Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

114th Congress    }                                         {    Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session       }                                         {    114-715

======================================================================



 
  SANTA YNEZ BAND OF CHUMASH MISSION INDIANS LAND TRANSFER ACT OF 2016

                                _______
                                

 September 6, 2016.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Bishop of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted 
                             the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1157]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 1157) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior 
to take land into trust for the benefit of the Santa Ynez Band 
of Chumash Mission Indians, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment 
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission 
Indians Land Transfer Act of 2016''.

SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF LAND IN TRUST FOR SANTA YNEZ BAND OF CHUMASH 
                    MISSION INDIANS.

  (a) Transfer and Administration.--
          (1) Transfer of lands into trust.--If the Tribe transfers 
        title to the land described in subsection (b) to the United 
        States, the Secretary shall take that land into trust for the 
        benefit of the Tribe, subject to valid existing rights and to 
        the terms relating to an easement as set forth in the 
        stipulated judgment in Willard W. Shepherd v. Fess Parker Ranch 
        LLC filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for 
        the County of Santa Barbara on January 26, 2004.
          (2) Administration.--The land transferred under paragraph (1) 
        shall be part of the Santa Ynez Indian Reservation and 
        administered in accordance with the laws and regulations 
        generally applicable to land held in trust by the United States 
        for an Indian tribe.
          (3) Effect.--For purposes of certain California State laws 
        (including the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, 
        Government Code Section 51200, et seq.), placing the land 
        described in subsection (b) into trust shall remove any 
        restrictions on the property pursuant to California Government 
        Code Section 51295 or any other provision of such Act.
  (b) Legal Description of Lands Transferred.--The lands to be 
transferred pursuant to this Act are described as follows:
Legal Land Description/Site Location:
Real property in the unincorporated area of the County of Santa 
Barbara, State of California, described as follows:
PARCEL 1: (APN: 141-121-51 AND PORTION OF APN 141-140-10)
LOTS 9 THROUGH 18, INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT 18, IN THE COUNTY OF SANTA 
BARBARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP SHOWING THE 
SUBDIVISIONS OF THE CANADA DE LOS PINOS OR COLLEGE RANCHO, FILED IN 
RACK 3, AS MAP 4 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
THIS LEGAL IS MADE PURSUANT TO THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 
RECORDED DECEMBER 5, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 01-105580 OF OFFICIAL 
RECORDS.
PARCEL 2: (PORTION OF APN: 141-140-10)
LOTS 1 THROUGH 12, INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT 24, IN THE COUNTY OF SANTA 
BARBARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP SHOWING THE 
SUBDIVISIONS OF THE CANADA DE LOS PINOS OR COLLEGE RANCHO, FILED IN 
RACK 3, AS MAP 4 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
THIS LEGAL IS MADE PURSUANT TO THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 
RECORDED DECEMBER 5, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 01-105581 OF OFFICIAL 
RECORDS.
PARCEL 3: (PORTIONS OF APNS: 141-230-23 AND 141-140-10)
LOTS 19 AND 20 OF TRACT 18 AND THAT PORTION OF LOTS 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 
AND 15 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT 16, IN THE COUNTY OF SANTA 
BARBARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP SHOWING THE 
SUBDIVISIONS OF THE CANADA DE LOS PINOS OR COLLEGE RANCHO, FILED IN 
RACK 3, AS MAP 4 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, 
THAT LIES NORTHEASTERLY OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND GRANTED 
TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY AN EXECUTOR'S DEED RECORDED APRIL 2, 1968 
IN BOOK 2227, PAGE 136 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.
THIS LEGAL IS MADE PURSUANT TO THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 
RECORDED DECEMBER 5, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 01-105582 OF OFFICIAL 
RECORDS.
PARCEL 4: (APN: 141-240-02 AND PORTION OF APN: 141-140-10)
LOTS 1 THROUGH 12, INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT 25, IN THE COUNTY OF SANTA 
BARBARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP SHOWING THE 
SUBDIVISIONS OF THE CANADA DE LOS PINOS OR COLLEGE RANCHO, FILED IN 
RACK 3, AS MAP 4 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
THIS LEGAL IS MADE PURSUANT TO THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 
RECORDED DECEMBER 5, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 01-105583 OF OFFICIAL 
RECORDS.
PARCEL 5: (PORTION OF APN: 141-230-23)
THAT PORTION OF LOTS 3 AND 6 OF TRACT 16, IN THE COUNTY OF SANTA 
BARBARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP SHOWING THE 
SUBDIVISIONS OF THE CANADA DE LOS PINOS OR COLLEGE RANCHO, FILED IN 
RACK 3, AS MAP 4 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, 
THAT LIES NORTHEASTERLY OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND GRANTED 
TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY AN EXECUTOR'S DEED RECORDED APRIL 2, 1968 
IN BOOK 2227, PAGE 136 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.
THIS LEGAL IS MADE PURSUANT TO THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 
RECORDED DECEMBER 5, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 01-105584 OF OFFICIAL 
RECORDS.
  (c) Rules of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall--
          (1) enlarge, impair, or otherwise affect any right or claim 
        of the Tribe to any land or interest in land that is in 
        existence before the date of the enactment of this Act;
          (2) affect any water right of the Tribe in existence before 
        the date of the enactment of this Act; or
          (3) terminate or limit any access in any way to any right-of-
        way or right-of-use issued, granted, or permitted before the 
        date of the enactment of this Act.
  (d) Restricted Use of Transferred Lands.--The Tribe may not conduct, 
on the land described in subsection (b) taken into trust for the Tribe 
pursuant to this Act, gaming activities--
          (1) as a matter of claimed inherent authority; or
          (2) under any Federal law, including the Indian Gaming 
        Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and regulations 
        promulgated by the Secretary or the National Indian Gaming 
        Commission under that Act.
  (e) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section:
          (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
        the Interior.
          (2) Tribe.--The term ``Tribe'' means the Santa Ynez Band of 
        Chumash Mission Indians.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 1157 is to authorize the Secretary of 
the Interior to take land into trust for the benefit of the 
Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    The Santa Ynez Reservation was established in 1901 in 
California under the authority of the Act of January 12, 1891, 
for members of the Chumash tribe. European diseases took a 
large toll on the original population of the Chumash people.\1\ 
Today, the Tribe has about 140 enrolled members and more than a 
thousand descendants (i.e., individuals of Chumash ancestry who 
do not qualify for membership in the Tribe), and its 
reservation of about 138 acres is located in Santa Barbara 
County.\2\ The Tribe constructed a casino and hotel resort on 
its reservation pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 
(IGRA, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and this facility has lifted 
the Tribe from historic poverty to economic success. With other 
private investments in the region, the Tribe has become one of 
the largest employers in Santa Barbara County.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Tiller's Guide to Indian Country, 3rd Edition. Veronica E. 
Valarde Tiller at 340 (2015).
    \2\Written statement of Vincent Armenta, Chairman, Santa Ynez Band 
of Chumash Indians, Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs 
oversight hearing on Indian lands: Exploring resolutions to disputes 
concerning Indian tribes, state, and local governments, and private 
landowners over land use and development, August 2, 2012.
    \3\Tiller's Guide to Indian Country, 3rd Edition. Veronica E. 
Valarde Tiller at 340 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The current reservation also hosts dense tribal housing 
that was originally built through Department of Housing and 
Urban Development low income grant programs; these grants were 
obtained prior to the Tribe's successful operation of gaming 
under IGRA. The Tribe reports that relatively few of its 
members reside on the reservation.
    In 2010, the Tribe purchased a 1,400-acre tract of land 
known as Camp 4, located about two miles from the reservation 
in an unincorporated area of Santa Barbara County,\4\ from the 
Fess Parker estate. The Tribe has testified it intends to use 
Camp 4 for suitable tribal housing for its current and future 
members. At present, the landscape of Camp 4 is mainly 
agricultural in character. Under California law and Santa 
Barbara County zoning rules--including the Williamson Act\5\--
the property may not be easily converted to the kind of 
developed status the Tribe says it desires to pursue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\http://www.chumashea.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/site-and-
vicinity.pdf
    \5\The Williamson Act provides certain property tax relief for a 
California landowner who agrees to maintain his property as open space 
or for agricultural uses. California Land Conservation Act of 1965, 
Government Code Section 51200, et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To divest the State and County of its regulatory, zoning, 
and tax jurisdiction over Camp 4, the Chumash have requested 
legislation and also applied to the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(BIA) in the Department of the Interior to acquire title to the 
land in trust.
    In December 2014, the Pacific Region Director for the BIA 
approved an application by the Tribe to accept title to the 
Camp 4 property in trust after making a Finding of No 
Significant Impact under an Environmental Assessment prepared 
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The Environmental Assessment describes 
the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the trust acquisition 
as being for ``tribal housing on five or one-acre lots and 
associated facilities. The housing project would include up to 
143 residential units, as well as supporting infrastructure 
including on-site wastewater treatment and reuse of recycled 
water and development of groundwater to meet potable water 
demands.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\http://www.chumashea.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/FONSI.pdf at 
5. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is important to note that when the BIA exercises its 
discretionary authority to acquire land in trust (typically 
under regulations developed pursuant to Section 5 of the Indian 
Reorganization Act of 1934, 25 U.S.C. 465), NEPA is triggered. 
Under its regulations, the BIA also considers certain other 
criteria when taking land into trust.\7\ In contrast, when 
Congress legislatively mandates the acquisition of land in 
trust, NEPA is not applied, and no BIA assessment of local 
impacts is performed. The California State Association of 
Counties and the National Association of Counties--while not 
directly weighing in on H.R. 1157--have previously testified 
that the BIA's fee-to-trust process is broken.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\See 25 C.F.R. 151.10 and 151.11, regarding need for trust land, 
justification, and impacts on others.
    \8\See, for example, statements of Diane Dillon, Napa County 
Supervisor, on behalf of CSAC, and Matthew D. Chase, Executive Director 
of NaCO, Carcieri: Bringing Certainty to Trust Land Acquisitions, 
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hearing, S. Hrg. 113-214, Nov. 13, 
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under rules and policies developed by the Department of the 
Interior, a decision by a Regional Director of the BIA (as in 
this case) to acquire land in trust (for non-gaming purposes) 
may be appealed administratively.
    Following the BIA's approval of the Tribe's application to 
acquire Camp 4 in trust, Santa Barbara County voted 3-2 to file 
an administrative appeal and to file litigation against the BIA 
action.\9\ In addition, other individuals and nearby property 
owners also filed an administrative appeal, arguing among other 
grounds that the BIA violated NEPA.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\http://www.independent.com/news/2015/jan/26/county-appeals-
federal-camp-4-approval/
    \10\See Opening Brief of Appellant Santa Ynez Valley Concerned 
Citizens, U.S. Department of the Interior, Assistant Secretary of the 
Interior--Indian Appeals, December 31, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is unlikely that title to Camp 4 will transfer into 
federal trust until the appeals are resolved. A timeframe for 
the exhaustion of appeals in this case is uncertain.
    Following an Indian, Insular and Native Alaska Subcommittee 
hearing on H.R. 1157 on June 17, 2015, the County of Santa 
Barbara and the Tribe engaged in a number of meetings in an 
effort to resolve differences concerning the placement of Camp 
4 in trust for the tribe. The County formed an ad hoc 
subcommittee to facilitate these discussions,\11\ which two of 
the County supervisors (including the one whose district 
includes Camp 4) characterize as ongoing. The Tribe continues 
to urge the Committee to report and Congress to enact H.R. 
1157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\https://www.countyofsb.org/tribal-matters.sbc
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 1157 directs the Secretary of the Interior to acquire 
Camp 4 in trust for the benefit of the Chumash tribe. 
Legislative acquisition of Camp 4 in trust would waive NEPA and 
render the administrative appeal over BIA's alleged violation 
of NEPA moot.
    Except for a prohibition on gaming, H.R. 1157 imposes no 
restriction on the Tribe's use of Camp 4, and the bill 
clarifies that certain California state laws, including the 
Williamson Act shall no longer apply to Camp 4. The bill also 
provides that nothing in the Act affects any water right of the 
Tribe, or terminates any right-of-way or right-of-use in 
existence before the date of enactment of the Act.
    The Committee recently received a letter from an attorney 
for an individual who owns property adjacent to Camp 4, access 
to which is provided by an easement over Camp 4. The letter 
expresses concern that the right-of-way language in H.R. 1157 
does not adequately protect the property owner's easement 
rights, which are confirmed by the Santa Barbara County 
Superior Court.
    At the Committee's markup of this bill, an amendment was 
adopted to clarify that lands placed into trust by H.R. 1157 
are subject to valid existing rights and to the terms relating 
to an easement as set forth in the stipulated judgment in 
Willard W. Shepherd v. Fess Parker Ranch LLC (2004). Section 
2(c) was further clarified to include that no limitations on 
access may be placed on any existing right-of-way or right-of-
use issued, granted, or permitted prior to the date of 
enactment of H.R. 1157.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 1157 was introduced on February 27, 2015, by 
Congressman Doug LaMalfa (R-CA). The bill was referred to the 
Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the 
Subcommittee on Indian, Insular, and Alaska Native Affairs. On 
June 17, 2015, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On 
July 12, 2016, the Natural Resources Committee met to consider 
the bill. The Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent 
and Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT) offered Amendment #1 that was 
adopted by voice vote. The bill as amended was ordered 
favorably reported to the House of Representatives by a 
bipartisan roll call vote of 29 yeas to 1 nay, on July 13, 
2016, as follows:


            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

    1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act. 
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974, the Committee has received the enclosed cost estimate for 
the bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                   Washington, DC, August 31, 2016.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1157, the Santa 
Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians Land Transfer Act of 2016.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Robert Reese.
            Sincerely,
                                                        Keith Hall.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1157--Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians Land Transfer Act 
        of 2016

    Under H.R. 1157, the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission 
Indians (Chumash Tribe), could request that the Department of 
the Interior (DOI) take into trust approximately 1,400 acres of 
land the tribe owns in Santa Barbara County, California. DOI 
would hold the title to that land for the benefit of the tribe 
if requested. The bill would prohibit certain types of gaming 
on those lands. CBO estimates that implementing the bill would 
have no significant budgetary effects related to holding the 
land in trust.
    Enacting H.R. 1157 would not affect direct spending or 
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO 
estimates that enacting H.R. 1157 would not increase net direct 
spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 
10-year periods beginning in 2027.
    The bill would impose intergovernmental and private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 
CBO estimates that the cost of the mandates would fall below 
the annual thresholds established in UMRA for intergovernmental 
and private-sector mandates ($77 million and $154 million in 
2016, respectively, adjusted annually for inflation).
    The bill would impose an intergovernmental mandate by 
preempting the authority of state and local governments to tax 
land taken into trust for the Chumash Tribe. Information from 
Santa Barbara County about taxes and other receipts associated 
with the land indicates that such revenues total less than 
$500,000 annually.
    The bill also would impose an intergovernmental and 
private-sector mandate by eliminating the ability of public and 
private entities to appeal the federal government's decision to 
take land into trust for the benefit of the Chumash Tribe. The 
County of Santa Barbara and private entities appealed DOI's 
approval in 2014 of the Tribe's application to take land into 
trust. The bill would effectively extinguish those appeals and 
preclude any future challenges by making the trust acquisition 
mandatory if the Tribe requests it. The costs of the mandates 
would be the value of forgone compensation and settlements 
associated with such appeals if they would have been successful 
under current law; however, because no monetary award is 
available for such challenges to the administrative procedures 
and decisions of the federal government, CBO expects that the 
mandate would impose no costs.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Robert Reese 
(for federal costs), Rachel Austin (for intergovernmental 
mandates), and Amy Petz (for private-sector mandates). The 
estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.
    2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or 
objective of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of the 
Interior to take land into trust for the benefit of the Santa 
Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians.

                           EARMARK STATEMENT

    This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                       COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5

    Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that 
this bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any 
specific rule-making proceedings.
    Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not 
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government 
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was 
not included in any report from the Government Accountability 
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program 
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law 
98-169) as relating to other programs.

                PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

    This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or 
tribal law.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing 
law.