** PART II **
** INDIAN COUNTRY - FIREFIGHTING **
AS TO INDIVIDUAL ALLOTMENTS WHICH STILL RETAIN THEIR CHARACTER OF INDIAN COUNTRY, AD VALOREM TAXES ARE NOT PAID TO THE COUNTY BY THE INDIAN LANDOWNER. HOWEVER, IT IS MY GUESS THAT THE INDIAN COUNTRY LANDOWNER DOES PAY FOR UTILITIES, FIRE AND POLICE PROTECTION, ETC., THE SAME AS AN INDIVIDUAL NOT RESIDING IN INDIAN COUNTRY. I KNOW OF NO OKLAHOMA INDIAN TRIBE WHICH MAINTAINS A FIRE DEPARTMENT. BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF INDIAN LAND IN OKLAHOMA, IT WOULD BE ECONOMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR A TRIBE TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE FIRE PROTECTION FOR ALL OF ITS MEMBERS WHO RESIDE IN INDIAN COUNTRY. FOR EXAMPLE, THE LANDS OF THE CHEROKEE NATION ENCOMPASS FOURTEEN (14) COUNTIES. INDIVIDUAL ALLOTMENT TRACTS ARE SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THAT AREA. THE CHEROKEES COULD NOT MAINTAIN ENOUGH FIRE STATIONS TO SERVICE SUCH A LARGE AREA, PARTICULARLY WHERE THEIR SERVICE AREAS ARE SPREAD OUT RANDOMLY THROUGHOUT THAT AREA. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENT COULD LEGITIMATELY BE MADE THAT PROVISION OF FIRE PROTECTION TO INDIANS IN INDIAN COUNTRY DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHTS OF THE TRIBES TO SELF-GOVERNANCE, AND THEREFORE IS LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE. II. AND III.
YOUR SECOND AND THIRD QUESTIONS, AS REWORDED, ASK IF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL MAY INSPECT INDIAN OWNED BUSINESSES ON INDIAN COUNTRY AND REQUIRE THAT SUCH BUSINESSES COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE CODES.
THE STATE'S AUTHORITY TO ZONE INDIAN COUNTRY, AND THE TRIBE'S AUTHORITY TO ZONE NON-MEMBERS IN INDIAN COUNTRY, HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF COMPLEX LITIGATION. SEE E.G. BRENDALE V. CONFEDERATED YAKIMA NATION, 492 U.S., 106 L.ED.2D 343, 109 S.CT. (1989); SANQRE DE CRISTO, SUPRA; PEOPLE V. RHOADES, 90 CAL.RPTR. 794 (1970); SNOHOMISH COUNTY V. SEATTLE DISPOSAL COMPANY, 425 P.2D 22 (WASH. 1967).
THE BRENDALE CASE DEALT WITH THE TRIBE'S POWER TO ZONE NON-TRIBAL MEMBERS WHO RESIDE;ON ITS RESERVATION. THE REMAINING CASES DEAL WITH THE STATE, COUNTY, OR MUNICIPALITY'S POWER TO REGULATE BY ZONING, PLATTING, ETC., INDIAN COUNTRY WHICH FALLS WITHIN THEIR BOUNDARIES. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE SANQRE DE CRISTO CASE, THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SANTA FE SOUGHT TO REGULATE, BY PLATTING, A LEASEHOLD WHICH WAS INDIAN COUNTRY OF THE TESUQUE PUEBLO. THE NEW MEXICO COURT CONCLUDED:
"(I)T IS OBVIOUS TO US THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO AND HAS ACCOMPLISHED BY ITS ENACTMENTS AND THE EXTENSIVE AND ALL-INCLUSIVE REGULATIONS PROMULGATED THERETO, A PREEMPTION BY OR A RESERVATION IN THE UNITED STATES OF ALL CONTROL OVER THE LEASING OF INDIAN LANDS, AND THIS INCLUDES THE SUBDIVISION, PLANNING AND PLATTING OF THESE LANDS FOR THE USES TO BE MADE THEREOF DURING THE TERM OF THE LEASEHOLD. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE IS NO ROOM FOR THE STATE OR ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS TO IMPOSE ADDITIONAL OR CONFLICTING CONTROL RELATING TO THE SUBDIVISION, PLANNING OR PLATTING OF THE LANDS."
SAN RE DE CRISTO, 503 P.2D AT 331. BOTH THE RHOADES AND THE SNOHOMISH CASES DEAL WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE TO ZONE INDIAN COUNTRY. THEY REACH OPPOSITE RESULTS. RHOADES HELD THAT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COULD REQUIRE AN INDIAN MAN ON INDIAN COUNTRY TO MAINTAIN A