A bill in Congress by Rep. Doug LaMalfa to reinstate the Siskiyou County Ruffey Indian Rancheria is hitting roadblocks as questions pile up about the tribe’s authenticity, many of them from other tribes in the Northern California region.
H.R. 3535 would reinstate the federal recognition Congress terminated in 1961—which included 40 other California rancherias— allowing the tribe to claim 441 acres in Siskiyou County, where they want to build a casino. Some of the land is in private hands, some is in government hands. The Siskiyou Board of Supervisors supports the bill.
Tribal Chairman Thai Gomes said recently, “For us, restoration is not a political issue. It is not a partisan issue, it is a question of justice.”
For critics, however, the question is justice for who, since they question that today’s tribal members are actually descended from the original tribe whose reservation was created in 1907. They also question why the tribe’s application isn’t being processed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, rather than Congress. This could create an unfortunate precedent with other tribes trying to circumvent the normal federal process, which requires tribes to review historical records and genealogical records.
However, Rep. LaMalfa claims that only Congress can restore the tribe since it was terminated by an act of Congress. It is one of the few of the 41 tribes that was terminated in 1961 that hasn’t been restored, he says.
Rep. LaMalfa denies that donations from various gaming interests played a part in his authorship of the bill. He told the Capitol Weekly he has known members of the tribe for years and argues that the tribe has “deep roots in Siskiyou County that can be dated back generations.”
Critics claim that records indicate the Ruffey rancheria was terminated because no one was living there at the time.
Kamala’s bill has generated a remarkable number of questions from other tribes, of which 70 have signed on to express concerns. One concern is that Gomes is not identified members of the restored tribe and hasn’t provided a link with tribal members that allegedly lived at the reservation in 1961, only with those who were living there in 1913.
The most vocal of the tribes question the Ruffey bill is the Karuk Tribe, who chairman Russell Attebery has avoided answering questions of how other tribes would be affected. “Why the rush, and why so much secrecy?” said Attebery.
Rep. LaMalfa is also the author of another bill, H.R. 1491,that is just as controversial, one that would put land into trust in California’s Santa Ynez Valley north of Santa Barbara.
His bill would bust open a community plan that Santa Barbara County has approved of to protect the area’s rural character and allow the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, who own the Chumash Casino and Resort, to build a development of 143 homes and a community center unrelated to gaming. The tribe has dream of doing this development for more than two decades.
The 1,427 acres the tribe wants to put into trust is about two miles from the reservation and casino. It would not be the tribe’s first off-reservation business, it owns hotels, restaurants, gas stations and apartments all over the area. But, because it would be trust land, the tribe could ignore local zoning regulations.
The BIA has already approved of the change, but several opponents began lawsuit to challenge it. LaMalfa’s bill would affirm the action and block court challenges.
