Court Opinion

ID: 2964233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:22:32.775922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:53.087743
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

          No. 95-1944

                    NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE OF RHODE ISLAND AND
                   NARRAGANSETT INDIAN WETUOMUCK HOUSING AUTHORITY,

                               Plaintiffs - Appellees,

                                          v.

                            NARRAGANSETT ELECTRIC COMPANY,

                                Defendant - Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                STATE OF RHODE ISLAND,

                                Defendant - Appellant.

                                 ____________________

          No. 95-1945

                    NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE OF RHODE ISLAND AND
                   NARRAGANSETT INDIAN WETUOMUCK HOUSING AUTHORITY,

                               Plaintiffs - Appellees,

                                          v.

                            NARRAGANSETT ELECTRIC COMPANY,

                                Defendant - Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 TOWN OF CHARLESTOWN,

                               Intervenor - Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                     [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                            Rosenn,* Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                _____________________

               Alan M. Shoer, Special Assistant Attorney General, with whom
               _____________
          Jeffrey B.  Pine, Attorney General, James  E. Purcell, Partridge,
          ________________                    _________________  __________
          Snow  & Hahn, Phillip  M. Sloan, Solicitor,  Town of Charlestown,
          ____________  _________________
          and Bruce N.  Goodsell, Assistant Town  Solicitor, were on  brief
              __________________
          for appellants.
               Randall L. Souza,  with whom  Fred A. Kelly,  Jr., Peter  V.
               ________________              ___________________  _________
          Lacouture  and Peabody & Brown were on brief for the Narragansett
          _________      _______________
          Electric Company.
               John  F. Killoy, Jr., with  whom Law Office  of H. Jefferson
               ____________________             ___________________________
          Melish  was on brief for  the Narragansett Indian  Tribe of Rhode
          ______
          Island and the Narragansett Indian Wetuomuck Housing Authority.

                                 ____________________

                                    July 22, 1996
                                 ____________________

                              
          ____________________

          *  Of the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

                                         -2-

                    TORRUELLA, Chief Judge.  Defendant-intervenors the town
                    TORRUELLA, Chief Judge.
                               ___________

          of  Charlestown  (the  "Town")  and the  State  of  Rhode  Island

          (together, the "State")  seek a permanent injunction  prohibiting

          plaintiffs the  Narragansett Indian  Tribe (the "Tribe")  and the

          Narragansett Indian Wetuomuck Housing Authority (the "WHA")  from

          constructing  a housing complex without obtaining various permits

          and  approvals pursuant to state  law and local  ordinances.1  At

          the heart of the issue  lies the question of whether the  land in

          question is "Indian country" as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C.

            1151(b).   The district court  found that it  is, by virtue  of

          being  a dependent Indian community,  and so declined  in part to

          issue  the injunction  sought by  the  State and  the Town.   We,

          however,  find it is not, and so,  for the reasons stated herein,

          we reverse in part and affirm in part.

                                      BACKGROUND
                                      BACKGROUND

                    The district court relied  on the evidence presented at

          an  evidentiary  hearing  regarding  the  State's  motion  for  a

          preliminary  injunction, which  evidence  the parties  stipulated

                              
          ____________________

          1   This  suit was  initially brought  by plaintiffs  against the
          Narragansett  Electric  Company,  a Rhode  Island  public utility
          corporation.   Plaintiffs  asserted subject  matter  jurisdiction
          under  28  U.S.C.     1331  and  1362.    The State  subsequently
          intervened  in   the  lawsuit   and  filed  a   counterclaim  for
          declaratory and injunctive relief  against the plaintiffs, and it
          is the  State's counterclaim  that  underlies this  appeal.   The
          Narragansett Electric  Company takes no position  with respect to
          the issues  raised by the  State in  this appeal.   We add  that,
          because the plaintiffs have asserted no claims against the State,
          this action  does not implicate Eleventh  Amendment concerns, and
          the  Supreme Court's  decision in  Seminole  Tribe of  Florida v.
                                             ___________________________
          Florida, __ U.S. __, 116 S. Ct. 114 (1995) is inapposite here.
          _______

                                         -3-

          could serve  as the  basis  for the  district court's  decision.2

          Narragansett  Indian Tribe  v. Narragansett  Elec., 878  F. Supp.
          __________________________     ___________________

          349,  352 (D.R.I. 1995) ("Narragansett I").  As the parties raise
                                    ______________

          no challenges to the  district court's findings, we rely  on them

          as well.3  

                     In 1991 the  WHA purchased  the land which  is at  the

          center  of  this  dispute (the  "housing  site")  from a  private

          developer.  See id. at 534  (detailing history of purchase of the
                      ___ ___

          housing site).  The housing site is adjacent to the Tribe's other

          lands, separated from them by a  town road.  The Tribe's  church,

          the long house which  serves as the seat of the  Tribal Assembly,

          and the  offices where the  tribal government meets  and programs

          for tribal members  are administered are all established in close

          proximity to the housing site; a proposed tribal community center

          and  tribal health center are to be constructed on the settlement

          lands as well.  The approximately 32 acres of the housing site is

          located  within the costal zone designated in the State's Coastal

          Resources Management Program ("CRMP").   Also, the section of the

          Town in which the housing site is located is zoned  to require at

          least two acres of  land per residential unit, a  requirement the

          proposed project does not meet, as it will have some fifty units.
                              
          ____________________

          2   As  the  district court  noted, the  request for  a permanent
          injunction  we address here  relates only to  the construction of
          the  housing complex.    We  do not  express  an opinion  on  any
          remaining portions of the case.

          3  The parties do dispute whether the  trust application has been
          withdrawn.   However,  as counsel  for the  Tribe agreed  at oral
          argument, the record  here simply shows that the  application has
          been made and not acted on or withdrawn.

                                         -4-

          As the district court noted, although occupancy is open to anyone

          "it is contemplated that most,  if not all of the units,  will be

          occupied by elderly and low-income members of the Tribe."  Id.
                                                                     ___

                    The  United  States  Department  of  Housing and  Urban

          Development ("HUD") has recognized the  WHA as an Indian  Housing

          Authority, and has provided the financing for the purchase of the

          housing site and  the construction  of the buildings.   HUD  will

          also  provide  money  both  for  managing  the  project  and  for

          subsidizing  the occupants' rent.   The HUD funds  have been made

          pursuant to a  program designed to  provide housing for  Indians.

          See The Indian Housing Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C.    1437aa-1437ff. 
          ___

                    The  WHA bought the land,  and then conveyed  it to the

          Tribe.  A deed  restriction requires that the  land be placed  in

          trust  with the federal  government, for  the express  purpose of

          providing housing for tribal  members.  The district court  found

          that  the  Tribe  had applied  for  trust  status,  but that  the

          application  had not yet been  granted.  Meanwhile,  the land has

          been leased to the WHA, with the approval of the Bureau of Indian

          Affairs ("BIA").

                    The WHA began construction  on the housing site without

          a  building permit  from  the  Town  or  state  approval  of  the

          individual  sewage  disposal  systems (the  "ISDS")  serving  the

          project.   Nor  did the  WHA "obtain  any determination  that the

          project  is   consistent  with  Rhode  Island's   CRMP  or  state

          regulations  designed  to  preserve  property  of  historical  or

          archeological  significance."   Narragansett I,  878 F.  Supp. at
                                          ______________

                                         -5-

          354.   The  district  court found  that  the excavation  for  the

          project has  infringed on the  Town's drainage easement,  and has

          threatened to alter drainage patterns to the detriment of coastal

          and groundwater resources.   At the same time, however,  the ISDS

          systems meet Indian Health  Service ("IHS") regulations.4  "[T]he

          record is silent regarding  the differences, if any, between  the

          State's building code and  the Tribe's building code or  what the

          significance of any such differences may be."  Id. at 355.
                                                         ___

                    To  further  complicate  the picture,  "[t]he  evidence

          demonstrates  that  the housing  site  is in  close  proximity to

          Ninigret  Pond,  a fragile  salt water  estuary  that is  a prime

          spawning  ground for  several  species of  commercially important

          fish."    Id.    The  district  court  found  that  the  pond  is
                    ___

          "ecologically stressed"  already, due  to nitrates in  the ground

          water,  and that  the possibility  exists that nitrates  from the

          WHA's  ISDS systems could reach  the pond "and  worsen an already

          serious problem."  Id.
                             ___

                    In  its detailed opinion,  the district court concluded

          that the  housing site is indeed a  "dependent Indian community,"

          and thus is Indian country  under 18 U.S.C.   1151.   Noting that

          "tribal sovereignty is no longer an absolute bar to the assertion

          of state  authority in  Indian country,"  Narragansett I, 878  F.
                                                    ______________

          Supp. at 359,  the court carried out a  pre-emption analysis.  It

          concluded that  the State's building and  zoning regulations were

                              
          ____________________

          4   IHS  is an  agency  of the  Department  of Health  and  Human
          Services.

                                         -6-

          pre-empted, as was its jurisdiction to regulate the ISDS systems.

          However, it  found that Rhode  Island's CRMP was  not pre-empted,

          and accordingly  enjoined the WHA  and the  Tribe from  occupying

          buildings on the housing  site unless that program's requirements

          were  satisfied.  It also enjoined them from interfering with the

          drainage easement previously conveyed to the Town.5

                    We review the grant of a  permanent injunction under an

          abuse of discretion  standard.   See Caroline T.  v. Hudson  Sch.
                                           ___ ___________     ____________

          Dist., 915 F.2d 752, 754-55 (1st Cir. 1990) (noting that abuse of
          _____

          discretion  standard  applies to  both preliminary  and permanent

          injunctions); cf. Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Guilbert, 934 F.2d
                        ___ _________________________    ________

          4,  5 (1st Cir. 1991)  (applying abuse of  discretion standard to

          grant of preliminary injunction).  

                                      DISCUSSION
                                      DISCUSSION

                                A.  The Settlement Act
                                A.  The Settlement Act
                                    __________________

                    The  State makes its first argument on the basis of the

          Rhode  Island Indian  Claims Settlement  Act  of 1978,  25 U.S.C.

             1701-1716 (the "Settlement  Act").  We begin  with the history

          of the Settlement Act, and then address the State's contention.

                                    1.  Background
                                    1.  Background
                                        __________

                    The background  of the  relationship between the  Tribe

          and the State has  been addressed in some detail by  the district
                              
          ____________________

          5  The Tribe has  not appealed from the district  court's partial
          grant of injunctive relief.  The court found that it did not need
          to  make a  determination  regarding  whether  state  regulations
          regarding   property   with   historical   and/or   archeological
          significance   applied,  since   the   Rhode  Island   Historical
          Preservation Commission  had notified  the Tribe that  it had  no
          objection to the project as planned.

                                         -7-

          court below, Narragansett  I, 878 F. Supp. at  353-55, as well as
                       _______________

          in  prior  decisions of  the courts  of  this circuit,  see Rhode
                                                                  ___ _____

          Island v. Narragansett Indian Tribe, 19 F.3d 685, 689 (1st Cir.),
          ______    _________________________

          cert. denied,  __ U.S.  __, 115  S.  Ct. 298  (1994); Maynard  v.
          ____________                                          _______

          Narragansett  Indian Tribe, 984  F.2d 14, 15-16  (1st Cir. 1993);
          __________________________

          Town  of Charlestown v. United  States, 696 F.  Supp. 800, 801-05
          ____________________    ______________

          (D.R.I. 1988), aff'd, 873 F.2d 1433 (1st Cir. 1989); Narragansett
                         _____                                 ____________

          Tribe of Indians v. Murphy, 426  F. Supp. 132, 134 (D.R.I. 1976);
          ________________    ______

          Narragansett Tribe of  Indians v. Southern R.I.  Land Dev. Corp.,
          ______________________________    ______________________________

          418 F. Supp. 798,  802-03 (D.R.I. 1976).  Therefore,  rather than

          enter  into a  detailed discussion,  we will  simply outline  the

          essential  structure  of  the  historical  underpinnings  of  the

          State's first argument.

                    In  the mid-1970s,  the  Tribe brought  two actions  to

          establish  its right  to possession  of lands which  it contended

          were  unlawfully held by the State as well as private individuals

          and businesses.  The ground for its claims was that the lands had

          been   unlawfully   alienated   in   violation   of  the   Indian

          Nonintercourse Act, 25 U.S.C.   177.  See Southern R.I. Land Dev.
                                                ___ _______________________

          Corp., 418  F. Supp. at  802-03 (recounting history  of dispute).
          _____

          The parties to the dispute settled the claims in 1978 by entering

          into a Joint Memorandum of Understanding.  The Tribe relinquished

          its title  claims, and  in return received  a sum  of money6  and
                              
          ____________________

          6   The Tribe notes that  it disagrees with the  district court's
          statement that the Tribe received a  payment under the Settlement
          Act,  maintaining that there was  neither a payment  to the Tribe
          nor  a distribution of money or land to individual Tribe members.
          Whether or not  the Tribe received a payment is irrelevant to our

                                         -8-

          effective  control over some 1,800 acres of land, whose title was

          held  by a  corporation (the  "settlement lands").   Implementing

          legislation  was passed by the United States Congress in the form

          of the Settlement  Act, and  by the Rhode  Island legislature  as

          well, see Narragansett Indian Land Management Corporation Act, 6A
                ___

          R.I. Gen. Laws    37-18-1 to 37-18-15 (1990).  See generally Town
                                                         _____________ ____

          of Charlestown, 696 F. Supp. at 801-05 (detailing the history and
          ______________

          provisions of the Settlement Act).  

                    In 1983,  the Narragansetts were  officially recognized

          as an Indian  tribe.  See Narragansett  Indian Tribe, 19  F.3d at
                                ___ __________________________

          689.   In 1988, the Tribe deeded the settlement lands to the BIA,

          to be held  in trust.  Id.  This court has held that although the
                                 ___

          Settlement Act allows State  civil and criminal jurisdiction over

          the settlement lands, with some exceptions, the Tribe nonetheless

          has "concurrent  jurisdiction over, and  exercise[s] governmental

          power  with  respect to,  those lands."    Id. (holding  that the
                                                     ___

          Indian Gaming Regulatory  Act, 25 U.S.C.    2701-2721,  18 U.S.C.

             1166-1168, applies to the settlement lands).

                               2.  The Present Dispute
                               2.  The Present Dispute
                                   ___________________

                    The  State's first  contention in  the present  case is

          that  the Settlement  Act  precludes a  finding that  the housing

          site,  which is  not  part of  the  settlement lands,  is  Indian

          country,  because that Act  resolved the Tribe's  land claims and

          established the boundaries of the Tribe's Indian country in Rhode

          Island.  It maintains that we should interpret section 1705(a)(3)
                              
          ____________________

          consideration of the issue at hand.

                                         -9-

          of  the Settlement Act as extinguishing all of the Tribe's claims

          and  limiting  the  boundaries  of  its  Indian  country.7    The

          linchpin  of its argument is its contention that it was Congress'

          intent  in the  Settlement  Act to  set  definite limits  to  the

          Tribe's  Indian country and  to extinguish  any claim  to greater

          boundaries, and  congressional intent must prevail.   See Rosebud
                                                                ___ _______

          Sioux  Tribe v.  Kneip, 430  U.S. 584,  586 (1976)  (noting "that
          ____________     _____

          congressional  intent  will  control" in  determining  whether  a

          reservation has  been terminated).   Such a specific  statute, it

          maintains, overrides the general definition of "Indian country."

                    The Tribe responds with two counter-arguments.   First,

          it  maintains that the State effectively  waived this argument by
                              
          ____________________

          7    The  pertinent  section   provides  that  upon  the  State's
          compliance  with the conditions  of the  Settlement Act,  and the
          recognition of the same by the Secretary of the Interior, 

                         by   virtue  of  the   approval  of  a
                      transfer  of  land  or natural  resources
                      effected   by   this   section,   or   an
                      extinguishment   of    aboriginal   title
                      effected thereby, all claims  against the
                      United States, any  State or  subdivision
                      thereof,  or any other  person or entity,
                      by  the Indian  Corporation or  any other
                      entity presently  or at  any time  in the
                      past  known as the  Narragansett Tribe of
                      Indians, or any predecessor  or successor
                      in   interest,   member  or   stockholder
                      thereof,  or  any  other  Indian,  Indian
                      nation,  or  tribe  of  Indians,  arising
                      subsequent to the transfer and based upon
                      any  interest in or  right involving such
                      land or natural resources  (including but
                      not  limited  to   claims  for   trespass
                      damages or claims for use  and occupancy)
                      shall be regarded  as extinguished as  of
                      the date of the transfer.

          25 U.S.C.   1705(a)(3).

                                         -10-

          making only passing reference  to it in the court  below, without

          supporting it  with statutory analysis  or legal authority.   See
                                                                        ___

          Rodr guez-Pinto  v. Tirado-Delgado,  982  F.2d 34,  41 (1st  Cir.
          _______________     ______________

          1993) (reaffirming  that "arguments made in  a perfunctory manner

          below are deemed waived on appeal"). 

                    Second, the  Tribe contends  that even if  the argument

          was not waived, the Settlement Act  only extinguished the Tribe's

          aboriginal  title  claims.    "Aboriginal  title,"  alternatively
          __________

          called "Indian title," is "the right of Indian tribes to  use and

          occupy 'lands they had inhabited from time immemorial.'"  Mashpee
                                                                    _______

          Tribe v. Secretary  of the  Interior, 820 F.2d  480, 481-82  (1st
          _____    ___________________________

          Cir. 1987) (quoting County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 470
                              ________________    ____________________

          U.S. 226, 234 (1985)).   The Tribe points out that  this is not a

          title action, and that it does not claim  aboriginal title to the

          housing  site.   Further, it  notes that on  the face  of section

          1705(a)(3), the Tribe agreed  to "an extinguishment of aboriginal

          title,"   but  there  is  no  express  language  in  the  statute

          extinguishing  any  right  to  purchase  other  lands.    If  the

          Settlement  Act did  not abrogate the  Tribe's right  to purchase

          other lands, the Tribe continues, it did not limit its ability to

          gain sovereign authority over  such lands that it acquires.   The

          weight  of this  reading  of the  statute  is heightened  by  the

          "distinctive perspective" from which we view statutes that "touch

          on Indian  sovereignty."  State  of R.I., 19  F.3d at 691.   "The
                                    ______________

          congressional intent [to terminate  a reservation] must be clear,

          to overcome 'the general rule that "[d]oubtful expressions are to

                                         -11-

          be resolved in  favor of the weak and  defenseless people who are

          the wards of the  nation . . . ."'"  DeCoteau  v. District County
                                               ________     _______________

          Court, 420  U.S. 425, 444  (1974) (quoting McClanahan  v. Arizona
          _____                                      __________     _______

          State  Tax Comm'n, 411 U.S. 164, 174 (1973) (quoting Carpenter v.
          _________________                                    _________

          Shaw, 280 U.S. 363, 367 (1930))).   Paternalistic phrasing aside,
          ____

          it is  well established that "[a]  congressional determination to

          terminate  [a reservation] must be  expressed on the  face of the

          Act  or   be  clear   from  the  surrounding   circumstances  and

          legislative history."  Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481, 505 (1973).
                                 _____    ______

                    The  importance  of  this  dispute  over   whether  the

          Settlement  Act terminates  the Tribe's  ability to  increase the

          territory over which  it possesses sovereignty  is manifest.   No

          matter how we hold,  the significance of our decision  will reach

          well  beyond the confines of the current dispute.  Indeed, in its

          brief the State points to at least one pending case  in which the

          issue arises.   Nonetheless,  we leave this  question, which  the

          district  court  did not  address  in  its lengthy  opinion,  for

          another day.   Regardless of whether  the issue has in  fact been

          waived,  we  need  not  establish in  this  dispute  whether  the

          Settlement Act limits the Tribe's Indian country, as  we conclude

          on independent grounds that  the housing site is not  a dependent

          Indian community, and therefore  is not Indian country.   Thus we

          will wait to  address the  issue on the  basis of more  developed

          discussion  below; while it is  at heart a  question of statutory

          interpretation, we  nonetheless prefer to  address the Settlement

                                         -12-

          Act  question at a  time when the  parties, and the  court below,

          have addressed it more fully.

                                         -13-

                                  B.  Indian Country
                                  B.  Indian Country
                                      ______________

                       1.  The Significance of "Indian Country"
                       1.  The Significance of "Indian Country"
                           ____________________________________

                    Serving as  the backdrop to  this case is  the doctrine

          that  "Indian  tribes  are  'domestic  dependent   nations'  that

          exercise  inherent sovereign  authority  over their  members  and

          territories."   Oklahoma  Tax Comm'n  v. Citizen  Band Potawatomi
                          ____________________     ________________________

          Indian Tribe, 498 U.S. 505, 509 (1991) (citing Cherokee Nation v.
          ____________                                   _______________

          Georgia, 5  Pet. 1, 17, 8  L.Ed. 25 (1831)); see  McClanahan, 411
          _______                                      ___  __________

          U.S. at  168-69 (outlining  the roots  of the  Indian sovereignty

          doctrine).   This rule has softened  over time, so that  it is no

          longer  true  that  state law  plays  no  role  within a  tribe's

          territory.     Nonetheless,  the  state's   jurisdiction  is  not

          automatic.  "[S]tate  laws may  be applied to  tribal Indians  on

          their  reservations  if  Congress  has  expressly  so  provided,"

          California  v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202, 207
          __________     _______________________________

          (1987);  where  Congress  does  not  so  provide,  a  pre-emption

          analysis is followed to  determine if state law is  pre-empted by

          federal  and tribal interests as  reflected in federal  law.  See
                                                                        ___

          id. at 216; DeCoteau, 420 U.S. at 427 & n.2; McClanahan, 411 U.S.
          ___         ________                         __________

          at 172.

                    In short, "it would  vastly oversimplify the problem to

          say  that nothing remains of  the notion that reservation Indians

          are a  separate people to whom  state jurisdiction . .  . may not

          extend."  McClanahan, 411 U.S. at 170.  Therefore, the issue here
                    __________

          of  whether  the  housing  site  is  Indian  country  bears  real

          significance,  since "the  Indian  country classification  is the

                                         -14-

          benchmark for approaching the  allocation of federal, tribal, and

          state  authority  with  respect  to Indians  and  Indian  lands."

          Indian  Country, U.S.A. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 829 F.2d 967, 973
          _______________________    ___________________

          (10th  Cir.  1987)  (collecting  cases), cert.  denied  sub  nom.
                                                   ________________________

          Oklahoma  Tax Comm'n v.  Muscogee (Creek)  Nation, 487  U.S. 1218
          ____________________     ________________________

          (1988);  see Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v.  Sac and Fox Nation, 508 U.S.
                   ___ ___________________     __________________

          114, 125 (1993) (rejecting  argument that Indian sovereignty only

          applies to formal reservation lands, stating "we ask only whether

          the land is Indian country");  Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian
                                         __________________________________

          Law  27  (1982  ed.)  ("[F]or most  jurisdictional  purposes  the
          ___

          governing legal term is 'Indian country.'").  If the housing site

          is not  Indian country, there  is no bar  to the exercise  of the

          State's jurisdiction.   If it is,  the State presumptively  lacks

          jurisdiction to  enforce the regulations and ordinances discussed

          here, and we must carry out a pre-emption analysis.  

                 2.  The Section 1151 Definition of "Indian Country"
                 2.  The Section 1151 Definition of "Indian Country"
                     _______________________________________________

                    The obvious question, then, is what constitutes "Indian

          country."  Congress has defined the term as including

                      (a)  all land  within  the limits  of any
                      Indian reservation under the jurisdiction
                      of  the United  States Government, .  . .
                      (b)  all   dependent  Indian  communities
                      within the  borders 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
                      . . . .

          18 U.S.C.    1151; see Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Sac and Fox Nation,
                             ___ ___________________    __________________

          508 U.S.  114, 123 (1993)  (noting broad  nature of  definition);

          United States v. Levesque, 681 F.2d 75, 77 (1st Cir.) (discussing
          _____________    ________

                                         -15-

          origins of   1151(b)), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1089 (1982); Alaska
                                 ____________                        ______

          v.  Native Village of Venetie Tribal Gov't, 1995 WL 462232, *1-*5
              ______________________________________

          (D.Alaska  Aug. 2, 1995) (detailing the history of the concept of

          Indian country).  Here, as the housing site is neither  part of a

          formal reservation nor an allotment, the present  dispute is over

          whether   it  constitutes  a  "dependent  Indian  community"  for

          purposes  of subsection (b) of section 1151, a dispute we discuss

          at length below.

                    Before  addressing that  issue,  however, we  recognize

          that, as the State notes, section  1151 on its face is  concerned

          only with criminal jurisdiction.   Nonetheless, the Supreme Court

          has  repeatedly stated  that the  definition provided  in section

          1151   "applies  to   questions  of   both  criminal   and  civil

          jurisdiction."  Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. at 207;
                          _______________________________

          see also  DeCoteau, 420 U.S.  at 427.   Elsewhere, the Court  has
          ________  ________

          simply defined "Indian country"  in civil cases in  terms closely

          paralleling those of section 1151,  while citing to that statute.

          See Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v.  Chickasaw Nation, __ U.S. __,  115 S.
          ___ ___________________     ________________

          Ct. 2214, 2217 n.2 (1995);  Sac and Fox, 508 U.S. at 123.   Other
                                      ___________

          circuits  have followed suit.  See, e.g., Buzzard v. Oklahoma Tax
                                         ___  ____  _______    ____________

          Comm'n,  992 F.2d 1073, 1076  (10th Cir.), cert.  denied sub nom.
          ______                                     ______________________

          United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n,
          _________________________________________    ___________________

          __  U.S. __, 114  S. Ct. 55  (1993); Alaska v.  Native Village of
                                               ______     _________________

          Venetie,  856 F.2d  1384, 1390  (9th Cir. 1988);  Indian Country,
          _______                                           _______________

          U.S.A., 829 F.2d at 973; see also United  States v. South Dakota,
          ______                   ________ ______________    ____________

          665 F.2d  837,  838  n.3 (8th  Cir.  1981) (applying     1151  in

                                         -16-

          determining  whether a  housing  project was  a dependent  Indian

          community),  cert.  denied, 459  U.S.  823  (1982).   It  appears
                       _____________

          manifest that we can, and should, do the same.

                    The State would  have us conclude otherwise.  First, it

          calls our  attention  to Confederated  Tribes  and Bands  of  the
                                   ________________________________________

          Yakima Nation v. County of Yakima, 903 F.2d 1207 (9th Cir. 1990),
          _____________    ________________

          aff'd  on other grounds, 502 U.S. 251  (1992).  In that case, the
          _______________________

          Ninth  Circuit refused to apply  section 1151 to  the question of

          whether fee  patented land  could  be taxed  by the  state.   The

          court's  refusal was  based on  the reality  that, on  its terms,

          section 1151  is a criminal statute, as well as the fact that the

          taxing  power at  issue  was governed  by  a noncriminal  federal

          statutory scheme.  Id. at 1215.  The Yakima court  made its brief
                             ___               ______

          analysis without mentioning any of the Supreme  Court cases cited

          above.   The State looks  to Yakima as  support for its  argument
                                       ______

          that to transplant section 1151  into the civil context  would go

          against both the  plain meaning of the statute  and congressional

          intent.   We  reject the  State's suggestion  that we  follow the

          Ninth  Circuit's logic in Yakima,  since to the  extent that case
                                    ______

          supports  the  conclusion  that  section  1151  only  applies  in

          criminal  cases,8 it  directly  contradicts the  guidance of  the
                              
          ____________________

          8   The parties did not  discuss the fact that  the Supreme Court
          has affirmed and remanded the holding in Yakima, see 502 U.S.  at
                                                   ______  ___
          251, perhaps because the Court did not directly address the Ninth
          Circuit's discussion of section 1151.  That section is cited only
          twice in  the Court's  decision. It  first appears,  without real
          comment,  in  the majority's  summation  of  the Yakima  Nation's
          argument  that section 6 of  the Indian General  Allotment Act of
          1887 is a dead letter.  502  U.S. at 260 (citing the 1948 passage
          of  section  1151  with  its  definition  of  Indian  country  as

                                         -17-

          Supreme Court.  See Chickasaw Nation, 115 S. Ct. at 2217 n.2; Sac
                          ___ ________________                          ___

          and Fox, 508 U.S.  at 123; Cabazon Band  of Mission Indians,  480
          _______                    ________________________________

          U.S.  at 207; DeCoteau,  420 U.S.  at 427;  see also  Pittsburg &
                        ________                      ________  ___________

          Midway Coal Mining Co. v. Watchman, 52 F.3d 1531, 1540 (10th Cir.
          ______________________    ________

          1995)  (rejecting  argument  that  definition  only  applies   in

          criminal cases).

                    Second, the  State delves into the  Supreme Court cases

          that  provide that  section 1151  applies  in the  civil context,

          attempting to distinguish them from the present case, questioning

          their logic  and underpinnings,  and concluding that  the premise

          that  section 1151  is relevant  in determining  a state's  civil

          regulatory  authority is  in  "serious question."    We need  not

          address these arguments in detail.  See Watchman, 52 F.3d at 1540
                                              ___ ________

          n.10 (rejecting similar arguments).  Aside from the fact that the

          Court reiterated  its reliance on  section 1151 for  questions of

          civil jurisdiction as recently as 1995, see Chickasaw Nation, 115
                                                  ___ ________________

          S. Ct. at  2217 n.2, we  see no reason why  the Court should  not
                              
          ____________________

          impliedly repealing section 6's  jurisdictional grant).  Next, in
          his separate  opinion, Justice  Blackmun notes that  the majority
          conceded  that section  6  can no  longer  be read  as  providing
          plenary jurisdiction  over Indians who reside  on reservation fee
          lands.   502 U.S. at  271 (Blackmun, J.,  concurring in part  and
          dissenting in part).   In support of  that position, he  cites to
          DeCoteau, 420 U.S.  at 427 n.2, for the premise  that the section
          ________
          1151  definition  "demarcates  [the] general  boundary  of  civil
          jurisdiction of States."  Id.
                                    ___
            
             Since  the   Supreme  Court's  opinion  in   Yakima  gives  no
                                                          ______
          indication that  the Court either agrees with the Ninth Circuit's
          discussion of section 1151 or is calling its own prior statements
          into doubt, and  since it  has subsequently  reaffirmed that  the
          definition carries  into an  analysis of civil  jurisdiction, see
                                                                        ___
          Chickasaw Nation,  115 S. Ct.  at 2217 n.2,  we will continue  to
          ________________
          follow the Court's guidance on the application of section 1151.

                                         -18-

          seize on the definition Congress has offered of what  constitutes

          Indian country in the context  of criminal jurisdiction to inform

          its   analysis  of   Indian   country  in   questions  of   civil

          jurisdiction.   See  Cohen's Handbook  of Federal  Indian  Law 28
                          ___  _________________________________________

          (noting  historical  and  statutory  support  for  Supreme  Court

          application of   1151 to questions of civil jurisdiction). 

                           3.  Dependent Indian Communities
                           3.  Dependent Indian Communities
                               ____________________________

                      With  the  background set  out  and  our standard  of

          review established, we turn  to the central issue of  whether the

          housing site constitutes a "dependent Indian community."  We note

          that the question  of whether land owned  by an Indian tribe  may

          fall within a state's civil regulatory jurisdiction appears to be

          one of first impression in this circuit.  See Narragansett I, 878
                                                    ___ ______________

          F. Supp. at 352. 

                    The inclusion of "dependent  Indian communities" in the

          definition of Indian  country dates to  Supreme Court cases  from

          the  early part of this century.   See United States v. Sandoval,
                                             ___ _____________    ________

          231  U.S.  28,  46  (1913)  ("[L]ong  continued  legislative  and

          executive  usage and  an unbroken  current of  judicial decisions

          have  attributed to the United States as a superior and civilized

          nation the power  and the duty of exercising a fostering care and

          protection  over  all  dependent Indian  communities  within  its

          borders .  . . ."); see  also United States v.  McGowan, 302 U.S.
                              _________ _____________     _______

          535, 538-39 (1938).  Exactly what constitutes a "dependent Indian

          community,"  however,  has not  been  defined.   Instead,  courts

          addressing the  question conduct  "a functional inquiry  into the

                                         -19-

          nature  of   the  community,"   weighing  a  series   of  factors

          established by case law.  Levesque, 681 F.2d at 77. 
                                    ________

                    While we  have not  previously faced the  precise issue

          raised  here, in United States v. Levesque we addressed whether a
                           _____________    ________

          region  is  a  dependent  Indian community  for  the  purposes of

          criminal jurisdiction,  framing our focus in terms of whether the

          land  is "both  'Indian' in  character and  federally dependent."

          See id. at  77.  In that case, we applied  the factors set out by
          ___ ___

          the  Tenth Circuit  in United  States v.  Martine, 442  F.2d 1022
                                 ______________     _______

          (10th Cir. 1971), namely:

                      the  nature of the  area in question; the
                      relationship  of  the inhabitants  of the
                      area  to Indian  Tribes  and the  federal
                      government, and  the established practice
                      of government agencies toward the area.

          Id. at 1023 (drawing factors from the discussion in Sandoval, 231
          ___                                                 ________

          U.S.  at  45-49).    Other  cases  determining  whether  an  area

          constitutes a dependent Indian community, including Tenth Circuit

          decisions, have relied on  additional factors introduced into the

          case law  by the Eighth Circuit in United States v. South Dakota,
                                             _____________    ____________

          665 F.2d  837 (8th Cir. 1981).   See, e.g., Watchman,  52 F.3d at
                                           ___  ____  ________

          1545  (adopting the South Dakota additions to the Martine list of
                              ____________                  _______

          factors); Blatchford  v. Sullivan, 904  F.2d 542, 547  (10th Cir.
                    __________     ________

          1990),  cert.  denied, 498  U.S.  1035 (1991);  United  States v.
                  _____________                           ______________

          Azure, 801 F.2d 336,  339 (8th Cir.  1986); Housing Auth. of  the
          _____                                       _____________________

          Seminole  Nation v.  Harjo,  790 P.2d  1098,  1100 (Okla.  1990).
          ________________     _____

          Following  their  lead, we  shall expand  upon our  discussion in

          Levesque to incorporate  the South Dakota factors.   See Martine,
          ________                     ____________            ___ _______

                                         -20-

          442  F.2d at 1024 (noting that additional relevant factors may be

          considered). 

                    Thus, our  first factor  is "whether the  United States

          has  retained 'title to the lands which it permits the Indians to

          occupy' and  'authority to enact regulations  and protective laws

          respecting  this territory.'"    South Dakota,  665  F.2d at  839
                                           ____________

          (quoting  Weddell  v. Meirhenry,  636 F.2d  211 (8th  Cir. 1980),
                    _______     _________

          cert.  denied, 451  U.S. 941  (1981)).   The second  South Dakota
          _____________                                        ____________

          factor encompasses the Martine factors, set out above.  Id.   Our
                                 _______                          ___

          third  consideration   is  "whether  there  is   'an  element  of

          cohesiveness . . . manifested either  by economic pursuits in the

          area,  common interests, or needs of  the inhabitants as supplied

          by that locality.'"   Id. (quoting Weddell, 636 F.2d  at 212-13).
                                ___          _______

          The final South Dakota factor asks "'whether such lands have been
                    ____________

          set apart  for the  use, occupancy  and  protection of  dependent

          Indian  peoples.'"    Id. (quoting  Weddell,  636  F.2d at  213).
                                ___           _______

          Roughly  speaking, the  second  and third  factors weigh  whether

          there is,  in fact, an Indian community, and the first and fourth

          whether it  is a dependent one.   We accordingly address  them in

          that order, ultimately concluding that  the facts reveal that the

          housing site is not a dependent Indian community.

                                 The Martine Factors
                                 The Martine Factors
                                 ___________________

                    The  Martine factors  mandate that  a court  "weigh the
                         _______

          nature  of   the  area  in  question;  the  relationship  of  the

          inhabitants  of  the  area  to  Indian  Tribes  and  the  federal

          government, and  the established practice  of government agencies

                                         -21-

          toward   the  area."    Martine,   442  F.2d  at   1023.    These
                                  _______

          considerations  support the  Tribe's contention  by demonstrating

          that the housing site is a community.

                    First,  as  the  district  court  noted,  the  BIA  has

          recognized the housing  site is in an area "in  which 'a distinct

          [Indian] community has existed since earliest European contact.'"

          Narragansett  I,  878  F.  Supp.  at 536  (quoting  BIA  Internal
          _______________

          Memorandum on Acknowledgement of  Narragansett Indian Tribe, July

          1982, at 9).  While we recognize that fact, however, we also note

          that it cannot  be doubted that  the Settlement Act  extinguishes

          all claim to aboriginal title to the housing site.  See 25 U.S.C.
                                                              ___

            1705(a)(3).  This factor, then, does not weigh in favor of  the

          Tribe.    In contrast,  we  do not  doubt  that there  will  be a

          significant relationship between the  inhabitants of the  housing

          site and the  Tribe:  indeed, the entire point  of the project is

          to establish housing  for Tribe members and to serve  as "a means

          of bringing  the Narragansetts  back together."   Narragansett I,
                                                            ______________

          878 F. Supp. at 356.  This weighs in favor of the Tribe. 

                    Further, some relationship has been established between

          the federal government, in the form of HUD, IHS, and the BIA, and

          the housing site.  HUD financed the purchase of the housing site,

          and recognizes the WHA  as an Indian Housing Authority.   It will

          provide  monies for the  management of the  project and subsidize

          the  occupants' rent,  all  pursuant to  a program  "specifically

          designed to provide housing for Indians."  Narragansett I, 878 F.
                                                     ______________

          Supp. at 354; see  South Dakota, 665 F.2d at  840 (remarking upon
                        ___  ____________

                                         -22-

          similar governmental  activity as showing "[f]ederal  concern for

          the  [housing] project").  The district court noted that the fact

          that  there is a relationship  between HUD and  the community "is

          underscored  by  the evidence  that  many of  the  occupants will

          participate  in nutrition,  education  and job  training programs

          subsidized  by the  federal  government and  administered by  the

          Tribe  on the adjacent settlement lands."  Narragansett I, 878 F.
                                                     ______________

          Supp. at 357.  However, we  note that, as we find below,  while a

          relationship exists to the extent that these federal entities are

          active in the housing site, their  actions do not rise the  level

          of  setting apart the land for the use, occupancy, and protection

          of dependent Indian peoples.

                                     Cohesiveness
                                     Cohesiveness
                                     ____________

                    We  next   weigh  whether   there  is  an   element  of

          cohesiveness  in  the  community,  as  demonstrated  by  economic

          pursuits, common interests, or the needs of the inhabitants.  See
                                                                        ___

          Weddell, 636 F.2d  at 211  (noting that these  elements are  more
          _______

          important  than  density  of  population,  percentage  of  Indian

          residents, or the history and background of the area).  Certainly

          this  factor weighs in favor  of finding this  a dependent Indian

          community:  the project will help the Tribe supply housing to its

          elderly and low-income  members.9  Further,  the housing site  is

          in close proximity to the Tribe's church, the seat of the  Tribal
                              
          ____________________

          9  The  fact that occupancy is actually open  to anyone, pursuant
          to  HUD regulations, does not bar finding this a dependent Indian
          community.  See  South Dakota, 665 F.2d at 842  ("The fact that a
                      ___  ____________
          small number of non-Indians reside at the project does not defeat
          a finding of a dependent Indian community.").

                                         -23-

          Assembly,  the   offices  of   the  tribal  government   and  the

          administration  of federal  programs --  in short,  it is  indeed

          close to the "center of tribal government, culture  and religious

          life."   Narragansett I, 878  F. Supp. at  356.  Nonetheless, the
                   ______________

          fact that the housing will  be predominantly Indian in  character

          is  not enough,  by  itself,  to  establish  the  presence  of  a

          dependent  Indian  community.   See Blatchford,  904 F.2d  at 549
                                          ___ __________

          (noting that  fact  that "Indians  constituted  the bulk  of  the

          population and gave  the area a distinctly  Indian character does

          not convert  the community  into a dependent  Indian community");

          Martine, 442 F.2d at 1024 (holding that "[t]he mere presence of a
          _______

          group  of  Indians  in a  particular  area" does  not  make  it a

          dependent Indian community).

                                 Title and Authority
                                 Title and Authority
                                 ___________________

                    We  turn now to the South Dakota factors which focus on
                                        ____________

          whether the community is in fact a dependent one.   First, we ask

          whether the United States  retains title to the housing  site and

          the authority to enact regulations and laws.  As noted above, the

          federal  government  does not  in  fact hold  title;  rather, the

          housing site is held by the Tribe, who has leased the land to the

          WHA, in a lease approved by the BIA.  While the Tribe has applied

          for trust status, as the record stands,  that status has not been

          granted.  The  fact that the Tribe, not  the government, owns the

          land  does not  preclude a  finding that  the housing  site  is a

          dependent  Indian  community.    See  Sandoval, 231  U.S.  at  48
                                           ___  ________

          (rejecting the  argument that  Pueblo Indians holding  fee simple

                                         -24-

          title to lands  precludes the lands  from being Indian  country);

          Martine, 442 F.2d at 1023 (finding that lands purchased by Navajo
          _______

          Tribe from third party, located in an area  which is "a patchwork

          of  land, some  of which is  owned by  the Navajo  Tribe, some of

          which  is not"  and  which is  not within  a  reservation, was  a

          dependent Indian community); cf. Indian Country, U.S.A., 829 F.2d
                                       ___ ______________________

          at  975 (noting that patented fee title does not preclude finding

          territory is a reservation  where fee title to the  disputed area

          had  passed to the Creek Nation by federal treaty).  Nonetheless,

          this must weigh against  the Tribe.  See Blatchford  v. Sullivan,
                                               ___ __________     ________

          904 F.2d 542 (10th Cir. 1990) (considering, inter alia, fact that
                                                      __________

          private  owner  held  land  in  determining  that  land  was  not

          dependent Indian community, although  it was surrounded by Navajo

          allotment  land); Weddell, 636  F.2d at 213  (noting, inter alia,
                            _______                             __________

          that although  land was  within the  exterior  boundaries of  the

          original Yankton Sioux Indian Reservation, it was privately held,

          and  finding that the land  was not a  dependent Indian community

          for purposes of criminal jurisdiction).

                    The second part  of this factor  focuses upon the  very

          issue   in  dispute  here:    who  has  the  authority  to  enact

          regulations  and laws.  The State's  authority will be determined

          by our decision here.  As for  the federal government, the record

          indicates that it  has exercised  authority in the  form of  HUD,

          IHS,  and BIA  activity, regulations  and financing.   Of course,

          HUD,  at  least, can  provide  financing and  set  regulations in

          other,  non-Indian contexts.  The record does not address whether

                                         -25-

          there  is more extensive federal  regulation here by  HUD than in

          any other HUD assisted, non-Indian project.  Since this factor is

          largely  determined by  our  decision today,  we  find it  weighs

          neither for nor against the Tribe.

                        Whether the Lands Have Been Set Apart
                        Whether the Lands Have Been Set Apart
                        _____________________________________

                    The last  factor we address is whether the housing site

          has  been  set  apart by  the  federal  government  for the  use,

          occupancy,  and protection  of  dependent Indian  peoples.   This

          proves to be the crucial factor in our discussion.  See Levesque,
                                                              ___ ________

          681  F.2d at 77 (noting that this  is the "ultimate issue" in the

          factual analysis).

                      [T]he test for  determining whether  land
                      is  Indian  country  does  not  turn upon
                      whether that land  is denominated  "trust
                      land" or  "reservation."  Rather,  we ask
                      whether  the area has  been "'validly set
                      apart for the use of the Indians as such,
                      under   the    superintendence   of   the
                      Government.'"

          Citizen Band  Potawatomi Indian Tribe,  498 U.S. at  511 (quoting
          _____________________________________

          United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634, 648-49 (1978)); see Sac  and
          _____________    ____                                ___ ________

          Fox,  113 S. Ct. at 1991; Cohen's  Handbook of Federal Indian Law
          ___                       _______________________________________

          34 ("[T]he  intent of Congress,  as elucidated by  [Supreme Court

          decisions],  was  to designate  as Indian  country all  lands set

          aside by whatever means for the residence of tribal Indians under

          federal  protection, together  with  trust and  restricted Indian

          allotments.").  Indeed, the Tenth Circuit regards this factor  as

          a  sufficient measure  of whether  land is  Indian country.   See
                                                                        ___

          Buzzard, 992 F.2d  at 1076 (noting  the existence of    1151, but
          _______

          applying  only the  "set apart  for the  use of Indians"  test in

                                         -26-

          determining whether land was Indian country).

                    The district court found that the housing site met this

          factor's criteria. 

                      Although  the United States does not hold
                      title  to  the  land  and  did  not  vest
                      control over it in the Tribe, HUD has, in
                      a manner of speaking,  set the land apart
                      for occupancy by  elderly and  low-income
                      members  pursuant  to  a need  recognized
                      both by HUD and the Tribe.

          Narragansett I, 878  F. Supp. at 356.  For  the reasons discussed
          ______________

          below, we disagree.

                    Our  first  question must  be what  constitutes setting

          land apart.  As with the concept of dependent Indian communities,

          there is  no established definition.   Having  surveyed the  case

          law,  however, we agree with  the Tenth Circuit's suggestion that

          "land is  'validly set apart for the use of Indians as such' only

          if the federal government  takes some action indicating that  the

          land is  designated for use  by Indians."   Buzzard, 992  F.2d at
                                                      _______

          1076 (quoting Citizen  Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 498  U.S. at
                        _____________________________________

          649   (quoting  John,  437  U.S.  at  649)).    In  other  words,
                          ____

          "[s]uperintendence   by   the   federal   government,   and   the

          consequential  political dependence  on  the part  of the  tribe,

          exists for  purposes  of  section  1151(b) where  the  degree  of

          congressional  and  executive  control   over  the  tribe  is  so

          pervasive  as   to  evidence   an  intention  that   the  federal

          government, not the state,  be the dominant political institution

          in the area."  Native Village of Venetie, 1995 WL 462232, at *14.
                         _________________________

          We do not find evidence of such control here.

                                         -27-

                    Were the  land placed in trust with  the United States,

          this  factor would  have been  met.   Taking land  in trust  is a

          considered evaluation and acceptance of responsibility indicative

          that the federal government has "set aside" the lands.

                      [T]rust land is set  apart for the use of
                      Indians by the federal government because
                      it can  be  obtained  only  by  filing  a
                      request   with   the  Secretary   of  the
                      Interior, who must consider,  among other
                      things, the  Indian's need for  the land,
                      and the purposes for  which the land will
                      be  used.   If  the request  is approved,
                      then the United States  holds the land as
                      trustee. . . .
                         . . . In addition,  before agreeing to
                      acquire  trust  land, the  Secretary must
                      consider  several  factors including  the
                      authority   for  the   transactions,  the
                      impact  on the  state resulting  from the
                      removal of  the land from the  tax rolls,
                      and  jurisdictional  problems that  might
                      arise. 

          Buzzard,  992 F.2d  at 1076  (citations omitted).   Additionally,
          _______

          counsel for the Tribe admitted at oral argument that had the land

          been taken into  trust by the United  States, the issue of  civil

          and  criminal  jurisdiction  would  have  been  addressed.    The

          considerations made  in the trust process  demonstrate that "when

          the  federal government  agrees  to hold  land  in trust,  it  is

          prepared to exert jurisdiction over the land."  Id.  
                                                          ___

                    Indeed, we note that in three of the four cases we have

          found where a  court held  that a housing  project constituted  a

          dependent  Indian community, the land was held in trust, with the

          participation of HUD and an Indian housing authority.  See United
                                                                 ___ ______

          States  v. Driver,  945 F.2d  1410, 1415  (8th Cir.  1991), cert.
          ______     ______                                           _____

          denied,  502 U.S.  1109 (1992);  South Dakota,  665 F.2d  at 839;
          ______                           ____________

                                         -28-

          Mound, 447 F.2d at 158.  In the fourth, Housing  Authority of the
          _____                                   _________________________

          Seminole Nation v. Harjo,  Josephine Harjo inherited a restricted
          _______________    _____

          Indian allotment from her husband, also a Tribe  member.  In 1973

          she partitioned four tracts from the larger tract and deeded them

          to the Seminole Housing Authority, as part  of a federally-funded

          program whereby  Harjo would  make payments  each  month and,  in

          seventeen years,  would own the house and the land.  Although the

          United  States did  not  have  title  to  the  deeded  lands,  it

          continued its "superintendence" of the property for the seventeen

          years of the program, a role evident in the comprehensive federal

          regulations governing the program.   790 P.2d at 1101.   Thus the

          court  found  that  the  government  "controls  virtually   every

          foreseeable legal consideration  touching the property  until the

          [program]  runs its course or  sooner terminates."   Id. at 1102.
                                                               ___

          Although HUD regulations apply  in the present case as  well, the

          Tribe  has  pointed  to no  such  comprehensive  superintendence.

          Further, although the lands in Harjo were not held in trust, they
                                         _____

          were  not purchased from third  parties, as in  the present case.

          Instead, they  were originally part of  Harjo's restricted Indian

          allotment,  and the  portions of  the allotment  she did  not use

          remained  restricted, a  much closer  link to  government control

          then the Tribe demonstrates here.

                    In fact,  we  note that,  aside  from Harjo,  the  vast
                                                          _____

          majority  of cases we have found which analyze what constitutes a

          dependent Indian community since   1151(b) was enacted find there

          is such a  community if the land  is held in trust,   Driver, 945
                                                                ______

                                         -29-

          F.2d  at 1415; Azure, 801 F.2d at  339; South Dakota, 665 F.2d at
                         _____                    ____________

          839;  Mound, 477  F.  Supp.  at  158;  or  as  settlement  lands,
                _____

          Youngbear  v. Brewer,  415  F. Supp.  807,  809 (N.D.Iowa  1976),
          _________     ______

          aff'd, 549 F.2d 74  (8th Cir. 1977).  Similarly,  in Levesque, we
          _____                                                ________

          found a dependent  Indian community where the land was  held by a

          newly  recognized  Indian tribe  as  part  of their  reservation.

          Levesque,  681 F.2d at  78.  On  the other hand,  we note that in
          ________

          most of the cases we found where land was privately held, even if

          by a tribe,  the courts found  there was not  a dependent  Indian

          community.    See  Buzzard,  992  F.2d  at  1075  (involving land
                        ___  _______

          purchased  by tribe);  Blatchford,  904 F.2d  at 548  (addressing
                                 __________

          privately  held  land  surrounded  by  Navajo  allotment   land);

          Weddell,   636  F.2d  at  213  (involving  independent  municipal
          _______

          corporation  on former  Indian  reservation);  United  States  v.
                                                         ______________

          Oceanside  Okla., Inc.,  527  F. Supp.  68,  69 (W.D.Okla.  1981)
          ______________________

          (addressing land held in  fee by non-Indians); Native  Village of
                                                         __________________

          Venetie,   1995  WL   462232,  at   *15  (after   settlement  act
          _______

          extinguished  aboriginal claims,  fee held  by Native  Village of

          Venetie  Tribal  Government).    But  see  Martine,  442  F.2d at
                                           ________  _______

          1023.10   Thus the facts  that the  housing site is  not held  in
                              
          ____________________

          10   We note that in  its brief discussion in  Martine, the Tenth
                                                         _______
          Circuit  did not consider whether the lands had been "set apart."
          442 F.2d at 1023-24.   Later decisions in that  circuit, however,
          have  incorporated the  South Dakota  factors in  their analysis.
                                  ____________
          See  Watchman,  52  F.3d  at  1545  (adopting  the  South  Dakota
          ___  ________                                       _____________
          additions to the Martine  list of factors); see also  Blatchford,
                           _______                    ________  __________
          904  F.2d at 544-49 (discussing  development of the  case law and
          conducting  factual analysis).    Indeed, in  Buzzard, the  court
                                                        _______
          relied solely  on the "validly  set apart"  definition of  Indian
          country,  eschewing analysis  under section  1151.   Buzzard, 992
                                                               _______
          F.2d at 1076-77.

                                         -30-

          trust  or as  settlement lands, and  that the  federal government

          does  not exercise some similar  level of control  over the land,

          weigh against the Tribe.

                    The Tenth Circuit's analysis in Buzzard v. Oklahoma Tax
                                                    _______    ____________

          Commission also weighs against finding the housing site meets the
          __________

          "set apart" requirement.   In Buzzard, as here, the  Indian tribe
                                        _______

          unilaterally purchased the  lands in dispute,  and held title  to

          them in  fee simple.   Instead of  housing, it set  up commercial

          smokeshops  on the  land.  The  tribe claimed  that the  land was

          Indian  country  because it  had been  set  apart by  the federal

          government  for  the use  of  the  Indians.   In  support  of its

          position, it pointed to a clause  in its charter and in 25 U.S.C.

            177 providing that land owned by a tribe cannot  be disposed of

          without  the approval  of  the Secretary  of  the Interior  --  a

          restraint on alienation that  the Tribe acknowledges applies here

          as  well.    The Buzzard  court  rejected  the tribe's  argument,
                           _______

          finding   that  a   restriction  on   alienation  by   itself  is

          insufficient to make the land Indian country.  

                      If  the  restriction  against  alienation
                      were   sufficient   to   make  any   land
                      purchased by the [tribe]  Indian country,
                      the  [tribe] could remove land from state
                      jurisdiction   and   force  the   federal
                      government  to  exert  jurisdiction  over
                      that land without either sovereign having
                      any  voice in  the  matter.   Nothing  in
                      McGowan  or  the  cases concerning  trust
                      _______
                      land  indicates  that  the Supreme  Court
                      intended for  Indian tribes to  have such
                      unilateral   power   to   create   Indian
                      country.

          992 F.2d  at 1076.   Of course,  in the present  case we  have an

                                         -31-

          additional  element:    HUD  and  BIA  financial  assistance  and

          supervision of a housing project that is more clearly tied to the

          community's benefit than the smokeshops in Buzzard.  Nonetheless,
                                                     _______

          the court's concern in Buzzard with unilateral creation of Indian
                                 _______

          country remains a valid one in this case as well.  

                    Ultimately,  as in  Buzzard, we  find that  the federal
                                        _______

          role in the  WHA project  is simply not  sufficient to  establish

          that  the housing site was "set apart" by the federal government.

          Our analysis of the facts here, as well as the facts other courts

          have found  determinative in deciding whether land  has been "set

          apart," leads  us to conclude  that the district  court's holding

          that the housing site had been set apart constituted an abuse  of

          its discretion.    See  Planned Parenthood  League  of  Mass.  v.
                             ___  _____________________________________

          Bellotti,  641  F.2d  1006,  1009 (1st  Cir.  1981)  (noting that
          ________

          "'misapplication  of the law to  particular facts is  an abuse of

          discretion.'"   (quoting Charles v. Carey, 627 F.2d 772, 776 (7th
                                   _______    _____

          Cir. 1980)).

                    We  conclude that  without this  final factor  being in

          place, we cannot find that the housing site is a dependent Indian

          community.  See Levesque,  681 F.2d at 77 (stating  that "whether
                      ___ ________

          the area was established for the use, occupancy and protection of

          dependent  Indians" is  the  "ultimate issue"  in our  fact-based

          inquiry).  While the  first two factors we addressed  support the

          Tribe's  contention  that  the housing  site  is  a  community of

          Indians,  the second two demonstrate that it is not a "dependent"

          one.  Without federal  ownership of the land, as  required in the

                                         -32-

          first South  Dakota factor, or federal action  sufficient to "set
                _____________

          aside" the land,  as required  in the fourth,  we cannot find  on

          these  facts  that the  "dependent" aspect  of  the concept  of a

          dependent  Indian community  has  been established.   See  United
                                                                ___  ______

          States  v.  Adair,  913  F.  Supp.  1503, 1515  (E.D.Okla.  1995)
          ______      _____

          ("Although  the   government's  retention  of  title  .  .  .  or

          government title in trust for an Indian tribe, does not in and of

          itself establish an area as a "dependent Indian community . . . ,

          without  such title,  consideration of  the other  . .  . factors

          should  be unnecessary.");  Native  Village of  Venetie, 1995  WL
                                      ___________________________

          462232,  at *13  (noting that  the question  of whether  there is

          federal  superintendence   "brings  into  play   the  'dependent'

          component").  

                    Put  simply,  it is  too far  a  stretch to  regard the

          government  agency funding  and  oversight here  as evidencing  a

          federal intent to give the tribe presumptive sovereignty over the

          housing   site  by  making   it  Indian  country.11     It  seems

          implausible that a  tribe could  obtain a valid  claim to  Indian

          country  --  and  thus  presumptive sovereignty  rights  --  over

          theretofore  privately-held  lands just  by  purchasing them  and

          obtaining financial and other  assistance from the government for

          their development, without any opportunity for involvement by the

          state,  any negotiated  agreements with  respect to  jurisdiction

                              
          ____________________

          11   Indeed,  outside  of the  context  of tribal  disputes,  the
          granting of  a HUD  subsidy  to a  housing project  would not  be
          viewed  as  evidence  of  a  federal  intention  to  preempt  the
          operation of all other state laws.

                                         -33-

          over the  land, or considered analysis by  the federal government

          such as the one  described for the placement  of lands in  trust.

          Viewed more reasonably, the federal action here at best evidences

          an  intent to assist in the development of affordable housing for

          use by Tribe members,  without necessarily incurring a commitment

          to   exercise  jurisdiction   and   "superintendence"  over   all

          activities  on that land, whether  related to housing  or not, to

          the presumptive exclusion of state laws.

                                      CONCLUSION
                                      CONCLUSION

                    For  the  above  reasons,  we hold  that  the  district

          court's denial of the request  for a permanent injunction insofar

          as  it was based  on the plaintiffs'  failure to comply  with the

          requirements of any State regulations promulgated pursuant to the

          Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking

          Water  Act and those provisions of the Rhode Island building code

          and Charlestown  Zoning Ordinance  is reversed, and  the district
                                                reversed
                                                ________

          court shall enter an order granting the injunction.  The district

          court's  grant  of the  request  for  a permanent  injunction  of

          plaintiffs  from  occupying  or  permitting  occupation  of   any

          buildings constructed  or to be  constructed on the  housing site

          unless and  until all  applicable requirements of  Rhode Island's

          Coastal Resources Management Program have been satisfied and from

          interfering with the drainage easement previously conveyed to the

          Town of Charlestown is affirmed.
                                 affirmed
                                 ________

                                         -34-