COLVILLE TERMINATION

TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1965

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS OF THE

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:00 o'clock a.m., in room 3110, New Senate Office Building, Senator Lee Metcalf presiding. Present: Senator Metcalf.

Also present: James H. Gamble, professional staff member, and Richard W. C. Falknor, professional staff member.

Senator METCALF. The committee will be in order.

The hearing that was recessed yesterday on the Colville bill, S. 1413, will now continue with testimony from the Yakima Tribal Council.

Will the representatives of the Yakima Tribal Council come forward.

Will you identify yourself for the record and proceed in your own

way.

STATEMENTS OF EAGLE SEELATSEE, CHAIRMAN, AND ROBERT JIM, MEMBER, YAKIMA TRIBAL COUNCIL

Mr. SEELATSEE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Eagle Seelatsee, member of the Yakima Tribe. I am chairman of the Yakima Tribal Council.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission may I present a statement of the Yakima Tribe.

Senator METCALF. Delighted to have you here. You may read your statement or summarize it or present it in any way. You may proceed. Mr. SEELATSEE. I will summarize it.

Senator METCALF. The statment will appear in the record at this point as if read.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF YAKIMA TRIBE

The Yakima Tribe does generally object to the foregoing bill. The Yakima Tribe believes that said termination legislation is not in the best interests of the Indians involved or to the areas in which the allotments are located. Experiences in other areas, such as the termination of the Klamath Indians located in the State of Oregon, brings us to this conclusion. We hope that this committee comes to the same conclusion. However, this matter will probably be more fully developed than we can develop it here in our short statement. This statement is therefore limited to the discussion of a specific amendment to this bill.

Section 9 (b) provides: That all interests in land wherever located, owned by members of the Colville Tribe, shall be removed from trust status within 4 years after the date said section become effective. At that time there would be a termination of Federal supervision over these lands or land interests. This would include lands or land interests of members of the Colville Tribe on the Yakima Indian Reservation. When these land interests are removed from Federal supervision it will create serious management problems in the land management program, grazing management program, and timber management program on the Yakima Indian Reservation. It will create economic hardship in this area. It is impossible to adequately manage land holdings in which there are nontrust interests because of the fact that under existing law and regulations it is not possible for the United States and the Department of the Interior, as trustees, to deal with these interests. Some examples of the effects of having nonrestricted interests comingled with trust interests are―

1. 531AM 4.3.1C provides consent of all nonrestricted interests must be obtained before a timber sale of an allotment may be made. This has resulted in the past in the frustration of the wishes of the great majority interest because of unrestricted interests in an allotment. Sometimes this has been because of cussedness on the part of said majority owner, but in most cases it has been because the owner can't be located or determined. Many of these minute interests are not probated because of the cost involved. 2. The same problem exists in regards to rights-of-way for logging roads. Not only does this hamper the harvesting of the allotment, but may frustrate the sale of the entire unit if the location of the allotment is inopportune.

3. Grazing units are not susceptible to individual leasing. If an owner of a nonrestricted interest happens to make it impossible to lease a key tract containing a waterhole for example, it can frustrate the wishes of the owners of the remainder of said grazing tract.

4. There would be great difficulty in ascertaining ownership. Since many of the interests are small there would be little probate of these interests. Therefore confusion would result in trying to ascertain ownership. Also, it would mean that prospective lessees would have to go two places; i.e., the agency and the county auditor, to ascertain ownership. The brother involved would cause delay and nonuse of some of these allotments.

5. Where nontrust interests are purchased by the Yakima Tribe for heir ship consolidation purposes or under our comprehensive land management plan, part of the interests would be held in trust while the remainder would be held in fee under existing legislation. We cannot purchase fee lands and hold them in trust under existing legislation. Many tribes in this area cannot purchase fee lands at all.

This is not a minor problem on the Yakima Indian Reservation, because out of the 3,269 active trust allotments on the Yakima Reservation there are 141 allotments in which members of the Colville Tribe have an interest. The total number of Colville enrollees is 135, and the total acreage of inherited interests involved is 4,071.08 acres. (See attachment A for specifics.)

(Attachment A lists these allotments in detail and may be seen in the files of the committee.)

The Yakima Tribe is purchasing these land interests of Colville enrollees as fast as available funds will permit them to do so. However, since the value of these lands is in excess of $2 million available funds and the delay in having a proper loan program, whereby additional funds can be obtained, are seriously limiting this program.

To remove this problem in the bill, both on the Yakima Indian Reservation and on other Indian Reservations similarly situated, it is requested that section 9(b) be amended to read as follows:

"All restrictions on the sale or encumbrance of trust or restricted interest in land and on trust or restricted interests in lands, within the Colville Indian Reservation, owned by members of the tribe (including allottees, purchasers, heirs, and devisees, either adult or minor), regardless of ownership, are hereby removed 4 years after the date this section becomes effective, and the patents or deeds under which titles are then held shall pass in titles in fee simple, subject to any valid encumbrances. The titles in trust or restricted lands acquired by members of the tribes by device or inheritance on the Colville Indian Reservation 4 years or more after the date this section becomes effective shall vest in such members in fee simple, subject to any valid encumbrance."

Proponents of this legislation may possibly argue that we are seeing ghosts and phantoms. They may possibly argue that these problems can be taken care of by section 9(c). This is not true. Even if partition on the Yakima Indian Reservation is automatic, and certainly this section should be amended to so provide, other problems would arise. To set out a few:

1. If the partitioned nontrust range parcel contained a waterhole for example, it could effectively hamper range management on contigous parcels.

2. If said nontrust range parcel did not contain water, a right-of-way thereto, or was without a fence, it could not be used economically for the benefit of the

owner.

3. If the partitioned nontrust timber parcel was located in an area where it was necessary to have a logging road right-of-way, the owner could effectively block the sale to the detriment of the entire timber sale unit.

4. If said nontrust timber parcel did not have a right-of-way to it, the owner could not economically sell his timber or otherwise use his allotment. What if, for example, the Yakima Tribe were selfish enough to say that they would not facilitate the harvesting of timber on these parcels so that they could have seed blocks left for reseeding at no cost to themselves?

5. The cruising of the timbered areas for the purpose of making sure that the partition was fair, valuewise, and surveying the boundaries would be an enormous and expensive undertaking. In many cases the cost of the partition would exceed the value of the partitioned parcel. (See attachment A for examples of minute interests.)

6. Also in regard to partitioned parcels, of all types, value of the partitioned parcels, in many cases, would be of such a small value that it would not be worthwhile to probate the estate of the decedent owner unless there was other property in the estate. This would mean that many of these parcels would not be farmed, grazed, nor would their timber be harvested. This would be to the economic detriment of the owners and to the area as well.

7. Agriculture has changed and there is a constant demand for larger parcels to farm. The partition of irrigated allotments would hamper the economic use of these farm areas.

8. Most of the irrigated allotments are not susceptible to partition because of the irrigation delivery system. To revamp the irrigation delivery system to provide for delivery to these smaller partitioned parcels, would in many cases, cost more than the value of these minute parcels. (See attachment A for example.)

In conclusion, the Yakima Tribe respectfully petitions this committee that this bill does not pass, but if it is recommended for passage, that the bill be amended to exclude termination of Federal supervision on land or land interests of Colvilles on other reservations.

Senator METCALF. Go ahead, Mr. Seelatsee.

Mr. SEELATSEE. In regard to S. 1413, the Yakima Indian Nation voices opposition to the bill, for the reason that S. 1413 would greatly disrupt the tribe's land purchase program, if the tribe purchases allotments complicated as to title.

Furthermore, our reservation is a treaty reservation of June 9,

1855.

The tribe does not favor S. 1413, which causes the lands to pass into non-Indian ownership, because there is a large acreage of Yakima Indian Reservation lands that will be affected by this S. 1413 in which an interest is held by the Colville members.

So I will repeat again that, in my conclusion, the Yakima Indian Nation is not favorable to S. 1413.

I will thank the committee for giving me this opportunity to voice what the tribe has asked me to do.

At this time I have another member of the tribal council who will speak in behalf of the tribe, Bob Jim.

Senator METCALF. Thank you very much.

Now, Mr. Jim.

Mr. JIM. Mr. Chairman, my name is Robert Jim, a member of the Yakima Tribal Council and chairman of the legislative committee.

The position we have to present here, Mr. Chairman, is short and germane. I think it is self-explanatory in the statement. But the fact is that when the Colville Tribe considers termination, we will especially pin our remarks to section 9.

They have what they call a congested heirship, as the chairman has mentioned here, and there are persons who inherit as little as two-hundredths of 1 acre of land down there in Yakima, and to put this in patent fee would multiply the management, multiply the problems for the Yakima Tribe when this is in patent because as we point out in the second page of our brief, the Federal regulations now allow the Government to manage the congested or the smaller owner heirship lands within our reservation, but if they were placed in trust, I mean in patent and fee, then the Government would have to give the smaller patent and fee owners permission before they could have the right-of-way to sell the timber for this small owner. They would have to get their permission for leasing and grazing. They would have to get the smaller interests permission as much as two-tenths of 1 percent for the signing up to sell to the tribe or other management problems.

And we feel that when you consider it in regard to grazing, when you consider it in regard to timber sales, these small tracts should be isolated, and it would do the Colville owner, who has a patent in fee, much harm by not allowing him to benefit from that land. If he is isolated where he cannot get a right-of-way to sell the timber through benefit or to lease it under the grazing tract and, further, if they have key tracts, such as water and land, this could complicate the management problems for the Yakima Tribe.

We only request an amendment, and the wording as written, and it would not harm the bill in any way. It would not put it out, but it would only allow that the interest on other reservations such as ours be allowed to remain in trust until such time that the tribes could buy them up.

We have had an extensive land buying program since about 1954 or 1955 in that area. We bought, in our tribe, about $3 million worth of land. But now we are faced, with the passage of this act, of having 4,071 acres to be put in patent and fee, and it is approximately worth $2 million, and we would not be able to purchase this land within a 4-year period.

Now, if we have 4,071 acres owned inherited, by the Colvilles in our reservation how many pieces of land do the Colvilles own in the other related reservations, such as the Nez Perces, Umatilla, and the Warm Springs.

The Yakimas own approximately 5,000 acres within the Colville Reservation, so you can see that the problem is not isolated. The problem will be relative to the fact that lands within other reservations, such as ours, we think should be left in trust until such time that the tribes could purchase it so that we would not have a multiple-complicated problem of management.

Now, this is the position that the Yakima Tribe is faced with, and we appreciate the fact that we were allowed to be heard, and we appreciate the committee's position and extensive work that they have done in considering this problem of termination.

So we thank you, Senator Metcalf.

That is the position of the Yakima Tribe.

Senator METCALF. If an amendment to section 9 were adopted, substantially as you suggest, then would you oppose the bill?

Mr. JIM. We have a position of our general policy throughout our whole tribe which is that every council member opposes a termination bill. But we felt in this matter, where we have the 4,071 acres of land in question, we come here with a suggested amendment and speak only to that. We cannot say we support or oppose the bill. But we have these suggested amendments because we are fearful for the land.

Senator METCALF. As I understand it, the Yakima Tribal Council is opposed in principle to termination?

Mr. JIM. Yes.

Senator METCALF. But if there has to be termination in this instance, you want this amendment put in in order to protect the interest of the Yakima Tribe?

Mr. JIM. Yes, sir.

Senaor METCALF. All right. Thank you very much for your very revealing and worthwhile testimony.

Mr. SEELATSEE. Thank you for allowing us to be here.

Senator METCALF. Mr. Deloria? Is Mr. Deloria here?

Mr. DELORIA. Yes, sir.

Senator METCALF. Mr. Deloria is representing the National Congress of American Indians. We are delighted to have you before the committee. It is the first time in your new official position that I have had an opportunity to hear you testify, Mr. Deloria.

STATEMENT OF VINE DELORIA, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS

Mr. DELORIA. Thank you, Senator Metcalf.

I would summarize this, if you like, sir.

Senator METCALF. Yes, if you would.

Without objection the complete statement will go in the record at this point and you may summarize it. Mr. DELORIA. Thank you, sir.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF VINE DELORIA, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF

AMERICAN INDIANS

Senator Metcalf, Mr. Gamble, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Vine Deloria, Jr. I am an enrolled member of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. I am the executive director of the National Congress of American Indians. I wish to thank you for allowing me the time to give testimony before this committee. The National Congress of American Indians wishes to present a basic statement regarding the present bill as it has an effect on all tribes in this country. May I state at the beginning that we are not taking sides with any party or parties of the Colville Confederated Tribes.

We would like to discuss the implications of the referendum provided in this bill. We would like to question the readiness of the Colville people to decide the question which this referendum represents.

According to the figures provided in the previous hearing on S. 1442 and S. 1169 relating to the termination decision to be placed before the Colville Tribes we note the following facts:

(1) In 1952, only 453 out of 2,053 Colvilles interviewed had a high school education or better. This is 22 percent, the median school years completed by those interviewed is 7.8.