Mono Lake Kutzadikaa Tribe Recognition Act

I 117TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION H. R. 3649 To extend Federal recognition to the Mono Lake Kutzadikaa Tribe, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JUNE 1, 2021 Mr. OBERNOLTE (for himself and Mr. YOUNG) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources A BILL To extend Federal recognition to the Mono Lake Kutzadikaa Tribe, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 1 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 2 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 3 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mono Lake Kutzadikaa 4 Tribe Recognition Act’’. 5 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 6 Congress finds as follows: 7 (1) The Mono Lake Kutzadikaa Tribe has ex- 8 isted for time immemorial in the Mono Basin of 9 east-central California and adjacent Nevada. 10 VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:28 Jun 26, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3649.IH H3649 kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS 2 •HR 3649 IH (2) The Mono Lake Kutzadikaa people were 1 first encountered in 1825 by early trappers in the 2 area, but were officially documented by the Federal 3 Government in June 1852 by Army Lieutenant 4 Tredwell Moore, who was in pursuit of hostile Indi- 5 ans in the Yo-Ham-i-te (today ‘‘Yosemite’’) Valley, 6 and tracked them through a previously undiscovered 7 pass through the Sierra Mountains that lead to 8 Mono Lake. The pass was later named ‘‘Mono Pass’’ 9 also known as ‘‘Tsadoba’’, after the ‘‘Indians of that 10 name’’. 11 (3) The Tribe, like all tribes in California, was 12 not the beneficiary of a reservation through the trea- 13 ty process and remained landless and without Fed- 14 eral protection in the wake of the California gold 15 rush and other non-Indian encroachment into the 16 Tribe’s aboriginal lands. 17 (4) In 1904, the plight of the Tribe was 18 brought to the attention of the Committee on Indian 19 Affairs by the Northern California Indian Associa- 20 tion through a petition and extensive, but not ex- 21 haustive, study documenting the landless Indians in 22 California. The study identified the numerous tribal 23 communities in California who were in desperate 24 need of land, as well as Federal support and protec- 25 VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:28 Jun 26, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3649.IH H3649 kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS 3 •HR 3649 IH tion, and the Mono Lake Kutzadikaa community was 1 among those surveyed. As a result of the petition, 2 Congress began to appropriate funding for the pur- 3 chase of lands in California for the ‘‘homeless Indi- 4 ans’’. 5 (5) In 1907, historical members of the Tribe 6 were issued individual allotted lands near Mono 7 Lake under the General Allotment Act. In accord- 8 ance to the General Allotment Act, allotted lands 9 were only provided to Indians shown to be recog- 10 nized or entitled to be recognized members of an 11 ‘‘Indian tribe’’. The Federal Government determined 12 that Mono Lake Kutzadikaa members met this cri- 13 teria. 14 (6) In the early 1920s, the Los Angeles Depart- 15 ment of Water and Power began purchasing lands 16 throughout Inyo and Mono Counties in its effort to 17 secure a reliable water supply for the expanding city 18 of Los Angeles in southern California. The Mono 19 Lake Kutzadikaa allottees were not immune to the 20 pressures of Los Angeles Department of Water and 21 Power and were encouraged to sell their land, which 22 most did. However, Tribal members remained at 23 Mono Lake working and living on local farms and in 24 VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:28 Jun 26, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3649.IH H3649 kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS 4 •HR 3649 IH some cases squatting on Los Angeles Department of 1 Water and Power or other Federal lands. 2 (7) Although Tribal members were once again 3 landless, they remained under the jurisdiction of the 4 Federal Government and appeared on the Bureau of 5 Indian Affairs census records, their children at- 6 tended Bureau of Indian Affairs boarding schools, 7 and members received (and do today) health care 8 services, and other Federal benefits and services. 9 (8) Federal representatives worked with the 10 Tribe to no avail in the 1920s and 1930s to secure 11 a land base, and these efforts are well documented 12 in official Bureau of Indian Affairs correspondence 13 and records. 14 (9) In June 1950, Tribal members submitted a 15 petition to the Committee on Interior and Insular 16 Affairs and the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, re- 17 questing an investigation into their living conditions. 18 In the petition, they stated that they hoped that 19 through an investigation, the agencies might ‘‘appro- 20 priate, rehabilitate, or set aside land for us’’. H.R. 21 Muskrat, a Bureau of Indian Affairs field represent- 22 ative who investigated the conditions of Tribal mem- 23 bers, reported to J.M. Stewart, the Bureau of Indian 24 Affairs Area Director for California, that there were 25 VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:28 Jun 26, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3649.IH H3649 kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS 5 •HR 3649 IH no public lands available for the Tribe or its mem- 1 bers, and all water resources were owned by the Los 2 Angeles Department of Water and Power. 3 (10) On December 26, 1950, a formal petition 4 was filed before the Indian Claims Commission on 5 behalf of the Northern Paiute Nation, which in- 6 cluded various individual Northern Paiute Indians 7 and several reservation tribes, all located in Nevada. 8 The original claim, designated as Docket No. 87, did 9 not include California Paiute tribes from the Owens 10 Valley, Mono Lake, Deep Springs Valley, or Fish 11 Lake Valley. During the course of the liability phase 12 of the trial, expert testimony was introduced cor- 13 recting the oversight, and on August 8, 1951, an 14 amended petition was filed that included the Tribe 15 and other overlooked California Paiute Nations. Un- 16 fortunately, the Commission awarded only meager 17 compensation to individual members and did not 18 provide lands to the Tribe. 19 (11) In 1955, the Tribe submitted a petition to 20 State Senator Charles Brown of Sacramento, Cali- 21 fornia, seeking to establish a reservation that in- 22 cluded 66,000 acres of land. The petition rested on 23 a 1912 Presidential Executive order that had set 24 aside lands for the Tribe and other tribes in Inyo 25 VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:28 Jun 26, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3649.IH H3649 kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS 6 •HR 3649 IH and Mono County, but was later withdrawn because 1 the original land identified was unsuitable. The 2 Tribe’s petition was again met with the statement 3 that there was no land available for a reservation. 4 (12) Believing that recognition might lead to 5 land for the Tribe, the Tribe submitted a letter of 6 ‘‘Intent to Petition for Recognition’’ in 1976 to the 7 Office of Federal Acknowledgment and began work- 8 ing on a petition for recognition, an effort that con- 9 tinues today. 10 (13) In 1977, the Tribe adopted formal Articles 11 of Association to define its enrollment criteria and 12 election of Tribal leaders. 13 (14) Also in 1977, the Tribe petitioned and was 14 recognized by the BIA as an ‘‘adult Indian commu- 15 nity of one-half degree of Indian blood’’ under the 16 Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 5101 17 et seq.). However, the Bureau of Indian Affairs 18 made clear that this status did not give Federal rec- 19 ognition to the Tribe. The status did solidify that 20 Tribal members were recognized as ‘‘Indians’’ and 21 entitled to Federal benefits and services. 22 (15) Even without formal Tribal recognition, 23 the Tribe has remained a political force and the pro- 24 tector of Mono Lake, Kutzapaa’ which is at the cen- 25 VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:28 Jun 26, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3649.IH H3649 kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS 7 •HR 3649 IH ter of the Tribe’s culture and history and provided 1 its ancestors with a critical food source. On March 2 19, 1983, Jessie Durant, a revered Tribal elder, tes- 3 tified before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and 4 National Parks on the importance of Mono Lake to 5 the Mono Lake people and culture. Mono Lake is 6 now known as the Mono Lake Tufa State Natural 7 Reserve thanks in large part to the efforts of the 8 Tribe and the Mono Lake Foundation. 9 (16) On April 28, 1989, the Senate Select Com- 10 mittee on Indian Affairs held hearings in Sac- 11 ramento, California, on SB 611, a bill to Establish 12 Administrative Procedures to Determine Status of 13 Certain Indian Groups. Tribal member Richard 14 Blaver was invited to and provided testimony on be- 15 half of the Tribe on the difficulties encountered by 16 tribes seeking recognition through the Bureau of In- 17 dian Affairs’ administrative acknowledgment proc- 18 ess. 19 (17) The Federal agencies that now manage 20 Federal lands, some of which are the ancestral lands 21 of the Tribe, share a deep respect for the Tribe, and 22 acknowledge that the Kutzadikaa members are the 23 aboriginal people of the Mono Basin. Small examples 24 can be seen from the Forest Service, that in 1991 25 VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:28 Jun 26, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3649.IH H3649 kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS 8 •HR 3649 IH worked with the Tribe in protecting the Tribe’s ‘‘In- 1 dian’’ cemetery located in part on Forest Service 2 lands. 3 (18) In 1993, the Forest Service hosted a dedi- 4 cation in honor of the elders of the Kutzadikaa Tribe 5 by setting aside a grove of Jeffrey pine trees for tra- 6 ditional purposes and designated the area as the 7 Piaga Park. The Forest Service specifically dedi- 8 cated the trees in ‘‘honor of the Mono Lake 9 [Kutzadikaa] Elders who have historically harvested 10 the [Piaga] from the area’’. 11 (19) In 1996, the National Park Service issued 12 a directive to all Yosemite Entrance Station per- 13 sonnel informing them that members of the Tribe 14 were to be granted entrance to the Yosemite Na- 15 tional Park at no cost. More recent examples are the 16 ongoing Federal, State, and county agencies con- 17 sultations with the Tribe on proposed environmental 18 projects, land management planning, and repatri- 19 ation of Tribal funerary objects and artifacts under 20 the Native American Graves Protection and Repatri- 21 ation Act when encountered on Federal lands. 22 (20) In 2000, the Tribe partnered with the 23 Mono County Board of Supervisors to seek funding 24 to assist the county in completing a community cen- 25 VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:28 Jun 26, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3649.IH H3649 kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS 9 •HR 3649 IH ter in Lee Vining, California. The Tribe was award- 1 ed a State Community Development Block Grant 2 from the California Native American Allocation for 3 $475,000, which was used to complete construction 4 of the community center. In exchange for this con- 5 tribution, the county has dedicated office space to 6 the Tribe and a large meeting room for Tribal gen- 7 eral council meetings, and the building is identified 8 as the ‘‘Mono Lake Indian and Lee Vining Commu- 9 nity Center’’. 10 (21) In 2003, the Tribe adopted a Constitution 11 and other governing documents to formalize its Trib- 12 al Government structure, enrollment process, and 13 elections of its leaders. Even without Federal finan- 14 cial assistance to carry out its governmental func- 15 tions or a land base, the Tribe remains a distinct 16 community both politically and culturally. The Tribe 17 works with its Federal, State, and county agency 18 partners to protect cultural and sacred sites, the en- 19 vironment, Mono Lake, and habitat. In recent years, 20 the Tribe has established the ‘‘Mono Lake/Yosemite 21 Traditional Walk’’, which is the revitalization of the 22 walk their ancestors took from Mono Lake to Yo- 23 semite in order to trade with and engage with family 24 and neighboring tribes. The Tribe celebrates and 25 VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:28 Jun 26, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3649.IH H3649 kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS 10 •HR 3649 IH honors their elders and veterans through community 1 events and Tribal functions on an annual basis. 2 (22) Federal recognition of the Tribe through 3 this Act is supported by the Mono County Board of 4 Supervisors, all five federally recognized Tribes in 5 Inyo County, the non-federally recognized tribe 6 Southern Sierra Muwuk Nation, and the federally 7 recognized tribes of Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk In- 8 dians, Picayune Rancheria of the Chuckansi Tribe, 9 and the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians. 10 Support also comes from the National Park Service, 11 the Sierra Club, Friends of Inyo County, the An- 12 thropology Department of California State Univer- 13 sity Chico, California Indian Legal Services, and 14 other organizations. 15 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 16 In this Act: 17 (1) MEMBER.—The term ‘‘member’’ means an 18 individual who is enrolled in the Tribe pursuant to 19 the constitution of the Tribe. 20 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 21 the Secretary of the Interior. 22 (3) TRIBE.—The term ‘‘Tribe’’ means the 23 Mono Lake Kutzadikaa Tribe. 24 VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:28 Jun 26, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3649.IH H3649 kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS 11 •HR 3649 IH SEC. 4. FEDERAL RECOGNITION. 1 (a) IN GENERAL.—Federal recognition is extended to 2 the Tribe. 3 (b) EFFECT OF FEDERAL LAWS.—Except as other- 4 wise provided in this Act, all Federal laws (including regu- 5 lations) of general application to Indians and Indian 6 tribes, including the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 7 5101 et seq.; commonly known as the Indian Reorganiza- 8 tion Act), shall apply to the Tribe and members. 9 SEC. 5. FEDERAL SERVICES AND BENEFITS. 10 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Tribe and each member of 11 the Tribe shall be eligible for all services and benefits pro- 12 vided by the United States to Indians and federally recog- 13 nized Indian Tribes, without regard to— 14 (1) the existence of a reservation for the Tribe; 15 or 16 (2) the location of the residence of any member 17 on or near an Indian reservation. 18 (b) SERVICE AREA.—For purposes of the delivery of 19 services and benefits to members, the service area of the 20 Tribe shall be considered to be the counties of Mono and 21 Inyo, in the State of California. 22 SEC. 6. REAFFIRMATION OF RIGHTS. 23 (a) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act diminishes 24 any right or privilege of the Tribe or any m [Text truncated for display. Full text available on Congress.gov.]