[Senate Hearing 113-354]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-354
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'S LAND BUY-BACK
PROGRAM
======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 11, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-971 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chairwoman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JON TESTER, Montana LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TOM UDALL, New Mexico JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
MARK BEGICH, Alaska DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
Mary J. Pavel, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Rhonda Harjo, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 11, 2013................................ 1
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Tester...................................... 7
Witnesses
Greene, Hon. Timothy J., Chairman, Makah Tribal Council.......... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Not Afraid, Jr., Hon. Alvin, Treasurer, Montana-Wyoming Tribal
Leader Council................................................. 16
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Roberts, Hon. Lawrence, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior................ 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Stafne, Hon. Grant, Councilman, Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of
the Fort Peck Reservation...................................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Appendix
Berrey, Hon. John, Chairman, Quapaw Tribe, prepared statement.... 45
Coalition of Large Tribes, prepared statement.................... 29
Fort Belknap Indian Community, prepared statement................ 41
Oglala Sioux Tribe, prepared statement........................... 34
Sanders, Helen, Allottee and Jim Harp, Chairman, Allottees
Association and Affiliated Tribes, Quinault Reservation, joint
prepared statement............................................. 33
Written questions submitted for the record....................... 47
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'S LAND BUY-BACK
PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Indian Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:26 p.m. in room
628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
The Chairwoman. We will now to go to a second oversight
hearing on the implementation of the Department of Interior's
land buy-back program. This hearing is to dovetail with our
last hearing, which was about the fulfilling of the promise of
the Indian Reorganization Act in restoring 90 million acres of
land that was lost as a result of failed Federal allotment
policies and assimilation.
The Federal allotment policy created a situation where
lands were allotted to individual Indians and as those lands
were passed down through generations of families, the number of
co-owners in a single tract of land grew exponentially. Each
individual owner's interest grew smaller and smaller, and now
over 90,000 tracts of lands in Indian Country and over 10,000
acres have multiple owners.
These single tracts of land can have tens, hundreds or even
thousands of co-owners. This severe fractionation of land has
led to the land going undeveloped as it is nearly impossible
for an owner to get consensus with other co-owners on its use
in productive ways.
Since 2006, the Department estimates over 45,000 tracts of
fractionated land have generated no revenue for their owners.
Additionally, the majority of these fractional interests are so
small that even when the land is developed, the owners are only
receiving a few dollars per year. While the Department has had
a program under the Indian Consolidation Act to purchase and
consolidate these interest programs, it has been woefully
underfunded. Additionally, many tribes, including the Fort Peck
Tribes, have established their own consolidation programs,
using their own resources.
The Cobell Settlement is the latest effort by the Federal
Government to resolve the problems of the fractionation and
allow tribes to make use of those lands. The Department of
Interior buy-back program was established as part of the
historic Cobell v. Salazar settlement agreement, which was
ratified through Congress on the Claims Resolution Act of 2010.
This Act created $1.9 billion in funds to purchase these
fractional interests. This significant investment will bring
sufficient resources to these small, fractional interests and
reduce the number of owners in any given tract.
Further, the program calls for giving these interests back
to the tribe. This will allow money to be used for the benefit
of the entire community. Moreover, individuals who are willing
to sell their fractional interests will be provided fair market
value. Thus, the $1.9 billion of investment is intended to
directly benefit individual Indian tribal members and the
larger tribe.
The Department is required to carry out the buy-back
program and distribute this $1.9 billion within 10 years. That
10-year period began on November of 2012, when the Cobell
settlement was finally approved by the Federal courts. It has
now been one year, and so it is prudent to check in on what
that development has been within the Department and to see how
it is progressing.
The Committee is aware that no purchases have yet been made
by the program, and the success of the program can be measured
in many ways, but obviously one metric is how much of the $1.9
billion has been spent and how many parcels have been
purchased.
To be on track to expend the entire fund the Department
would have to, on average, do $190 million in purchases over 10
years. But we now have lost one year. So understandably,
various people of tribal communities are concerned and want to
hear about how the program is going to fulfill its mission in
such a short time period.
This program seems to be a winning solution for everyone:
the individuals, the tribes, the Federal Government. However,
to be successful, it needs to make these purchases happen. So
today the committee hopes to learn how the Department will do
that and anything else the committee can do to help make sure
this legislation has been implemented and this law is
successful.
So I would like to welcome Mr. Roberts, who is the
Principal Deputy Assistant from Indian Affairs, from the
Department of Interior, and ask him for his statement.
Welcome, Mr. Roberts.
STATEMENT OF HON. LAWRENCE ROBERTS, PRINCIPAL
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Roberts. Thank you, good afternoon, Chairwoman
Cantwell, Senator Tester. Thank you for the opportunity to
provide the Department of Interior's statement at this
oversight hearing on the implementation of the buy-back
program.
As the Chairwoman noted, approximately a year ago, the
Department established the land buy-back program to work
collaboratively with Indian Country with both tribes and
individuals to realize this historic opportunity. Congress
provided the $1.9 billion to purchase individual interests at
fair market value from willing sellers. The key to this is that
every acre purchased through this program will be held in trust
and restricted status directly for tribes. It is this important
work that the Department feels very strongly can only succeed
with collaborative involvement of tribal leaders and their
communities.
As sales occur, the program will contribute part of the
fund, up to $60 million, to the Indian Education Scholarship
Fund. We are on track to send our first offers to purchase
fractional interests by the end of 2013.
So I want to take a brief moment to acknowledge the work of
Deputy Secretary David Hayes. He was a key participant in
achieving the settlement. Deputy Secretary Hayes was personally
involved in the program until his departure at the end of June
of this year. And his leadership really helped to steer the
framework of the program that is based on essentially four
pillars.
The first pillar is collaboration. We know that the success
of the program really depends on tribal leaders leading the
effort. For that reason, it is important to work closely with
tribal governments and for tribal governments to perform
outreach efforts and to implement as much of the program as
makes sense and is possible, given our resources.
Providing the assistance and outreach and information to
individual owners is vitally important to the process. Through
the successful leadership of tribal leaders, this program has
the opportunity to expand tribal sovereignty by returning lands
to tribes and essentially undo the harms that were forced on
tribal communities through the allotment policy.
Another pillar that is key to the program is transparency,
consultation and flexibility. So our aim is to work in as
transparent a manner as possible, because not only of the
importance of the program to tribes, but to ensure that the
taxpayers know that the money is being spent carefully and
wisely.
And so when the Cobell settlement was finalized last year,
in November, the following month the Department established a
program and released an initial implementation plan. The
release of the initial implementation plan is important,
because rather than just going forward with a plan and saying,
this is how the Department is going to move forward, we
consulted with tribes in January and February of 2013 and
received comments on the implementation plan.
We have developed a framework for cooperative agreements
through assistance of many tribes, including the Coalition of
Large Tribes, COLT, which played a role in helping us develop
the framework for cooperative agreements. We have issued press
releases as we have moved forward on a number of matters,
including the establishment of base payments, the issuance of
evaluation plans, our revised implementation plan based on the
comments that we received from tribes. We have announced our
first cooperative agreement last week, and we are on track, as
I said, to make purchases by the end of this year.
Efficiency, a third pillar of what we are looking at here,
it is our goal to maximize the impact of the finite amount of
money that we have, given the amount of time that we have to do
so and the resources that we have been entrusted to address the
problem. So first, what we need to do is we need to move
quickly to each reservation. We have 150 reservations with
fractionated interests. And we have to move fast. Appraisals
are only good for a limited amount of time. We have to ensure
that the appraisals and the offers go out soon thereafter.
So we have heard from all tribes that they want us to
implement the program as broadly as possible. We agree with
that. But we also have to move quickly. It doesn't mean that we
can spend 10 years at a single location or five years at a
single location. We need to move the process through quickly.
Secondly, we decided to use a creative but sound methods to
maximize the value of the limited funds, such as mass
appraisals where appropriate.
And the last pillar that we have been working under is,
essentially, good governance. We have had a strong governing
structure internally, including an oversight board that is
comprised of the Solicitor, the Deputy Secretary, Assistant
Secretary Washburn, the Office of Special Trustee, and that
board reviews all the decisions of the program. During these
meetings, these occur more than once a month, we have had
robust conversations and frank discussions about what we have
learned during consultations and in meetings with individual
tribes as we are moving forward.
While the governance process may have caused us to move a
little bit more slowly on occasion, given that this is a major
program with significant decisions, we think that they need to
be addressed through deliberation. We have been entrusted with
the ability to spend $1.9 billion. We need to do it quickly but
prudently. I think that is the sort of balance that we are
striking.
We are getting a good structure in place, and that is
acutely important.
I will conclude by saying what Assistant Secretary Washburn
has often stated, and that is that tribal leaders are going to
really decide the success of this program. They are the ones
that are going to be most persuasive in their communities on
how the transfer of that one individual's interest and land is
going to impact tribes and have a lasting impact on future
generations.
So we are extremely excited about the opportunity in the
program to work with tribes. And I want to thank you for the
invitation to testify today. I am happy to answer any questions
that you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roberts follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lawrence Roberts, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
I. Introduction
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and
Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the
Department of the Interior's (Department) statement at this oversight
hearing on ``Implementation of the Department of the Interior's Land
Buy-Back Program.''
In 2010, Congress enacted historic legislation to ratify and
confirm a settlement between Plaintiffs and the Administration in the
Cobell litigation. The Claims Resolution Act set the framework to help
reverse the fractionation of Indian lands that was set in motion under
repudiated policies of allotment and assimilation.
Approximately a year ago, the Department established the Land Buy-
Back Program for Tribal Nations to work collaboratively with Indian
country, both tribes and individuals, to realize the historic
opportunity. Congress provided a $1.9 billion Trust Land Consolidation
Fund to compensate individuals who willingly choose to transfer
fractional land interests to tribal nations for fair market value.
Every acre purchased through this Land Buy-Back Program will be held in
trust or restricted status for Tribes. This important work can succeed
only with the collaborative involvement of tribal leaders and their
communities. As sales occur, the Program will contribute part of the
Fund (up to $60 million) to the Indian Education Scholarship Fund. We
are on track to send our first offers to purchase fractional interests
by the end of 2013.
Fractionation of land ownership is a prevalent problem on many
Indian reservations, locking up resources over many years.
Fractionation is depicted in maps of Indian country that resemble a
complicated jigsaw puzzle. It spurs the maintenance of elaborate
records for tiny slivers of land interests and affects more than 150
reservations across Indian country where tracts of land often have
hundreds, sometimes thousands, of owners. There are 2.9 million
purchasable fractional interests owned by more than 243,000
individuals. Approximately 90 percent of the purchasable fractional
interests are located within 40 reservations. Fractionated properties
often go unutilized--hampering efforts to alleviate serious issues such
as poverty and unemployment. The Buy-Back Program is one tool that can
help remedy the harms inflicted on tribal communities by the repudiated
policy of allotment by restoring tribal lands to tribal ownership.
II. Implementation of the Claims Resolution Act
The Cobell Settlement was approved with finality on November 24,
2012, following the exhaustion of appeals through the U.S. Supreme
Court. Less than a month following final approval, the Department of
the Interior established the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations
and published an Initial Implementation Plan. The Department released
an Updated Implementation Plan in November 2013, which incorporates
suggestions and responds to comments received during government-to-
government consultations conducted from January to March 2013.
In recognition of the size and importance of the Settlement,
Secretary Salazar established the Buy-Back Program in the Office of the
Deputy Secretary. The Department also established an Oversight Board,
chaired by the Deputy Secretary, to ensure senior level attention, and
to facilitate accountability and coordination across the Department.
Included among the members of the Oversight Board are the Solicitor,
the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, the Director of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, and the Special Trustee for American Indians. The Buy-
Back Program Manager is responsible for leading and coordinating the
efforts of the various offices and bureaus with responsibility for
assisting in implementing the Program. The Program Manager reports
directly to the Deputy Secretary and meets regularly with the Oversight
Board.
During the past year, the Department has focused on establishing
procedures, processes, and the necessary infrastructure to effectively
and efficiently implement the Buy-Back Program. Interior is fully
utilizing the expertise, services, and systems within the Department,
especially in the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of the
Special Trustee for American Indians. We are gaining significant
efficiencies by automating and centralizing the land acquisition
processes. Significant outreach, mapping and mineral evaluations have
been completed or are ongoing at a number of locations. The Department
utilized the expertise of the Appraisal Foundation, an independent-
third party authorized by Congress to issue national appraisal
standards and appraiser qualifications, to review the planned appraisal
methods, and we have adopted the recommendations of the Foundation.
The Department will implement the Program in a flexible manner and
continue to update its approach to reflect lessons-learned, best
practices, and tribal involvement.
We have made progress over the last year in preparing to implement
this unique and massive effort. We have discussed much of the progress
in past public announcements and calls with tribal leaders. Through
this process, we have:
Communicated with 50 tribes (28 with jurisdiction over the
most fractionated reservations).
Met with 9 tribes at or near their reservations.
Published an initial implementation plan which has been
revised in response to consultation with affected tribes.
Established capabilities, systems, and relationships to award
cooperative agreements.
Created and published cooperative agreement guidance and award
templates in close coordination with tribal leaders and legal
representatives.
Began to evaluate nine cooperative agreement applications.
Awarded a cooperative agreement to the Oglala Sioux Tribe,
which has jurisdiction over the Pine Ridge Reservation (one of
the most fractionated reservations).
Obtained review of the Program's appraisal methodology by The
Appraisal Foundation (TAF).
Completed mass appraisal efforts on two reservations,
resulting in fair market values for thousands of fractioned
tracts.
Completed direct appraisals for tribal priorities at one
reservation
Developed capabilities to create, print, mail, and scan
landowner purchase offers at a substantial scale.
Completed parcel mapping for 18 locations.
Launched a substantive website, www.doi.gov/buybackprogram, to
provide information about Program, especially for tribes and
individual landowners.
Hired 42 full-time employees and gained access to contractor
staff for mapping, land research, and database support.
Expanded our Trust Beneficiary Call Center to answer questions
and register ``interested sellers.''
Engaged in regional consultations and other tribal events,
including: Minneapolis (January 2013); Rapid City (February
2013); Seattle (February 2013); Coalition of Large Tribes
(COLT) Meeting (February 2013); Tribal Land Staff Conference,
3rd Annual (April 2013); Gathering of Nations (GON) Powwow
(April 2013); Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI)
Meeting (May 2013); Landowner Trainings at Cheyenne River,
Rosebud, and Pine Ridge (May 2013); COLT Meeting (June 2013);
National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) Mid-Year
Conference (June 2013); Montana-Wyoming Tribal Leaders Meeting
(July 2013); Tribal/Interior Budget Council (TIBC) Meeting
(July 2013); United Tribes Leadership Summit (September 2013);
and ATNI Mid-Year Convention (September 2013).
We have also established important policies such as purchase
ceilings on each reservation to ensure that each affected tribe can
benefit from the program and also set minimum payments for land and
mineral interests.
We recently published a solicitation to work with tribes with more
fractionated reservations that is open now through March 14, 2014.
Tribes with jurisdiction over these reservations are encouraged to
submit cooperative agreement applications or expressions of interest to
participate in the Program. We will continue to review applications on
a rolling basis. By using this approach, tribes will help determine the
timing and sequencing of Program implementation. And the Department
will also consider other factors, such as degree of ownership overlap,
geographic diversity, appraisal complexity, tribal interest and
capacity, and cost and time efficiency.
Tribal leadership and involvement are crucial to the success of the
Program. The Department hopes to enter into cooperative agreements with
many tribes to implement the Program through a federal-tribal
partnership, which will promote tribal sovereignty, minimize
administrative costs, and improve overall Program effectiveness and
efficiency. The Department has worked actively with tribes and has
incorporated their valuable feedback into Program processes and
policies. The Program benefits greatly from the open dialogue,
questions, and interactions with tribal leaders and landowners.
Tribal leaders have overwhelmingly expressed the desire that the
Department expend the Land Consolidation Fund on as many reservations
as possible. Although the Land Consolidation Fund is substantial, it is
unlikely to have sufficient capital to purchase all fractional interest
across Indian country. The Department's Plan seeks to bridge the
potential gap between the expressed desires of tribal leaders and the
available funds by establishing flexible purchase ceilings to purchase
interests at as many locations as possible. Flexible purchase ceilings
are intended to achieve broad use of the Fund and ensure that it is not
expended in only a limited number of locations. The Department will
minimize administration costs (capped at 15 percent) to maximize the
acres consolidated.
III. Conclusion
The Claims Resolution Act has provided a unique opportunity for
Interior and tribes, working together with substantial resources, to
solve a long-standing and serious problem. The Program ultimately will
strengthen tribal sovereignty by transferring lands to tribes to spur
economic development and unlock the potential of tribal lands. As we
move forward together, we will strive to implement the program in a
fair and equitable a manner that maximizes the use of funds to
consolidate tribal lands through voluntary purchases from allottees. We
appreciate the Committee's interest in the Program and look forward to
tailoring the implementation to meet the unique needs of each Tribal
Nation.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Deputy Assistant Secretary.
I am going to turn to my colleague. One of the reasons we
are having this hearing is my colleague and I were traveling in
Montana this summer, and he requested that we have this
oversight hearing. So I am going to let him ask the first set
of questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. First of all, thank you, Madam Chair. I
appreciate your flexibility.
Thank you for being here, Lawrence, and for your testimony.
Before I get started, I would be remiss if I didn't welcome, on
the next panel, the Honorable Alvin Not Afraid, Jr., Treasurer
of the Montana Wyoming Tribal Council, and the Honorable Grant
Stafne, who is a Councilman of the Assiniboine and Sioux
Tribes. We are very honored to have two Native American leaders
and a bunch more in the audience who are here today.
Mr. Roberts, who do you have the cooperative agreement
with?
Mr. Roberts. The Oglala Sioux Tribe.
Senator Tester. And they are where?
Mr. Roberts. South Dakota, Pine Ridge Reservation. And that
reservation comprises approximately 10 percent of the
fractionated lands.
Senator Tester. How many tribes have you done consultation
with?
Mr. Roberts. We had three consultations across the Country
at five different locations in terms of the initial
implementation plans. So there was a consultation in Rapid
City, there was one in Seattle, there were a couple of others,
at least one other location. And then we have met with
approximately 30 to 40 tribes on implementing the individual--
--
Senator Tester. Individually you have, or who has?
Mr. Roberts. The program manger, John McClanahan, has met
with those tribes, and his employees.
Senator Tester. And they have taken information during the
consultation process and gotten back to those tribes?
Mr. Roberts. Yes, most of those conversations have been, I
would say, I guess I wouldn't say consultation in that it is
specific to that tribe's reservation and how we are going to
implement the program, so it is not the broader consultation
policy-wise. Those were done with regard to the implementation
plan but they have held individual meetings to work with tribes
to say, okay, what are the priorities for this reservation,
where do you want us to expend dollars.
Senator Tester. So if I were to ask you what
recommendations came out of Fort Belknap, you could tell me?
Mr. Roberts. I couldn't tell you right here off the top of
my head.
Senator Tester. But you could tell me?
Mr. Roberts. I could go back. I could probably talk with
staff and provide something to you, yes.
Senator Tester. I would love to have that information. I
will have my staff get hold of you on that. I don't want to put
you with a bunch of work, but one of the problems that I am
hearing about is the fact that there hasn't been a lot of
consultation. I know there was one in Billings, because I was
at it. It was big, it was broad-based, there was a lot of folks
there. And it was a good starting point. But then you have to
get down and talk to the tribes. That is what is really
important. You are saying you have done that.
You have an office in Billings, right, for this explicit
purpose?
Mr. Roberts. We have a BIA office in Billings.
Senator Tester. It was set up for the land buy-back?
Mr. Roberts. Yes.
Senator Tester. About 10 folks in it?
Mr. Roberts. I don't know that there are 10 folks there.
Senator Tester. But close to that?
Mr. Roberts. Close to that, yes.
Senator Tester. What is their outreach plan? Do they have
an outreach plan?
Mr. Roberts. Yes, and we could provide that to you,
Senator.
Senator Tester. Okay, good, because I am hearing from the
tribes they are not doing much outreach.
Mr. Roberts. Okay.
Senator Tester. Just to let you know that.
How much of the $1.9 billion does the Department think is
going to go to administration?
Mr. Roberts. Our goal is to spend less than what Congress
identified in the legislation.
Senator Tester. How much is that?
Mr. Roberts. Three hundred and eighty-five million dollars.
Senator Tester. Okay. And you had said that the Under
Secretary had said that the success of this program is going to
be determined by the tribal leaders. I agree, by the way. I
think that is a fair statement to make.
I just want to say, there is a real opportunity here to do
some solid consultation and do some incredibly good
communication. It has to be done by people that are as good as
you are. And visit with these tribes and find out what is going
on. And let them help you set this program up.
Now, there are certain parameters, for example, you
probably know, I was in agreement with the tribe on. But as
long as you communicate where the differences are, I think that
is important. On the other side of the coin, I think there is
information they are going to bring to the table that you need
to be successful. And in the end, I can tell you I have been
contacted by almost every tribe in Montana, if not, I will say
almost, because I can't say for certain every one of them have
contacted me, and have said, we want to be a part of this
process and we want to play a big role in this process. And we
think we can do it cheaper administratively.
Mr. Roberts. And that is music to our ears, because that is
what we are looking at, is how can we implement the program as
broadly as possible. So we have heard from tribes, especially
those tribes that have the top 40 reservations of fractionated
interests, basically saying, when are you going to get to us.
Senator Tester. Good. Last question. I don't mean to cut
you off, but I have another hearing and I am already 10 minutes
late. Right now, if you were going to do an appraisal process
on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation in Montana, who would do
it?
Mr. Roberts. It would depend on the cooperative agreement.
What we would do is talk with the tribe and we would see
whether that was something that they would implement or wanted
to implement as part of a cooperative agreement. Otherwise, it
would be the Office of Special Trustee and the appraisers
there.
Senator Tester. And you are going to have a cooperative
agreement with every tribe, every tribe that has fractionated
land?
Mr. Roberts. Every tribe that may want a cooperative
agreement. Some tribes may not want a cooperative agreement.
Senator Tester. Okay. Thank you very much. I apologize to
the folks who will be on the next panel. I will submit some
questions.
Thank you very much, and thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Senator Tester. Just to continue
on this line of questioning, obviously there is an issue of
time and money here, given the statute allowed for that money
to be spent over a 10-year period of time, one year that has
already elapsed. Do you have goals as far as that allocation of
resources, even if they are just internal goals? So we don't
end up in year nine actually losing the money and having it go
back into the Treasury?
Mr. Roberts. Yes, there is a broad goal of spending a least
half of the fund before 2016, or through 2016, essentially, so
that we are making progress. So I think at this point we are
moving forward, we have our first cooperative agreement. We are
moving forward in terms of sending out offers. We hope those
offers will be accepted by the end of the year.
The Chairwoman. What is the range of that settlement? The
range, value-wise, of that settlement?
Mr. Roberts. Of which settlement?
The Chairwoman. The one you were just talking about.
Mr. Roberts. You mean sending out purchase offers?
The Chairwoman. Yes.
Mr. Roberts. With regard to Pine Ridge, I believe that we
have appraised approximately 3,000 parcels, approximately 3,000
interests we have appraised. So those will be going out. What
we have done is we have created an automated system where those
offers will go out to all of the individuals that have
interests in those fractionated parcels. The Oglala Sioux Tribe
will then be conducting outreach with those individuals. They
will have a certain period of time to decide whether to accept
that offer. If the offer is accepted and they send that back
into the Department, that money is then immediately transferred
into the Individual Indian Account, and then that parcel or
that interest is immediately transferred in the tribe's name.
So the acquisition aspect of it is almost fully automated.
The Chairwoman. Okay. My point is, though, that is
probably, what, certainly not more than several hundred million
dollars, right, of wrapping up that particular phase?
Mr. Roberts. I think the purchase ceiling for Pine Ridge is
approximately $125 million.
The Chairwoman. Okay. So my point is, if you are saying
somewhere around $2.8 million, $2.9 million you want to have
spent by 2016, and this is the first offer, what happens if
individuals aren't willing to sell? What is the process there?
Mr. Roberts. We will have to look at that on sort of a case
by case basis. Because there may be situations where people are
not willing to sell for a particular reason and we will need to
work closely with tribal leadership and the community to see
what those reasons are. It may be timing, it may be that those
individuals don't have good information or it may be that
members don't want to sell, and that is completely their
choice. If they don't want to sell, then we would have to look
at other tribes and other reservations where they may have more
interested sellers.
The Chairwoman. And you are not expecting changes to the
law, you are not asking us for any help there.
Mr. Roberts. Not at this point. Because the ink basically
dried last year, so we have been focusing on trying to ramp up
and work closely with tribes. We haven't discussed any changes
to the law.
The Chairwoman. I guess why we are here today is to say we
are concerned about the shortness of time, and to drill down on
how much the first year is about establishing the process.
Mr. Roberts. Right.
The Chairwoman. And what that process really entails versus
all the complexity there is to appraising, communicating.
Mr. Roberts. Yes.
The Chairwoman. Getting offers out, getting offers
responded to, making the final purchase. The complexity of that
seems to be pretty significant. So we are very concerned about
the timing and the allocation.
Mr. Roberts. I think we will have a better sense of things
as we move along this year. I think while we have announced our
first cooperative agreement and we are sending offers out this
year, we are close with a number of other tribes on cooperative
agreements. And as we implement it, I think we are going to see
where we can achieve cost savings and where we can streamline
things and where there might be hiccups in the road that we
hadn't anticipated.
The Chairwoman. So if we were to, if this committee was to
schedule another oversight hearing, say, at the mid-point next
year or late spring, May, June timeframe, you would expect that
you would be telling me about five or six or seven different
settlements that have occurred?
Mr. Roberts. I would expect at least that we would be
moving forward with some of the, I would say a handful of
reservations with the largest fractionation issues. So I would
expect that by spring or summer of next year, we will have a
better sense as to how things are unfolding and where we are
headed.
The Chairwoman. Is your philosophy the largest amounts of
fractionated, or how are you approaching it?
Mr. Roberts. We have heard from tribes through our
consultations that it is important to get to as many
reservations as possible. And there are 150 of those. So while
we have been working with the Oglala Sioux Tribe and other
tribes, we are also working with, for example, the Makah Tribe,
which has a very limited number of fractionated interests. It
is not within the top 40. So the top 40 tribes comprise
essentially 90 percent of the fractionated interests.
So we need to focus on those top 40, but that doesn't mean
that we are not going to focus on those other tribes that are
not the top 40 tribes. We think there is value in trying to
work with all tribes to implement the program, so it is not
just the top 40 focus.
The Chairwoman. Then how do you want to look at the
metrics? Because you could either do it by land or you could do
it by number of tribes. But if you are saying you really want
to focus on those top 40, but leave some time and energy to
these other instances, you would assume that next year you
would have to make a significant dent in those 40.
Mr. Roberts. I think a key metric is putting out offers. I
think that is a key metric to seeing how we are moving in terms
of success, how many cooperative agreements we have had and how
many offers we have put out there to individuals. I think that
will sort of track to see how we are progressing. That will
give some input back to us in terms of if those offers aren't
being accepted, why is that.
And it may be, we have heard through tribal consultations
that there have been some individuals who have said, and I
certainly don't blame them for this, but they have basically
said I will never sell my individual interest. This is the only
tie that I have to my grandmother or my father or my great
grandmother, and I don't care how much money you give to me, I
am not getting rid of that interest. That is completely
respectable. But if that is the case in terms of when we go to
a different reservation in terms of why that community isn't
selling, then we know that we are not going to be able to
accomplish results there, and we will have to move to other
reservations.
The Chairwoman. And again, I think what we are trying to
get at here today is the complexity of this challenge and not
to uncover what are those challenges to that complexity. So
that again, we spend another year and have not moved
significantly on that list of 40, or the ancillary list, and
thereby run out of time and have money reverted back.
Again, I think what we should do is make sure that the
agency is establishing some metrics, because I think part of
our job as an oversight entity is to understand what metrics
you are using, to make sure we are accomplishing this task. So
you have put a couple of interesting ideas on the table today,
the 2016 number and spending half of the resources by then.
But we will want to definitely assess and cover your
measurements that you are establishing, so we can have a more
transparent process about this.
And to my colleague's point about the communication and
cooperation, I don't know on this particular settlement if it
was a major factor, but I am sure we are going to hear from the
next panel that that is a key element when you are dealing with
hundreds of individuals, thousands of individuals. Obviously
the communication with the tribe itself, is that not a key
component?
Mr. Roberts. It is absolutely a key component. Part of
these cooperative agreements that we are working on, the reason
that it takes some time is that we are not using a cookie
cutter approach. We know that one size does not fit within
Indian Country, one size does not fit all. There will be broad
parameters and there will be some things that are relatively
standard in each cooperative agreement. But there are other
things where a tribe may want to do not only outreach, but
maybe they want to go into the appraisals and maybe they have
the capability to do the appraisals cheaper than we can.
So we need to tailor the cooperative agreements to each
tribe as well.
The Chairwoman. So you mean the distinction is not just
about getting the tribe to help in the communication to
members, it is in the actual----
Mr. Roberts. It may be broader than that.
The Chairwoman. Why can't it be more cookie cutter? Why
can't you say, this is what is working, and encourage other
tribes to do it, and then give prioritization to those tribes
that are actually ready and able to help you? Because those are
the fastest agreements that you are going to get done.
Mr. Roberts. Well, we want to work with all of the tribal
communities where there is the issue. Some tribes may not want
to implement the program at all. They may want to say,
Department of Interior, you go ahead and run it, it is not our
job, Congress gave it to you.
The Chairwoman. But in that instance, why would you bother
sending out the appraiser at that point in time? Why wouldn't
you go say, okay, let's go send appraisers on these programs
where tribes have already agreed people are anxious to be
cooperative? You still might run into individuals who don't
want to settle. But you are going to come a lot farther along
in the process.
Mr. Roberts. I don't disagree.
The Chairwoman. And then leave the tough, thorny things, or
the ones where you are driving 100 percent, leave those to a
later point in time.
Mr. Roberts. We may do that. But there are issues, I guess,
with, let's say there is a tribe within the top five. Let's
say, for example, it was a tribe within the top five that
comprised, let's just make something up, like 10 percent of the
problem. And they were basically saying, Interior, we want you
to implement the program. I don't know whether putting off 10
percent of the issue later on down the road, we may never get
to that.
So I think what we have heard in our consultations and
individual meetings with tribes is somewhere along the lines of
what the committee has heard, which is tribes are enthusiastic
about the program.
The Chairwoman. I am sorry, they are or are not?
Mr. Roberts. They are enthusiastic about the program. And
tribes are basically saying to the Department, let's move more
quickly let's move fast, we think that this is a great program.
And what we have done is we have basically said, great, along
the lines of what you said, Chairwoman, in terms of let's
identify those tribes that are most enthusiastic. We have sent
out a notice in the Federal Register asking for tribes to send
in either a letter of interest or a cooperative agreement to
signify that they want to be affirmatively within the program.
So that is one of the ways that we are moving forward as well.
The Chairwoman. It just seems to me that that is a key
indicator, that relationship. It seems to me what we will hear
from the next panel, we will see what their thoughts are on
that, that that is because people have created a, whatever you
want to call it, a global picture of what they are trying to
achieve economically, that the tribe has. So they are willing,
maybe in certain instances, to have a specific mission that
might be tied to their location, growth pressures,
opportunities, resource management, resource acquisition.
Things that are, again, a well-established vision.
And those areas where there isn't that vision, I would just
imagine that you are also going to find lower down in the
individual ranks probably less information and certainty as
well. I would suspect you would run into a lot of uncertainty
about whether to sell or not to sell.
I see you are saying, this is a big holding and we want to
get rid of it. To me, giving priority to those things that we
can move quickly. So we definitely will have another oversight
hearing in a year and check in on this. We are almost in this
compounded, compounded, compounded situation where the original
policy on termination, and then assimilation, compounded by
then the process of mismanagement of trust resources,
compounded by the Cobell settlement, then compounded by
opening, now you actually have to get it implemented.
So it is not as if just we are implementing the Cobell
settlement. We are trying to refocus years of history here onto
the right track of self-governance and economic opportunity. So
we just want, now that the settlement is actually here and
agreed upon by even the courts, that we actually achieve it. I
guess we would say that if that is the parameter, given the
2010 Act, and we fail to meet it, and somehow that money
reverted back to the Treasury, it would be one more compounding
of a bad situation.
So that is why the expediency and understanding of the
metrics, and the oversight. So we will look forward to having
you back as the implementation continues.
Mr. Roberts. Thank you.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
So we will turn to our next panel of witnesses, to also
comment on the oversight and implementation of the land buy-
back program. We are joined today by three tribal members: the
Honorable Timothy Greene, Chairman of the Makah Tribal Council,
Neah Bay, Washington; the Honorable Alvin Not Afraid, Jr.,
Treasurer of the Montana-Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council, who
was recognized by my colleague, Senator Tester, and the
Honorable Grant Stafne, of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribe of
the Fort Peck Reservation from Montana.
Welcome to you all. Mr. Greene, I hear congratulations are
in order for the Makah Tribe football team, on becoming the
State champs in the 1B division for the second time in three
years. Congratulations on that. Thank you for being here, and
we will start with you.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY J. GREENE, CHAIRMAN, MAKAH TRIBAL
COUNCIL
Mr. Greene. Madam Chairwoman, thank you. I am pleased to be
here today. My name is Timothy J. Greene, I am the Chairman for
the Makah Tribe. I am pleased to testify before you today on
our experience with the Department of Interior and the land
buy-back program.
I would like to say that fractionated land has been a high
priority of many leaderships of the Makah Tribe. So it is
something that even before this program came about, it is an
interest that our tribe took in our lands. I can't commend our
realty department enough, Dale Denny and her staff of three
people that work on these issues and keep it on our plate. They
have done a marvelous job of staying on top of the information
and looking forward as they were tracking the Cobell settlement
and the developments that happened through the years leading up
to this program.
In 2010, when we saw that this was coming down the pike, we
began a lot of work within the community. We learned of the
$1.9 billion that the Department was making available. We
immediately began identifying lands within the reservation that
were most highly fractionated. We did that work with not
knowing where we would land at that time. We knew that we were
a small tribe. We only have 7.8 percent of our lands that are
allotted. So we are in pretty good shape, compared to a lot of
other tribes. We have a total reservation base of 38,000 acres.
So in comparison to some of the other testimony I am sure you
will hear, we don't have some of the issues and problems that
go on in other places. But yet this s a priority and has been a
priority for our leadership for generations.
So we sent out 1,158 letters to landowners on our most
fractionated allotments to inquire if they would be interested
in selling their fractionated interest in the Land Buy-Back
Program. The Makah Tribal Council also directed its staff to
rate all the allotments they would like to see purchased by the
Makah Tribe. The Tribe made special outreach efforts by meeting
with our senior citizens to obtain their input on land buy-back
priorities.
Tribal officials also met with the Neah Bay High School
freshmen class to get their input on which allotments they
would like to see purchased. Most of the consensus was to
purchase land located at Tsooes, often referred to in the local
community as Sacred Lands. The Makah Tribal Council met with
John McClanahan during a consultation meeting in Seattle
earlier this year. We found out at that meeting that the Land
Buy-Back Program was going to buy back land with more than one
owner. The Tribe began assembling the land information of the
less-fractionated allotments ready for the Land Buy-Back
Program. Then we prioritized these allotments for timber,
economic development, cultural sites and highly fractionated
parcels.
We sent a letter and backup documentation to Mr. McClanahan
and requested to be one of the pilot reservations for the Land
Buy-Back Program. At this time, we have 14 allotments appraised
and ready for the Land Buy-Back Program. This week, we will be
having the first Land Buy-Back Program outreach meetings held
at Neah Bay on the Makah Reservation and at the Muckleshoot
Reservation. That is where our realty director, Dale Denny, is
doing that as we speak. That is why she is not here with me
today. Otherwise she would be here.
The Makah Tribe continues to prepare for more allotments to
be appraised for the Land Buy-Back Program. The Makah Tribe is
receiving $2.55 million and the first 14 allotments were
appraised at $1.5 million. The Makah Tribe has prioritized 12
to 13 more allotments that we will be including for the Land
Buy-Back Program.
We are very appreciative for the Department of Interior's
Land Buy-Back Program. Our experience thus far with this new
program is that it has been operating smoothly with little
complications for us.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you
today. I am pleased to answer any questions that you might
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Greene follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Timothy J. Greene, Chairman, Makah Tribal
Council
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, I am Timothy J.
Greene, the Chairman of the Makah Tribal Council of Neah Bay,
Washington. I am pleased to testify before you today on the experience
of the Makah Tribe with the Interior Department's Land Buy-Back
program.
The Makah Tribe learned in 2011 that the Interior Department was
making $1.9 billion in funding available for a Trust Land Consolidation
Fund. The Makah Tribe immediately began identifying the most highly-
fractionated land on the Makah Reservation.
The Tribe sent out 1,158 letters to landowners on our most
fractionated allotments to inquire if they would be interested in
selling their fractionated interest in the Land Buy-Back Program. The
Makah Tribal Council also directed its staff to rate all the allotments
they would like to see purchased by the Makah Tribe. The Tribe made
special outreach efforts by meeting with our senior citizens to obtain
their input on land buy-back priorities. Tribal officials also met with
the Neah Bay High School freshmen class to get their input on which
allotments they would like to see purchased. Most of the consensus was
to purchase land located at Tsooes, often referred to as Sacred Lands.
The Makah Tribal Council met with John H. McClanahan during a
consultation meeting in Seattle, Washington earlier this year. We found
out at that meeting that the Land Buy-Back Program was going to buy
back land with more than one owner. The Tribe began assembling the land
information of the less-fractionated allotments ready for the Land Buy-
Back Program. The Tribe prioritized the allotments for timber, economic
development, sacred lands and highly fractionated parcels. We sent a
letter and backup documentation to Mr. McClanahan and requested to be
one of the pilot reservations for the Land Buy-Back Program.
At this time, we have 14 allotments appraised and ready for the
Land Buy-Back Program. This week, we will be having the first Land Buy-
Back Program Outreach meetings held at Neah Bay on the Makah
Reservation and at the Muckleshoot Reservation administrative building.
The Makah Tribe continues to prepare for more allotments to be
appraised for the Land Buy-Back Program. The Makah Tribe is receiving
$2.55 million and the first 14 allotments were appraised at $1.5
million. The Makah Tribe has prioritized 12-13 more allotments that we
will be including for the Land Buy-Back Program.
The Makah Tribe is very appreciative for the Department of
Interior's Land Buy-Back Program. Our experience thus far with this new
program is that it has been operating smoothly with little
complications.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today. I
would be pleased to answer any questions that you might have.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Chairman Greene.
Mr. Chairman Not Afraid, Jr., thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF HON. ALVIN NOT AFRAID, JR., TREASURER, MONTANA-
WYOMING TRIBAL LEADER COUNCIL
Mr. Not Afraid. Thank you, Chair. I will try and be as
brief as possible.
Again, the Chairman of the Crow Tribe, as well as the
Chairman of the Fort Washakee Indian Reservation send their
apologies for not coming to testify. They had emergencies, I
believe it was family, but they send their apologies for not
making it.
To begin with, tribes may never see an opportunity like
this one to address the fractionated land problem, the damage
done to the Tribes with the Dawes Act of 1887 that created this
situation in the first place, as we are all aware. Tribes have
become more professional and also competent land managers, but
often lack the financial resources necessary to buy back lands
lost to fee patent status and fractionated interests.
Tribes at the local level are best suited to obtain long-
term solutions to these consolidated issues. But the current
plan by the DOI will simply make it a take it or leave it offer
and move on to the next possible purchase. This will leave the
problem unsolved and leave untold numbers of places where some
or all of the respective individual Indian account holders
refuse to sell by accepting DOI's one-time offer in the mail.
If the settlement funds are invested at the reservation
level and tribal land management capacity is increased, the
result would be that jobs and economic development at the
reservation where it most urgently is needed with longer term
benefits for all the tribes, rather than the mere $75 or more
for each interest. For some, it is virtually nothing. As a
tribe, we should not squander this opportunity. Congress should
intervene and not allow the Department of Interior to spend
$1.9 billion in 10 years. The tribes' land management and
acquisition capacity should instead be bolstered. Tribes could
be put in a position to be making money and not just spending
it by acquisition.
I didn't come before you to come up with complaints. I come
before you to say that the tribes can handle this, we have
solutions. Tribal land management capacities can and should be
increased. Proportional shares of the settlement funds should
be provided to tribes to manage the funds, and should be
earning interest as soon as possible.
Tribes should be afforded the capacity to succeed in their
efforts to buy their lands back, and every obstacle should be
removed, whether it be by promulgating or creating policy to
expedite this endeavor. Tribes should be provided access to
TAMS, which is the Interior's current record software, being
that if we were doing outreach we should have access to that
data base. If we don't have access to that date base, how do we
know the landowners, other than someone coming in and saying,
hey, I got this letter in the mail, we would like to sell our
land.
The burdensome and complex cooperative agreement mechanism
should be replaced with something such as a 638, although we
understand that the ruling does not call for a 638, the
agreements can be mirrored as such to promote self-
determination, to promote accountability and transparency.
In closing, why not give the tribes the money and audit the
hell out of us? I seriously believe that is the avenue to take,
because the tribes could do it a lot cheaper, and at the same
time, the outcome we can produce. Earlier you stated we do need
to create laws and so forth. I believe you are right, because
how can we implement a plan when there is no bylaws, policies
and so forth governing how we are going to do this.
A prime example whether on pro or con against the
Obamacare, look at these initial stages, where that is going.
That is an image that we can take into account for
circumventing the problems that are happening with this buy-
back program. It is all new. But yet the tribes know best as to
facilitating, whether it is language barriers, cultural
barriers, even professional barriers. Because again, it was
stated before, some will not sell their land. We understand
that.
But I guarantee you that with a government to Government
relationship, things would run a lot smoother. Sure, you can't
have the whole pie and eat it. We understand that. But work
with us. Consultation has happened. At the same time, the
feedback was not really the feedback that we were looking for,
such as why not give us this, why not give us that. The Crow
Tribe does have a purchasing program. Fort Belknap Tribe has a
purchasing program. Fort Peck also has a purchasing program
which tribes utilize their own resources to purchase those
lands.
Yet along the confines of the CFR and various bylaws, we
plan to revert those to trust. Yet we are just kind of looked
at as a red-headed stepchild.
So again in closing, I would like to thank you for this
opportunity to provide this statement on behalf of the Montana-
Wyoming Tribal leaders. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of the Montana-Wyoming Tribal
Leaders Council follows:]
Prepared Statement of Montana-Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council
Good afternoon. My name is Ivan Posey, and I currently serve as the
Chairman of the Montana-Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council, an organization
representing the Indian Tribes located within the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) Rocky Mountain Region of Montana and Wyoming. I want
thank you for holding a hearing on this very important subject.
As you are aware, the Tribes of the Rocky Mountain Region are large
land-based Tribes who have unique situations and priorities. Our Tribes
carry broad responsibilities over vast Reservations in rural areas,
often hundreds of miles from major metropolitan areas.
Today we have opportunity to help tribes to become more self-
reliant and to promote economic development and increase land ownership
for tribes in Indian Country, and to curb a small amount of the
devastation caused by the Allotment Era. The Land Buy-Back Program can
be and should be that vehicle, especially if Tribes are given the
opportunity to administer their own programs. However, if the DOI and
BIA is allowed to administer this program as it now intends to, we fear
this program may become another ``hurry-up, hire, spend, and vanish in
ten years'' program and will result in wasteful spending instead of
wisely investing it and making it grow into a long term and sustainable
program.
One of our member Tribes, the Fort Belknap Indian Community has
provided this Committee a brief outline, with a budget, of how the Buy-
Back Program can be administered efficiently and effectively at the
local level, while promoting Tribal Self-Determination and fulfilling
the Trust Responsibility to Tribes and individual Indians. Under this
scenario, the Program will not disappear in ten years. Instead we will
have a perpetual Program, which will provide us with a process which
will, help us enhance Self-Determination. What we propose is simple:
Tribes should be allowed to develop and administer their own Programs
unique to the circumstances and conditions of each individual
Reservation. Administrative costs should be passed on to Tribes or left
available for land purchase.
Tribal Leaders from our member Tribes have provided information at
numerous sessions and meetings including those called by the Department
of Interior (DOI) beginning in July 15th, 2011, in Billings, Montana
and the concluding session in Seattle, WA on April 13th, 2013. Our
leaders have consistently expressed the desire of our Tribes to
administer their own Buy-Back Programs. All of the Tribes have
reiterated that they have been utilizing their own Land Acquisition
Programs for several decades and have expanded their respective land
base by thousands of acres during this same period. In the time that
has passed since 2011, Tribes could have completed many purchases but
have been hindered by lack of funds. The process of allowing tribes to
administer their own buy back programs makes complete sense since many
have access to local appraisers and know the people from our
communities.
The Department of the Interior, since its appointment to administer
the Buy-Back Program, has totally disregarded the wishes of our Tribes.
Year after year, in program after program, the DOI and BIA continue to
address the tribes with paternalistic attitudes, and the current
approach to administering the Buy-Back Program is no different. Tribes
are thwarted in their efforts towards self-sufficiency.
The Department of the Interior has decided that it will keep the
entire amount of money set aside for administrative costs. However, it
has provided no information as to why the entire set aside is needed.
There is no transparency or accountability to Tribes on how this money
is being spent and no overall budget has ever been provided to the
Tribes as primary stakeholders in the Buy Back Program. If the Tribes
were provided the settlement funds, we would be rightfully be required
to prove we were using and spending the funds appropriately. We believe
that if Tribes are allowed to run Buy-Back Programs themselves, money
can be saved, and ultimately used for additional land purchases, rather
than administration.
In the mid-seventies, Tribes began to contract the education
department functions from the BIA. Prior to that the BIA was satisfied
with sending tribal members to boarding schools and a limited number of
members on to a two or four year colleges. Since the tribes began to
contract this particular program, more students are enrolled in
colleges and universities and many tribes have two or four year
colleges on their reservations including the Aaniih Nakoda College at
Ft. Belknap, Salish Kootenai College at Flathead, Chief Dull Knife at
Northern Cheyenne, Little Big Horn at Crow, Blackfeet community
College, Stone Child at Rocky Boy Reservation, Wind River Tribal
College on the Wind River Reservation, and Fort Peck Community College.
Tribal success in administering former federal programs is now
widely known. Some of our Tribes have exercised their rights to Self-
Governance under the Self-Determination Act. Others are operating a
wealth of programs on their own Reservations that were formerly
operated by the BIA. Overall, Tribes have demonstrated that 638-
contracting under the Self-Determination Act, ensures that services are
provided to Indian beneficiaries in a manner that is specific to each
Reservation's needs and conditions. Decisions are made locally. In
addition, more administrative costs are spent locally, hiring local
people to carry out these important functions.
Now is the time that Tribes should be given the opportunity to
manage this Program like they have with education and other programs
under the Self-Determination Act. In ten years they will have a
prosperous and functional Land Acquisition Programs that will last.
I would be also like to add that the efforts of Elouise Cobell
remains in the forefront of this issue and I would like to take a
moment to recognize her efforts in bringing these important matters to
the attention of the Federal Government. The courts have ruled that
there was mismanagement of trust assets and the government has an
obligation, through treaties and executive orders, to correct these
wrongs. I ask the committee to please hear our concerns and address
them for the betterment of all Indian Country.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I'm happy to answer any
of your questions.
The Chairwoman. Thank you. You certainly are your name,
sir. Thank you for your testimony.
Councilman Stafne?
STATEMENT OF HON. GRANT STAFNE, COUNCILMAN,
ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES OF THE FORT PECK
RESERVATION
Mr. Stafne. Good afternoon. I want to thank Chairwoman
Cantwell and the Committee for holding today's hearing. Working
with this committee and the interior Department, Indian tribes
are committed to ensuring that the $1.9 billion allocated to
the trust land consolidation fund is wisely and fully expended
in the land buy-back program.
I have learned more in these last few minutes than I have
since the inception of the buy-back program. I would like to
know where our cooperative agreement is. We handed this in on
August 20th.
My name is Grant Stafne. As stated earlier, I am a member
of the Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board. Over the past 20
years, I have worked in virtually every aspect of Indian land
acquisition for the BIA, specializing in real estate
acquisition and disposal and management. This year, I followed
the path of my parents, the late June Shields Stafne and my
father, A.T. Stafne, who is the current chairman of our tribes,
and also my uncle, Caleb Shields, whom many of you know, and
was elected to the tribal council.
When I left Federal service, I was a deputy superintendent
of trust services at Fort Peck Agency. I then became my tribe's
director of the land buy-back program. In a little over a year,
the Fort Peck Tribes purchased or acquired over 10,000 acres of
fee land, which is non-Indian land, using tribal funds. I want
to point out that even though the land we reacquired was taken
from our tribes under the Homestead laws, for little or no
compensation, when we bought the land back we paid the non-
Indian sellers fair market value.
Interior's land buy-back program has the potential to
reduce the devastating loss of Indian lands that began over 125
years ago when Congress enacted the Allotment Acts in 1887. In
its 35 years of existence, the Allotment Act robbed Indian
Country of over 90 million acres of Indian land, Indian-owned
lands, and made reservations such as ours checkerboarded with
tribal land, allotted land as well as fee land.
In implementing the land buy-back program, the Interior
Department has already made unilateral and troubling decisions
without consulting Indian tribes. The program is off to a bad
start. The Department must not put its interests first and the
interests of Indians and tribes second. That would be too
reminiscent of Federal Indian policies of the past, policies
that resulted in eradication of the American bison and
indigenous languages, the removal of Indian children and the
taking of Indian lands, all policies to deal with the Indian
problem.
I encourage this Committee and Congress to learn the
lessons of the past. The buy-back program should not be defined
by what is easiest for the Federal trustee to administer, it
should be about correcting a great injustice done to Indian
tribes and honoring the Nation's trust responsibility to Indian
tribes in the 21st century.
Our recommendations for the Department's land buy-back
program are simple. First, the Department must engage in
meaningful consultation with tribal governments and individual
Indians on every affected reservation. Now in order for tribal
consultation to be meaningful, it must respect tribal
priorities of purchasable lands. But it must also include a
clear implementation schedule, purchase ceiling amounts,
mineral valuations and the appraisal processes.
Interior published a draft scope of work which appears to
invite tribal participation. But the Department has rejected
the view that the Indian Self-Determination Act, the Act's
model 638 contract and well-established and familiar
implementing regulations apply to the land buy-back program.
This is nonsense. Use of this simple contract or a variation of
the 638 contract for the buy-back program will promote
efficiency and expediency, because Indian tribes are
comfortable and familiar with it.
Meaningful tribal consultation should also inform
reservation mapping and land research. Interior mus provide
tribes a written implementation schedule under the scope alert.
We recommend that Interior begin implementing the program on
the most highly fractionated reservations. The Department
should also work out mutually acceptable implementation plans
with tribal governments within 90 days and be held to such
timeframes, the same timeframe as under the Self-Determination
Act.
Interior must also be transparent and provide tribes and
this committee with quarterly statements of agency expenditures
of program funds, including administrative funds set aside by
the Department, so that tribes and the committee are assured
that the vast majority of funds are expended on land buy-backs.
The Department arbitrarily determined that appraisals have a
nine month shelf life, rather than five months. This does not
serve Indian tribes or Indian landowners.
The Department has also delegated two appraisers the
discretion to determine which reservation lands are purchasable
and which are not. This is a decision best left to the tribal
governments. The Federal Trustee, not an appraiser for hire,
should solicit tribal views first. Our views on buy-back
priorities should prevail.
The Department has also made arbitrary decisions we find to
be fundamentally unfair to Indian landowners. This includes
denying landowners the right to appeal appraisal values,
excluding real estate improvements and valuation, prohibiting
landowners from reserving mineral interests and engaging in
reservation-wide appraisals prior to determining landowner
interests. These unilateral decisions undermine the program and
should be reconsidered.
Second, whether through requiring the Department to modify
the settlement agreement or through legislation, Congress must
ensure that the land buy-back program fulfills its mission,
achieving substantial land consolidation to allow the tribes
the ability to better manage our lands and to bring a small
measure of redress to the loss of 90 million acres of Indian
lands. Under the Fort Peck Allotment Act, roughly two-thirds of
our original 2.1 million acres were allotted or opened for
homesteading. Now over half of our reservation is held in fee
simple status, mostly by non-Indians. It is inconceivable that
true land consolidation can occur on a reservation like ours
without the ability to purchase all interests on a reservation,
fee or fractionated. For the buy-back program would be more
than a vehicle to close individual Indian money accounts, IM
accounts, Congress must act now to correct this oversight.
Third, Interior has made the process of entering into
cooperative agreements complex, resulting in delays. There must
be a baseline parameter in every scope of work, with simplified
forms. There is no need for tribes to submit standardized
agency forms which are mostly irrelevant to implementation of a
buy-back program.
In conclusion, it is time to end Federal paternalism once
and for all. Indian tribes were once fully independent and
self-sufficient. We can be again. We are working hard to
overcome two centuries of mostly harmful and destructive
Federal policies which fractionated our land and tore the
fabric of our tribal communities. The Trust Land Consolidation
Fund represents opportunity and promise to reverse decades of
misdirection and mistreatment. The Interior Department must
operate the program in partnership with tribes, consistent with
its obligation as our trustee to best realize and achieve the
program's important goals.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stafne follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Grant Stafne, Councilman, Assiniboine and
Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation
Good afternoon. I would like to thank Chairwoman Cantwell and the
Committee for holding this hearing. You have before you the ability to
ensure that the $1.4 Billion allocated to the Trust Land Consolidation
Fund is spent for the benefit of Indians and their Tribes. On behalf of
the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation, I thank
you for your interest in this important subject.
My name is Grant Stafne. I am a member of the Fort Peck Tribal
Executive Board, the governing body of our Tribes. Over the past 20
years I have worked in virtually every aspect of Indian land
acquisition, primarily in local and regional real estate positions with
the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
After graduating from Wolf Point High School and Haskell Indian
Junior College, now Haskell Indian Nations University, I began a 20-
year career with the Bureau of Indian Affairs specializing in real
estate acquisition, disposal, and management. I began my career as a
Realty Clerk in Acquisition & Disposal (A&D) at the Fort Peck Agency. I
was promoted to Realty Specialist in A&D first at the Fort Belknap
Agency, and later the Rocky Mountain and Eastern Regional Offices in
Billings, Montana, and Nashville, Tennessee. When I left from federal
service I was the Deputy Superintendent of Trust Services at the Fort
Peck Agency. Following federal service, I went to work for my Tribes as
the Director of the Fort Peck Land Buy-Back program. In a little over a
year that I served as the Tribal Land Buy-Back Director, our Tribes re-
acquired over 10,000 acres of land on our Reservation using Tribal
funds. Incidentally, even though that land was taken from the Tribes
and granted to non-Indians under the Homesteading laws for little or no
compensation, we paid the sellers fair market value to reacquire it.
This year I followed in the path of my parents, June and A.T.
Stafne, and my uncle Caleb Sheilds, and ran for election to the Tribal
Executive Board.
Interior's Land Buy-Back Program, using Trust Land Consolidation
funding, has the potential to reduce the devastating loss of Indian
lands that has persisted since this Congress first began enacting
Allotment Acts in 1887. Sadly, in its 35-year existence, Allotment
resulted in the loss of 90 million acres of Indian owned lands. There
is no doubt that a program to restore tribal land bases and improve
federal management of trust resources is beneficial and long overdue.
However, because the Buy-Back Program was developed by the
Department of the Interior unilaterally, and without any Tribal
involvement whatsoever, it has been designed to benefit the government
first, and Indian beneficiaries second. That very notion is reminiscent
of the federal Indian policies of yesterday: policies that resulted in
the eradication of the American bison, the removal of Indian children,
and the taking of Indian lands; policies that were intended to benefit
the government in dealing with ``the Indian problem.''
Almost 40 years ago, Congress declared that the new federal Indian
policy would be one of Self-Determination, as President Nixon called
it, ``a new era in which the Indian future is determined by Indian acts
and Indian decisions.'' In order to comply with Congressionally-
mandated policy, the Department should, at the very least, engage in
meaningful consultation with Tribes and individual Indians on every
affected Reservation. That consultation must necessarily pertain to the
implementation schedule, purchase ceiling amounts, mineral valuations,
and the appraisal processes for each Reservation.
Unless Congress acts now to require meaningful consultation, it
appears that the Interior Department intends to use the Buy-Back
Program as nothing more than a vehicle for closure of Individual Indian
Money Accounts. Surely Congress intended more when it appropriated
nearly two billion dollars to the Land Consolidation Fund; surely
Congress intended the Program to achieve substantial Tribal land
consolidation in order to bring a small measure of redress for the loss
of 90 million acres of Indian lands.
Under the Fort Peck Allotment Act, roughly two-thirds of the
original 2 million acres of Tribal lands were allotted or opened for
Homesteading. Now, over half of our Reservation is held in fee simple
status, mostly by non-Indians. It is inconceivable that true land
consolidation can occur on a Reservation like ours without the ability
to purchase of all interests. Congress and Interior must act now to
address this oversight through modifications to the settlement
agreement and corresponding legislation, if necessary.
The Department has published a draft scope of work under the
Program that appears to invite Tribes to participate in the various
phases of implementation such as outreach, land research, valuation,
and acquisition. This suggests that despite the lack of consultation,
Interior nevertheless values Tribal participation. However, the
Department insists that the Self-Determination Act, the model contract
set forth in the Act, and the implementing regulations do not apply to
the Buy-Back Program. The rejection of the Self-Determination Act as a
vehicle for implementing the Program is a reversion to a time when
federal Indian policy was driven by paternalism and patronage. Instead,
the model Self-Determination contract and the implementing regulations
should be used as guides for contracting with Tribes under the Buy-Back
Program. Both Tribes and Interior have familiarity with the Self-
Determination contracting process, which would promote efficiency and
expediency.
Regrettably, the process being implemented by the Department for
Tribes to enter into Cooperative Agreements under the Program is
unnecessarily complex and has resulted in a multitude of delays. The
Department has established no baseline parameters with regard to the
tasks set forth in the Scope of Work, resulting in lengthy and
unfocused back-and-forth negotiations. In addition, the Department is
requiring Tribes to submit SF-424s which are overly complex and largely
irrelevant to implementation of a program designed by buy back lands
for a Tribe.
Additionally, other tasks contained in the Department's Scope of
Work, such as mapping and land research, have commenced without any
Tribal participation. Moreover, the implementation schedule under the
Scope of Work has not been made public. Based on the initial
Implementation Plan, Tribes assumed that the Program would be
implemented first at the most highly fractionated Reservations.
However, Interior has developed an implementation schedule without
consultation with Tribes and without a release of criteria for the
schedule. For Fort Peck, Interior has only acknowledged receipt of our
completed application but has provided no information on where we are
on the implementation schedule. This lack of communication is alarming
particularly for a Reservation like ours with significant mineral
development and potential. Not only has Interior left us in the dark
about the implementation schedule, they have provided us with no
information on how minerals will be valued.
The Department has made numerous critical policy decisions
concerning the implementation of the Buy-Back Program without Tribal
input and with what appears to be a complete disregard for trust
responsibility the Department is obliged to administer by law. This
top-down and paternalistic management style fundamentally undermines
Congress' intent in appropriating money for the Program.
For example, the Department has arbitrarily determined that
appraisals used under the Program will have a 9-month shelf life.
Although appraisals are normally valid for 12 months, the Department
has provided no information as to why this shorter timeframe has any
benefit to the Program or Indian beneficiaries. This decision limits
co-owner purchases, which are authorized by federal law. Moreover, if a
sale cannot be completed in 9 months, which is quite plausible in our
experience, additional costs will be incurred to update the appraisal.
In addition, the Department has given appraisers discretion to
determine which Reservation lands are purchasable and which are not.
These decisions will apparently be made without consultation by the
United States as the trustee, or by the Tribes as an ultimate
beneficiary. This grant of authority outside the trustee-beneficiary
relationship is an affront to Tribal sovereignty, a breach of the Trust
Responsibility, and is fundamentally unfair to individual Indian
landowners. Other arbitrary decisions by the Department that may result
in fundamentally unfair treatment of the Indian landowners include:
denying landowners the right to appeal appraisal values; excluding real
estate improvements in valuation methods; prohibiting landowners from
reserving mineral interests; and engaging in massive, Reservation-wide
appraisals prior to determining landowner interest.
Finally, the Department has closely guarded the fiscal activities
of administering the program. Rather, than operating the Program
transparently, the Department has refused to report on the expenditures
of the administrative funds set aside under the Program. We know that
the Department is spending money, even though not a single acre of land
has been purchased under the Program. Without any knowledge of how much
money has been spent, how can we be assured that there will be enough
money to administer the Program throughout its life? We do know that
the Department has determined that Indirect Costs will be capped at 15
percent for Tribes that enter into cooperative agreements, even though
Tribes have negotiated indirect cost rates for all federal funding. We
can only hope that the government is as concerned about its own
spending as it is with ours.
I will conclude by saying that while Congress struggles to reach
agreement on how to fund our government, Indian Country is
disproportionately affected. Conditions in Indian Country remain among
the worst in the country. Indians continue to rank at the bottom of
every social and economic indicator: unemployment, income, infant
mortality, life expectancy, chemical dependency, suicide. . . .
It should not be forgotten that these conditions are a direct
result of federal policies over the last two centuries; polices that
promoted paternalistic treatment of Indians and a system of political
patronage. One of those policies resulted in the loss of 90 million
acres of Indian held lands. The Buy-Back Program cannot give full
redress for that loss or its effects, but the Trust Land Consolidation
Fund does have the potential to fulfill that to which its name aspires.
I urge the Committee to demand meaningful consultation by the
Department with Tribes and Indian beneficiaries and require the
Department to execute the Self-Determination laws and policies
prescribed by Congress.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our perspectives and
concerns. I would be happy to answer your questions.
The Chairwoman. I want to thank all of the witnesses for
their testimony and start with some questions.
But one just generally first, so we can get some idea for
the record, in general, why is this so important to your tribe
as it relates to what you are trying to achieve? What is the
challenge economically without being able to have the
settlement and reclaim some of this land? What is your vision
or strategy for that? Any of your interests that you represent.
Mr. Stafne. The interest I represent is 2.1 million acres
of our reservation is held by non-Indians. We would like the
settlement to be opened up to purchase any land available
within the exterior boundaries of our reservation, whether it
be fee land or trust land. We would like the opportunity to buy
our reservation back.
The Chairwoman. And what percentage of your reservation
does that represent, the 2.1 million acres?
Mr. Stafne. It is 954 thousand that is held in trust right
now. Roughly two-thirds of that is allotted and a third of that
is tribal land. The remainder of it is fee land.
The Chairwoman. Okay. Anything else from you, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Not Afraid. Thank you, Chair. You asked, if the tribe
isn't involved, just to clarify the question. The question is
that we as the tribe suffer if we are not involved? Or the
repercussions?
The Chairwoman. On one hand, the complexity of implementing
this, but I am also trying to get people to understand for the
record the importance of achieving it. You can certainly talk
about failed policies of the past and why this program needs to
be established. But my sense is there is also a very important
economic interest at stake here, or a hope and economic
interest that is moving toward more self-governance and self-
determination and one aspect of that is obviously getting the
land back and being able to move forward on an economic outlook
and agenda.
Mr. Not Afraid. You are right, Chairwoman. You just drove
the dagger home. What happened here, I can speak specifically
of the Crow Reservation, within the Crow Reservation in the
past, of mishandling or mis-use or what have you. Again, the
intricate details per reservation are abundant. You have not
only cultural impacts, you have social impacts. You have
behavioral impacts. Again, without the tribe being the
forefront, we are coming into a situation where the Government
is going to see what is fit, the Government is going to say,
this is what is best for you.
That deters social improvement. That also deters economic
development. And we as tribes, if you sat in our chairs and
were governed, we are the most governed citizens of the United
States. An example, going on a tangent here, but just to give
you an example, look on the Crow Reservation, a law governing
that you cannot consume alcohol. I was in the military and
going overseas, fighting, being in the Marine Corps in the
1990s, you should be entitled to certain things, such as
alcohol, if you choose. I am not a proponent of alcohol, but
the point I am trying to make is laws within the reservations
are different than laws off reservation.
Now, is that a right? Off reservation, if the U.S.
Government said, no more alcohol, what happens? So the point I
am trying to make is, we are being governed at the same time by
laws that don't fit best for our people. And when rules are
promulgated and made at the upper echelon, by the time it
trickles down to each local agency, it doesn't fit the bill.
And yet we see so much inconsistency, such as treaties being
violated.
I don't want to go there and play the victim. I am a big
boy, I say hey, let's work together, what can we do? So the
thing is, if treaties are being violated, Congressional acts
are being violated that were geared toward the Crow Tribe,
where do we stand? Because again, this implementation of this
land buy-back through consultation, there were times when the
Indian Land Consolidation Act was represented by the Office,
but yet, oh, no, we aren't going to use that, oh, no, we can't
use that.
Example, competent land on the Crow Indian Reservation.
That is where lands held in trust are considered competent with
five or less owners. Those owners have the right to negotiate
and engage in any type of lease on their own behalf without the
bill's approval. It is filed at the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
But if they choose to lease their land out at $2 an acre, below
the Government's threshold of $2.50, that is their prerogative.
Where I am going with this is, if they buy an interest,
those landowners then have no right, because of the Office
lease statutes.
The Chairwoman. Let me get Chairman Greene in here. You
obviously have had a more proactive approach that seemed to
work well. Is that because it was a smaller amount and it was
easier? Or do you think the level of dialogue you had in the
community worked?
Mr. Greene. I think, Madam Chairwoman, the smaller amount
definitely does help. I would like to thank my fellow tribal
leaders for their comments also, and thank you for the
congratulations that you send to our football team. I will be
sure to carry that back.
The smaller land base, the smaller amount of fractionation
that we have in our community does help. The fact that our
leadership, through generations of councils, have made this a
priority and have kept up on the information I think also
helped put us in the position we are here today. And definitely
the hard work of the staff that I had mentioned.
I think to answer your question that you asked earlier, in
general, why does this need to happen, I think what is
important, at least from Makah's perspective, is that this land
is usable. What that means is different for each tribe, whether
it is usable for economic development, whether it is usable to
protect the environment, whether it is usable to protect
cultural sites, both usable and manageable. Because the way
that these lands sit right now, with the high fractionation of
these allotments, it is not usable and it is not manageable. So
I think that is, in general, the overarching goal that I think
tribes would like to get to, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
The Chairwoman. And you mentioned this dialogue that you
had with the community in surveying. Did you have any
challenging areas that you had identified that you could work
within the program, but you had landowners just refusing to
sell?
Mr. Greene. We do run into that also. There are landowners
that for reasons mentioned, whether it is their only connection
to their great grandmother or great grandfather, whoever it may
be, we run into those same issues. We do also have a lot of
non-tribal members that own land on our reservation lands that
are difficult to find and track, and to find those people and
those contacts. That has been a challenge and a burden. It
takes a lot of resources, a lot of hard work to try to keep up
with some of that information.
The Chairwoman. My question is, do you think you have been
successful because some of those tribal members realize there
is a larger goal at hand and that is persuasive? So all of this
communication, all this tribal vision, all of that plays an
important role in the communication?
Mr. Greene. For Makah, absolutely. I think that definitely
plays a role. It is something that the community has been aware
of and through the different leaderships, the message has been
brought out to try to fix those issues.
I think there is a general belief in the community and a
broader vision that these lands are usable and manageable and
that the public can enjoy them and get benefit from them.
The Chairwoman. Councilman Stafne, how long do you think it
would take Fort Peck to spend the $80 million just in
purchasing fractional interests on your reservation?
Mr. Stafne. Madam Chair, that depends on the appraisals and
if OST or their office is willing to give us appraisals right
away. We are ready, willing and able to do this as soon as
possible.
I also want to point out that it was stated earlier by
their Department, that buy-backs, they are still purchasing,
whether it be undivided trust interests or undivided fee
interests or total fee interests, they stated that they were
going to reimburse us for the tracts of land that we already
purchased. And now it comes to find out that they are not going
to reimburse us until the cooperative agreement is approved.
Why don't they approve it, then? We have been waiting on this
since August. We would really like to have a response.
The Chairwoman. Something tells me you will get one after
today.
Mr. Stafne. I thank you.
The Chairwoman. The things that you outlined, many of the
things, I should say, that you outlined, the issue of
transparency, the 90 days of updates, the funds spent, just
basic information so that people can track it I think is
important. I think those are fair things. I think the issues
you mentioned about the appraisal process, in and of itself,
those are challenging and sticky issues that I have no idea
what the formal response of the agency is. But it makes it, we
should have clarity on this. Obviously not every piece of land
is the same, and some obviously do have mineral rights to them
and value. So we should have some clarification on that part.
I am certain the agency probably did look at 638 and
decided against it. I guess the agency now has to show that
they can make this successfully work or else you will have
people calling for a different process to go through this.
I am curious, so when you entered your communication
agreement with the agency, you said it was finalized or
presented in August. How long had you been dialoguing with the
agency?
Mr. Stafne. Through working with our attorney, it was her
prodding that finally found out that we were the first one in
the Nation to hand in a completed contract for agreement. Now
it is my understanding that there are eight. And it has
recently been told that there is actually an approved one.
I find it highly ironic that they approved one right before
we came and testified before you.
Also, the 15 percent administrative fees that they are
withholding, that is pretty much, giving 15 percent to someone
that created the problem in the first place, give it to the
tribes so we can buy our land back.
The Chairwoman. Thank you. Mr. Chairman Not Afraid?
Mr. Not Afraid. Just to add on that last statement, the
tribes, upon implementation of the current systems, such as we
talked about OST appraisals, the Crow Tribe is currently, with
its own enrolled members, running our appraisal program, which
is a 638 from OST. So to streamline a lot of things, we are
equipped in a lot of aspects, going down to the MOA, we are
currently waiting, we did submit one. I have a time line here.
I should know it off the top of my head.
As of July, the land buy-back kickoff in January, there
were initial meetings, question and answer session. There was
an assessment, development plan and outreach, implement survey
in January of 2013. January to June, we had pre-offer outreach.
April to June, field technicians available for land appraisals.
July to September, identified notaries and provided outreach
activities. July to September, post-offer outreach. September
15th to September 30th, provided outreach activities, assessed
offer master list.
And then we had possible second waive offers, those were to
be discussed. And our chairman has recently submitted a letter
to Mr. McClanahan dated December 9th, which was just recent.
That was in regard to our memorandum of agreement, and we
included a budget with that to administer. Again, we can
maximize the dollar. As the Bureau itself knows, we can do more
with less money. So the tribe is taking that approach with this
budget, do more with less money in the aspect of administering.
The Chairwoman. Well, it seems, I am definitely going to
have to consult with the Vice Chairman on this, on how we
continue to communicate our interest in seeing more metrics and
more measurements of the program. We will certainly have a
follow-up hearing on this subject.
It seems that Chairman Greene, working without asking
permission, he started consolidating that information of his
tribe and then presented that, juxtaposed as some of the, let's
get a formal communication. It is almost, I don't want to
overstate, if I am getting it wrong, please correct me, but it
seemed like you did that and then said, okay, now we want to
get an agreement with you, but you already had these things
done.
I am not saying that whatever that is, maybe that argues
more for 638, if nothing else. Because here is somebody that
got their act together and did it on their own and then
presented, almost packaged with a bow on it, here you go, now
let's have a formal agreement and here is what we want. Again,
the acreage may have been a smaller amount, so it was easier to
do. Then the consultation went easier.
But clearly, we are hearing loud and clear that tribal
communities are very concerned about the slow implementation of
the buy-back program and that we have to have more oversight
and more metrics and more implementation. We will be monitoring
this very, very closely.
Your testimony has been very helpful. There is a lot here
to follow up on with the agency. We will hold the record open
for two weeks in case my colleagues, if anybody else wants to
submit information for the record or has questions of you, so
that we can have that. We will certainly be asking the agency
for more information as well.
But again, thank you for being here and for the
representation you are providing for your various tribal
entities. We appreciate the leadership.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of the Coalition of Large Tribes
Introduction
The Coalition of Large Tribes (COLT) appreciates the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs' oversight of the Department of the
Interior's implementation of the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal
Nations. COLT members will be among the most affected by the Program.
Nearly all of our members have already been identified by Interior as
having reservations with the most fractionated lands. In addition, COLT
members make up seven of the top ten tribes with the most fractionated
lands.
COLT is concerned that recent Interior decisions in implementing
the Program will ultimately diminish the success of the Program.
Interior should follow the direction of the Cobell v. Salazar
Settlement Agreement and the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, P.L. No.
111-216, approving the Settlement, and work with tribes as partners to
implement the Program.
While the Cobell v. Salazar litigation concerned individual Indian
interests, COLT members and a number of other tribes have significant
interests in the success of the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal
Nations. The interests in lands purchased through the Program will be
returned to tribal status and held in trust for the benefit of the
tribes. In addition to other concerns, we need to ensure that the lands
purchased will provide maximize benefits to the tribes.
As Interior takes its first steps to implement this $1.9 billion
program, COLT asks that the Committee take a close look at Interior's
plan. COLT is particularly concerned with the process Interior proposes
for entering into Cooperative Agreements with tribal governments to
assist in the implementation of the Program. The Land Buy-Back Program
for Tribal Nations is one of the largest Indian programs the Federal
Government will undertake and it deserves close scrutiny by the
Committee.
Large Land Base Tribes Have a Substantial Interest in the Program
COLT was established in April 2011 to provide a unified advocacy
base for tribes that govern large trust land bases and provide full
service in the governing of their members and reservations. As a part
of its mission, COLT closely monitored Interior's development of the
Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations. COLT members participated in
tribal consultation sessions and filed comments during the development
of the Program. COLT also worked closely with Interior in the
development of a Cooperative Agreement template for tribes to assist in
the implementation of the Program.
As you know, the Program is the result of the settlement of the
long-running Cobell v. Salazar litigation regarding the Federal
Government's mismanagement of Indian trust lands and resources. On
December 7, 2009, the parties to that litigation entered into a
Settlement Agreement which included a $1.9 billion Trust Land
Consolidation Fund. The Settlement Agreement was approved by Congress
as a part of the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, P.L. No. 111-291, and
ultimately finalized by the courts following the exhaustion of appeals
to the U.S. Supreme Court on November 24, 2012. The Fund must be used
within 10 years, by November 24, 2022.
The $1.9 billion Trust Land Consolidation Fund will be implemented
through Interior's Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations. The
subject of today's hearing. The Program will use the $1.9 billion in
funding to purchase individual Indian fractionated interests in
allotted lands, as well as to administer the Program and make payments
into a scholarship fund intended to incentivize the sale of individual
fractionated interests. Once purchased, the fractionated interests will
be returned to tribal status and held in trust for the tribe on whose
reservation the purchase was made.
Thus, while the Cobell v. Salazar litigation and much of the
Settlement Agreement concern mismanagement of individual Indian lands,
COLT members and other tribal governments have a substantial interest
in the successful implementation of the Land Buy-Back Program portion
of the Settlement Agreement. First, we want to ensure that our members
will be treated fairly if they choose to sell their lands. And, second,
the more that fractionated interests are returned to tribal status, the
better tribal governments will be able to develop and manage lands for
the benefit of our tribal communities.
Returning lands to tribal ownership through the Land Buy-Back
Program will be a small but important step to address the long-standing
effects of the Federal Government's failed allotment policies. Through
the policy of allotment, beginning with the General Allotment Act of
1887 (also known as the Dawes Act), 24 Stat. 388, until 1934, when
allotment was repealed, tribal land areas had decreased from 138
million acres to 48 million--a 65 percent reduction. As tribes with
large land bases and a history of utilizing resources over large areas,
COLT member tribes suffered the most from the Federal Government's
policy of breaking up large tribal land bases.
Greater Tribal Involvement is Necessary for the Successful
Implementation of the Program
Interior is unnecessarily restricting tribal involvement in the
implementation of the Land-Buy Back Program for Tribal Nations. While
everyone agrees that tribal participation is essential to the success
of the Program, Interior has made a number of decisions that limit
tribal involvement and will reduce the amount of fractionated interests
in lands that are acquired. Moreover, the interests that Interior does
acquire may not provide maximum benefit for the tribe involved. To
address these issues and help to ensure the success of the Program,
COLT asks that the Committee exercise its oversight role and seek
changes in how Interior is implementing the Program.
First, Interior is not fully utilizing existing tribal land
consolidation offices. A number of COLT member tribes have well-
established and successful land consolidation offices. These offices
have long been working pursuant to the Indian Land Consolidation Act,
25 U.S.C. 2201 et seq., (ILCA) to reduce fractionation and address
the effects of allotment. To ensure that tribes receive the maximum
benefit from the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations, Interior
should be working in partnership with these offices.
In fact, the Settlement Agreement directs Interior to utilize these
tribal land consolidation offices. Section F.1. of the Settlement
Agreement requires that ``the Interior Defendants shall distribute the
Trust Land Consolidation Fund in accordance with the Land Consolidation
Program authorized under 25 U.S.C. 2201 et seq., any other
applicable legislation enacted pursuant to this Agreement, and
applicable provisions of this Agreement.'' Under ILCA, Indian tribes,
not the Secretary, identify and make land purchases.
Ultimately, the Claims Resolution Act also needed to provide
authority for the Secretary, as a party to the litigation and
Settlement Agreement, to make these land purchases. Subsection 101
(e)(4) of the Act provides that, ``The Secretary may acquire, at the
discretion of the Secretary and in accordance with the Land
Consolidation Program, any fractional interest in trust or restricted
land.'' Yet, this subsection's reference to the Land Consolidation
Program reinforces the roles of tribes in the purchase of lands.
The Land Consolidation Program, as defined in the Claims Resolution
Act, provides a dual role for tribes and Interior in implementing the
Program. Subsection 101 (a)(4) provides that the term ```Land
Consolidation Program' means a program conducted in accordance with the
Settlement, the Indian Land Consolidation Act (25 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.),
and subsection (e)(2) under which the Secretary may purchase fractional
interests in trust or restricted land.''
Thus, both the Settlement Agreement and the Claims Resolution Act,
through their reliance on ILCA, require significant tribal leadership
and participation in the purchase of lands. As a result, Interior
should be fully utilizing existing tribal land consolidation offices
and providing a significant role for Indian tribes in the repurchase of
tribal lands. Not only will these existing resources provide greater
efficiency to the implementation of the Program, but the expertise of
these offices will help to ensure the most beneficial lands are
acquired.
Second, Interior is discouraging tribal participation in the Land
Buy-Back Program through an unduly bureaucratic and cumbersome
application process for Cooperative Agreements. In the absence of ``638
contracts'' to implement the Program, COLT actively sought the use of
Cooperative Agreements and helped to negotiate an agreement template.
However, in implementing these agreements Interior is discouraging
tribal participation by making it difficult and burdensome to
successfully apply for and complete a Cooperative Agreement. Given the
need to complete the Program within 10 years and the number of tribes
involved, an efficient and flexible process is needed for tribes to
enter into Cooperative Agreements.
COLT asks that the Committee investigate the process Interior is
using for entering into Cooperative Agreements. Rather than using
common methods used by Indian tribes and the Federal government to work
in partnership toward a shared goal, such as a grant or contract,
Interior decided to classify Cooperative Agreements for the Program as
a ``financial assistance award.'' These ``financial assistance awards''
have resulted in Interior requiring a number of inefficient steps as we
all try to jointly implement the Program.
For example, Interior is applying the cumbersome federal
procurement provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87
(OMB A-87). Among other things, OMB A-87 requires tribes to develop
detail cost estimates from three sources for supplies needed to
implement a Cooperative Agreement under the Land Buy-Back Program. As a
result, instead of researching land records and contacting tribal
members willing to sell their lands, tribal staff are spending their
time completing a cumbersome bidding process for computers and other
typical office equipment needed to implement the Program.
In another example, as a part of entering into Cooperative
Agreements, Interior is requiring tribes to complete Standard Forms
424, 424A, and 424D for the receipt of financial assistance. These
forms, again, require overly detailed information and ask a number of
questions that appear to be irrelevant to project implementation.
Instead of directing tribes into generic Federal government application
processes for ``financial assistance awards,'' the Program should be
utilizing streamlined agreement and financing processes that allow the
Federal Government and tribes to partner in the implementation of the
Program.
In another example, Interior is requiring tribes to advertise and
select employees through a competitive application process even though
everyone knows the jobs will be temporary. Appointments should be fast
tracked based on the expertise needed to implement the Program quickly
and efficiently.
Meanwhile, Interior is providing little guidance as tribes attempt
to navigate this cumbersome and bureaucratic hiring process. For
example, Interior could be providing a set number of employees that it
would be willing to fund for each task under a Cooperative Agreement
based on reservation size, funding, and level of fractionation. Yet, we
understand that some tribes have had to exchange hiring plans with
Interior more than 5 times before Interior would clearly state how many
staff positions they would fund.
And, in another example, COLT understands that tribes are having
difficulty finalizing Scope of Work documents for a Cooperative
Agreement. Again, Interior has not provided guidance in the form of
baseline parameters for the tasks set out in its Scope of Work
Template. This has resulted in lengthy negotiations and exchange of
documents before agreement can be reached. Moreover, because Interior
is not fully utilizing tribal offices, tribes have been forced to
engage in these lengthy discussions to implement only small parts of
the overall Program.
In each of these areas, Interior has established numerous
requirements for tribal participation, yet has provided little guidance
on fulfilling these requirements. This level of inefficiency and
bureaucratic governance has COLT concerned that the Land Buy-Back
Program for Tribal Nations will not achieve the full potential of the
$1.9 billion available to consolidate tribal land holdings. The Program
represents a significant opportunity for the Federal government and
tribal governments to address some of the long-standing effects of the
disastrous Federal policy of allotment. Rather than creating
roadblocks, Interior must open doors to encourage tribal participation.
Tribal participation is required by the Settlement Agreement and the
Claims Resolution Act and is needed to ensure the success of the
Program in tribal communities.
Tribes Must be Protected Under the Federal Tort Claims Act During
Implementing
Cooperative Agreements between Interior and Indian tribes should
provide tribal employees with coverage under the Federal Tort Claims
Act. The Act provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity allowing
parties claiming to have been injured by negligent actions of employees
of the Federal government to file claims against the government. The
Act also provides authority for the Federal government to defend
against such claims. Congress has extended authority under the Act to
include tribal employees carrying out contracts, grants or cooperative
agreements under a ``638 contract.''
As tribes provide assistance implementing Interior's Land Buy-Back
Program for Tribal Nations, our employees should be provided this basic
protection against accidents and injuries to others that may happen on
the job. For example, to conduct outreach to remote parts of our
reservations, tribal employees will spend many hours on often
substandard BIA roads. If an employee causes an accident while carrying
out these duties, the Federal Government should provide protection
under the Act.
While COLT understands that Interior has decided that it cannot use
``638 contracts'' to implement the Program, general contractors to the
United States have been provided with coverage under the Act. Just as
any other contractor working in pursuit of Federal goals would be
covered, tribal employees should also be covered.
Additional Issues Likely to Affect the Success of the Program
COLT is concerned that Interior is charging ahead without
sufficiently considering the effect of a variety of issues on the
success of the Program. We describe some of these additional issues
below.
Interior should be casting a wide net to certify and approve
contract appraisers to speed up implementation of this key
aspect of the Program.
Appraisals conducted under the Program will expire after 9
months. Depending on how long it takes to accomplish a sale,
this may result in multiple appraisals being required for the
same property. Yet, current BIA practice is that an appraisal
is good for up to 18 months. To ensure that resources are not
wasted on multiple appraisals, the current BIA standards should
be used.
COLT seeks a fair appraisal process. Interior is proposing to
use mass appraisals, but flexibility needs to be built into the
mass appraisal process. For example, on reservations with oil
and gas development, Interior must recognize that production
levels can vary across a reservation. Fractionated interest
owners should get an appraisal based on the best price for
their land and not a reservation-wide average. In addition, to
ensure that the appraisal and sale process is fair, Interior
should also provide a streamlined appeal process to contest an
appraisal or notice of sale.
Interior must provide a higher minimum payment to promote the
sale of very small fractionated interests in land. Purchasing
these small fractionated interests provides the greatest
benefit to the greatest number of people. Success in
consolidating ownership in highly fractionated lands is also
very important to making tribal lands easier to manage and
develop. COLT sought a minimum payment of $500 for the sale of
a fractionated interest to ensure that these interests get
sold. Interior's decision to use $75 as its minimum payment
jeopardizes the success of the Program.
Interior should provide individual Indians a right of first
refusal to purchase fractionated interests. In some cases, an
individual Indian may be in the best position to acquire
fractionated interests and put land to beneficial use. In other
cases, an individual may be able to save a family farm for
future generations. In addition, allowing for individual
Indians to purchases fractionated interests will spare some of
the Program's funding and will spread the benefits of the
Program over a larger area.
Finally, tribal participation in the Program could also be
increased by allowing tribes to access the Trust Asset Account
Management System (TAAMS) and other federal data bases.
Limiting access to these databases will slow the Program down
and jeopardize the success of the Program. Interior should open
up access to TAAMS to every tribal contractor.
Conclusion
COLT asks that the Committee investigate these concerns and seek
necessary changes to the Program. While the Cobell v. Salazar
litigation only concerned individual Indian claims against the Federal
Government, Indian tribes have a significant interest in the successful
implementation of the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations. Tribal
interests were recognized in the provisions of the Settlement Agreement
and the Claims Resolution Act provided an important role for tribes in
implementing the Program. Indian tribes and Interior should be working
in partnership, but Interior seems to have adopted a take it or leave
it approach. We ask that the Committee seek changes to this approach to
help ensure the success of the Program and the maximum benefit to
Indian tribes.
______
Joint Prepared Statement of Helen Sanders, Allottee and Jim Harp,
Chairman, Allottees Association and Affiliated Tribes, Quinault
Reservation
We appreciate the Senate Indian Affairs Committee conducting a
nomination hearing for the Special Trustee for American Indians. We are
very hopeful that this is moving in the direction of the continuation
of the Office of Special Trustee (OST).
Regarding the OST, we have a statement concerning a proposal to
undo the progress that has been made for the many Indian beneficiaries
across Indian Country for the past twenty years.
Proposed Indian Trust Asset Reform Act
We oppose S. 3679.
S. 3679 is a proposal by the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
(ATNI). The legislation proposes to undo a program that is working
efficiently and honestly in asset management and distribution of
individual and tribal trust funds. S. 3679 mandates the following three
errors listed below will plunge trust asset management into the abyss
where it was lodged for decades and also raises the specter of new
problems.
1. Abolition of the Office of Special Trustee
The Office of Special Trustee (OST) was created in light of errors
and
mismanagement of federal trust brought to light in the case Cobell
v. Kempthorne/Norton/Babbit/Salazar that was ultimately resolved in a
negotiated settlement for $3.4 billion in 2009. The OST has proven that
it can effectively deal with the complex accounting and distribution of
assets in both individual and tribal trust accounts. S. 3679 proposes
to abolish OST. This is a mistake. The OST is working and its
operations have proven that the investment in its programs are well-
spent.
2. Turning Trust Fund Management over to Civil Service Employees
The Act of 1994 which established the OST does not operate under
the same requirements as the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 3679 Proposes to
transfer trust fund management to civil service Employees in the BIA.
Federal Civil Service personnel are employed because of their G-S
level, not specifically because of their special competency to manage
money and execute judicious investment strategies for the benefit of
non-competent Indians. The transfer of responsibility from the OST to
federal personnel without explicit requirements defining the unique
talents and knowledge required for the assignment is a mistake.
3. Setting the Stage for Contracting Out Trust Services
S. 3679 creates a mechanism whereby the Bureau of Indian Affairs
can contract out trust services to tribes while leaving part of the
program with the Bureau. The nation's more than 550 tribes and Native
American communities do not possess the expertise to fulfill trust
responsibilities at the highest level for the beneficiaries of the
trust. The prospect of contracting out trust services fractionalizes
and duplicates the efforts.
S. 3679 provides for moving Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts
from the OST to tribes via the Bureau of Indian Affairs contracting or
compacting with tribes for this duty. Contracting out trust services
creates the real prospect of weakening trust responsibility and
dramatically lessens protection for the individual Indian. The proposed
proliferation of management tasks weakens rather than strengthens the
program inherent in the federal trust doctrine.
Contracting out trust services leaves only a skeleton staff and
reduced funding of trust services to those tribes and individuals who
do not enter into contracting or compacting agreements.
General Comments
The United States government has legal obligations of trust
responsibility both to tribes and to individual Indians. In particular,
I call attention to the decision Mitchell, et al v. United States, 463
U.S. 206, a landmark case. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the
federal government has a fiduciary responsibility to the individual
allottee or his or her heirs by maintenance of the value of the
property, including funds, over time.
S. 3679 has the potential to not only destroy a program that is
working but also to cost more money. Presumably only a few number of
tribes would contract or compact to take over trust services. Each
tribe that does so, however, would request funding. Tribes and
individuals whose funds remain with the Bureau of Indian Affairs would
be served by a program with less funding.
It is essential that fiduciary trust functions be operated
separately from the other program duties of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and likewise from tribal duties. S. 3679 proposes to conflate
fiduciary trust and non-fiduciary trust duties at both the federal and
tribal level. This legislation will undo the resolution of the
prolonged and costly Cobell case.
If tribes want to move tribal trust funds ONLY from the OST to the
BIA, we would support them, providing it is clear that Individual
Indian Monies (IIM) would remain at the OST under the present
management.
______
Prepared Statement of the Oglala Sioux Tribe
______
Prepared Statement of the Fort Belknap Indian Community
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Berrey, Chairman, Quapaw Tribe
______
*Response to the following written questions was not received before
the hearing's print deadline*
Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tim Johnson to
Hon. Lawrence Roberts
Question 1. In my home state of South Dakota, the Oglala Sioux
Tribe was the first tribe to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with
the Department of the Interior to implement the Land Buy-Back program.
In mid-December, 2013, owners of fractionated land were given purchase
offer packets to be completed in 45 days. The Oglala Sioux Tribe is one
of the most fractionated reservations. How will the Interior work with
the tribal land buy-back program to address issues that arise in the
first venture of purchasing fractionated interests?
Question 1a. Mr. Roberts, you stated that it is expected that
hiccups and issues will arise in the start of purchasing fractionated
interests. If solutions to problems are made to improve the program
during this introductory phase, will the Interior re-extend purchase
offers to those land owners who did not take offers due to unforeseen
issues?
Question 1b. Does the Interior have the ability to be flexible on
the 45 day period timeframe that purchase offer packets are due?
Question 2. During the December 11, 2013 hearing, the topic of
administrative costs was discussed. Mr. Roberts you stated that it was
the goal of the administration to spend less than the allocated amount
to maintain the buy-back program. What will happen to the remaining
funds?
Questions 3. I have heard many concerns regarding the 15 percent
cap for administrative costs for tribes entering into cooperative
agreements. Legislatively, a 15 percent cap is not specified. In the
Cobell Settlement Agreement it is stated that ``An amount up to a total
of no more than 15 percent of the Trust Land Consolidation Fund shall
be used for purposes [of implementing the Land Consolidation
Program].'' The reading of this language does not specify that each
tribe should have a cap of 15 percent, but that the cap of 15 percent
is aimed at the total use of the Trust Land Consolidation Fund. How did
the Interior decide to place a cap of 15 percent for administrative
costs for tribes entering into cooperative agreements?
______
Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Heidi Heitkamp to
Hon. Lawrence Roberts
Question 1. While the Cobell v. Salazar litigation was about
mismanagement of individual Indian trust accounts and resources, Indian
tribes have a lot to gain from the $1.9 billion Land Buy-Back Plan for
Tribal Nations. After individual's interests in land are purchased,
these interests and lands will be returned to tribes to hold
consolidated tribal ownership and address some of the long-standing
problems of allotment. Once lands are consolidated tribes will have a
much easier time developing those lands to serve their communities.
Given the significant tribal interests in the Program what has the
Department done to ensure that the Buy-Back Program benefits tribes?
And, what has the Department done to provide tribes with the
opportunity to direct how the Buy-Back Program will be implemented on
their reservations?
Question 2. The Cobell v. Salazar Settlement Agreement and the
Claims Resolution Act of 2010 said the Secretary shall purchase lands
in accordance with the Indian Land Consolidation Act (ILCA) and the
Land Consolidation Program which also incorporates ILCA. ILCA says
tribes shall lead buy-back efforts on their reservations. Given the
significant role ILCA provides tribes, is the Department following the
law and providing tribes with leadership role in the Land Buy-Back Plan
for Tribal Nations? I understand tribes can enter into Cooperative
Agreements with Interior, but do these Cooperative Agreements provide
tribes with leadership roles as the law requires?
Question 3. I understand some tribes have found the negotiation
process for a Cooperative Agreement to be unduly complex and
burdensome. What is the Department doing to improve the process and
quickly finalize these agreements so we can get people on the ground
buying back land for tribes?
Question 4. One of the Program's most important goals is to
consolidate small fractionated interests. I understand the Department
plans to include a base payment of $75 dollars in every offer to
purchase fractionated interests in lands. The Department describes this
payment as compensation for a land owner's time and expenses in
responding to an offer. The Department makes clear it is not providing
a minimum payment to help incentivize the purchase of small
fractionated interests. To promote the sale of small fractionated
interests and the overall success of the Program, tribes have
recommended minimum payments of $500 for each fractionated interest.
Why did the Department decide not to provide a minimum payment for
small fractionated interests? What is the Department's plan if the $75
base payment is ultimately too low to incentivize enough small
fractionated interests to sell?
Question 5. Indian energy development has been an incredible
benefit to tribes across the country, including the Mandan Hidatsa and
Arikara Nation located in my state. In such areas where minerals have
high development potential, owners may be willing to sell their
interest in a surface estate but unwilling to sell their interest in
the mineral estate. However, on page A-2, the Department's Updated
Implementation Plan states the Department ``will not make bifurcated
offers to purchase surface and mineral interests separately because
such purchases would not reduce fractionation.'' By consolidating
interests in the surface estate, the Department would streamline
approvals for right-of-ways, surface leasing necessary for the
development energy resources, and energy transportation corridors.
Wouldn't it be beneficial for the Department to reduce surface
fractionation wherever it could and, particularly, where energy
development is occurring?
Question 6. Also on page A-2 of the Department's Updated
Implementation plan, the Department states that it is ``considering
including a minimum base payment for mineral interests in offers sent
to landowners, in accordance with past Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
land consolidation activities.'' The tribes I have spoken with have not
been provided information about a base payment for mineral interests.
Will this minimum base payment be an incentive payment to promote the
success of the Program, or merely compensation for an owner's time and
expenses in responding to an offer? Will this minimum base payment be
based on mineral appraisals? What will be the amount or the range for
this minimum base payment?