And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
X-Originating-IP: [207.179.186.14]
From: Robert Quiver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Fwd: [VERY LONG] CPT meeting notes
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:21:22 PDT
Please Post the following:
Title VI - Land Theft trudges forward in Pierre SD
But Janklow not seen in building.....
>Subject: [VERY LONG] CPT meeting notes
>Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:07:29
>
>Following is a compilation of notes taken by Christian Peacemaker Teams
>observers attending the following meetings:
>
>--Joseph Westphal meeting with Treaty Council, Rapid City, June 8
>--2nd Partnership Meeting to Implement Title VI, Pierre, June 9-10
>
>These are detailed notes and very long -- enter at your own risk :-)
>
>(notes are summaries of statements made, not direct quotes, unless in
>quotation
>marks)
>
>abbreviations:
>COE = Corps of Engineers
>GSN = Great Sioux Nation
>BHSNTC = Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council
>NAGPRA = Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
>NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act
>OST = Oglala Sioux Tribe
>SRST = Standing Rock Sioux Tribe
>CRST = Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
>CCST = Crow Creek Sioux Tribe
>RST = Rosebud Sioux Tribe
>LBST = Lower Brule Sioux Tribe
>BIA = Bureau of Indian Affairs
>EIS = Environmental Impact Statement
>USFWS = US Fish & Wildlife Service
>SDGF&P = South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Treaty Council Meeting with Asst Sec of the Army Joseph Westphal
>Tuesday, June 8, 1999: 2 - 5 pm
>Alpine Room, Rushmore Civic Center, Rapid City, SD
>
>-- notes by CPTers Carl Meyer, Jake Kaufman, and Patty Burdette
>
>Present: around 50 people. Primary speakers are from BHSNTC,
>Asst Sec of the Army Joseph Westphal for the COE, and
>representatives of SRST.
>
>Joseph Westphal, Asst Sec of the Army and head of the COE:
>--COE did not support or oppose the Act during the legislative
>process, but is simply charged by Congress with the task of
>implementing it. Believes there is strong support for the Act in
>Congress and that funding for implementation of the Act will be
>appropriated. COE is just trying to do its job and implement the
>Act as quickly and efficiently as possible.
>--COE is trying to have a relationship with both the state and
>the GSN that will allow them to efficiently complete the
>environmental and wildlife habitat mitigation work required by
>the Act.
>--COE is working across the country to improve relationships with
>tribes and improve tribal policy. There are serious issues
>related to cultural sites along the river, and COE would like to
>deal with those issues in a sensitive and appropriate way.
>Didn't mention treaty concerns.
>
>Chief Oliver Red Cloud of BHSNTC:
>--Treaty rights issues important. It appears that Congress
>doesn't recognize the Sioux' treaty rights.
>--Invited those present to ask Westphal whatever questions they
>might have.
>
>Jesse Taken Alive, SRST Tribal Council member, representing the
>Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (which withdrew from negotiations
>regarding the legislation, although it has land within
>reservation boundaries along the river under Corps management),
>was invited to speak by Chief Red Cloud:
>--SRST is on record opposing the legislation. Contrary to false
>reports otherwise, SRST is still in firm opposition to it.
>--Asked if participation in this meeting qualified as
>participation in the COE consultation process of implementing the
>legislation. Westphal said, in essence, that it did, and Jesse
>requested for the record that it be made clear that SRST
>participation in the meeting did not in any way convey their
>consent to continued implementation of the legislation.
>--Gave Westphal copies of the various SRST Tribal Council
>resolutions stating opposition to the Act.
>--SRST is in favor of land being returned to the Cheyenne River
>Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Tribe, and is in favor of federal
>trust funds allowing those tribes to complete wildlife habitat
>mitigation and other work along the river, but is absolutely
>opposed to any land transfer to the state.
>--Washington DC thinks the tribes have been properly consulted
>and are OK with this legislation, but that is not true.
>--A hundred years ago, we were fighting over this land. Now
>we're here talking about it. The only thing that hasn't changed
>is that the land is still being taken from us.
>--In July of '97, in the process of forming the legislation,
>Daschle said that if the tribes along the river could not come to
>an agreement, the process would not continue. Yet he continued
>with the legislation even after all but two tribes withdrew and
>registered their opposition.
>--We are very concerned about the differences between what we are
>told will happen and what actually happens.
>--You need to get us a hearing in Washington DC regarding this
>legislation.
>
>Westphal response:
>--COE not included in the process at all pr ior to passage of the
>legislation. We simply have to implement it. We plan to do
>that, maintaining full compliance with all relevant legislation,
>including NEPA, NAGPRA.
>
>Jesse Taken Alive:
>--Five or six years ago, we (SRST) tried to get the Corps to
>return our taken riverfront lands administratively, as they're
>supposed to do under the eminent domain takings law. We had to
>jump through so many hoops, and this long bureaucratic process.
>We still haven't gotten our lands. Why is this Act being pushed
>forward like this? Where are the hoops in front of this
>legislation that we had to jump through?
>
>Tex Hall, chairman of the Three Affiliated Tribes (Hidatsa,
>Mandan, and Arikara), with reservations upriver in ND, but
>ancestral remains in the land to be transferred:
>--Our ancestors' remains are affected by this legislation. We
>have federal protection for those sites, through NAGPRA and other
>laws. Concerned this protection won't last under state
>administration.
>--We haven't been included in this process, we haven't been
>consulted. We request oversight hearings on this legislation.
>
>Westphal:
>--We need to be realistic here and define what exactly
>"consultation" means.
>
>A CCST Tribal Council member addressed Westphal regarding other
>unrelated issues on Crow Creek Reservation.
>
>Westphal told a mostly irrelevant and somewhat offensive story
>about the Mapuche Indians in Chile, where he was born.
>
>Jesse Taken Alive:
>--Asked Westphal to read Article 12 of the 1868 Ft Laramie
>Treaty: "No treaty for the cession of any portion or part of the
>reservation herein described... shall be of any validity or
>force... unless executed and signed by at least three-fourths of
>all the adult male Indians... occupying or interested in the
>same..."
>--"All we're asking is, let's not break these treaties anymore."
>
>Chip Smith, secretary to Westphal:
>--Clause 607(a)(3) of the Mitigation Act does state that "Nothing
>in this Title diminishes or affects any treaty right that is in
>effect on the date of enactment of this Act."
>
>Westphal:
>--If this legislation is in violation of treaties, that may be
>something for the courts to decide.
>
>Elder Johnson Holy Rock of the BHSNTC:
>--Leaving OST, SRST, RST, and CCST out of this legislation and
>including CRST and LBST is a classic divide and conquer.
>--The US doesn't claim the right to unilaterally alter or nullify
>treaties with other countries. Why do they do it to us?
>
>Peter Capossela, attorney for SRST:
>--Thanks for paying attention to us, finally. All these years
>we've hardly been able to get anyone in the COE Omaha office to
>even answer the phone, and now finally with this bill you're
>coming all the way out here to meet with us.
>--A 1994 Act of Congress required that the Corps return unused
>riverfront land within SRST reservation and Ft Berthold
>reservation (in ND). The Corps still has not implemented that
>transfer. Why does this new Act, passed just last October, get
>priority? We all know why -- because the state is getting land.
>So only tribes who agree to give up Treaty lands to the state
>will get their land back, it looks like.
>--The Mitigation Act is self-contradictory and thus non-
>implementable. Sec 605(a) requires that land containing Nat Am
>cultural sites be transferred to the state of SD. Sec 605(h)
>states specifically that NAGPRA will continue to apply to this
>land, and yet NAGPRA specifically states that it only applies to
>federal lands.
>
>Jesse Taken Alive:
>--If we go to court and challenge this legislation and win, we'll
>still lose the land. The court will let the land go to the state
>and try to give us compensation for it. Anywhere else in the
>country where land is taken away illegally, it is given back.
>Here in Indian Country, we just get "compensated."
>--Sec 605(a), mandating the transfer to the state, also
>contradicts Sec 607(a)(3), requiring that no treaty rights be
>affected, because 1868 treaty guarantees this land to GSN.
>Repeatedly asked if any COE representatives present could tell
>him which specific treaty rights are referred to by 607(a)(3),
>and how COE will deal with that clause. Westphal responded that
>COE needs to study the issue. Verbally committed COE to doing an
>internal "treaty analysis" as part of studying the issues
>involved in implementing the Act.
>
>Eileen Iron Cloud, OST member from Pine Ridge:
>--Mentioned LaFramboise camp and CPT, requested oversight
>hearings on Act.
>
>Peter Capossela:
>--Congress is not as firmly behind this as you (Westphal) seem to
>think. The Senate select committee on Indian Affairs is
>deferring to Daschle, but the House committee on Resources is
>ready to schedule hearings on the merits, just waiting on Rep
>Thune from SD to give his OK (protocol issue).
>
>Westphal:
>--Verbally committed to contacting representatives and Senator
>Daschle to request oversight hearings on the Mitigation Act.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>2nd Partnership Meeting to Implement Title VI (Mitigation Act)
>Wednesday, June 9, 1999 -- 10:30 am - 5:00 pm
>Tuesday, June 10, 1999 -- 9:00 am - 12:45 pm
>Iron Horse Inn, Pierre, SD
>
>-- notes by CPTers Carl Meyer, Jake Kaufman, and Patty Burdette
>
>Present:
>David Vader, COE Nat Am Coordinator
>Candace Thomas, COE Title VI (Mitigation Act) Project Manager
>Paul Wemhoener, COE Operations Manager for Omaha District
>James Crews, COE
>Paul Blakey, COE
>Peg O'Bryan, COE
>Gordon Bailey, Army General Counsel
>Chip Smith, aide to Asst Sec of the Army Joseph Westphal
>Eric Washburn, aide to Sen Daschle
>Tom Young, BIA Aberdeen (Day 1)
>Paul Hoffman, BIA hydrologist (Day 1)
>John Cooper, Sec of SD Game, Fish, and Parks (Day 1)
>Rick Collignon, SD Game, Fish, and Parks
>Tom McCulloch, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
>Nell McPhillips, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
>Michael Jandreau, LBST Tribal Chairman
>Scott Jones, LBST public relations director
>Joel Bich, LBST biologist
>Louis DuBray, CRST Tribal Vice-Chairman (Day 1)
>Haroll Frazier, CRST Tribal Council member
>Steve Emory, CRST Attorney General
>Tom Van Norman, CRST attorney
>various other representatives of CRST, LBST, BIA, and COE
>Reginald Cedar Face, Pine Ridge Oglala (Day 1)
>Isaac White Face, Treaty Council elder, Oglala (Day 2)
>Emily and Eileen Iron Cloud, Pine Ridge Oglala (Day 2)
>Paul Robertson, South Dakota Peace and Justice (Day 2)
>Tom Cheyenne, LaFramboise camp (Day 2)
>Rich Shangreaux, LaFramboise camp (Day 2)
>Clayton "Boots" Quiver, LaFramboise camp (Day 2)
>Angelo Horse, LaFramboise camp (Day 2)
>Melinda Martin, Pierre camp supporter (Day 2)
>CPT observer Carl Meyer
>CPT observer Bob Epp (Day 1 am, Day 2)
>CPT observer Jake Kaufman (Day 1 pm, Day 2)
>CPT observers Patty Burdette and Ron Friesen (Day 2)
>
>(Day 1)
>In review of Memorandum for Record from 1st Title VI
>Implementation Partnership Meeting (April 12-13, 1999, Wash DC),
>CRST rep Harold Frazier noted that two items (Items 9 and 41)
>dealing with treaty concerns were included in the list of issues
>yet to be resolved. Said he had understood that all present at
>the last meeting had agreed that those would be deleted. General
>agreement with that (no-one there to object), so items were
>deleted.
>
>[note: COE will still consider the treaties in doing their Title
>VI Implementation work. This larger partnership group, however,
>will not discuss them as an issue to be resolved in the
>implementation of Title VI.]
>
>Washburn:
>--Textual amendments to Title VI giving fishing and hunting
>rights to CRST and LBST along with land and clarifying that USGS
>water-flow impact study won't affect tribal water rights are in
>Water Resources Development Act, which has not yet passed, but is
>expected to.
>--COE has been directed in Kosovo relief funding bill to
>reprogram $800,000 into implementation of Title VI for FY1999.
>--FY2000 Appropriations bill in Senate Appropriations Committee
>contains $3 million in funding for the COE to implement Title VI.
>House Appropriations Committee has not yet met to consider FY2000
>appropriations. Expects that somewhere between $2 and $3 million
>will be appropriated for Title VI implementation in final bill.
>--Senate select committee on Indian Affairs has agreed to oversee
>process of applying NAGPRA to land that is not under federal
>control (ie land that will be transferred to the state under
>Title VI). This should not be an obstacle to implementation of
>Title VI.
>
>Jandreau:
>--We appreciate the participation of all those who care to be a
>part of this process.
>--Let's get this transfer done and stop going over all this old
>ground in discussions.
>
>DuBray:
>--We just want to get this land transfer done as quickly as
>possible.
>--We all know this transfer won't affect water usage, so let's
>not let the USGS water-flow impact study hold this thing up.
>
>Cooper:
>--We've got to move this process along quickly. (LBST and CRST)
>Chairmen Jandreau and Bourland are taking heat over this Act from
>"uninformed vested interests."
>--The Governor (Janklow) has "no ulterior motives" in this Act.
>His only goals are
> a) resolving jurisdictional issues
> b) maintaining recreational facilities along the river
> c) wildlife habitat mitigation
>--Supports categorical exclusion under NEPA (ie no EIS) on land
>transfer to tribes. Thinks state should get one as well, because
>the land use won't change.
>--Rumors have been going around about planned industrial or
>commercial development along the river. They are not true. The
>Governor has no such plans.
>--State would like to lease recreation areas along river from COE
>within a month or two, prior to the actual land transfer, which
>will probably take years.
>--State wants to prepare for Lewis and Clark bicentennial
>celebration by making sure rec. facilities are up to par. COE
>has not maintained them adequately, and state would like to begin
>upgrades ASAP.
>--State is taking cultural resource concerns very seriously and
>wants them fully addressed in the implementation process.
>--Land surveys (which may take years) are not necessary for the
>transfer to take place. We know what land we're talking about.
>
>Young:
>--BIA formally requests that some of the funding for Title VI
>implementation be directed to BIA to cover their costs.
>
>Washburn:
>--We need a cost estimate from you so we can appropriate funds in
>Congress.
>
>DuBray and Jandreau both objected to BIA taking implementation
>funding.
>
>Emory:
>--CRST would like extension on comment period to get written
>comments to COE.
>
>Cooper:
>--State is working on forming an Advisory Commission to make sure
>that federal regulations under NAGPRA and other laws, which
>according to Title VI apply to lands transferred to the state,
>are properly applied.
>
>Cedar Face:
>--These tribal governments (CRST and LBST) are basically an
>extension of the federal government. They don't represent the
>Sioux Nation and they don't represent me. Why are you dealing
>with them on land issues?
>
>Cooper:
>--We're trying to make sure everyone is represented and heard in
>this process.
>
>Jones:
>--Yesterday Westphal met with BHSNTC and promised to take a look
>at the treaty issues... your concerns are being addressed.
>
>Hoffman:
>--clarification re earlier request from CRST... there is no
>deadline on the comment period for the USGS waterflow impact
>study.
>
>DuBray:
>--CRST formally requests a meeting with USGS hydrologist Dan
>Driscoll to discuss the waterflow impact study.
>
>(break for lunch)
>
>Jones:
>--Long history of LBST frustration (understatement) facing COE
>indifference to cultural sites "washing away."
>--COE has been "criminally negligent" in its caretaking of
>Lakota, Mandan, Arikara, and Hidatsa cultural sites along the
>river.
>--LBST views this legislation as best opportunity to finally get
>land back from COE and take care of sites properly themselves,
>but needs funding to do this.
>--Land was taken by COE over fifty years ago... now finally with
>this bill we have an opportunity to get back what is rightfully
>ours.
>
>McPhillips:
>--COE hasn't done its environmental job, USFWS is involved to
>make sure proper NEPA procedures are followed in transfer, and to
>make sure everyone receiving land under Title VI drafts a
>"General Plan" for preserving endangered species wildlife habitat
>along river.
>--USFWS sent COE a proposed General Plan every ten years or so,
>COE never acted.
>
>Emory:
>--Why should CRST and LBST be held to higher environmental
>standards than COE was, when they have much less funding?
>
>Thomas:
>--Let's get work teams formed to handle all these implementation
>issues.
>--Is each party (COE, SDGF&P, BIA, LBST, CRST) ready to name one
>person as project manager, to be contact person and conduit for
>all information re Title VI implementation? These five people
>will then form the Coordinating Team.
>-- Candace Thomas for COE
>-- Rick Collignon for SDGF&P
>-- Tom Young for BIA
>
>
>Emory, Frazier, Jandreau, Jones, etc:
>--CRST and LBST aren't going to just go along with COE plan for
>doing all this. We need more than one person to be primary
>contact, because we're overstretched w/ personnel and all of us
>have other duties besides Title VI. We're sovereign governments
>and you can't just dictate this process to us like this.
>
>(Work team formation put on hold)
>
>Washburn:
>--Daschle open to special legislation this summer allowing land
>transfers to CRST and LBST to go through quickly, after which
>tribes can contract w/ COE to get funds to do cultural site,
>habitat mitigation work. We can start working on this
>legislation as soon as next week.
>
>Young:
>--Treaty issues involved here are major and important. Shouldn't
>they be discussed in this process somewhere?
>
>Emory:
>--NO! Treaty issues are not relevant to this implementation
>process, due to the 1889 Allotment Act and subsequent court
>decisions.
>
>Thomas:
>--Asst Sec Westphal did promise Treaty Council in Rapid City that
>COE will study treaty issues as part of implementation process,
>but this partnership group may not be the appropriate place to
>address those concerns.
>
>Emory:
>--Treaty Council is not legally representative of federally
>recognized Sioux tribes, tribal governments are legally elected
>representatives. Treaty Council does not have the right to
>request the COE to study our treaties. Only the tribal
>governments have the legal right to discuss treaty issues on a
>govt to govt basis with the US govt.
>--COE, an arm of the Dept of Defense, is not an appropriate place
>for the US govt to address treaty issues.
>
>(funding issues discussed for rest of pm; covered more thoroughly
>in discussion below, day 2)
>
>(Day 2)
>CRST requests formal apology from COE for comment made by Project
>Manager Thomas to CRST Atty Genl Emory after meeting yesterday.
>
>(Background: Emory said "The problem with this whole process is
>that I wasn't at the first Partnership meeting in Wash DC," to
>which an annoyed and stressed Thomas responded "As far as I'm
>concerned, you shouldn't be at any of these meetings.")
>
>Thomas: It happened in private and should be resolved in
>private.
>
>Emory: Disagree it should be handled in private. Presence of
>Attorney General directed by CRST tribal govt, therefore her
>comment insult to CRST govt.
>
>(Thomas later formally apologized to Emory and CRST on behalf of
>COE)
>
>Court stenographer at future meetings requested by CRST and LBST.
>
>introductions...
>
>Tom Cheyenne, Lakota remarks: relates the history of white/Lakota
>relations re treaty/gold/money. We talk, we write it down but
>the land goes and we get nothing. There is no land for our
>tiyospaye and our families. The people The common man has no
>chance to speak. I am a common man, I am here to speak for the
>people. The dead are there in this land. The whites talk, but
>God is there. Now the whites have everything. Today we talk
>some more. The whites always just want us to get out of the way.
>
>Steve Emory, response in Lakota: All of the land is God's, but
>the organization / boundaries (?) need to hold it (title). These
>people are not all part of the government. Today we have our
>women and children to care for. Who will do this? You say the
>people. Remember what has happened before.
>
>Isaac White Face, in Lakota: commends Tom for speaking, and for
>what he said. Cautions Steve not to forget, with all his
>education and money, to listen to the things Tom said. Says
>white man's education and money changes your mind. Rebukes Steve
>as an elder. (Gives a handshake and thanks to Tom, Emily, Eileen,
>and Paul, then leaves meeting)
>
>Emory: Thanks Tom and Isaac for speaking from their hearts and
>for speaking for these things.
>
>Emily Iron Cloud: relates the history of her family and work with
>Black Hills. You took these lands to finance your first
>colonies. You take our resources. We have not been able to
>utilize our land, our water etc. You take these things without
>our consent. Six tribes are formally opposed to this transfer.
>Daschle is a criminal for not allowing us to have a hearing. You
>cannot do this, take the actions, take these lands without the
>consent of entire Sioux Nation. We do not oppose CRST and LBST
>getting land or funds, just transfer to state.
>
>Eileen Iron Cloud: This will not happen. State of South Dakota,
>you will not receive this land. Washburn, take this to Sen
>Daschle: six tribes have asked for hearings - is that too much to
>ask, to be heard? Also, '94 JTAC for SRST - still nothing done.
>Why move so fast on this? We know you want this land.
>
>Paul Robertson, SD Peace and Justice Center: Official position
>calling for oversight hearings on Title VI.
>
>Rich Shangreaux, Teton Nation: You are trying to control the
>future of our nation. All you see is the money you will make.
>You are making my elders cry -- you don't do that. How can you
>all work so hard to hurt our people?
>
>Charmaine White Face: Freelance writer from Wounded Knee
>district, 8 children, 14 grandchildren. Started writing in 1994
>abt this - elder man from CRST forwarded alert to her. Col Volz
>spoke abt govt to govt relationship. Do you uphold the
>constitution? How can an act of legislation supersede the
>constitution or a treaty, the supreme law of the land? Prophecy
>- when women come forward it will be a battle of spirit. Women
>are spiritual warriors. We pray for Daschle and Janklow for good
>health -- not just physical but mental, spiritual, emotional. We
>will fight for our future, children. You have to listen with
>your hearts, not just your minds.
>
>Following these comments, COE called for break in meeting.
>Allowed bureacrats and functionaries time to stand around talking
>about fishing and clear the emotional energy from the room.
>
>Gov Janklow arrived during this break and requested that COE
>lease all recreation sites along river to the state for
>improvements, immediately. COE responded that upon receipt of a
>formal request, sites could be leased to state within thirty
>days.
>
>(meeting reconvened)
>
>Wemhoener, representing Col Robert Volz (district manager for
>Omaha district):
>--Gov Janklow is interested in leasing more recreation sites
>along river from us, as we have leased them in the past. Janklow
>will write official letter requesting these leases.
>
>Frazier:
>--If SD can lease these sites from Corps, why can't we? CRST
>would like to lease four rec sites between Cheyenne River
>Reservation and Oahe Dam.
>
>Wemhoener:
>--Send COE a formal request and we will consider it. Those four
>sites in particular currently not leased to anyone else.
>--(Proceeded to presentation re funding for Title VI
>implementation)
>--COE is funded by Congress on a project-by-project basis, it has
>no general program funds. Title VI is a project, Army is the
>action agent for implementation of Title VI.
>--Candy Thomas is COE Title VI Project Manager, responsible for
>budget, schedule and oversight. She is the responsible agent for
>COE.
>--COE can do work necessary for Title VI implementation in-house,
>contract it out, or any combination of the two. Contracts
>possible w/ tribes, state, any other federal agency.
>--U.S. Govt currently holds title to the lands affected by Title
>VI. Under Title VI, those titles will be transferred to the
>state of South Dakota and to the BIA to hold in trust for the
>tribes.
>--COE has been directed by Congress to reprogram $800,000 from
>other projects for implementing Title VI in remainder of FY1999.
>COE tentatively plans to use roughly $300,000 of those funds to
>do preliminary inventory work on protection of cultural sites,
>$400,000 to pay for partnership meeting costs, and the remainder
>is free for other necessary work.
>--COE is not a funding agency. It is not authorized to
>distribute funds from project budgets to other entities, apart
>from contracting for specific work on the project.
>--Once Congress actually appropriates funds for this project, COE
>will work with tribes and state to implement requirements of
>Title VI. To date this is an unfunded project. $800,000 was not
>appropriated, merely redirected from other COE projects.
>--Leasee of rec areas on river are responsible for upkeep,
>maintenance etc. This is a funding drain on responsible agency.
>Agency leasing sites (eg SD) must guarantee COE that they will
>get the funds somewhere. [implied: CRST and LBST don't have the
>money necessary to do this]
>--Title VI is silent on COE taken lands within SRST and CCST
>reservation boundaries. Some rec sites within those reservations
>are currently leased by SD. Under Title VI, US govt will retain
>title to those lands, and COE will continue to maintain them.
>COE will honor leases to state until term of lease expires.
>--New appropriations from Congress for FY2000 (possibly $3
>million?) - use depends on how appropriations are written into
>law. In current Senate Appropriations version, $3 million is
>appropriated to COE as one lump sum for Title VI implementation.
>In the end, there may be other limitations, restrictions, or the
>money may be subdivided and allocated by Congress for specific
>purposes. Until that bill passes, no one can say how much money
>will be available for anything.
>
>Emory:
>--Let's be honest here. There's a big difference between
>authorization and a mandate. Title VI authorizes certain
>activities, doesn't mandate them. Right now there are 0 dollars
>available for anything. The tribes need money to do their own
>assessment and interpret USGS water-flow study, etc. The
>$800,000 is up for grabs, and it should go to those who need it
>most; the tribes.
>
>Wemhoener:
>--COE cannot begin until Clinton signs appropriations bill into
>law. Congress has said no action until appropriations, and COE
>must abide by that. This is all interim funding, since it will
>be seven or eight years before trust funds mandated by Title VI
>for tribes and state are fully capitalized and available for use.
>
>Emory:
>--In the absence of mandated (trust fund) funding, the tribes
>have no tax base to fund anything because you all stole it from
>us. Now the state of SD has this tax base.
>--Also, funds from taxes on fishing & hunting licenses sold, etc,
>goes to state of SD. We get none of that money either.
>--Legislation needed to give tribes preference in contracting for
>services w/ COE anywhere in Indian Country to make up for these
>imbalances.
>
>Wemhoener:
>--At minimum, it will take two years to complete the land
>transfer process with all preliminary work necessary. That's an
>extremely optimistic estimate, only possible if COE is fully
>funded to complete work (EIS, cultural sites, wildlife work etc).
>If less than fully funded, will take longer. We may even have to
>survey the land to be transferred; that's a monumental task and
>could well take years by itself.
>--COE Draft Implementation Plan (w/ multi-year implementation
>budget) due for review in August.
>
>List of work teams decided upon:
>--Coordinating Team (Legislative, Funding, Misc subsumed)
>--Real Estate (USGS / Rec Areas subsumed)
>--Cultural Resources
>--NEPA process (Legislative/Jurisdictional)
>--Consultation
>
>Names from each party for teams to be submitted by June 18.
>Teams should meet and have something ready to present by next
>meeting.
>
>Next meeting:
>July 20 & 21 on CRST reservation.
