(d) In the past there has been considerable difficulty as to the reaching of agreement as to the use of individually allotted land by the heirs; however, under current regulations permitting approval of the leasing of the land on signatures of owners of the majority interest, this difficulty has been minimized. There has been and continues to be considerable difficulty in getting agreements as to the disposal of individually allotted lands in an heirship status. This is particularly true where an heir owns an interest in land and is a welfare client required to dispose of certain property in order to become eligible for State assistance. (e) The authority of the Secretary to sell heirship lands when owners have died intestate and have left minor or incompetent heirs has not been invoked in recent years as it has been the policy to require the consents to a sale of all the adult competent heirs. The tribes have not been encouraged to purchase lands in heirship status as they have not had sufficient funds available for that purpose and have not indicated any interest in purchasing any lands. PART II- -CHEYENNE-ARAPAHO This portion of the questionnaire does not appear applicable to the Cheyenne-Arapaho Reservation in Oklahoma as very little, if any, of the individually allotted lands on this reservation are dependent upon the use of other tracts of individually owned land for full utilization of the property, and the disposal of an adjacent tract in a majority of cases did not adversely affect the future use of the remaining trust property except in a rare instance of an inside 40-acre tract being isolated by the disposal of adjacent 40's which might present an access problem, necessitating legal action to obtain right-of-way across fee land. PART III-CHEYENNE-ARAPAHO 1. There is no tribal real-estate employee of the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes. 2. There are no employees of the Cheyenne-Arapaho area field office whose salaries in part or in full are paid by the CheyenneArapaho Tribes. 3. The tribes do not have a regularly employed real-estate adviser or consultant. 4. The governing body of the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes has a committee with the authority to negotiate and approve farming and grazing leases on tribal real estate. 5. The tribal organization does not have a real-estate committee which advises the tribal council about the tribal real-estate activities. 6. The Cheyenne-Arapaho governing body did employ a consultant to survey and make recommendations as to the use of certain tribal lands adjoining Canton Lake, which was built by the United States Engineers for cabin sites and other recreational activities. 7. The Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes do not have a tribal land enterprise or similar organization. 8. Neither the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes nor the Anadarko area office has been instructed to turn real-estate operations over to the Bureau. Approximately 50 percent of tribal-owned land is leased by the governing body to members of the tribes on assignment. The other 50 percent was advertised at request of the tribes to the public and leased on Bureau-approved leases which required bond. The collection of and care of land has been considerably more effective on those tracts so leased by the Bureau. The tribes have been reluctant to enforce payment of rentals and care of land on tracts leased to their members on assignments. It is hoped that the above information will be of benefit to the committee; however, if further information is desired, we will be pleased to furnish it if available. Respectfully submitted. EDWARD EDZARDS, Area Field Representative. CHEYENNE-ARAPAHO Individually owned land [No. T. Number of transactions. Ac.-Acreage] DISPOSALS-REMOVAL FROM INDIAN BUREAU JURISDICTION BY PLACING OF UNRESTRICTED FEE-SIMPLE TITLE IN OWNERS Above replies are based on the assumption that the information desired is number of tracts in each category individually owned in fee, which were either exchanged or sold to other Indians in a trust or restricted status and does not include exchanges or sales between Indians of property already in trust or restricted status. These are shown also in sales to fee status. ACQUISITIONS FROM TRUST OR RESTRICTED STATUS-None ACQUISITIONS FROM FEE STATUS-None 2. KIOWA AREA FIELD OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: With reference to your letter of April 17, 1958, there is attached a report in duplicate pertaining to dispositions and acquisitions of trust and restricted land beginning with the fiscal year of 1948 and ending with the fiscal year of 1957. If we can be of further service to you please advise. Sincerely yours, ROBERT L. MESHEW, Area Field Representative. Acres of trust or restricted land in individual ownership July 1, 1947 : Kiowa-Comanche-Apache_ Wichita-Caddo____. Fort Sill Apache_-_ Total__ 3, 087 160 0 3, 247 0 377, 304 94, 381 5, 323 477, 008 5,488 Acres of Government-owned land July 1, 1947___ Grand total______ 485,743 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? Tribal: None. Individually owned: See attached chart. 4. How many acres were so disposed of or removed from Bureau jurisdiction during each fiscal year since July 1, 1947? Tribal: None. Individually owned: See attached chart. 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. Tribal: None. Individually owned: See attached chart. |