Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/06/2007

Home

July 15, 20071 Volume 11 No. 14 goal of the land trust as "expanding the Tribe's land base for the eco- nomic well being of the future generation of tribal members," and stated that it needed the land placed in trust "for future housing development to meet the needs of the ever-growing population." The regional director of the BrA reviewed the application, seeking comments from the state and county regarding zoning and property t8-X issues. Both the county and state objected to the trust acquisition on sev- eral grounds, but the director approved the application nonetheless. The state and county petitioned the court for a declaratory judgmem stating that the BrA's decision was in error. They also sought al"1 injunc- tion to prevent the Department from taking the land into trust for the tribe. The lower court found in the Department's favor without a trial, and the state and county appealed. Decision: Affirmed. On appeal, the state and county argued that the Department lacked authority to acquire the land at issue into trust. In an earlier, related case, the 8th u.s. Circuit Court of Appeals had found that the Depart- ment's authority to take land into trust for Indian tribes was limited by the requirement that the land was being acquired for "self-support and to ameliorate the damage of prior allotment policies." The state and county argued that the request here should not have been granted be- cause the trust was only sought for further economic gains for an al- ready "well-to-do" tribe. While the language in the Act referred specifically to acquiring land . for "landless Indians," Congress' broad goal when authorizing the Act was to "conserve and develop Indian lands and resources." The 8th Cir- cuit found that this goal was not limited to tribes "Without land. Congress "placed primary emphasis on the needs of individuals and tribes" and the Act authorized acquisitions that increased "the likelihood that the land would be beneficially used to increase Indian self-support." Here, the 8th Circuit found that the BrA's report approving the trust sufficiently outlined the ways in which the acquisition would contribute to the tribe's self sufficiency. Taking additional land into trust to accom- modate the growing tribal population was consistent with the Act's goal. The court also agreed with the lower court's rejection of the argument that the tribe did not need the land because it owned land already. There was no evidence in the record to support the state and county's apparent concern that the land would be used to expand the tribes gam- ing activities.. Because the tribe's application sufficiently described uses for the new land that were consistent with its needs and the goals of the BrA, the decision of the lower court was affirmed. 3 103