7. STANDING ROCK AGENCY

Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS,

Fort Yates, N. Dak., June 10, 1958.

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United
States Senate.

MY DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: In compliance with your letter of April 17, this office respectfully submits the attached report for your consideration.

With reference to part (1) of your questionnaire, questions 1 and 2, kindly note that the acreage information furnished is indicated as estimated. The figures reported were arrived at by taking into account the acquisitions and disposals from July 1, 1947, to July 1, 1957, and the acreage balances reflected on our records as of the date last mentioned.

If this office can be of further assistance to you, please feel free to contact us at any time.

Sincerely yours,

HAROLD W. SCHUNK, Superintendent.

FEDERAL LANDS ACQUIRED FROM PRIVATE OWNERS SINCE 1930

See last sentence of paragraph 2 Senator Murray's letter of April 17, 1958.

The records of this office only reflect information in regard to the acquisition of 10,964.65 acres by the Federal Government, classed as submarginal land. The land was acquired under authority of title II of the National Recovery Act of June 16, 1933 (48 Stat. 200), and the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of April 8, 1934 (49 Stat. 115), and section 55 of title I of the act of August 24, 1935 (49 Stat. 750, 781), at a cost of $46,527.82. Information in regard to the dates and purpose of acquisition are not statistics of record in this office; however, it is our understanding that the acquisition was to take lands unsuited for production out of cultivation and restore it to a native grass. It is our further understanding that the lands, situated within Indian reservations, were to be transferred to tribal ownership.

The above-mentioned lands are administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and permitted under a revocable permit to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe for an annual consideration of $1,470. The current permit commenced in force as of April 1, 1958 to end on October 31, 1959 which includes 15 separate parcels in Sioux County, N. Dak. and 21 separate parcels in Corson County, S. Dak., involving a total of 10,964.65 acres of land. The tribe has assigned their use right to the

entire acreage of which 3,611.65 acres are permitted within Indian range units and the remaining 7,353 acres are permitted within nonIndian range units for an annual consideration of $3 and $7.50 per animal unit carrying capacity year long, respectively.

PART I-STANDING ROCK

As to tribal and individually owned trust or restricted land:

1. How many acres were there in tribal ownership on July 1, 1947? How many acres in trust? How many acres which the tribe had ac•quired in fee?

The records of this office indicate that 171,595 (estimated) acres were in tribal ownership in a trust status on the date mentioned. The tribe owns no land in unrestricted fee.

2. How many acres of trust or restricted land were there in individual Indian ownership on July 1, 1947?

The records of this office indicate that 865,070 (estimated) acres were held in a trust or restricted status in individual Indian ownership on the date mentioned.

Information in response to questions Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6 is set forth in table No. 1 attached hereto. The questions mentioned are quoted as follows, for your reference convenience:

3. How many transactions, by which tribal or individually owned lands were disposed of (including the placing of unrestricted fee title in the hands of the owners by issuance of patents in fee, certificates of competency, etc.) were consummated during each fiscal year since. July 1, 1947?

4. How many acres were so disposed of or removed from Bureau jurisdiction during each fiscal year since July 1, 1947?

5. Give the numbers of transactions for each year which will be shown in answer to No. 3 above, broken down by the type of transaction.

6. Give the acreages for each year which will be shown in answer to No. 4 above, broken down by the type of transaction.

Information in response to questions Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 10, is set forth in table No. 2 attached hereto. The questions mentioned are set forth as follows, for your reference convenience:

7. How many transactions, by which tribal or individual Indian lands were acquired, were consummated during each fiscal year since July 1, 1947?

8. How many acres were so acquired during each calendar year since July 1, 1947?

9. Give the numbers of transactions for each year which will be shown in answer to No. 7 above, broken down by the type of transaction.

10. Give the acreages for each year which will be shown in answer to No. 8 above, broken down by the type of transaction.

11. How many acres were there in tribal ownership on December 31, 1947? How many acres held by the United States in trust? How many acres which the tribe had acquired in fee?

The

The records of this office indicate that 213,643.42 acres of land were held in tribal ownership in a trust status on the date mentioned. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe owns no land in unrestricted fee.

12. How many acres of trust or restricted land were there in individual Indian ownership on December 31, 1957?

The records of this office indicate that 722,475 acres of land were owned in individual Indian ownership on the date mentioned.

13. Cite and discuss briefly any special acts of Congress which have affected the acquisition and disposal of Indian lands (termination acts, private acts directing the issuance of patents in fee, etc.). What study is being made of the cause and effect of sales? Has the tribal council passed or considered any resolution on this subject? Please elaborate and include any resolutions approved.

An examination of the record fails to reveal any information in regard to special act of Congress enacted solely to effect the acquisition and disposal of land on the Standing Rock Reservation or legislation accomplished to initiate a termination of trust responsibility at this jurisdiction. However, several private acts have been enacted into law affecting the issuance of patents in fee to individual Indians. These private acts have involved a very limited acreage.

The alienation of trust and restricted Indian lands by sale and issuance of patents in fee has been discussed by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Business Council on numerous occasions. It is being realized that the continued alienation of lands would adversely affect the possibility of establishing new Indian operators in farming and/or ranching pursuits or to provide additional lands when needed for the operators now established. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Business Council, cognizant of the diminishing trust status land base, while assembled in session on March 6, 1957, adopted Resolution No. 8-57, two copies of which are transmitted herewith for your information.

14. Discuss to what extent, if any, the heirship, or multiple ownership, problem has affected the acquisition and disposal of Indian lands with particular reference to the following facets of the problem: (a) Undivided interest owned by the tribe.

An undivided interest owned by the tribe tends to depress the selling price of land for the reason that their exists no provision whereby the tribally owned interest may be offered for sale along with the individual interest or interests. Consequently the purchaser is able to acquire title to only the individually owned interest or interests.

(b) Undivided interest owned by non-Indians and alien Indians. This situation presents a problem in the acquisition of lands in a restricted status for several reasons; that records maintained on unrestricted fee ownership are not readily accessible for examination and evaluation, title documents must be prepared by agencies other than the Bureau of Indian Affairs, separate deeds must be prepared to convey the unrestricted interest. It may also be necessary that the examiner of inheritance take appropriate action to establish the presumed status of an alien Indian. In the disposal of trust or restricted Indian land, the involvement of a non-Indian or alien Indian interest tends to depress the selling price of the land. It is necessary that the prospective purchaser be properly informed in regard to any unrestricted interest owned in Indian land. It may also be necessary that appropriate action be taken by the examiner of inheritance to factually establish the status of a presumed alien interest.

(c) Undivided interest owned by minors on reservations which are under the Indian Reorganization Act.

In order that a minor's interest in trust or restricted Indian land be disposed of, it is necessary that guardianship proceedings be had in the proper State court having jurisdiction over the area in which the land is located. Many times the minor's interest may be small and the sale proceeds accordingly nominal which situation creates a problem in prevailing on the other heir or heirs to assume the cost of guardianship proceedings in order that a transaction may be concluded.

(d) Difficulty of reaching agreement among all heirs as to the use or disposal of lands.

No particular difficulty has been experienced in getting the heirs to reach agreement as to the sale or use of land, except that one or other of the heirs is occupying the land as a homesite. The problem is in contacting the heirs to determine their wishes in regard to a proposal.

(e) What use has been made of the Secretary's authority to sell heirship lands when the owners have died intestate and left minor or incompetent heirs? To what extent has the tribe been encouraged or permitted to buy such lands?

An examination of the record reveals that the Secretary's authority has not been utilized within the last 3 years of the reporting period. It is believed that it has been used very rarely in the preceding years, if at all. This is quite likely due to the fact that considerably more applications have been filed for the sale of land to the tribe by persons qualified to consent to the sale of land than the tribe has financial means to purchase. The matter of the Secretary's authority to sell heirship lands has been brought to the attention of the tribal council.

PART II. KEY TRACTS-STANDING ROCK

1. How much acreage and how many tracts have been sold that the tribe, individual Indian owners, or the Bureau have alleged were key tracts?

During the last 3 years of the reporting period one alleged key tract comprising 160 acres was sold. To the best of our knowledge there were no other such disposals in the 7 preceding years.

2. How much acreage and how many of the tracts alleged by the tribes or individual Indian owners to be key tracts were determined by Bureau officials not to be key tracts?

None.

3. How much acreage and how many tracts alleged by the tribe to be key tracts were sold to the tribe or individual Indian owners? The tribe and individual Indians have purchased or exchanged 82,126 acres of trust or restricted Indian land during the reporting period, which were considered important to their operations without a determination necessarily being made as to whether or not the land was a key tract. We know of no disposal of an alleged key tract to a non-Indian other than set forth at item No. 1 above.

4. How much acreage and how many tracts alleged by the tribe to be key tracts were sold to non-Indians?

To our best knowledge, none However, we desire to invite your attention to the information set forth at item No. 1. In this instance a patent in fee was issued to the heir of 1 tract of restricted Indian land comprising 160 acres, which was alleged as a key tract by the Indian operator in whose unit the land was permitted. The land was subsequently sold to a non-Indian. Before the superintendent approved the application for a patent in fee, an attempt was made to arrange a negotiated sale of the land to the Indian operator. However, the Indian owner, who was found to be unquestionably competent, refused to negotiate a sale of the land in trust and insisted that a patent in fee be issued in order that she be able to negotiate the sale of the land to the highest bidder in unrestricted fee. The use and conservation of the adjacent Indian land was not contingent on the retention in restricted fee of the tract disposed to an unrestricted status. The Indian operator has not been adversely affected by loss of the 160-acre tract to the extent that he has had to curtail his operations.

5. If there were sales of key tracts to non-Indians, discuss the effect that such sales have had on the use of Indian land remaining in Indian ownership.