ANALYSIS OF COMMITTEE DATA CONCERNING DESIGNATION AND SALE OF "KEY TRACTS" FROM INDIVIDUAL INDIAN TRUST LAND STATUS To: Hon. James E. Murray. THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE SERVICE, Washington, D. C., October 23, 1958. Subject: Analysis of Committee data concerning designation and sale of key tracts from individual Indian trust land status. The original draft of the committee questionnaire had been brought to the attention of Bureau officials to insure the use of proper terminology so that all returns would lend themselves to thorough analysis. The returns, however, indicate not only a difference of opinion between some tribes and the Bureau concerning the definition of "key tract" but also among various officials of the Bureau. It might be best at this point to direct our attention to the subject matter of a May 16, 1958, memorandum by Glenn L. Emmons, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, to all area directors. In this memo Commissioner Emmons redefined the current policy and it was explained as follows: The basic principle underlying the redefined policy is simply this-if the Indian is competent to manage his own property and he asks for a fee title, then the Government has no moral or equitable right to deny his application. ** In saying this, the Bureau is not ignoring its trust obligations for tribal lands or other Indian lands which might be adversely affected. In fact, the issuance of fee patents may be delayed in some cases while problems of this type are being constructively worked out. Nevertheless, the rights of the individual Indian are recognized as paramount and this is the Bureau's guiding principle. Further along in the memo the Commissioner mentioned “*** widely held fears that the policy will permit sales of key tracts and thus have an adverse effect on tribal timber or grazing units or on other adjoining lands." In explanation of the Bureau's attitude on this, the memo states: As for the effect which the fee patenting may have on other Indian lands, the Bureau's policy and position are quite clear. While the Bureau recognizes the competent Indian's undeniable right to ask for and receive a fee patent, it also keeps in mind its continuing trust responsibilities to the tribal group and to other Indian landowners whose holdings may be affected. Consequently, if there is any real possibility that the disposal of a particular allotment might adversely affect other Indian lands in trust [italic ours] the Bureau will take the initiative in consulting with the Indians concerned and will give them every possible assistance in working out a satisfactory solution to the problem. In some cases this will involve purchase of the patented allotment by the tribal group, in other cases it will involve other various types of arrangements. The Bureau believes that all such problems can be fairly and equitably resolved in one way or another. This appears to be a rather general and broad definition of "key tract" and seems to have been interpreted in various ways by both tribal and Bureau officials. A summary analysis of the returns brought forth many variations in the application of this terminology that is best summed up in one of the returns as follows: Assuming the definition of a "key tract" to mean that property controlling the source of water in a grazing unit which is depended upon by the surrounding area, or tracts with known subsurface production in relation to mineral value. On the other hand, any tract disposed of could be termed a "key tract" for its agricultural or livestock value and the fact that it is being opened to public sale with the possibility of title leaving Indian ownership, if the tribe or its members are not the successful bidders. The following excerpts from other returns here indicate the range of interpretations: The tribal council considers all land within the reservation as more or less "key lands" in view of the large acreage lost through the Garrison Reservoir taking by the United States Army. The acreage was not recognized by Bureau officials as being key tracts insofar as total control of stock water is concerned. ***The sale of these tracts has interfered with the best use of the tribal grazing land adjoining these tracts, which were excluded by fencing. Tracts classed as key by virtue of their proximity and influence on the use of and access to recreational areas, railroads, and highways, and stock watering facilities are recommended for purchase by the tribe. Two tracts of fee land have been purchased in connection with the moving of homes *** from a location that floods frequently due to melting snows, to a location where the flooding problem is eliminated. All purchases and exchanges on the reservation *** are considered key tracts necessary to consolidate tribal holdings or control water for livestock. There are several definitions of the term "key tract." It must be borne in mind that personalities and policy of succeeding council members differ with respect to criteria for key tracts * * * The tribe considers all trust lands key to their tribal land purchase program. As indicated by these excerpts there is not a generally accepted definition of the term "key tract." This was one of the major problems encountered in the attempt to analyze the returns. The second problem was that many answers to the questions were not specific, leaving the researcher to interpret such states as: Since 1953 not many trust purchases have been classed as key The records of *** since July 1, 1953, show no question raised, either by the tribal board members or individual Indian landowners, regarding sale and disposal of so-called "key tracts" of Indian lands *** Within the past year *** not more than two tracts of the total sales could be considered as key tracts * * *. Based on this estimate and the absence of complaints, it is doubtful if very many key tracts have been sold since 1953. Questionnaires were sent to 156 tribes, and returns came in from only 11, ruling out any analysis of tribal opinion. Although the problems enumerated have completely precluded adequate analysis of the "key tracts" problem as seen by tribal and Bureau officials, it has produced a much clearer picture of the problem and methods of ascertaining accurate data from which a more meaningful analysis can be made. Limitations imposed by the problems enumerated have restricted any analysis to a compilation of answers by Bureau officials to the committee questionnaire. We have appended pertinent tables for Aberdeen, Billings, Portland, and Sacramento area offices since they were the only areas reporting any specific actions. If we can be of any further assistance in this matter, please feel free to call. STEPHEN A. LANGONE. COMPILATION OF RETURNS TO PT. II OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS QUESTIONNAIRE DIRECTED TO CERTAIN INDIAN AGENCIES TABLE I.-Aberdeen area office (1) How much acreage and how many tracts have been sold that (2) How much acreage and how many of the tracts alleged by the ...do. do. ..do. None. do. None. ...do. (5) If there were sales of key tracts to non-Indians discuss the effect do. ..do. .do. do. do. None. (6) Discuss the extent to which key tracts which were in fee status ..do. do. do. Tribe and indi do. Do. None. 6 tracts, 900 acres. |