Opinion ID: 797852
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jurisdictional Problems and Potential Conflicts of Land

Text: 22 The State and the County's final argument on appeal is that the district court erroneously determined that the land at issue constituted Indian country. According to the State and the County, the district court premised its decision upon a finding that all land taken into trust off reservation, including the land at issue in this case, constitutes Indian country. They assert that the district court used this erroneous finding to justify its determination that the Secretary adequately considered the factors under 25 C.F.R. § 151.10(f), which require the Secretary to consider potential jurisdictional and land use problems. 23 We need not reach the issue of whether the district court erroneously found that the land at issue in this case constitutes Indian country because we conclude that the Secretary adequately considered potential jurisdictional and land use problems in deciding to take land into trust for the FSST. Section 151.10(f) requires the Secretary to consider [j]urisdictional problems and potential conflicts of land use which may arise in evaluating requests for the acquisition of land in trust status when the land is located within or contiguous to an Indian reservation. Here, the Secretary adequately considered such problems, concluding: Once this land is in trust status there will be no obvious jurisdictional problems which may arise. This land is adjacent to the existing reservation and will be under the Tribe's civil, regulatory and criminal jurisdiction as the Tribe plans to have this land proclaimed to be a part of their reservation. Once the property is placed in trust status, the Tribe will make formal application to officially proclaim this trust property reservation land, which should resolve the jurisdiction issues. The Tribe and the City of Flandreau have joined together to form a City/Tribal Police Department, which will have law enforcement jurisdiction over the subject land. An agreement has been entered into for fire and police protection between the Tribe and the City. 24 There is an existing dispute regarding state and tribal sales taxation for retail sales at the Royal River Casino but this dispute will not affect these lands since retail sales will not be performed on this land. The Tribe has clearly expressed that these lands will not be used for gaming purposes. 25 The County currently has this property zoned for agricultural use and that's the way the land will be used until the time comes when the Tribe may have need to use the land for homesites. If the land were to remain in fee status, the County would only allow one house per 40 acres of land. This clearly would cause jurisdictional problems if the land remained in fee status and if the Tribe should ever desire to use the land for housing needs. 26 (Emphasis in original).