.::t i velv eekin~ ...,ork ••••••• • •• • • I 

~al E~:--ol:-:~nt • . •• .. .• • . • • •••.••• . .. ••••.••••••• I 

646 

162 

162 

116 

130 

76 

224 

310 

93 

76 

54 

57 

30 

76 

336 

69 

86 

62 

~~ 

148 

96 46 50 

xxxxx.xxxx: 30 30 X.XXXX.XX:XX: 

XXXY.XXXXXXX 

52 JOCXXJCO<.'<XXX 52 

46 = XXXXX.lCXXXXX 46 

422 234 188 

252 144 108 

211 112 99 

41 32 9 

170 90 80 

109 7l 38 

3041 1457 1584 

Sup~rintende:nt 's Ev,1h;ztion 

o f Da t.a /'51" 0

1. by / ~ /1/1 · · Sec ?.•·-·o:-sc: 

~l!Z~~ --- ---- ----

.. :·-:_ :l_P. ~. .~:._ .:_ _ _____ -- -------f-'~· :"i.!'l~ ..:: ;;c!c nt 

,-.r.:.· .'\ I Apt•r \wal ll:ue - A&_o·•·c-·y ----- - .lpprov,ll. O,ltc·- · 

_________ l __ ··-····----- - -
162 

RePORT OS SUV!CO: PO?UL T!O~ A~D Lt n~ FOP.CE C0111anche 

Data ar e for _,Ma=r'-"c"'h ____ (nonth) J99J (y e ar) 

A Toto! Resident Indian Pooula'tion (b+c "EXCLUDING d) 

Wi.thin the reservation ......... .......... • ........ • •. • 

c Adjacent to the reservation (in Okla., Indians 

in fore~er reservation areas) •••••••.•••••• • ••• 

Other Indians, not included in lines b and c above 

· tin"California, rural part• of ·counties with 

reservations or rancherias) ..................... . 

Total under 16 yearo of age Included in line "A· 

RESIDENT Il."DU.~ POPUI..\TION OF WORKING ACE 

(16 years old and ovn) 

F Total 16 years aud Over (A minus e) ••• •••••••••••• • 

{A~e Classes ll: + h + i + 1 + k) 

g 16 - 24 years •••••••••••••••••• ; ••••••••••••••• 

h . 25 - 34 - •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 

i 35 - 44 - •••••••••••••••••••• · •• ••• ••••••••• 

J 45 - 64 - •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 

k 65 - vears and over ••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••• 

M ~ot in Labor force (16 years . and over), 

I' 

\1 

total (n + o + o + Q). •••••• ••• •• ••. •• •• ••• ••• 

n Students { 16 years an4 over, includi ng those 

"""Y at school) ...... ........... .. ........... . 

o Men, physically or gent.ally disabled, retired, 

institutionalized, etc .......................... . 

p 1~omen for who:s no chi1d-care substitu:es are 

available ......... •• •• •• •.•••• ••. • •••••••• • ... .. 

Women, housevives • physically or aer.tally 

disabled institutionalized etc • •••••••••••• 

Potential Labor Foree (16 vrs. and over) F 111inus H 

Ec:o1oved Total {t + u) ••• ••••••••••••••••••••••• •• 

t I toployed, earni:ag $7 , 000 or core a year {all jocs) ••• ••••••• ••••• ••••••••• •••••• •• •.•. 

u Ern?loyed, earning less than $7,000 a year 

(all i?>s) •• • ••• • • •• . · ••..•• · ·• • · · • • • • ••• · · • • 

;:oc emolo,·el:! (3. mln•Js S) ................ . .......... I Of these, ::~er ""ons a..:t!velv seeki n51.: '.lork ••••.• • •• •••• _ f 

Z 'rribal E~ !' IJi.!:-:.~n c •. ••.••.••••••.•• . .... : . ..•..•• •. • 

County (los ) 

~(~)~------------ -------

,r. _r, _.,._ ,,, TOTAl /'!AlE n:::.\Lc 

4796 2348 2448 

1260 624 636 

XXXXX."(J(J(J(MXXX,J<XJcxXJ(XXXXX xxxx.=~ XXXX.l(J(J()(J(J()(J'I: XJOC<XXJO()(J()( XXXXXXXX.'"-

3536 1724 1812 

903 446 457 

964 497 467 

726 379 347 

650 294 356 

293 108 16~ 

778 261 517 

274 133 141 

xxxxx= 128 128 xxxxx:o.:xx. xxxxxxxxxxx 191 xx.xxx.xxxxxx 191 

185 == 

XJCXXX."(J(J(_XXJ( 185 

2758 1463 1295 

1138 628 510 

788 416 372 

350 212 138 

1620 835 785 

1099 661 438 

8617 4227 4390 -irnrl ~y ( 2 .. ~~ n Sec 1 .• ·.-ors c: Sup•rintcndcot '• Evolo>tioo 

__ 4:]4f.ffid.'~-- --------+------ ____ o_r __ o_._'a _________________ _ 

A:-,•,, Pi ·.--.::~o :- ------------------+-:Sup.!:-\rrti!r:rlc:.!!..C____ - --------

~ .. ~~,---· ·----------, \ppr.;,o,;al 0He --A ·o "_'_·y _______ ] _Approv._'l_0 .1 tc ·-

_____ _ [ __ -- ·--------- --
163 

RI:PORT. 0~ S£RVICE PO?ULITIO~ D l/,~ 1)~ f OP.CF. Delaware 

Data •re for .....:Ka=r.::.•h::_ ___ (nonth) 1991 (ycor) 

A Totol Resident Indian Pooula'tion (b+c 'EXCLUDING d) 

b lli,thin the reservation~· •• • .......... • • • .. • • •• ••• 

Adjacent to the reservation (in Okla. • Indians 

in foraer reservation areas) ..... .. ........... . 

d Other Indians, not included in lines b and c ai>ove 

F 

g 

h ' 

i 

j 

k 

II 

n 

0 

p 

· tin "California, rural parts of counties vith 

reservations or rancherias) ... ....•........•..•. 

Total under 16 years of age included in line "A· 

RESIDENT n"t>L\.lf POPUJ.\TION OF WORKING AGE 

{16 vears old and over) 

Total 16 years and Over {A minus e) ............... . 

tiot 

(Ag e Class es It + h + i + 1 + k) 

16 - 24 years .................... .............. . 

25 - 34 .. • •••••••.••••• • •••••••• • •••••••••• 

35- 44 - ... . ................... . .......... . 

45- 64 - ........................ ......... . 

65 - vears and over ..••.••••. •..•..•.••••.••••• 

in Labor Force {!6 years and over), 

total (n + o + o + Q) •• ; .. . .................. . 

Students (16 years and over, inc luding those 

away at school) •••••••••• • •.:•• •• •••••••• • ••• • 

Men, physically or aent.ally disabled, retired, 

institutionalized, etc •.. •• ....... • •. . ..••••• 

oa~en for vho~ no chUd-c:.at'e substi tutes are 

aila~le .•.. .••.. o • • ••••• •••••• •• •••••••• •••• 

Wooen, ho>Jsevives, physically or cer.t:ally 

disabled institutionalized ete . . .......... . 

R Potential Labor For ce {16 vrs. and over) F ninus M 

1:c:o loved Total (t + u ) ....... .. ... . .............. . 

t I Eo;:>loyed, earning $7 , 000 or core a year 

(all jobs) ................................... . 

u Er:t;:>lo yed, earni ng less than $7,000 a year 

(all io)s) ..... . ........ . .... . .............. . 

V ::ot el!lolo\·ed (::t C'lii'luS S) ••.•... •.. ..• • o. o ••••••• ••• 

t.' 0!' these :> !>n S a.:t i velv see1 n~ ..,ork .. .. . o •••• •• 

County(lcs) 

Caddo-l.iava-comanche-cotton-Tillman 

State(sF Oklah011a 

TOTAL 

332 164 168 

85 38 47 

XlOOO(.'(J(XJ(MX.'(J( !(J(J()(J(,'{J(J(XJO( JO'.JCX..'Cl(J(X.V. 

JOCXX.1CClOOOCl'C lOOClClCXJCXXXX XXXXX."CCXY. 

247 

49 

78 

31 

61 

28 

73 

35 

12 

10 

16 

174 

126 

94 

32 

48 

38 

126 

26 

41 

13 

34 

12 

26 

14 

12 

XXXXXXXX.'i.XX 

XX.'OOCXX.'CXXX 

100 

75 

61 

14 

25 

20 

121 

23 

37 

18 

27 

16 

47 

21 

xxxx=xx: 

XXXX.X.'CX.'Q 

10 

16 

74 

51 

33 

18 

23 

18 

1082 536 546 

:ajd~~--· ·_· ~-· ·-·+·-· S-· ~-~-:'. e_,_·~. rs __ •_= =- _~_:_._t_ ' ,_. _E_v_o_l_c-a t-io n 

Sup.•r l!"l t ...: i"c!ent 
164 

REPORt -ON S~RV1Cf: PO?UL\T!O~ ASO LM'lR FOP.CF. FSA 

County{ics) 

Caddo-ltiowa-co.anche-cotton-Tilhaao Tt.rt.($y---------------

Data are Cor _Ma=r'-'c"'h,_ ___ (aonth) _ _._J199:a.IJ.-_(ycar) Olr.lahou 

TOTAL I!ALE f"E::.AL£ 

A Total Resident Indian PooulaUon (b+c 'EXCLUDII:G d) 

48 b Wi,thin the reservation:· •••••••••••••• •. • • • • •• •, • 

c Adjacent to the reservation (in Okla., Indians 

103 

in forcer reservation areas) •••••••••••••••••• 

d Other Indians, not included in lines b and c above 

• Crn 'California, rural parts of counties with 

reservations or raneherlas) ••••••••••••• , ....... . 

e Total under 16 years of age included in line "A • 

34 13 21 

--'-=RE"'s""r"'o"'EN"'·r=-=r"'~'D=-L\!=!I"'P"'o""r"'u""u:"'r=r"'ON"""o~p"""w"'oRK=r"'N=G""'Ac:G::E----.;,==-=v"'x"=x=x-···""~""x"'xx±xxxxxxxxxxx"'"'-· XXXX.XXXXY. 

(16 vears old and over) XXXlOOCJCXXXXXX'( XXXX.'OOCXXXX XXXXX.'<XXY 

F Total 16 years and Over (A minus e) .............. .. 

(Age Classes g + b + i + 1 + k) 69 42 27 

·; H 

3 g 16 - 24 years.................................. 2

1

4

h- 2S- 34 - ................................. 2 . 

1 35 - 44 - .................... -........ ...... 12 6 6 

7 6 

4 4 j 45-64" .................................. I! 

k 65 - vea:-s and over ................. , ••••••••••• 

6 13 M Not in Labor Force (16 years_ and over), 

total (n + o + p + q) ....................... .. 19 

3 n Students (16 years and over, including those 

aw&)' at school) •••••••••••• .:••••••••••••••••• 

4 xxxxxx.xxx. 

XXXXX.,'(X_'(.'( 

o Men, physically or ment_ally disabled, retired, 

inst 1tutionalized,. etc ............. , •••••• , ••• 4 

xxxx.xxx.xxxx 6 XXlOOCX.'<.'(JCXJ( 

p Women for vhol!l no child-care substitutes are 

available ••••••••••• , ......................... . 6 

Women, housellives, physically or aentally 4 disabled institutionalized etc ........ • .... = xxxxxxxx.xxx 4 

R Potential Labor Force (16 yrs. and over) F 1>inus M SO 36 14 

E~oloyed Total (t + u) ................ , .......... . 32 21 11 

lS 8 

6 3 I 

Ecployed, earning St,OOO or core a year 

u E~~!~et":~;~t~; • i;;;, ;~~ • $7:000.; • ;;;~ • • • •, • 

(all i~'ls) .................................. . 

23 

9 

V ::at ernclo-.·ec!: (it minus S) ••••••••• , •••••••••••••• , •• 18 IS 3 

tl Of these oer:;on.s aetivelv seek1n~ vork •••••••••• ,, 10 10 0 

Ev:1tuation 

Z ~ ib 1 E · • 339 ........:~.J.J__a nro~ .. :-.~nt •••• ••••• •••••. •••, •••••••••••• ••• ?rt7tt:!rl ;y _~I ~ _· !!#_ j s~~ P.e\·crsc; !~p~~~:tendent 's 

__ i{/#.L£YL~~---- --------

171 168 
165 

~~~--------------·~ .. ·~-~ .. ·~···---··,~~~~-----+~C~ou-n-ty~(-le-s~)--·------·--------~ 

R~PORT .01\ SERVICE PO?UL\TIO~ A~D LA60;t FOP.CF. ll:iova caddo-Jtiowa~oaaoche-£otton-T1lhoan 

State(s) · 

Data are !or ....:Ma=r.:;ch=------(oonth) __ 1.,9t;~9~J--(ycar) OUahoaa 

TOTAL II.~LE 

A Total Resldut Indian PooulaHon (b+c £XCLUDI~C d) 

lli,thin the reservation:· ......................... ~--+-~2~~;,..,.•q'--!- ..li81L- c Adjacent to the resorvation (in Okla., Indians 

in fonaer reservation areas) •• • • ••• • •••••••••• 

d Other Indians, 11ot included in lines b and c abo•e · · tin ·california, rural parts of cou11ties "itb 

reservations or rancherias) ...................... . 

e Total under 16 years o! ase inc:luded in line "A" 

RESIDENT Ili'DL\!~ POPUL.\TIOII OF WORKIIIC ACE 

( 16 vears old and over) 

F Total 16 years aud Over (A minus e) ............... . 

(A2e Classes g + h + 1 + .1 + k) 

g 16 - 24 years ••••••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • •• • • • • • h ' 25-34 ................................. .. 

i 35- 44 - .................................. . 

j 45-64 .................................. . 

lc. 65 - vears and over .................. , •••••••••• 

M Not in Labor Force (16 years. and over), 

total (n + o + D +a) ....................... .. 

n Students (16 years and over, inc:.ludin& those 

away at sc:.bool) •••••••••••• .:••••••••••••••••.• 

o Men, physically or mont,ally disabled, retired, 

institutionalized, ete •••••••••• ••••• • ••••••• 

p 1\'omen for who!!l no child-care substitutes are 

avail2.ble •••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••• 

Woaen, housewives, physically or aentally 

disabled institutionalized etc ... • • •••• • • •. • 

R Potential L>bor Fo~ce (16 vrs. and over.) r ninus M 

£aoloved Total (t + u) ........................... . 

Ecployed, earning $7 1 000 or core a year 

(all jobs) .................................. . 

u Ernplo~ ed, earning less than $7,000 a year (all k>s) .................................. . 

V :;ot er.~olovec:! (R tnin'.lS S) ........................... . 

\l Of these :ler~!lnS acti\•elv seekin~ vork .... . ....... . 

1412 738 674 

XXXXX.'tXXXJ(XXXJ( XKlCXXXXXXXX XXXX.'UXX.V. 

XXXXlOCXXXlCXXX"< lCKlOClOOCXXXX XXXXX.'UXY. 

3625 

950 

1101 

691 

~~i 

699 

1811 

495 

578 

338 

276 

124 

260 

1814 

455 

523 

353 

335 

148 

439 

236 130 106 

)()O(J(l(J(XXA 

130 130 XXXXX.'Qi..'O:: 

xxxxxxxxxxx 185 XX.'OCX.'OC.'UXX 185 

148 xxxxxxxxxxx = 148 

2926 1551 1375 

1438 1062 376 

lOll 844 167 

427 218 209 

1488 489 999 

766 322 444 

9S14 4816 4693 

-',~d~:-~~:_ .. _._,_·_s_~·-·_?_ .• _,._ •. ·._•_•_'_!_~P~~~~tendcn 's Ev01luation 
166 

REPORT ON SERVICE PO?UUTtO~ A~D LA~tJR FOP.CE Wichita 

Data are fo~ __ ... _~_~_h;_ ___ (aonth) _..:.19""9"'l..__{ycor) 

A Total llesident Indian PooulaHon (b+C "EXCLU01f(G d) 

b lli~hln the reaervatlon:· •• • •• • • ;. • • • • • • • • • • • • • •· • c Adjacent to tbe ruervatloa (la Okla., Indians 

iu foraer nservatloe •re.S) ................... . 

d Other Indlau, 110t 1acluded 1a lines band c above 

· • (Tn"Cal1fon1a, rural parta of couatles vith 

reservatlou or raneherlas) ••••••• ••• ••••••••••• 

e Total under 16 Jean of a1e included in line "A" 

F 

' h" 

1 

j 

k 

M 

D 

0 

p 

q 

llESIDEIIT IIIDL\1 POPUL.\l'lCII OP VOU:IIIG AGE 

(16 nero old and ewer) 

Total 16 yeara aD<l Over (A llf.aus ~l· ••••••••••••••• 

(Au Classes • + h + 1 + j + k) 

Not 

16 - 24 years. ••••. ••••• •••••••• ·• • • • • • •••••••• • 25 - 34 • • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 

35- 44 • • ................................ .. 

45 - 64 • • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 

65 - vears aDcl ov.r •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 

in Labor Force (16 years and over), 

total (n + o + o + ~):.; •••••••••••••••••••••• St11dents {16 yean and over, 1ncl11dlng those 

avay a: school). •••••••••••.r••••••. •• ••• ••••• Man, physlcallJ or •ntJ~;llJ disabled, rat1red, 

1natitutloul1z:ed, etc. ••••••••••••••••••••••• 

Women for vbolo no child-care subltitu:es are 

available•••••••••••••·····•••••••••••• • •• •••• Vo.,.n, housevlfts, pbJSlcally or mentally 

disabled 1nstltuU.....Xlzed ate ••••••••••••• 

R Potential L2bor Force (16 vrs. and over) F 01lnus H 

lr:cployed Total (t + •>··•••••••••••••••••••••••••• Eaployed, eam!ag $7,000 or more a year 

(all jobs). ••• •• •••••••··· ••• ••••• •• • • • • ••••• 

u E"ployed, earnilll leu than $7,000 a year 

(all i<>!:s) ••• ••• •••••••• • •••••••• •••• • • • ••••• 

V ::ot emolo,·e::! (i einus S) ................. .......... . 

t: Of these :~ersGns ac.tivel• seekittJt vork ..... ....... . 

County(lcs) 

~!.i~a~nche=Cottgp-Tfl lman 

Statc{s) 

OUahou TOTAL 

839 39~ 445 

424 218 206 

xxxxx.uxxrmx xxxxxxxxxxx ==-

xw CXXXXlCXlClC! XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXlOCXXY. 

41S 

113 

124 

62 

81 

35 

us 

176 

54 

53 

34 

27 

8 

26 

239 

59 

71 

28 

89 

4S 18 27 

XXXXXXXXXXJ( 

27. XXXXJt1CXXlOO( 27 

300 

158 

131 

27 

142 

108 

150 

121 

109 

12 

29 

20 

ISO 

37 

22 

15 

113 

88 

!.\..J.~·'--~!_r ~tp.::_ _______ 11 ___________ 1-'S"'u=p••'..:."..o.'::."':..: · •::.:.·C:.::t.,':.c::;nt,_ __ 

I Approl\·al n.,tc Ac~rlcy ~0\".1:-::--- ______ [ __ ·- ·----- ________ _L ___ _ 
Attachment to .. Rep~rt of Labor Force, 

F.mplo)'lllent and Unemployment as of 

(month) MARCH ( ear) 1991 

167 

Area Reservation 

ANADARKO ANADARKO. AGENCY 

Methods and sources. Pew Superintendents are in position to provide an actual count of the 

population or labor force, although the use of such data by other Federal agencies has 

stimulated tribal intereet in data improvement . Where an actual count has not been made, 

please describe briefly your method of estimating. Where studies from an earlier period 

have been drawn upon. identify each by title , author, and date and indicate how the data 

have been updated. 

Age distribution taken from the Anadarko Agency Age Distribution Printout on the seven 

resident tribes. Other sources were the Ollah0111a State F.aployment Services: Other BIA 

office (Higher Education, Social Services, Adult Vocational Training Program) School 

census reports; Oklahoma Department of HtDU.n Services; Tribal contracted pr~grams, and 

Oklahoma State Department of Education. 

In the past, this report has been done at a later date in the year than nov .. 

census reports, labor tTends, and school reports were not completed· 

As a result 

LINES IN REPORT 

SUPERINTENDENT'S EVALUATION OF DATA RATING A p M R s 

With respect to accuracy of the Hiahly accurate 

data in this report, the indicated Reasonably accurate 

items are rated as follove: Unsatisfactory •••• 

( Por 1 tems marked .. unsatisfactory," explain your appraisal.) 

A. The general population bas not increased to indicate any sigu~ficant change in the 

past two years. 

v 

F. lfo si.gulficant change i.n DUilbers in the past two years. A slight drop in the 16-24 

year age group, which •i.ght indi.cate students ca.pleti.ng and aoving out into the job 

aarket. 

H . Slight decrease in tbi.s figure, also indicating students co.pleting and moving out 

into labor force . 

T. Potential Labor Force reflects logical increase, student coapletions and drop-outs 

plus high school completi.oos and drop outs. 

S. Reflects the lack of vork in this area. 

V. Increased population and liaited eaploymeot contributes to increase in jobless. 

w4 This includes skilled workers and college graduates unable to f1Dd work. 

Notes and Com~~~enta : 

Un211ployaent is still high but there bas been an increase of local Indian people due to 

contracting of programs to the tribal groups. However, the econoay continues to be poor 

and job aa.rket fluctuates by seas ons. 

w 

Superintendent's signature ______________ _ Date: _________ _ 
Jwte 7, 1993 

Ms. Julia Mahseet 

Rt. 1, Box 211 

Apache, OK 73006 

Dear Julia: 

168 

C@M~NCHE 

I understand you will participate in the House of Representatives Commitlce Hearing on the 

"American Indian Agricultural Act of 1993" on June 18, 1993 in Washingmn. D. C., representing 

the Indian SoU Conservation Association. Because I am unable to attend the hearing due to 

previous commitmenra, l respectively request that you represent me as well. 

Congressman Richardson's bill has considerable merit. I support his effon to enhance the quality 

and quantity of education in apicultural management (Title II). A dlauesainpy small portion of 

our peoples' land is opcrR<i by its owners. Training our young people and brinaing them back 

to fann our land is one of the keys to the tribe's long tM1l economic prosperity. Continuing 

education, featured in the bill, is equally beneficial, as are other portions of the bill's Title n. 

I endorse the bill's emphasis on developing an agricultural resource management plan, upon tribal 

request (ritle I). Its requiml comparative analysis of Federal investment and management for 

Indian lands relative to that for other federally owned lands is also timely and important. 

The bill, also in Title I. authorizes important changes in Bureau of Indian Affairs leasing 

practices. Ten year lcues (even lonaer in extraordinary circumstances) are permitted. This will, 

I believe, promote investment in the land by "lease men" by providing an incentive to make 

otherwise unusable land. economically productive, and will enhance the lon1: tam productivity 

of our peoples' land. 

I note with some concern that the problem of fractionated ownership, which was addressed in 

Senate Bill 410, is not dealt with in Mr. Richardson's bill. While specific data are not readily 

available, my impression is that the current general requirement of wtanimous approval by all 

owners in order to execute a lease is a mattet of increasin& concern among landowners. As we 

move away in time from the early 1900's individual Comanche allotments, fractionated 

ownership will only increase. I urge members of Congress to fully consider this important issue 

in its deliberation. 

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBB P.O. BOX 9011 LAWTON, OK T.S502 
169 

JUd 15 '93 Hl '37AM BI A ANADARKO AGENCY 405 247-9232 P.2 

Julia Mahscct (continued) Page 2 

I know from our conversations that you will make the point to Committee members that the 

"non-reservation" status of Comanche owned land must be kept in mind during their 

consideration of each of the bill's sections. Some portions of the bill may be appropriate for 

reservation lands, but not so for individually owned Indian land geographically intermixed with 

non-Indian land and with non-trust Indian land, the usual situation with Comanche lands. The 

planning provisions of Title I, for example, jf they were to result in a rnand,atory course of action. 

would surely draw the ire of many individual Comanche land owners. 

Finally, I request that you urge the Committee to actively pursue adequate funding with their 

colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for the bill, if enacted by Congress. Planning, 

management, and any other activity without sufficient funding, or with unrealistic requirements 

for tribal matching funds, would in my judgement produce worse results than no such activities 

at all. 

I have covered only a few points in Mr. Richardson's bill, and reserve the right to comment in 

more detail as our peoples' views become known. The Comanche peoples' aanculturalland base 

is a primary source of their income, and we generally endorse the efforts of Congress to increase 

that resource's productivity in cooperation with the tribes and individual Indian land owners. 

Please provide a copy of this letter to the Committee for the record. 

Sincerely, 

\S'tM·~~ Wallace E. Coffey 

Chairman 
170 

Mr. RICHARDSON. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I thank the Chairman. There are, as all of you 

know, two bills: our bill that is being heard today and the Senate 

bill. Several of you and the other panelists have mentioned some 

of the differences between the two and a few of you have expressed 

a preference with regard to one section or another of either bill. 

There are a couple of things frankly that I prefer in the Senate 

bill myself, including the section which allows more flexibility and 

tribal responsibility. But I thought it might be worthwhile for us 

if any of you would care to comment further on something either 

in the Senate bill that you would like to see changed in this bill 

or something in this bill that is different from the Se1nate bill, but 

you greatly prefer keeping it the way we have it rather than the 

way it is now in the Senate bill. 

Like I say, I know a number of you have already expressed an 

appreciation for one part of the bill or another, but I just thought 

I would give you additional opportunity if you care to mention 

something else or emphasize a preference that you have already 

mentioned. 

Do any of you wish to take the opportunity to speak in favor of 

a certain part of one bill or the other? 

Calvin. 

Mr. WALN. Thank you, Congressman. I guess the Senate bill, S. 

410, basically is the bill starting in 1989 that we have worked on 

very hard with the input from tribes and everybody. It is what was 

introduced last year and passed by the Senate, and that is the preference bill with the tribes we worked with and our own member 

tribes that we would prefer to see passed by the Senate and a compromise put together between the House and the Senate to utilize. 

s. 410. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Anyone else. Laurence? 

Mr. KENMILLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In our written testimony we do list specific areas that are of concern to our Tribe, and 

I did not bring in Senate 410 because I feel that even though it is 

good language, the House could probably redraft those specific sections that will address the concerns of the tribes maybe even better. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Anyone else? 

Mr. SOCKZEmGH. Thank you. With regard to the Senate bill, S. 

410, the Yakima Tribe feels that if S. 410 is adopted by Congress, 

that its provisions be strictly carried out and enforced. And with 

regard to the Secretary of the Interior appearing in tribal forums, 

I see that as a real good opportunity to prosecute non-Indians that 

deprive or steal products belonging to Indians from their agricultural efforts, and with that, I make direct reference to theft of hay, 

livestock rustling. 

Out in the West, cattle rustling is still very much a reality and 

if we could have the Secretary indicate very strongly to the Assistant U.S. Attorneys to prosecute these non-Indians through the Indian Agriculture Management Act bill, S. 410, the Yakima Tribe 

would certainly appreciate it. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Are your tribal members experiencing problems 

with rustling? 
171 

Mr. SOCKZEHIGH. Definitely are. I am also a victim too. I am a 

cattle rancher and I have experienced numerous losses, unexplained disappearances of livestock, the yearlings, steers especially. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. As Laurence can tell you, Mr. Chairman, years 

ago Lewis and Clark came through Montana and when they were 

in Blackfeet country, it was hard not to be in Blackfeet country out 

on the plains, but when they were in Blackfeet country, the Blackfeet, according to the journal, stole some of Lewis and Clark's 

horses and people who aren't Indians out there have not only gotten even, but overdone it in getting the animals back in the meantime. 

So I appreciate that the same thing happens down your way and 

we do need to stop it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I thank my colleague. Let me ask Mr. 

Sockzehigh, your testimony expressed some concern regarding the 

provision that authorizes the majority of landowners to enter into 

a lease for a parcel of land, and what is the BIA policy with regard 

to leasing undivided heirships? 

Is 100 percent of landownership required for that? 

Mr. SOCKZEHIGH. The bureau has a policy now where they will 

negotiate with the majority interest holder and the majority interest holder is 50 percent of anyone holding and at the present time, 

they will notify the other minority interest holders, but the bureau 

on the Yakima Reservation leases out land to the non-Indians with 

the consent of the majority interest holder, in the event that the 

Bureau is not able to get a hold of the minority interest holders. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Ms. Mahseet, in your testimony you expressed 

a sense of frustration with BIA leasing policies. I share that frustration because we have heard that over 1.1 million acres of Indian 

lands are idle. 

Now, would you or your association support provisions which 

allow lands to be leased if a majority of owners agree to lease the 

land and all owners are guaranteed fair market value in the lease? 

Ms. MAHSEET. I am almost sure they would, because that is a 

problem. Sometimes they can't find everyone that has an interest 

in an inherited land but there is always a simple majority that is 

close by that they can have fix a contract and sign. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, as an allottee, do you think the tribal 

government should have the ability to make regulatory laws which 

govern you? Let's say, what if the tribal government enacted a law 

defining highly fractionated heirships? 

Ms. MAHSEET. I don't agree. I want to manage my own land. I 

want to say who is going to get the money and all, and probably 

if the tribe takes over and does the leasing, well, the individual 

won't get their fair price of their lease, and I would just as soon 

have it just like it is. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Do you think this committee should be encouraging Native Americans to get into agriculture? Would you consider 

one way of doing this is to encourage Indian preference and to 

lease lands at less than fair market value? 

Ms. MAHSEET. Well, I could agree with you but you know the 

Chilocco Indian School, and that was a school that taught them 

how to farm and manage stock and everything and somehow it got 
172 

closed and that hurt the people in our area and there has been 

some good farmers that have come out of the Chilocco Indian 

School. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, Vice Chairman Kenmille, we have heard 

testimony regarding surety bond requirements. In your view, who 

should have the authority for waiving requirements for surety 

bonds, the tribe or the Secretary? 

Mr. KENMILLE. Mr. Chairman, the way the Confederated Salish 

and Kootenai tribes work it is that we do require a bond on all of 

our leasing arrangements. The non-Indians had to put up a bond. 

The tribal members of the reservation have to pledge their per capita so we do make them pledge a bond in one way or another and 

the tribe provides that procedure. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, let me ask Calvin, I guess the final question that I have. Are you concerned that without the requirements 

of some security, and I asked the previous witnesses in the second 

panel this same question, that a lessee would not undertake some 

improvements? 

I gave the example of plowing under cotton or lining a ditch 

which are required under the lease. 

Mr. WALN. I guess, Mr. Chairman, is that it should be the tribe 

that makes that decision because basically the individuals leasing 

the land, you know them, and the tribal members, the tribal governing body, whoever it is going to be, by virtue of knowing this 

individual, should be able to make that requirement. 

If we have someone that has been a problem in the past, we may 

require a bond for him. If we have an outsider come in and want 

to lease a bunch of land that we don't know, then, yes, we will require a bond for that individual. 

But I think it should be strictly discretionary because the individuals down there have a hard time getting a bond anyway, and 

most of them, the majority of them, are people th:at have been 

there forever and they lease the land and there is no problem with 

them, and the tribe knows who should and who shouldn't have a 

bond. 

That is why it should be at the discretion of the tribe. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Could this type of security to the tribe and the 

landowner be rrovided without requiring the surety bonds? 

Mr. WALN. feel it could. Like Ross said here, Mr. Chairman, I 

have faith in tribal courts. I have been in tribal government and 

I worked there a long time and I think the tribal court, going in 

on a civil action against any individual in there, if you go in there 

and you get a judgment against an individual, be it Indian or nonIndian, is one way to prevent that. 

My argument has always been, if you do that to two or three individuals, everybody else is going to clean their act up because 

there are different avenues that the tribe can put in place to do 

that. It has maybe been a problem in the past for some tribes. 

Maybe one or two cases at each tribe, but overall, it has never been 

that huge of a problem. 

And also the leases are paid in advance, you know, annually and 

the bureau also will require you to have a lease to guarantee you 

are going to pay your lease payment. Do you have to pay it in advance and that also doesn't make a lot of sense. 
173 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Let me say to all witnesses before I have any 

closing statements, Pat, do you want to say anything? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. No. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I want to thank all the witnesses that appeared today, especially in light of the interruptions you had with 

many of these votes. 

I think this is very, very valuable testimony. We are going to 

move this bill very soon. We have had some substantial agreements 

with the Senate. I think some of the concerns my colleague from 

Montana made are going to be incorporated and dealt with. 

We expect to move this bill soon. This is a priority issue for this 

subcommittee and you have contributed some very, very valuable 

testimony and I wish to thank all of you. Ms. MAHSEET. Mr. Chairman, I would like for you to hear Mr. 

Gooday. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I will recognize the gentleman, Mr. Gooday. 

STATEMENT OF LUPE GOODAY 

Mr. GOODAY. Mr. Chairman, I am Lupe Gooday, tribal member 

of the Ft. Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma and this bill, it doesn't 

cover the situations there in Oklahoma. We have a seven-seven 

tribes located in the southwest part of Oklahoma that deal with 11 

counties and we have a lot of problems within these counties, these 

individual allottees, but my main concern is that the bill is designed for reservation people and it doesn't cover or help us within 

the State of Oklahoma. 

We have no problems with regulations that can be updated that 

will help us. We started irrigation projects probably earlier than 

the 1950s. On these individual allotments, irrigation wells are developed. It was paid by the landowners over a seven- to ten-year 

lease for all of these improvements and now these properties are 

producing, and once agam, it would take the authonty away from 

the individual landowners and we are creating some problems. At the present time, I think the message is out there on the 

street in our particular area is telling us in some cases, if the tribe 

can't handle their business, how are they going to handle these individual allotted lands. 

But we work directly with the U.S. Department of Agriculture or 

BIA personnel or workers, hard workers, or CFR people are there 

to assist us, or social service and all of these different agencies are 

there to help us, but we need certain changes within the CFR to 

really help us. 

You don't hear too much from us in the State of Oklahoma because I feel like that we got our stuff together. But if we can't allow 

changes, then we are in trouble if we don't meet those changes. We 

have to make changes as we go. If we don't, we are in trouble. 

But this is my concern. I have properties of my own, both restricted and taxable properties, and I feel like that as a steerer for 

my two grandsons, I have to protect these properties. My mother 

is 94 years old and she is an original allottee and she still leases 

her own property, and she negotiates for her property. She negotiates very hard for it, for top dollar, and it is very hard. 

There is one other thing I would like to add. It is very hard to 

educate our Indian people, children, and education as far as agri-
174 

culture whenever the price support at the present time is $3.65 in 

Oklahoma and the market price at the elevator is $2.45. So it is 

very hard for our youth to seek agriculture, but they are working 

at it. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Gooday follows:] 
175 

MR. llJPE <XXDI\Y, SR. 

Rl'. #3, BOX 138-c2 

~. ~73005 

(405) 247-9225 

I. Speech presented by Mr. Gocx:lay 

II. Minutes of the Indian Soil Conservation Association 

for the last Annual Mee~, March 26, 1993. 

III. Indian Soil Conservation Association 

Articles of the Association 
176 

Mr. Cllainnan: 

I am I.upe Gooday, Sr., an individual landowner and Tribal Business Committee 

person for the Ft. Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahooa. 

I am addressing my displeasure over some provisions of H.R. 1425. 'lhe language 

of this bill has come to my attention, plus others in Oklahooa. We have some 

major concerns with how the bill addresses us as individual landowners. As a 

tribal leader, I feel that I have to protect my peoples' rights. 'lhe control 

asked for in this legislation allows tribes to determine my right and how I 

utilized my property that I received through heirship. 

As you might not be aware, the tribes in Oklahooa control or own a very small 

percentage of the land base. We as individuals control 97% of the land base 

and do not wish to give our control or destiny. 

<Mnership and use of our land is essential to our existence as a people. 'lhis 

ownership has some responsibilities to it as stewards of t:he land we have to 

protect and conserve it, so we can pass it on to the next generation of 

stewards. I am a father and grandparent, so I have several future stewards to 

look out for my heritage - which is the land I received from past stewards. 

In June, 1992, the Anadarko Agency honored 96 original allottees and 81 are 

still land owners. When I started to work with the Bureau at: carnegie Soil and 

Moisture Conservation Unit in the fall of 1959, we had five Soil and Moisture 

Units and each had approximately 167,000 a=es to manage natural resources, 

which is approximately 835,000 total. We currently have 258,000 and four Soil 

and Moisture Units. Besides being a tribal representative for the Ft. Sill 

Apache Tribe, I was a Bureau errployee for 32 and 1/2 years and worked with all 

landowners in leasing of their property in farming and grazinq. 

Leasing has been a major concern of mine both as an errployeE• of the Bureau and 

as a landowner. 'lhe conunitment of the Bureau to require lOCI% signatures for a 

negotiated lease has been out dated by the in=easing heirship problem. It 

used to be where you had a handful of heirs to deal with - now we have tracts 

that exceed 300 owners on one quarter section. Everyday we have deaths by our 

Tribal members and this compounds our leasing problem. 

Ctrrrently as mentioned above, we have to have a 100% signature to lease our 

land for farming and grazing purposes. It causes problems to our people in 

other areas as well in minerals or oil and gas leasing. A small undivided 

interest owner can stop the majority from receiving or least delay the other 

from a fair economic income from minerals. In Rights-of-Way it also requires 

100 percent signature and if corrpensation is not fair to one individual, the 

transaction can be stopped even if they own less than a percentage point. Is 

this fair to the majority that stand for progress? 

I understand that we in government have to protect everyone's rights - but to 

the 100 percent margin? I dare to say that this is the only place in 

government where this is required. 

'lhe other area that requires 100 percent signatures is in land sales. I 

personally do not have a problem with this as I believe that all heirs should 

agree before a tract is sold. Another major concern to me and my people is the 

amount of time it takes to probate a will. It is currently averaging two years 

minimum even in the most simple cases. we· do have some that are approaching 

ten years. 
177 

I suhnit to you that the 25 CFR is in need of update and to allow us the chaiice 

to hold the necessary meetings to have our tribes' input into the CFR so that 

we can be on equal footing with other tribes who have their own rules and 

regulations in the CFR. We are not a fonnal reservation, rut have the same 

=ncerns and needs as the Navajo, Zuni, Hopi, Crow, ute and others. 

Whether this bill is passed or not - let us work with the secretary to overcare this major problem that we face as landowners and citizens of the 

United states of America. For your infonnation I am suhnitting an exhibit that 

show how many people are located at our agency. (Marked Exhibit One) • '!hank 

you. 
178 

INDIAN SOIL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION 

Articles of Association 

PREAMBLE 

We, the undersigned persons, being Indians enrolled on official 

tribal rolls, or Indian descendants of such enrolled members, or 

Indians as defined in the Act of June 18, 1934, (48 Stat. 988, 

25 U.S.C. Sec. 479), all of whom reside in the vicinity of Anadarko, 

in the state of Oklahoma, do hereby voluntarily associate together 

to promote our social welfare in the economic field by forming a 

local non-profit cooperative association without capital stock under 

the provisions of the Act of June 26, 1936 (49 Stat. 1967, 25 U.S.C. 

Sees. 501-509 inclusive) hereafter referred to as "the Act". 

ARTICLE I 

Name: The name of the association shall be the Indian Soil Conservation Association. 

ARTICLE II 

Purpose: To carry on the business of land management and to promote 

soil and moisture conservation on Indian lands and to engage in any 

activities related thereto. 

ARTICLE III 

Powers: The powers of the association which shall exist and be 

exercised only in legal pursuance of its purpose, shall -be: to adopt, 

use, and alter a corporate seal; to acquire, hold, manage, and dispose 

of property, to make and perform contracts; to borrow money and give · 
179 

liens on the property of the association; to assign income; to engage 

in any business that will further its purpose; to sue and be sued 

in any court of the State of Oklahoma or of the United States having 

jurisdiction of the cause of action, subject to the provisions of 

the Act; and such further powers as may be incidental or necessary 

to the conduct of its business. 

ARTICLE IV 

Location: The principal place of business of the association shall 

be Anadarko, Oklahoma. 

ARTICLE V 

Member Participation: The Association shall operate on a cooperative 

basis. Eacli ·member in good standing shall be entitled to one vote 

and only one vote. There shall be no voting by pro:x;y. Eligibility 

for membership shall be determined by the bylaws. 

ARTICLE VI 

Management: A board of directors consisting of three (.3) directors, 

chosen in accordance vith the bylaws, shall exercise the powers of 

the association and manage its business in accordance vith its 

articles of association and bylaws, and with the decisions of its 

members at membership aeetings. 

ARTICLE VII 

Member Interests; The interests of members of the association in 

good. standing shall be. equal.. Members shall not be personally 
180 

liable for its corpora~e· debts. 

ARTICLE VIII 

Disposition of Savings: Operating capital shall be created as 

provided in the bylaws. Remaining net savings may either be~ 

tributed ~ m~ ~proportion t:2. :the ~ o!_ business done 

~ e~h, .2if ~ ~ u~ to promote . soi~ m~isture qonae:ccati on -.. 

Indian-owed lands located in the State of Oklahoma which are under 

the jurisdiction of the Anadarko Area Office of the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, except lands located in Osage County. 

-----. ARTICLE IX 

Organizing Directors: The following persons shall. hold offices as 

organizing directors until the first annual meeting of members: 

President, Walter Volz - - - - - - -

Vice President, Vincent Myers- - - - -

Secretary-Treasurer, Julia Mahseet -

ARTICLE X 

-Caddo 

- -Comanche 

-Comanche 

Existence, Dissolution, and Amendments: The association e.hall exist 

until dissolved. The association may be dissolved ey an Act of 

Congress of the United States, or upon request of a majori.ty of the 

members. To effect dissolution, a special meeting shall be called 

in accordance with the eylaws. The members shall receive notice of 

the meeting at least thirty days in advance of the date of' holding it. 

The vote of a majority of the members of the association shall be 
181 

necessary to effect the dissolution of the association. Dissolution 

shall not be effective until approved by the Secretary of the Interior, 

or his authorized representative. If dissolution is so approve!;!, 

the Secretary or his authorized representative may take possession 

of the assets of the assoCiation and exercise or arrange for the 

exercise of its povers, and take such action as may be necessary to 

li<Iuidate the assets of the association, pay its debts, and distribute 

~~-

any balance to memb?rp. 

P -.... 

Amendments to the ~rticles of the association and bylaws of the 

association may be made at any annual meeting, or special meeting 

called for the purpose, provided that two-thirds of the members in 

good standing approve any amendment. Amendments shall not become 

effective, however, until approved by the Secretary of the Interior 

or his authorized representative. 

ARTICLE XI 

Defaultt While this association is indebted to the United States 

under the terms of the Act, should the Secretary of the Interior or 

his authorized representative find that it has violated any of the 

terms of any loan agreement on vhioh its indebtedness is based, he may 

take possession of the assets of the association, and exercise or 

arrange for the exercise of its powers until the indebtedness is 

paid ~r until he receives acceptable assurance .of compliance with : 

the loan agreement. 
182 

Subscribed this 11th day of __ _,M.::a::r-=c=h'-----' 192_. 

B!)LL NO. (If any) 

s day of March , 19 R, 

before me by the persons personally known to me to be the same whose 

signatures appear above. 

My Commission expires 

10-4-52 Notary Public 
183 

MINIJl'},S OF 'DIE ISCA MEF!l'Ill; 

Mlll1(H 26, 1993 

AW\IlARI([), OI<IMI:MA 

The 32rxl Annual Membership Meeting was called to order at 10:30 am by President 

Jack Mclane. Officers of the Irxiian SOil Conservation Association were 

intrcduced arxl all present were welcomed to the meeting arxl awards l:larq.let. 

First item on the agerxla was the financial statement presented by Mrs. Carolyn 

Sanders, CPA for the finn of Sanders, Weldl, & Wallis. 'Ibis presentation 

included the balance sheet arxl inccrne statement. A motion was made by Jackson 

Mclane to a=ept the financial statement arxl secorxled by Kenneth Goodin. The 

motion carried unanimously. 

The minutes of the 31st Annual Awards Ban:Juet arxl Annual Membership Meeting 

were read by ISCA Secretary Julia Mahseet. A motion was made by Clarence 

Fodder to a=ept the minutes arxl secorxled by Don Woothtakewahbitty. The motion 

carried unanimously. 

Mr. McLane asked the group for input regarding the Grasslarxler. Van Dietridl 

said one person rented the Grasslarxler arxl planted 40 acres. Mr. Mclane 

irxlicated that the Grasslarxler was a little difficult to set. steve York 

explained how to properly set the drill for different types of grass. Most of 

the rental income in 1992 came from the Grasslarxler arxl the big tye drill. 

There was discussion al:x>ut selling one of the small drills that are no longer 

bringing in mudl rental money. There was also sorre discussion on repairing 

sorre of the older drills to be able to rent them more often. After discussion, 

it was decided that the smaller drill should be sold "as is" because it was 

estimated that repairs to make the drill usable would be approximately 

$1000.00. steve York said the welding shop the association used to build and 

repair the gopher madlines went out of business so parts are almost ilrpossible 

to firxl. There was discussion about how mudl the ISCA equipment was rented. 

Mr. Mclane asked the members if there was anything else the association might 

have a need for? 

The next item on the agerxla is the election of the ISCA Secretary. Clarence 

Fodder made the motion to elect Julia Mahseet by acclamation and secorxled by 

Lawrence Tomah. The motion was carried unanimously. 

Jack Mclane wants the units to give a report on their equipment to irxlicate 

where the rental money generates from. The association was informed that new 

rental agreements were made and issued to the units. 

Julia Mahseet gave an a=eptance speech. She told the group that she has held 

the office since ISCA was formed in 1952 and was grateful for the support of 

the group. 

Mr. York told the members what was happening within the Brandl of Land 

Operations regarding personnel dlanges. steve York told the group that steve 

Wallace, SOil Conservationist for the Anadarko SMC, will be leaving on April 

01, 1993, arxl Mr. Ray Fdrniston will act as the SOil COnservationist until a 

replacement can be fourrl. Mr. York informed the association that two SOil 

conservation Technicians will be retiring soon and the Brandl of Land 

Operations has already requested from the Brandl of Personnel to replaced these 

two irxlividuals before they retire as to have some on the job training. Land 

Operations has also requested an Archeologist to be able to meet regulations to 

be imposed by the Bureau of Irxlian Affairs in 1994. 
184 

The 1993 Spring Tour will be hosted by the Anadarko Soil Arrl !obisture "Unit. 

It was i.rxlicated that the Spring Tour would show some noxious wee:i eradication 

that was perfonned by the llllit. The date will be April 30, 1993, with the rain 

date May 7 1 1993 o 

Helen Tate asked President Jack Mclane how people becorre members of the In:iian 

Soil Conservation Association. Mr. McLane and Ms. Mahseet explained that a 

person has to rent equipment or go on the tour to becorre members and be 

interested and =ncerned about =nservation of our natural resources. Etl and 

Donnie Spalding are Mrs. Tate's relatives and they want to becorre members. Mr. 

Mclane invited them to becorre members and they accepted. 

Paul Goatlbi told the group that all the equipment at the Anadarko Soil and 

!obisture Unit was in good shape and ready to rent. Those interested in the 

tour will meet at the Unit at 9:00 am for =ffee and donuts and will leave from 

the Unit at 10:00 am. 

The meeting was adjourned at 11:22. 
185 

Mr. RICHARDSON. We understand, and appreciate your comments 

and concerns. We will try to address them. 

We thank all of you and the subcommittee is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

APPENDIX 

June 18, 1993 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 8UBMI'ITED FOR THE HEARING RECORD 

Honorable Bill Richardson 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Native 

American Affairs 

Committee on Natural Resources 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515-6201 

Dear Mr. Ri chardson: 

Thank 7ou fer ycur lettar of April 20, 1SS3, requesting information on (1) status of idle lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA), (2) status of information developed by the 

BIA Heirship Task Force to address the problem of fractionated 

interests, and (3) listing of completed Integrated Resource 

Management Plans by reservation. 

1. At the joint hearing held by the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs and the House committee on Interior and Insular 

Affairs held on September 22, 1992, on s. 2977 and H.R. 5744 bills 

entitled "Indian Agricultural Resources Management Act of 1992" 

(102nd Congress), the subject of idle lands was discussed as one of 

the principle issues to be addressed in the proposed legislation. 

At the joint hearing, Representative Johnson stated that almost 

50,000 acres of land lie idle in Oklahoma and are not being leased. 

Following the joint hearing, we initiated an investigation to 

determine what constitutes idle lands nationwide and why the lands are idle. While we are still gathering data, we do have the 

results of the information compiled from the BIA's Anadarko and 

Muskogee Area Offices in Oklahoma. We will report on these two 

Area Offices and follow-up with a report on the remaining BIA Area 

Offices as soon as the information is available. 

Our study began with examining the BIA 1990 Natural Resource 

Information system's Report (NRIS) which contained the following 

data: 

Area Office Acreaaa of Idl.e L&Jlds 'l'otal Acreage %Idle 

Aberdeen 171,399 6,186,004 3% 

Anadarko 31,844 355,654 9% 

Albuquerque 37,093 5,186,570 <1% 

Billings 238,291 6,584,041 4% 

Eastern 385 781,760 <1% 

Juneau 35 1,271,384 <1% 

Minneapolis 4,697 1,343,623 <1% 

Muskogee 16,564 825,075 2% 

(187) 
Navajo 

Phoenix 

Portland 

Sacramento 

101,909 

414,588 

87,548 

48,662 

188 

2 

15,399,658 

12,264,855 

5,023,181 

566,658 

<1% 

3% 

2% 

9% 

The major problem we encountered was the definition of what exactly 

constitutes "idle lands." For the purpose of the NRIS report, idle 

lands are defined as "Land not in production, or use other than 

lands diverted under Federal programs, idle under crop rotations, 

etc., is included in the idle category. Do not include wildlands 

in the category; i.e., lands dedicated to wildlife use." In some 

Area Offices this definition is interpreted as lands not having a 

legal contractual document such as a lease encumbering the land. 

However, some of the reasons for lands listed as idle and not being 

leased could be cemetery lands, wetlands, landlocked lands, 

cultural, religious or recreational usage lands, tribal 

farms/ranches, owner's use, reserved lands, barren lands, lands 

with noxious weeds, lands under timber management (i.e., harvested 

under a 30-year rotation plan) or lands reserved under the 

u.s. Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). 

All of the above-referenced categories are IlQ!; considered idle 

lands. They have been designated for a specific use by a tribe, an 

individual Indian landowner, or reserved by Federal, State or local 

statute. A Task Force has been formed to come up with a clear and 

concise definition of what constitutes idle acreage to be used 

uniformly throughout the BIA. 

According to our BIA 1990 NRIS report, 31,844 acres lie idle out of 

a total of 355, 654 acres under the jurisdiction of the Anadarko 

Area Office. our idle land survey showed only 22 ,000 acres of 

leasable lands lying idle. This computes to approximately 

6 percent ot the land base lying idle which could possibly be 

leased. Also, please note that the Anadarko Area has 

administrative jurisdiction over Indian lands in western Oklahoma, 

Kansas, and Texas. 

The 1990 NRIS report states that in the Muskogee Area 16,564 acres 

of land are considered idle out of a total of 823,269 acres of land 

under its jurisdiction. Our idle land survey has reported that 

only 1,787 acres that are leasable lie idle. This accounts tor less than 1 percent of the land base consisting of land that is 

leasable and lies idle. 

The question may arise as to why the BIA has reported such a high 

number of idle lands in certain Area jurisdictions in the NRIS 

report. This can be explained logically in that our computer and 

land tracking systems identify lands that have encumbrances on 

them, such as leases. With the continual reduction of technical 

staff within the BIA and as we move toward tribal compacts and 

contracts of real estate programs, we have less staff to monitor 

those idle lands that are not leased but may be reserved for 

another purpose. 
189 

3 

As stated at the joint hearing on September 22, 1992, we have a 

trust responsibility to all the landowners, whether a tribe or an 

individual Indian. We have an obligation as trustee to administer 

the property for the benefit of the beneficiary and to maximize the 

benefits for the owners of the land. However, the beneficiary has 

a major voice in how the lands will be administered; how the land 

will be used; and, whether or not the lands should or should not be 

leased. 

2. The BIA has an Heirship Task Force, formed in 1991, to address 

real estate related problems associated with heirship and the 

administration of fractionated ownership on individually-owned 

Indian trust lands. The Task Force has met regularly and compiled 

a long list of concerns and impacts wrought by fractionated 

ownership. These concerns and inpacts have been consolidated and 

categorized by means of resolution; i.e., administrative and 

legislative. Accordingly, the Task Force is now in the process of 

formulating concept/option papers for reducing and/or eliminating 

the heirship problem. The papers will be presented to this office 

for consideration in the near future. When completed we would be 

happy to share them with your staff so that we can work together to 

resolve this significant problem. 

3. A listing of completed Integrated Resource Management Plans by 

reservation is as follows: 

Billings Area 

Fort Belknap 

Northern Cheyenne 

Albuquerque Area 

Nambe 

Isleta 

Sandia 

Southern Ute 

Jemez 

Acoma 

Jicarilla 

We hope this information is helpful to you. 

further assistance, please advise. 

Sincerely, 

If we can be of 

ACTING 

~~~~ Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs 

73-728 - 93 - 7 
190 

STATEMENT OF GAIASHKIBOS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN 

INDIANS, BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMEIUCAN AFFAIRS, 

ON H.R. 1425, THE "AMERICAN INDIAN AGRICULTURAL ACf OF 1993. " 

June 18, 1993 

The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) is the oldest and largest tribal organization 

in the United States and our membership includes 119 tribal governments. We thank the 

Subcommittee on Native American Affairs for their hard work in support of the management of 

Indian rangelands and farmlands and for allowing us the opportunity to submit testimony in 

support of H.R. 1425, the • American Indian Agricultural Act of 1993. • 

NCAI has three major points to emphasize. The first point is the historical role American Indian 

Agriculturalists played in the United States, and the significance of agricultural lands to 

American Indians today. The second point is the need for change from the current Indian 

Agricultural policy. And finally, to emphasize the importance of the American Indian 

Agricultural Act of 1993 to Indian Country. 

It is important to note that American Indians have long played a significant role in American 

Agriculture and history. American Indians shared food with early Europt:an settlers of this 

country. Thousands of years ago, Indians developed canal systems in the Southwestern portion 

of the United States. Through the utilization of modern technology, these canals are still being 

used today. Contrast this to the 164 irrigation projects begun by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

in which not a single project has been completed (The first irrigation project was started over 

160 years ago). In spite of this bureaucratic delay, agricultural~ developed by American 

Indians, currently make up over 50% of the world food supply. 

American Indian Tribes once exercised control over all areas between the Atlantic and Pacific 

Oceans. In return for the cession of Indian lands, American Indians were promised that certain 

lands, reservations, would be left in the undisturbed sovereign control of the Tribal 

governments. This is not what happened . Instead, as a result of-broken treaties and failed 

Federal allotment policies, Indians fight to maintain control of less than 55 million acres out of 

the 550 million acres they once held. Sovereign tribal governments are still stopped from 

making decisions affecting the management of these 55 million acres of Indian lands and the 

Federal government continues to total control. 

Despite the Federal government's responsibility to protect and manage Indian Trust lands, 

mismanagement and insufficient attention has resulted in the steady decline of Indian agricultural 

resources. Today, although a significant number of tribes rely upon the agricultural uses of the 

remaining Indian lands for sustenance and employment, it is reported by the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs that over 1.15 million acres of Indian Agricultural land is not being utilized. 

The Federal government's management of Indian Trust lands often reflect the concerns of the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, rather than the concerns of the tribes. An example of this can be seen 

in a dilemma faced by a significant number of Indian farmers and ranchers. Currently , most 

Indian farmers and ranchers must lease their lands through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, under 
191 

antiquated regulations. These regulations reflect tum-of-the-century Federal policies which 

encouraged nonlndian expansion into the West, and greater Federal control over the Indians. 

In other instances, archaic regulations require a price established by a Bureau of Indian Affairs 

appraisal, even in cases in which the appraisal exceeds the fair market value of the land and is 

impossible to obtain due to various agricultural and economic conditions. As a result, the best 

interests of Indian farmers, ranchers, and individual land owners are often served. 

Efforts for improvement of agricultural use are hindered by several obstacles, including: I) the 

Federal government's lack of long-term planning for resource development of Indian lands; 2) 

lack of personnel for technical assistance and advice; and 3) lack of adequate funding . In 1975, 

the General Accounting Office prepared a document for the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs 

Committee ("Indian Natural Resources: Opportunities for Improved Management and Increased 

Productivity") which noted the major weaknesses of the Federal land management system. Over 

a decade later, the only significant change noted in a Bureau of Indian Affairs report made to 

Congress ("1986 Report to Congress on Agricultural Range Programs") was that of worsening 

conditions. 

It appears that during the past 20 years, the Bureau of Indian Affairs agricultural lands 

management process has repeatedly and consistently failed in its trust responsibility to effectively 

manage and protect Indian agricultural lands. 

The Federal policy of Indian Self-Determination and Self-Governance warrants a change in the 

paternalistic approach to Indian management. The American Indian Agricultural Act of 1993 

would allow for greater tribal consultation and involvement in the development of agricultural 

land management plans; greater recognition of tribal sovereignty by requiring the Secretary to 

comply with Tribal land use laws; and promote long term agricultural leases, new hearing 

methodologies, and the establishment of an Indian and nonindian Task Force to study the needs 

for Indian agricultural resource development. The Act places an increased emphasis upon Tribal 

Sovereignty and tribal input and has much needed provisions for educational programs. 

Section 101 of the Act is particularly significant. Section 101 allows for greater input by the 

tribes in land management planning. This will allow the land management plans to reflect tribal 

government concerns, rather than merely the concerns of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Section 

104 of the Act is equally significant. This section allows for the leasing of Indian lands at rates 

lower than the BIA appraised value, if such a lease is in the best interest of the landowners. 

Indian lands which are currently lying idle, will have a better chance of being put to work for 

the Indian people. 

On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians, I again thank-you for the opportunity 

to submit testimony in support of the American Indian Agricultural Act of 1993 (H.R. 1425). 
PETERSON ZAH PRESIDENT 

THE 

NAVAJO 

NATION 

192 

P. 0. DRAWER 308 • WINDOW ROCK, ARIZONA 86515 ,, (602) 871-6352-55 

TESTIMONY OF THE NAVAJO NATION 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

OF THE 

HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

REGARDING 

IIIARSHALL PWMMER 

VICE .... UIDaNT 

H.R. 1425. "AMERICAN INDIAN AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 1993" 

JULY 2, 1993 
193 

Introduction 

The Navajo Nation appreciates this opportunity to comment on H.R.1425, the 

American Indian Agricultural Act of 1993. The Navajo Nation commends the past 

initiatives and successes of the Intertribal Agriculture Council (lAC), and their work on 

H.R.1425 and S.410, the companion legislation. We would like to, thank 

Congressmen Richardson, Johnson and Williams for sponsoring this legislation. 

The Navajo Nation provided testimony last year on similar legislation at a joint 

hearing before the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee and the Senate Select 

Committee on Indian Affairs. Many of the recommendations which the Navajo Nation 

made at that time have been incorporated into the Senate's current version of this bill, 

S.41 0. However, these recommendations and concerns have not been addressed in 

H.R.1425. We urge this Subcommittee to consider our recommendations to enhance 

the intent of H.R.1425. 

The Navajo Nation Department of Agriculture 

The Navajo Nation is the largest and most populous Indian tribe in the United 

States, spanning portions of twelve counties in three states. The Navajo Nation's 

Division of Natural Resources combines several functions of the federal Departments 

of Agriculture and Interior, with responsibility for protection and management of 

extensive and diverse Navajo agricultural and range lands. More than one half of the 

Navajo people continue their traditional pastoral livelihoods, grazing sheep, goats, 

cattle and horses in relatively small family operations. One third of Navajo families 

engage in subsistence farming of traditional crops, including corn, melons, squash, 

beans, chile and a variety of fruits . · 

The Navajo Nation Department of Agriculture consists of five Agency offices 

and two sub-offices that serve the wide expanse of Navajo lands (see Attachment AI. 

The Department also has mobile veterinary units, a grazing management office and 

tribal ranch officials. The Department is charged with the responsibility to plan, 

develop and manage Navajo range, livestock and agricultural water resources for the 

OP.timum benefit of all Navajo people. The Department operates under the direction 

of the Executive Director of the Division of Natural Resources . 

The Navajo natural resource base is deteriorating from years of inadequate and 

underfunded management, and increasing population stresses. Federal allocations to 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the management of Indian lands nationwide amount 

to 25 percent or less of federal allocations for management of U.S. Forest Service or 

Bureau of Land Management lands. 

Runoff water from Navajo watersheds carries with it millions of tons of soil from 

range and farmlands, damaging irrigation and livestock water facilities, and filling lakes 

2 
Statement of the Navajo Nation 

July 2, 1993 

194 

and reservoirs with sediment. Year by year, Navajo rangelands deteriorate further, 

their condition aggravated by the vicious cycle of erosion, downcutting of streambeds, 

loss of surface and shallow ground waters, and loss of soil and plant cover. Of some 

50,000 acres developed for irrigated community and family farms in the Navajo 

Nation, more than two-thirds are idle today. Farmers remain frustrated by the 

cumulative effects of destructive floods, soil erosion, sediment damage, and the 

historic lack of technical, financial or infrastructure support. 

The federal government has a trust responsibility for the management of all 

natural resources on Indian lands. The Navajo Nation, with adequate resources, can 

better serve to coordinate, integrate, manage and implement all programs designed to 

conserve, protect, regulate, develop and manage Navajo rangE!, livestock and 

agricultural land resources for the optimum benefit of all Navajo people. H.R.1425, 

including recommended changes, could support and enhance the capability of tribal 

governments to address the critical need for assistance in managing agricultural lands, 

while promoting Indian self-determination. 

Recommendations of the Navajo Nation to Enhance H.R.1425 

Recognition of Tribal Authority 

We applaud the intent of H.R. 1425 to strengthen the role of the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA) in natural resources planning and management on Indian lands. 

However, this goal should be balanced with the recognition of tribal sovereignty and 

self-determination of tribes to conduct their own natural resources planning and 

management activities. These essential principles have been incorporated clearly into 

S.410 at Sections 101 (a)(7), 102(1) and (3), 201 (c), and 202(a). The Navajo Nation 

urges the Subcommittee to adopt similar language into the corresponding sections of 

H.R.1425, particularly Section 1 02(a) of H.R.1425 which should correspond to 

Section 202(a) in 5.410 as follows: 

(a) TRIBAL RECOGNITION. -- The Secretary shall recognize tribal 

governments as the governmental entities with the authority to enact and 

enforce, for lands under their jurisdiction, land use planning, zoning, and 

other land use ordinances and shall conduct all land management 

activities in accordance with tribal goals and objectives as set forth in the 

land management plans and tribal laws and ordinances. 

Similarly, we have concerns that the legislative record refh~ct the broadest 

interpretation of a trust obligation to Indian tribes. The language in the bill at Section 

2(a)(2) states the United States has a trust responsibility to protect, conserve and 

3 
Statement of the Navajo Nation 

July 2, 1993 

195 

enhance Indian rangelands and farmlands. Yet, the Navajo Nation believes it should 

go further and specify that this federal trust responsibility to Indian tribes is shared by 

the entire federal government, not only BIA, and it applies to all trust lands. 

Recognition of Trust Responsibility of all Federal Agencies 

The Navajo Nation recommends that the Committee acknowledge in report 

language the Agreement in Principle signed by the United States Department of the 

Interior (DOl) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) in January, 1988, which 

emphasizes the government-to-government relationship of the United States with 

Indian tribes, and the common objective of the DOl and USDA to "promote the highest 

and best use of trust lands" and to "work in partnership to improve the delivery of 

programs and services to better meet the needs of American Indians." 

Further, the Navajo Nation proposes that Section 302 be reworded and 

strengthened as follows (additions are underlined): 

SECTION 302 : Nothing in this Act shall be construed to supersede or 

limit the trust responsibility. government-to-government relationship with 

Indian tribes. and authority of other Federal agencies. state QLiocal 

agencies otherwise authorized by law to provide services to Indian 

landowners and tribes . 

The Navajo Nation believes very strongly that the bill should specify and make explicit 

that the federal trust responsibility, for natural resources management and education 

as for all other areas, is shared by the entire federal government. It should be the 

prerogative of each individual tribe to determine how it wants the federal trust 

responsibility expressed in its own particular circumstances. 

Need for Comprehensive Definition of "Indian Land" 

Another major concern is the need for a comprehensive definition of "Indian 

Land ." The Navajo Nation requests that the definition of "Indian Land" in H.R.1425 

at Section 4(7) be replaced with the standard definition found at 18 U.S.C. Section 

1151 that defines Indian country as: 

"(a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the 

jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the 

issuance of any patent, and, including any rights-of-way running through 

the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders 

4 
Statement of the Navajo Nation 

July 2, 1993 

196 

of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired 

territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and 

(c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been 

extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same. • 

This definition is accepted for criminal and civil jurisdiction. 

Natural Resource Education and the Land Grant Institute System 

As to Section 201 and 202 in H.R.1425, the Navajo Nation supports the intent 

which seeks to increase the educational and training opportunities in the fields of 

agriculture, land management and natural resources for Indian people. But, we are 

concerned that the record of the BIA in the area of natural resources education may 

not justify the BIA as having the capacity and expertise to effectively manage such a 

program. 

Navajo and other Indian rural communities are chronically and critically short of 

the skilled professional and technical personnel needed to plan and implement all 

aspects of rural development. The BIA education system is among the worst in the 

country. The Navajo Nation needs the means to redevelop and n~build our own 

educational systems, grounded in our language and cultural values and targeting needs 

we define. 

We respectfully request that Indian and Alaska Native needs for 

agriculture/natural resources education, research, and extension must be given the 

same level of federal commitment to institutional capacity-building as: the state Land 

Grant Institutes and the 1890 Institutes. The Navajo Nation notes that Indian tribes, 

with 55 million acres of land in the lower 48 states, do not have their own agricultural 

and natural resources education, research, and extension systems. Ye>t Guam, Puerto 

Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Washington, D.C. each have their own Land Grant 

Institutes. 

The Navajo Nation notes that it has brought this concern to the attention of this 

Subcommittee at the Field Hearing on Indian Rural Development (Scottsdale, Arizona, 

on April 8, 1993), and looks forward to working further with the Subcommittee to 

realize the opportunity to establish an Indian analogue of the Land Grant Institute 

System. 

Indian Irrigation 

We understand that the Subcommittee has purposely omitted any reference to 

5 
Statement of the Navajo Nation 

July 2, 1993 

197 

Indian irrigation and to USDA programs. These two items are a prerequisite to us if 

we are to discuss full enhancement of Indian lands. Irrigation is essential to the 

development and continuation of economic Indian agriculture in the western regions 

of the United States. 

There are more than 45,000 acres of irrigated family farms in the Navajo 

Nation. Up to two-thirds of these farmlands are idle or below optimal productivity 

today due to damage and destruction to irrigation facilities by flooding and 

sedimentation. The rehabilitation of irrigation systems is perhaps the single most costeffective investment for the revitalization of Navajo rural livelihoods and economy. 

The Navajo Nation urges the House Subcommittee on Native American Affairs 

to work with the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, the Senate and House 

Agriculture Committees, the Navajo Nation, the lAC, and other Indian tribes and tribal 

organizations, to develop legislation and direct funding that w ill address the severe 

inadequacies of Indian irrigation water development, storage, delivery, operations, 

maintenance, and management systems and technical capabilities. 

USDA Programs 

Regarding USDA programs, the Navajo Nation has w ithin the last two years 

been working closely with USDA to access those programs . USDA holds enormous 

potential to helping Indian tribes develop their own natural resources planning and 

management, natural resources education, and rural development programs. 

Indian tribes' and individuals' access to, participation in, and benefits from such 

USDA programs have been historically far less than the levels of participation and 

benefits enjoyed by the rest of rural America. This situation can be corrected by a 

careful examination of USDA programs, and developing appropriate legislative and 

appropriations measures that: 

Acknowledge the government-to-government relationship of tribes with the 

federal government; 

Remove obstacles to Indian participation in USDA programs; 

Clarify, specify, consolidate, streamline, strengthen, and otherwise facilitate 

Indian and Alaska Native eligibility for and participation in USDA programs for 

natural/resources agriculture planning, conservation, management and 

development; for agricultural production credit; for rural development planning, 

program integration and implementation; for rural economic development 

6 
Statement of the Navajo Nation 

July 2, 1993 

198 

planning and program implementation; and for natural resources/agriculture 

education, research, and extension. 

The Navajo Nation looks forward to working with the Senate Select Committee 

on Indian Affairs, the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, the Senate and 

House Agriculture Committees, the lAC, and other Indian organizatictns to strengthen 

and expand Indian participation in and benefits from USDA programs, such as 

resources conservation and management, watershed protection, rural development, 

natural resources/agricultural education, research, and extension, and others. 

Conclusion 

The Navajo Nation supports the concept of strengthening tribal sovereignty in 

natural resources management on Indian lands and broadening the trust responsibility 

in natural resources management to the entire federal government. The Navajo Nation 

also welcomes the opportunity to work with the House Subcommittee on Native 

American Affairs and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and others, in addressing 

new opportunities for Indian tribes to participate in USDA program:s and in planning 

and developing their irrigation systems, and in extending the benefits of the Land 

Grant Institute system to Indian tribes. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on 

this important legislative effort. 

7 
I 

ron ou 1 uu 

AGENCY OHIU 

lb'gll Omenall~r~isl 

Agr•cmlsl 

t.blwal Rls:uas Tciolicicrl 

IIIIIXW ROCK YET .CLINI 

V.ltrinar ian 

hltnSiOII Agent Ill 

£xtensirn Agent I 

Accounting Clerk Ill 

Dlltoll sut-orncr 

Extension Agent Ill 

DIYlSIOM OF NATURAl RESOUIC[S 

I 

SH I PlltiC 

UEIICT OHICE 

fxltnSi m Ag!nl Ill 

lidnicr>9>f 11 

SHIPROCIC VET. ClllliC 

Vtfer inar iao 

&fniGI.,. ·' 

DEPAIJI£RJ Of AGIICULTUI£ 

ADIIIHISTUTJO. 

DopariJnonl Dlro<i or 

Actnin is trot in Auislonl 

Cmpuler PrograrmH Analyst I I I 

I 

CHI HE 

AGENCY OfFICE 

utonsian Agonl I II 

Hlballl!oalus lecmicicn 

IIJB ILE V£1. IJIIIT 

Yeler imt ian 

£xtensim Agont I 

- - ----

ICSOORC£S aYIIT

I 

WESTER II 

AGENCY OHIC£ H

rxt ... icn A,lnl Ill 

l

TUBA CITY VET .CliNIC 

Veterinarian 

£xhllsion Ag•d I 

1nuu sua-omcr 

Extension Alieni Ill 

------- ~---
200 

TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE, INC. 

May 19. 1993 

Congressman Bill RicbanlsoD 

U.S. House of Representatives 

122 FIRST AVENUE 

FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701-4897 

PHONE (907) 452·8251 FAX (907)451-8936 

42g Cannon House OITK:C Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515-4101 

Dear Representative Ricbardsoo: 

I wish 10 express my Slrong su(lpOit for H.R.I425, the American Indian Agriculhlral Act of 1993. 

Although Alaska does not have extensive cultivated land, the provisions of Ibis act whicll strengthen tribal 

control of traditional lands would be especially welcome in Alaska. where the slate continues to avoid 

direct dealing wilb tribes as legitimate cultural, legal, and social entities. 

As the prim:uy planner of Alaska's fusttribal college, I am also pleased to note the provision that 

esrablisbes "natural resource education programs in tribally controlled community colleges." Such a far· 

seeing provision will do much to strengthen and legitimate indigenous higher educalioo as it emerges 

from the two hundred >"'"'nightmare of imposed, irrelevant educational sys1ems. It will also serve the 

ameliorative purpose of beginning to return stewardship of the land to !bose peoples who have shown the 

ability and inclination to manage it wilbout widespread destructive practices. Of coorse :ill cultures are 

mixed now and some Indian groups exploit lbeir land as mucb as any Europeans have, but the tendency in 

indigenous cultures is still to treatlbe land wilb some measure of balance and respect, a tendency which 

H.R. 1425 could support by putting more managerial power in the bands of Indians. 

Good luck wilb Ibis bill and !bank you for your time and attention. 

Sincerely, 

&Jucauon 

D-•:dCom -rg, 

anment 

Pb07 Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc 

122 First Avenue 

Fairbanks, AK 99701 
Frotrl: To: HONOAA8lE BIJ.. RIOiAADSON 

Bo110rabla Bill ll1chardaon 

Cb&irean, Bouoe of llative American 

Affaire Subcomittaa 

U.S. Bouoe of lepraaantativea 

Waohinaton, oc 20515-6201 

Dear .lapraaantativa lichArdaon: 

201 

June 18, 1993 

I aa writing in regard to B.ll. 1425 . The Wichita aad Affiliated Tribes fully 

supports the intent of the legislation to 1aprova the II&D&JeiiA!nt, productivity 

and uaa of Indian aaricultural lu.da and reeourcea, but the.re. a.e•cle ~o b• clarification in certain sections that will aasura that individual property righto 

vill not be affected. 

Por your couideration, the Tribe submits tha follovins co.aauta and rec:oDDD- dationa: 

1. Under SIC. 3. PDllPOSES paragraph (3) laquaga should be added to enoure 

that tha davalopunt and ~~&naaement of Indian aaricultural landa will not be 

leuanad in the avant that the level of dev-lopmant and 11&111g ... nt afforded 

to federally ovnad or controlled lands be lies than that afforded to Indian 

agricultural lando. A ba tter and clearer stata.,.nt would be that the &IIOunt 

of funding devoted t:o the development and unasemant of Indian agricultural 

landa be b1:ouaht up to a level commensurate with. the amouot of fWlding devoted to tha devalopmant and manage11ent of federally ovnad or controlled lands. 

2. Onder TITI.E I SEC. 101. Subsection (1:) (2) (&) language ehould be added 

to an.aure that oach individual Indian land ower ahould be contact~d for input 

into tho daurmination and documentation· of specific tribal aaricultural reaource ao•l• aDd objectiv es. 

3. tinder TITLE SlEC. 102 (&) Tribal Recognition - tho lanauaga ·sbould be redraftad to resemble the language in S. 410. ao that .the recognition of tribal 

lava and ordinances oball extend to Indian landa aa defined in Sac. 4. 

Definitions (7) "Indian Land". We also enc ourage you co :L11•1st that tribal 

reeoanition will not coo.titute a violatiotJ. of the Secretary 1 

• truet. re•pone1bU1ty to Indian lands and ve say tbia in li&bt of the fact tbat tbie provioion has been delated from tho comparabl e! Section 202 (.II) of S. 410. 

Pat•2otl 

JUt I I 8 . '3 3 16: 28 PAG E .002 
202 

4. lh>der TITLE I SIC. 104 ,.. reca.aend that (2) lte delated. In (3) va 

rae_,. that qdcultural lands ba leaoad at ratea laaa than the faclanl 

appraisal only with the illclividual Indian land ownar'a COIISant. Alao, we 

rec.,_nd that (b) and (c) of SEC. 204 of S. 410 ba incorporated into SEC. 

104 of Hi 1425, u:cept that the waiver of the surety or parforunco boacl ill 

(b) Authority of ·the Tribe (2) ahall. occur Ollly with 1an<1 .,.,...r e011aeot and 

thlt (It) (3) ba delated alld thlt th•· ten "fair uwt value" ill (c) ligbta 

of Illdividual Laud Ownera (2) be replaced with the tara "l'edorel apprei11al11 

for tb• aaka of c:.Oiltlietenc:.y. 

S. Wa rec-lld that the diaclaiour in s. 410 Soc. 504 (b) which atate11 

that "Bothina ill this Act shall ba conatruad aa vaat111& tho aov•rllilla ltocly 

of all Indiall Tribe with aay authority which 1a 110t authorized by tho constitution aDd by-lava or other organizati011al doc...,.t of auch Triho" bt! 

addod to llll 1425. 

6. Wo olao rac.,_lld a dt.cla!.aer chit no thins ill thb act ahall of feel: 

tho tax oxaapt otatua of truat illcou. 

We thank you in advance for your conlicleratlon of our roc01111811dationa arul 

for your offorto to iaprovo the IIUIO&esent &nd davelopoMDC Of llldian aari- cultural lallda. 

JUN 18 '93 16:29 

illc•rely, 

#{c/tf~ 

Go;a ... , Prolidonc 

Wichita 6 Affililted Tribea 

,... .. u 

PAGE . Il03 
SANTA CLARA POST OFFICE BOX 580 

(505) 753-7326 

(505) 753-7330 

May 6,1993 

Honorable Bill Richardson 

203 

Cha!nuan. House Native Amenca.I.:. Affair::. .SuiA..v uuuH.Lct 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515-6201 

INDIAN PUEBLO ESPANOLA, NEW MEXICO 

87532 

OFFICE OF GOVERNOR 

Re: Support S. 410 Indtan Agricultural Resources Management Act of 1993 

Dear Congressman RJcbardson: 

Santa Clara Pueblo supports passage of S. 410. There needs to be new dedJcatlon to 

maximum uttHzaUon of and best management pracuces for tribal resources. Agrtculture at Santa Clara Pueblo Is culturally based. The potential for culuvatlon of 

crops offers inCUvtdual and tribal opportunities for economic enhancement. Within the 

Bureau budget and prionues agrtculture seems to be taking a secondary position even at a Ume when fields lJe fallow. Key to thJs Jegtslatlon ts tribal parttc tpatlon In all 

aspects of decis ion~ making. Santa Clara takes a adamant stand on tribal sovereignty. We are completing a self-governance planning phase leading to negotiation of a self~ 

governance compact wttb the Secretaty of Interior. What we lack, have always lacked, 

are resources and htstortcally the rtght to make decisions on how we uae our resources. 

We request tha t you provide leadership In steering this Important piece of legtslation to 

sucx:esoful passage and stgntng by the President. 

s;c~~ Walter Dasheno. Governor 

cc. Senator Pete V. Domenlct 

Senator Jeff Bingama n President W11Uam J . Clinton 

Calvin E. Wain, Intertribal Agricultural Council 

73 ·-?28 Z?? 
204 

MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF P.O. BOX 580, OKMULGEE, OK 74447 (918) 756·8700 

May 13, 1993 

Honorable Bill Richardson 

U.S. House of Representativ~s 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Native American Affairs 

Room 2349 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Congressman Richardson: 

BILLS. FIFE 

PRINCIPAL CHIEF 

SHELLY STUBBS CROW 

SECOND CHIEF 

The Muscogee (Creek) Nation supports S. 410, the Indian Agricultural Resources Management 

Act of 1993, as the legislation attempts to offer further tribal control over the management and 

planning of tribal and individual tribal members natural resources. S. 410 also reaffirms the 

Secretary's continuing trust responsibility to Native Americans regarding the best and wisest use 

of tribal lands. 

Tribal governments have been attempting to regain control of their natural resources for many 

years. The underlying principle is that the tribal government is in the best position to determine 

the long range needs of the tribe and its' membership. 

I urge you to support the legislative proposal asS. 410 further asserts a tribes right to selfdetermination and enhances tribal sovereignty while removing direct federal control over tribal 

natural re."'urces. 

Should there be questions or comments regarding this most important maHer please contact my 

office at (918) 756-8700, anytime. 

Okes Ca, (Sincerely) 

Muscogee 

~~.~ (Creek) Nation 

BSF:EL:sw 
205 

Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma 

May 28, 1993 

R.R. 1, Box 721 

Perkins, Oklahoma 74059 

(405) 54 7-2402 

Honorable Bill Richardson 

Chairman, House Native American Affairs Subcommittee 

1522 Longworth Bldg. 

Washington, D.C. 20515-7393 

Dear Mr. Richardson: 

I write you today to advise you that the Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma opposes the 

enactment of the Indian Agricultural Resource Management Act of 1993. It is our feeling 

that this legislation would be detrimental to the Tribes in Oklahoma. 

The Business Committee of the Tribe adopted Tribal Resolution 1-93-29 formalizing 

our opposition to this act. It is our hope you would share this resolution with other 

congressional leaders to help prevent the passage of this Act. 

Sincerely, 

fi~~o/'9Jz Lawrence Murray 

Chairman 
206 

Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma 

R.R. 1, Box 721 

Perkins, Oklahoma 7 4059 

(405) 547-2402 

RESOLUTION 1-93-29 

A RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE BUSINESS COMMITTEE OF THE IOWA TRIBE 

OF OKLAHOMA OPPOSING THE INDIAN AGRICULTURU- RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1993. 

WHEREAS, the Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma is a federally recognized Tribe of American 

Indians with the constitutional authority under the Thomas-Rogers Oklahoma 

Indian Welfare Act of 1936; and 

WHEREAS, the Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, has, through a continuation of Iowa history and 

organized self government since time immemorial, sovereign powers inherent 

in tribal tradition and recognized by treaties with the United States and in the 

United States Constitution; and 

WHEREAS, the Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma Constitution and Bylaws provide that the 

Business Committee of the Tribe shall be granted the power to act on behalf 

of the Tribe in all matters except those relating to claims or treaties with the 

United States; and 

WHEREAS, the Business Committee of the Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma recognizes the intent 

of The Indian Agricultural Resources Management Act of 1993, referred to 

in the United States Senate as S. 410 and in the House of Representatives as 

H.R. 1425, may be advantageous to Indian reservations with large tribal land 

ownership; and 

WHEREAS, the Business Committee of the Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma opposes The Indian 

Agricultural Resource Management Act of 1993; and 

WHEREAS, the former Iowa Indian reservation has diminished in size with small 

checkerboard tracts remaining; and 

WHEREAS, property rights of individual Indian landowners and the individual Indians who 

are not members of the Iowa Tribe but own land under the Iowa jurisdiction 

may be detrimentally affected and circumvented under Tribal government 

regulation and not in their best interest; and 
RESOLUTION 1-93-29 

May 18,1993 

Page 2 

207 

WHEREAS, the law presently provides that the Secretary of the Interior is charged with 

the Trust Responsibilities to Native Americans and is committed to carrying 

out Federal Trust Responsibilities as stated in certain treaties and agreements 

entered into with Native Americans. 

NOW, mEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Business Committee of the Iowa Tribe 

of Oklahoma hereby opposes The Indian Agricultural Resources Management 

Act of 1993. 

CERTIFICATION 

We, Lawrence Murray, Chairman of the Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, and Mae Sine, Secretary; 

do hereby certify that the above Resolution 1-93-29, to be a true and exact copy as approved 

at a duly called meeting of the Business Committee of the Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma held on 

May 18, 1993, by a vote of 3 yeas, 0 nays, and 1 abstention. ..., 

fl,(Y ' ./~ Mae Sine, Secretary 

Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma 
Honorable Bill Richardon 

Chairman, House Native American 

Affairs Subcommittee 

US House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515-6201 

Dear Mr. Richardson: 

208 

April, 13, 1993 

As an individual landowner I am strongly opposed to the passage of 

S.410 and HR 1425 (The Indian Agricultural Bill). The proposed 

legislation would place individual allotted lands under the 

management control of the tribe. 

You need to explore the possibility of a 5th Amendment Taking Issue 

prior to passage of this bill. The tribe will be able to tell us 

what we can and cannot do with our lands and we will be subject to 

the political whims of the tribal government. If" we don't have 

relatives in the right places in the tribal government, we will be 

subject to political decisions which may not be in our best 

interest. We would also be required to award leases to Indian 

operators over non-Indians even if it means a loss of income. Our 

elderly Indian people own the largest amounts of indiv idually owned 

land on the reservation and depend on that lec1se income for 

subsistence. A $50 /month decrease of income doesn • t make much 

difference in Washington, DC; however, in North and South Dakota 

that decrease of income makes a differenc e in the standard o f 

living. American Indi~ns already live in some of the worst poverty 

situations in the U~; why should they subsidize the Indian 

operator? Maybe Congress could explore ways to subsidize the 

Indian operator (like is done with farming) so the Indian 

individual will not be required to make this sacrifice. Also, 

after passage of this bill, the bonding requirHments will be 

lessened so again the Indian landowner will lose out if the Indian 

operator breaks the lease. What about the United States • trust 

responsibililty to the individual Indian? 

I am not opposed to tribal zoning ordinances, as l ong as the nonIndian is equally required to submit to the jurisdiction of the 

tribe. Why is this bill only focused on the Indiv idual landowner? 

Thank you for allowing me to speak my mind. 

Sincerely, 

Q~Lo-~~ An enrolled member of the Rosebud 

Sioux Tribe 
aue PALMa. ••· - c:v•••,.... ~NAitO CoaAD, Sit, - jrJftST V1CC.C.MIIA ...... 

~~IN QUftQNI - IMIUIIII YIC~MANOft 

DUfON P' ... UtfiR - n.u•vllD 

III~J 1 !=; 'Cl '1 1 ':!: ':!"7 

209 

OVER 200 YRAN. 0\.D 

tltCVIVIED. NOVIEM.J:R. &a, lel8) 

WA~'-nill Kofc;OOM - CNA"-41M 

f..AWIIUICI: WA"II - IRIIII'I'AIIY 

kOTT TQNIIMAH - PU•LIG fiiEt...WICIN. 

.. UDV .ANTI ITA - N.I.IC IN~RMAY!DN 
210 

Committee on Natural Resources US nouse of ~epres~nt•tlvea 

Room 1324 Long~<orth II Washington o. c. 2051 ~~;; ~ffice Building 

Honorable Sirs: 

IN DrPOSITION TO: 

HR 14 25 - Act of ~merlcan Indian Agriculture Act of 1991 

o! S 410 1993 - Senate Bill - Indl an Agriculture Resource Management . 

JU N IS ' 93 15:35 

Act 
211 

JUN 15 '93 12: 02PM BIA ANADARKO AGENCY 405 247-'3232 P,3 
212 

JUN 15 '93 01: 55.Pt·1 BIA Ai,1ADARKO AGEHC'/ 405 247-9232 

Committee on Natural Resources 

US House of Representatives 

Room 1321 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington D. c. 20515-9998 

Honorable Sirs: 

IN OPPOSITION TO: 

HR 1425 - Act of ftmer!can Indian Agriculture ftct of 1993 

P.9 

S 410 - Senate Bill - Indian Agriculture Resource Management Act 

of !993 

,,J 1'1~ -tAo -HI!; d~d ) L~ 7 r£r~· .l.u&~ --6 . 

..VZ#1.A.ut ZNidP? ii'.t· J IA LA. ;J~k). . 

11 d~ x:f/ di;$ ~!fr, 

f!!;J5c;c )t>7 

)/r/t'vi~ 0/( 7Jk~-/ 

b-1~-q 3 
213 

J\1'1 15 ' 93 !;lllS9PM BIA ~0 AGEI'I:Y 40S 247-9232 

Committee on Natural Resources us House of Representatives 

Room 1324 Longworth Hou•e Office Building 

washington o. c. 20515-9998 

Honorable Sirs: 

IN OPPOSITION TO: 

HR 1425 - Act of American Indian Agriculture Act of 1993 

P.!5 

S 410 - Senate Bill - Indian Agriculture Resource Management Act 

or 1993 

0 






ISBN 0-16-041782-1 

90000 

9 780160 417825