Opinion ID: 2109887
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Congressional Delegation or Pre-Emption

Text: Otter Tail asserted that, because DTI is located on tribal/trust lands, and Brendale and Montana involved lands held in fee by nonmembers of the tribe, there is no basis to assert any divestment of tribal sovereignty in this case. Although the Supreme Court readily agree[d] in Montana, supra, 450 U.S. at 557, 101 S.Ct. at 1254, with the lower court's holding that the Indian tribe could prohibit nonmembers from hunting or fishing on land belonging to the Tribe or held by the United States in trust for the Tribe, it is not clear from the opinion that this right derived from the tribe's inherent sovereignty. Rather, it appears more probable to us that the tribe's power over trust lands identified in Montana and Brendale derived from express congressional delegation, or more specifically, from express pre-emption of state authority by federal law. The provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1360(b) clearly deny states the authority, with regard to any real or personal property, including water rights, belonging to any Indian or any Indian tribe, band, or community that is held in trust by the United States or is subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States, to regulate the use of such property in a manner inconsistent with any Federal treaty, agreement, or statute or with any regulation made pursuant thereto.... The Secretary of the Interior has promulgated 25 C.F.R. § 1.4: State and local regulation of the use of Indian property. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, none of the laws, ordinances, codes, resolutions, rules or other regulations of any State or political subdivision thereof limiting, zoning or otherwise governing, regulating, or controlling the use or development of any real or personal property, including water rights, shall be applicable to any such property leased from or held or used under agreement with and belonging to any Indian or Indian tribe, band, or community that is held in trust by the United States or is subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States. [4] The zoning of trust lands in Brendale, as well as the hunting and fishing regulations on trust lands in Montana, clearly fall within the purview of this regulation prohibiting the applicability of state laws with regard to the use or development of Indian property. We are not convinced, however, that a state law allocating electric services between competing utilities constitutes a law governing, regulating, or controlling the use or development of trust property. The Tribe has determined that the property is to be developed as part of its industrial park and that it will be used for manufacturing purposes by DTI. State regulation of the electric suppliers to the property does not preclude the Tribe's use or development of this property. We hold that the PSC's regulation of electric services does not fall within the meaning of a state land use or development regulation prohibited by 25 C.F.R. § 1.4. We therefore conclude, as we did in Application of Otter Tail Power Co., supra , that state regulation is not expressly pre-empted by federal law, and, more specifically, that there is no express congressional grant of authority for the Tribe to regulate in this manner.