NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUNDfunds in the Treasury or invest them outside of Treasury in a range of statutorily approved financial instruments. If deposited in the Treasury, since 1984

IntroductionToday, the United States government says that

it holds almost 3,000 accounts valued collectivelyat over $3.2 billion in trust for over 250American Indian and Alaska Native tribes.1

Some of these accounts date back to the 1800s.In the last decade, over 110 of these tribes havesued the United States for historical trustaccounting and mismanagement claims. Over40 of these tribes have been represented byNARF. Until 2012 only about half a dozen tribeshad settled their historical breach of trustclaims. In early 2012 the White Houseannounced the unprecedented – settlements ofthe claims of over 40 tribes for over $1 billion,including over 25 of NARF’s clients. Just whatare these “tribal trust accounts,” why were tribes(and why are some tribes still) suing the govern-ment over them, and how did a singleAdministration manage to settle almost one halfof the century old claims that it inherited?

Tribal Trust AccountsThe government’s holding of trust accounts

for tribes dates back to an 1820 federal policy. Atthat time the United States entered into treatieswith tribes as sovereign nations. The inter-sov-ereign treaties were primarily transactions ofland from tribes to the United States in exchangefor various forms of compensation includingmoney, services, and protection. The UnitedStates decided that when it paid tribes for theland it purchased from them it would not do sodirectly. Instead, the United States would hold

the money in trust for tribes unless and until itdistributed the money to the tribal beneficiaries.

This policy became law in 1837 when Congressrequired the government to deposit paymentsfor tribal treaty lands in the Treasury. By 1840the government was holding $4.5 million ofsuch “treaty funds” in trust for tribes. By the

VOLUME 37, NO. 1 WINTER/SPRING 2012

NARF BRINGS HISTORICAL TRIBAL TRUST CLAIMS TO HISTORIC SETTLEMENTS

NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND

NARF Brings Historical Tribal Trust Claims to Historic Settlements.................................. page 1

CASE UPDATES............................................ page 11

- Klamath Tribes Score New Victories in Klamath Basin Water Rights Adjudication

- Tribal Supreme Court Project

New Board Members .................................... page 14

National Indian Law Library........................ page 17

CALLING TRIBES TO ACTION! .................. page 18

NARF ............................................................ page 19

1 The accounts that the government holds in trust for tribes are independent of the accounts that the government holds in trust forhundreds of thousands of individual Indians.

end of the nineteenth century, at which timehundreds of million acres of land had been pur-chased from tribes, the Department of theInterior, which was established in 1849, reported to Congress that over $18 million wasbeing held in trust “for the benefit of the Indiantribes.”

Tribal trust accounts include more than justtreaty funds. The government today identifiestwo main types of tribal trust funds: “JudgmentAwards” and “Proceeds of Labor” accounts.Judgment Awards are monetary awards to tribestypically from settlements of legal claims bytribes against the government. Proceeds ofLabor accounts are based on income earnedfrom land and natural resources (also known as“trust assets” – as opposed to “trust funds”) thatare under trust management for tribes by thegovernment. The Interior Department managesalmost 56 million acres of trust land for tribes.Hundreds of thousands of leases on these landsallow for various uses – typically by private non-Indian parties – including farming, grazing andrights of way as well as the extraction of oil andgas, minerals and timber.

The vast majority of Judgment Awards comefrom the historic Indian Claims Commission(ICC). For over 150 years access by tribes to fed-eral courts in the United States was limited.Tribes had to get special acts of Congress autho-rizing their claims against the government. In1946 Congress created the ICC – a very uniqueforum. The ICC was authorized generally for alimited time period to hear and adjudicate abroad range of legal and equitable claims oftribes against the government that accruedbefore August 13, 1946. It had jurisdiction onlyto award money damages. Over 600 ICC claimswere filed by tribes, most of which were for addi-tional compensation for lands purchased fromtribes by the United States through treaties andagreements. “Basically, the ICC was the UnitedStates’ recognition that on their land deals,tribes had been cheated – getting 10 cents anacre – or less,” explains John Echohawk, NARF’sExecutive Director. “Few if any other nationshave made such admissions and allowed theirindigenous populations such recourse,” he adds.When the ICC began, the government was

holding about $28 million in trust for tribes.The ICC, which terminated in 1982, ultimatelyawarded in 341 claims over $1.2 billion to tribesas Judgment Awards to be held in trust by thegovernment unless and until distributed.

The government’s management of tribal trustaccounts, funds, and assets are governed by sev-eral statutory and regulatory schemes, many ofwhich date back to the 1800s. By these statutesCongress has delegated authority for fiduciaryduties regarding tribal trust accounts, funds andassets primarily to the Interior (which includesthe Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)) and TreasuryDepartments.

Some early treaties provided that while it heldfunds in trust for specific tribes, the governmentwas obligated to earn interest on the funds.Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth century, Congress passed general statutes thatprovided for increased fiduciary investmentduties and beneficiary protections for all tribaltrust funds. Today, the Interior Department gen-erally has discretion to act “in the best interestsof the Indians” and either deposit tribal trustfunds in the Treasury or invest them outside ofTreasury in a range of statutorily approvedfinancial instruments. If deposited in theTreasury, since 1984 they must earn interest atrates determined by Treasury considering cur-rent market yields on comparable marketableobligations.

Many of the general statutes governing thegovernment’s management of tribal trust assetsdate back to the late nineteenth century. Tribaltrust asset management statutes generally aregrouped by type – for example “surface usestatutes” include farming, grazing, and rights ofway and easements for roads and utilities.“Mineral resources statutes” include oil, gas,coal and uranium. “Forest resource statutes”include timber, nuts and berries and stumpageand roots. Until recently tribes had very littleinput into trust asset management decisionsmade by the government. Since the 1970s,under the federal policy of tribal self-determina-tion, Congress has recognized a greater role fortribes in the development of tribal land and natural resources with respect to many aspectsof the underlying leases, contracts, and agree-

PAGE 2 NARF LEGAL REVIEW

NATI

VE A

MER

ICAN

RIG

HTS

FUND

NARF LEGAL REVIEW PAGE 3


ments with third parties. For most tribal trustassets, however, the government is still chargedwith collecting the income from the asset management and depositing that income inProceeds of Labor accounts for tribal beneficia-ries. At that point the tribal trust asset incomebecomes tribal trust funds subject to the general investment statutes described above.

Tribal Trust AccountingsOne area of the government’s management of

tribal trust accounts that has received consider-able attention is the area of accountings. Incases brought by tribes, court after court hasheld that as trustee, the government’s obligationto provide trust accountings to its beneficiariesis fundamental. A trust accounting typicallycontains a detailed description of each and everytransaction – debits and credits or receipts anddisbursements – conducted by the trustee fromthe inception of the trust to the present. Datesand amounts of transactions must be verified asauthorized and accurate under the terms of thetrust. “This is so essential,” says JohnEchohawk, “but to this day not one tribe everhas received a full and complete historicalaccounting of its trust accounts from the government – not one.” In the past three

decades in particular, this basic unfulfilled trustobligation – accountings – has led to massiveefforts by government agencies and contractors,Congress and the courts to address a problemthat remains unresolved.

In the early 1980s two key agency reports crit-icized the government’s accounting of tribaltrust funds. The General Accounting Office(GAO) reported in September 1982 that thereare “Major Improvements Needed in the Bureauof Indian Affairs’ Accounting System.”

The Bureau of Indian Affairs has lostaccountability over hundreds of millions ofdollars of grant, contract and trust fundsbecause its automated accounting andfinance system produces unreliable infor-mation. Also, system operating deficiencies,including inadequate controls over cashreceipts and disbursements, prevent theBureau from properly discharging its fidu-ciary responsibilities as trustee for Indiantrust funds.

The Bureau is attempting to solve theseserious, longstanding problems with $15.5million of new computer equipment, butthis is not the answer. GAO believes that theBureau’s accounting and finance systemmust be completely redesigned to correct

Pembina v. U.S. case clients and experts after a negotiation session in Washington, D.C. withNARF attorney Melody McCoy.

design deficiencies dating back to the sys-tem’s 1968 implementation and, towardthat end, makes both short and long termrecommendations to the Secretary of theInterior. The agency agreed with our rec-ommendations and promised correctiveaction.One year later the Interior Department’s own

Office of Inspector General (OIG) reportedspecifically on the BIA’s lack of “AccountingControls Over Tribal Trust Funds.”

This report discusses the Bureau’s poorcontrols over accounting for tribal trustfunds. It points out that: 1) the Bureau has five systems involved in trust fundaccounting, which is four too many; 2)these systems are not reconciled and are notin balance with each other. Two systemsrecording fiscal year 1981 and 1982 cashtransactions were out of balance by $71 mil-lion; 3) the Bureau’s balance of unexpendedtrust funds was $75 million less than theDepartment of Treasury’s balance at the endof fiscal year 1982; 4) the Bureau investsmore trust funds than it actually has avail-able; 5) the Bureau recently exposed severaltribes’ funds to an uninsured positionbecause of bookkeeping errors and faces thepossible loss of almost $195,000 in principaland the certain loss of interest on thesefunds.

Our primary recommendation is that the

Bureau establish an organization separatefrom its finance and accounting operationswhose sole responsibility is handling tribaltrust funds. Contracting out this operationis a possibility and we understand theBureau has begun a feasibility study cover-ing this possibility along with other aspectsof trust fund operations.

In its response to our draft report, theBureau agreed in principle with our find-ings and recommendations. However, theresponse indicated future actions for imple-mentation. The Bureau expects to completeits reconciliations of the various systems byFebruary 1984 and to have the results of itscontracted study of trust fund operations byMarch 1984. We therefore plan to reviewthe Bureau efforts to resolve its trust fundproblems after the completion of theseactions and will leave the recommendationsin the followup system until then.The government’s response to these reports

was to contract with private accounting firms –Price Waterhouse and Arthur Andersen – forassistance with evaluating its management oftribal trust funds and auditing tribal trustaccounts. Price Waterhouse’s voluminous indepth study on “issues related to [investment]portfolio management and cash management …[and] related accounting system and controlissues” was completed in 1984. ArthurAndersen’s review of a single year of aggregate


NATI

VE A

MER

ICAN

RIG

HTS

FUND



tribal trust account balances was issued in 1989.Arthur Andersen’s report was “the first knownfinancial audit by independent public accoun-tants of the Tribal and Individual Indian Monies(IIM) Trust Funds managed by the Bureau.”Arthur Andersen found errors, procedural weak-nesses and material weaknesses in the Bureau’saccounting systems and internal control proce-dures “so pervasive and fundamental as to render the accounting systems unreliable.”Arthur Andersen was unable to confirm balancesfor each account held in trust for each tribe.

Of the 1980s’ agency and contractor reports onerecommendation in particular was apparentlyattractive to the government. In 1985 the BIAembarked on an official effort to contract out or“privatize” future collection of, accounting forand investment management of tribal trustaccounts and funds, ostensibly to improve thecollection and accounting of funds and theirearnings for tribes. John Echohawk recalls,however, that “This effort met with substantialopposition from tribes, primarily because thegovernment had not done historical trustaccountings and tribes could not be sure of theiraccount balances.” He adds, “The Senate SelectCommittee on Indian Affairs heard the concernsof tribal leaders and held an Oversight Hearingin September 1986.” Echohawk reflects, “It didseem as if the government was putting the cartbefore the horse – they were proposing thatthings could be better in the future but theyhadn’t fixed what they’d done or failed to do inthe past.”

At the request of tribes and supported byscores of mounting reports documenting gov-ernment tribal trust account accounting andmismanagement failures (from 1982 to 1989alone, the OIG issued thirty separate suchreports) in 1987 Congress halted any outsourc-ing of future tribal trust fund accounting andmanagement and mandated that the govern-ment perform and provide full historical tribaltrust account accountings, audits and reconcili-ations. When congressional committees tookup the matter again in late 1989 and 1990, theywere dismayed that the BIA had not performedthe accountings or reformed its managementand was still proceeding to implement a “future

financial services contract” with an outside entity.Members of Congress and tribes were outragedthat the “Bureau [was] simply passing off theunbalanced books to someone else,” and that“The Bureau wasted more than 1 year and asmuch as $1 million of the Federal taxpayers’money in an effort to turn over many of theGovernment’s financial responsibilities to athird party.” Congress’ next move in 1990 wasto provide that, with respect to tribal trust fundmismanagement claims, the general six yearstatute of limitations for legal claims against thegovernment does not begin to run unless anduntil the government provided tribal beneficia-ries with proper trust accountings.

Unable to move forward with future trustaccounting and management contracts andapparently unable to comply internally with thecongressional mandates for historical trustaccountings, in 1991 the BIA proceeded to con-tract out the historical accountings. It awardedArthur Andersen a $12 million contract to rec-oncile all transactions in all tribal and individualIndian trust accounts from their inception.2

2 Early on in the project, Arthur Andersen estimated that due to thelevel of effort and associated cost and the potential for missing docu-mentation, reconciliation of the IIM accounts would cost about $281million. When the government declined to meet that cost and noth-ing more was done regarding IIM accounts, the Cobell case was filedas a class action on behalf of all IIM account holders seeking full andcomplete accountings of their trust accounts.

Arthur Andersen’s contract work ultimatelyconsisted of researching only some transactionsin some tribal trust accounts for a twenty yeartime period, fiscal years 1973 - 1992. Moreover,due to insufficient records even for this limitedtime period, Arthur Andersen could not conductfull accountings or reconciliations; instead itapplied “alternative procedures” to reviewaccounts and test transactions. Notwithstandingits reduced scope and procedures, the ArthurAndersen contract final cost was $21 million.

In 1996 the BIA sent Arthur Andersen reportsto 311 tribes. A flurry of meetings, consulta-tions, and correspondence ensued where thegovernment tried to get tribes to agree that theArthur Andersen reports met the congressionalmandate for “full and complete accountings”that was now codified in the American IndianTrust Management Reform Act enacted in 1994.Tribes did not so agree and neither did the GAO,the OIG, or the new “Office of the SpecialTrustee for American Indians” created by the1994 Trust Reform Act. For several years thedebate continued. In 2002, mindful of the 1990

legislation that “tolled” the six year limitationsstatute in the absence of proper trust account-ings, several tribes began to file cases in courtseeking full and complete trust accountings anddeclarations that the Arthur Andersen reportswere not such accountings. Congress respondedwith yet another “legislative fix” providing thatfor purposes of applicable limitations statutesthe date on which tribes received their ArthurAndersen reports was deemed to be December31, 1999. In 2005 Congress deemed the ArthurAndersen report receipt date to be December 31,2000. But in 2006 Congress declined to addressthe matter further.

John Echohawk surmises that “Congress hadbeen trying for thirty years to get the govern-ment to provide tribes their trust accountingsand it had not worked. There wasn’t much elseleft for tribes to do but go to court.”

Tribal Trust CasesAs mentioned, some tribes – including the

Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’sReservation in Montana, represented by NARF –had filed trust accounting and mismanagementcases in 2002. There were also a few tribes,including the Pembina Chippewa Tribes, repre-sented by NARF in a case filed in 1992, that hadeven older pending historical breach of trustcases. But by December 31, 2006 over 110 tribeshad filed federal court cases for historical trustaccountings or for damages for trust funds andasset mismanagement. The mismanagementclaims typically included underinvestment oftribal trust funds, failure to get fair market valuefor leases, contracts and sales agreements fortribal trust assets, and under-collection ofincome from tribal trust assets.

“The last time this many tribes were suing thegovernment over essentially the same issues wasprobably the ICC,” says Melody McCoy, the leadNARF attorney on all of NARF’s tribal trustcases. In justifying its annual budget requests toCongress, the Department of Justice reportedthat the scores of new cases filed by tribesagainst the government constituted a “filingfrenzy” that along with the existing cases were consuming enormous amounts of theDepartment’s time and resources. Most of the


NATI

VE A

MER

ICAN

RIG

HTS

FUND



cases were filed in the District Court for theDistrict of Columbia and the Court of FederalClaims, both in Washington, DC. A few tribesfiled their cases in federal district courts inOklahoma.

Immediate efforts by the government to gettribes to agree to “stay” the court cases pendingproffered settlement negotiations met withstrong resistance from NARF’s clients and othertribes. “We were happy to talk settlement,”remembers McCoy, “but not at the expense oflitigation. We finally had the government incourt and we didn’t buy the government’s linethat it couldn’t simultaneously litigate andnegotiate these cases.” The government’s strat-egy was then to ask the court to stay the caseswhile the court remanded the tribes’ claims tothe Interior Department to develop an “historicalaccounting plan.” The tribes opposed remand,reminding the court that nothing to date hadstopped the government from doing the historicalaccountings, let alone a “plan” for doing theaccountings. The court agreed with the tribes,but, notes McCoy, the remand motion “boughtthe government about a year of time.” “That’swhat you get when you get the government incourt,” she adds, “delay and more delay – any-thing to avoid having a court reach the merits of

the tribes’ claims, which are whetherthey have been provided with propertrust accountings, and whether there isany liability or remedy due includingdamages for failure to account or forother breaches of trust.”

The main tribal trust case that NARFfiled, Nez Perce Tribe, et al. v, Salazar, etal. was filed as a class action by twelvetribes on behalf of all tribes that did nothave their own pending cases for historicaltrust accountings. The governmentopposed class certification and the courtagreed with the government. The courtwas of the view that to force tribes to bein the case as plaintiffs was antitheticalto the tribes’ sovereignty. However, thecourt did allow a limited time period forother tribes to join NARF’s case volun-tarily as plaintiffs. By the end of 2008thirty-one more tribes had joined theoriginal 12, all but 2 of which were

represented by NARF.Meanwhile, the government had moved to

dismiss Nez Perce v. Salazar and the breach oftrust cases of seven other tribes who had refusedto stay their cases pending settlement negotia-tions. The government asserted that the courtlacked jurisdiction over the tribes’ claims inthese cases on various grounds. All tribesopposed dismissal. A few courts in Oklahomaruled against the government and denied dismissal, but the federal district court inWashington, DC never has ruled on the motionto dismiss in Nez Perce v Salazar or in the casesof other tribes there that the government hassought to dismiss.

In the Court of Federal Claims, two cases bytribes not represented by NARF have gone totrial. After a ten day trial in 2006 over a tribe’sbreach of trust claims filed in 1999 related to thegovernment’s historical management of its oiland gas resources the court awarded the tribeover $330 million. In late 2011 another tribe’sbreach of trust claims filed in 2002 endured athree week trial and a decision in that case isexpected later this year. “That is par for thecourse,” according to McCoy, “due to thresholdissues of jurisdiction, discovery, evidence and

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Chairman and NARF Boardmember Gary Hayes speaking at the Whitehouse pressconference on the tribal trust funds case settlements.

procedure that the government will pour itsresources into defending, it can take ten years toget to trial on these claims – if you can even getthere.” She adds, “And then there are appeals.”

Most importantly, notes John Echohawk,while tribal access to federal courts today is gen-erally more available than it was in the past, “theSupreme Court presently is not favorable totribal rights and in particular has set strictrequirements for tribes suing the governmentfor money damages for alleged breaches oftrust.” McCoy agrees, “No matter what youmight win at trial, it gets riskier and riskier thehigher up your case goes. To this day there areno final court decisions with all appeals exhaustedregarding the existence or scope of governmentliability for breaches of trust or the remedies orrelief that may be judicially awarded to tribes.All we know for sure is that tribal trust cases arecostly and time consuming.”

But as NARF and its clients continued to gearup for long bitter battles over tribal breach oftrust claims in court, a new potential means ofclaims resolution emerged on the horizon.

Tribal Trust SettlementsIn November 2008 Barack Obama was elected

President of the United States and he took officein January 2009. His predecessor, George W.Bush, whose Administration had publicly esti-mated the government’s liability in the tribaltrust cases to be over $200 billion, had settledthree of the cases, including one for $88 million.But the Obama Administration nevertheless

inherited over 110 tribal trust cases, certainlymore than any other Administration had facedin recent years.

During his presidential campaign, Obama hadpromised tribe leaders that he would seriouslytry to settle on fair terms the pending tribaltrust and Cobell cases. In September 2009 about100 of the 110 tribes litigating their trust claimscollectively wrote President Obama requesting aformal meeting with him “to discuss the possi-bility of a negotiated settlement of our trustclaims.” In December 2009 the parties to theCobell case announced that they had reached anhistoric agreement on a negotiated settlementof the IIM account claims in that case.3 Withintwo weeks of that announcement, the tribeswrote President Obama again regarding theirinterest in “fair and reasonable” negotiated set-tlements of their claims. All of NARF’s tribaltrust case clients signed off on the 2009 lettersto President Obama.

Under John Echohawk’s leadership and withNARF’s coordination, many litigating tribes hadspent much of 2009 preparing for their commu-nications to President Obama. They organized anationwide voluntary group that became knownas the “Settlement Proposal to the ObamaAdministration” (SPOA) group. They invited eachand every litigating tribe to join, and initially


NATI

VE A

MER

ICAN

RIG

HTS

FUND

3 Following congressional legislation in 2010 that authorized, ratifiedand confirmed the Cobell settlement, in 2011 the district court grant-ed final approval to the settlement. A federal court of appeals hasrecently affirmed that approval.



90% of those tribes did join. Over timesome tribes left the group to pursue res-olution of their trust claims on their ownthrough litigation or negotiations, butmost remained in the group. “In all my25 years at NARF I’d never seen anythinglike it,” says McCoy, who served as thegroup’s coordinator and communicationpoint person with the government. “Iwas skeptical at first, but I think Johnwas right – we can work together andthere is strength in unity and numbers.”

In February 2010 President Obamaresponded in writing to the SPOA groupthrough his spokespersons in the Justiceand Interior Departments. The Presidentwas prepared to meet with the tribes todiscuss negotiated settlements of theirclaims and was prepared to devote thepersonnel and other resources at the fed-eral political level to accomplish thatgoal. The Justice Department hosted thefirst in-person SPOA meeting inWashington, DC in April 2010. Bothsides began working on agreed uponprinciples that would govern their nego-tiations. By autumn the tribes and governmentwere discussing negotiated settlement data and methodology needs. While under courtapproved joint stipulations of confidentiality theSPOA negotiations are strictly confidential, thenegotiations process actively continued through2011. “We had many meetings with the govern-ment and amongst ourselves,” says JohnEchohawk, who participated in the discussionsaccording to his availability. “Most of all we hadhope,” he adds, “because the amount of highlevel political commitment was extraordinary.”

Through mid-2011 the Obama Administrationhad settled two tribal trust cases for about $1million each. In late 2011 the parties to theOsage Nation trust case, which was the onewhere after trial in 2006 the tribe was awardedover $330 million, announced a negotiated set-tlement of the tribe’s claims for $380 million.Osage was one of the SPOA tribes. The govern-ment began to make public announcements inDecember 2011 and January 2012 that moreSPOA settlements were likely and imminent.

On April 11, 2012 the White House announcedafter 22 months of negotiations the settlementsof the historical breach of trust claims of 41SPOA tribes (in addition to Osage) for over $1.2billion. This included 25 of NARF’s clients.Since that announcement two more of NARF’sclients have reached settlement agreementswith the government. On May 16, 2012 the fed-eral district court in Washington, DC approvedall of the SPOA settlements filed in that court asof that date.

Of NARF’s 27 tribal trust cases that have set-tled, the settlement amounts range from$25,000 to $150,000,000. McCoy emphasizesthat “while SPOA process had a lot of common-ality, each tribe’s settlement was based on itsown claims.” She adds, “That each tribe wouldenter into government to government negotia-tions with the United States was one of the original agreed upon SPOA principles.” Theamounts paid by the government under theSPOA settlements will come from thePermanent Judgment Fund, not from taxpayerrevenues or appropriated federal funds, which

(l to r) Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Vice-Chairman BradleyHight; tribal General Counsel Peter Ortego; NARFattorney Melody McCoy; NARF Executive DirectorJohn Echohawk; and Ute Mountain Ute TribeChairman Gary Hayes outside the Whitehouse.

was another of the SPOA principles.The settlements end the litigationof claims for historical accountingsand trust funds and assets misman-agement that occur before the dateof the settlements. The settlementsalso provide for specific futureinformation sharing and disputeresolution procedures between theparties on the tribes’ trust accounts,funds and assets.

The 27 settlements still leavesabout 15 of NARF’s tribal trust casesunsettled, but McCoy is confidentthat most if not all of these willreach settlement soon. “A gooddozen of them are in active negotia-tions,” she confirms, then adds, “Iappreciate the congratulations onthe ones that have settled, but whenpeople tell me that it’s a good time to take a vacation, I say, ‘no,the rest of my clients would not likethat.’” And when she looks at thethousands of hours of work she has put in on the settlements and on-going negotiations to date,McCoy reminds herself “it’s probably better thanlitigating.”

The FutureThe trust cases brought and settled by NARF’s

clients involve historical claims of tribes, andthe SPOA settlements are in many ways historic.But the government remains the trustee fortribal trust accounts, funds, and assets. Many,including tribes, Congress, and the ExecutiveBranch are wondering what will happen nextand how the historical cases and historic settle-ments will affect the future.

On May 17, 2012 the Senate Committee onIndian Affairs, www.indian.senate.gov held anOversight Hearing on the Federal TrustResponsibility to Tribal Governments. It was theCommittee’s first hearing on trust matters inseveral years. NARF was asked to testify and didtestify regarding the recent tribal trust case settlements. In response to questions aboutwhat Congress might do regarding tribal trustaccounts, funds and assets in the future, McCoy

urged the Committee to “work directly withtribes – as the historical claims negotiated set-tlements show these things really are bestworked out at the government to governmentlevel.”

NARF also is involved in the work of the newSecretarial Commission on Indian TrustAdministration and Reform (SCITAR), http://www.doi.gov/cobell/commission/index.cfmwhich was established by the legislation autho-rizing the Cobell settlement. The SCITAR istasked with providing advice and recommenda-tions to the Interior Secretary about future trustmanagement for Native Americans. As part ofits comprehensive evaluation of governmenttrust management and administration the SCITAR is seeking the input of tribes and Indianorganizations at a scheduled series of publicmeetings this year. NARF has been asked to present at a panel at the SCITAR meeting inAlbuquerque, New Mexico on June 11 – 12, 2012about, among other things, “lessons learnedfrom settlement of the recent tribal breach oftrust cases.” ❂


NATI

VE A

MER

ICAN

RIG

HTS

FUND

(l to r) NARF attorney Melody McCoy; Brooklyn Baptiste,Vice-Chairman, Nez Perce Tribe; NARF Executive DirectorJohn Echohawk; NARF Board member Stephen Lewis at aSenate Indian Affairs Committee hearing on the tribal trustfunds case.



CASE UPDATES

An important milestone in the Klamath Tribes’ effort to secure their treaty-reservedwater rights was reached on April 16 withAdministrative Law Judge Joe L. Allen ruling infavor of quantification of the Tribes’ water rightsfor two water sources, the Klamath River andKlamath Lake, in the amounts claimed by theTribes and the United States, Bureau of IndianAffairs as trustee for the Tribes. The rulingswere a resounding victory as they adopted,across-the-board, the water amounts sought bythe Tribes, and confirmed, once again, that theTribal water rights are the most senior in theBasin. The Proposed Orders add to six earliervictories achieved by the Tribes in December2011 – for Tribal water rights in the Williamson,Sycan, Sprague, and Wood Rivers, the KlamathMarsh, and in 140 springs scattered throughoutthe former Klamath Reservation – and bring toa close this phase of the decades-long litigationof the Tribal rights.

Since time immemorial members of theKlamath Tribes hunted, fished, trapped, andgathered throughout their vast ancestral home-land located in and around the Klamath Basin.In their 1864 treaty with the United States, theTribes reserved the right to continue their tradi-tional harvest activities on the KlamathReservation. And for the last 36 years, the Tribeshave been involved in litigation to secure thewater rights necessary to support fish, wildlife,and plants to allow the Tribes to exercise theirtreaty-reserved harvest rights.

As in the six earlier Proposed Orders, the April 16 Proposed Orders confirmed theamounts of water claimed by the Tribes and theUnited States are the amounts necessary toestablish and maintain a healthy and productivehabitat for treaty species that will enable the

Tribes to exercise their treaty-protected hunting,fishing, trapping, and gathering rights, and alsoruled that the Tribal water rights can extend tooff-reservation water sources where necessary tosupport the Tribes’ on-reservation harvestrights. Tribal Vice-Chairman, Don Gentry stated,“These rulings are definitely a victory for thefish and all the water dependent resources thatare important to the Klamath Tribes.”

At the same time, the Klamath Tribes’Negotiation Team has also been working hardon settlement negotiations regarding KlamathBasin water and related resource issues, result-ing in the introduction of legislation last fall toenact the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement(KBRA). “These rulings reconfirm the role thatthe KBRA can play in resolving Basin resourceissues. The Tribes will continue to work withothers in the Basin to determine the best pathfrom here on,” said Jeff Mitchell who leads theTeam. “With the results of the adjudicationprocess becoming more clear, now is the timefor Senator Wyden and Representative Waldento join Senator Merkley in supporting KBRA

Klamath Tribes Score New Victories in KlamathBasin Water Rights Adjudication


NATI

VE A

MER

ICAN

RIG

HTS

FUND

legislation and press forward with Senate hear-ings,” added Mitchell.

“This is an important step in the Adjudication,although much work remains to be done as thecases move on from here to the Oregon WaterResources Department Adjudicator and then onto the state circuit court. Meanwhile, it is a timefor the Tribes to feel good about their commit-ment to protecting Treaty water rights and otherresources,” said Tribal Attorney, Bud Ullman.

Along with Klamath Water AdjudicationProject attorneys Bud Ullman and Sue Noe, theNative American Rights Fund has representedthe Klamath Tribes throughout the Klamath

Basin Adjudication process. “NARF is honoredto represent the Klamath Tribes and we arepleased for what these rulings mean to theKlamath Tribes and its citizens. This is a goodtime to recognize all those involved, notablyNARF attorney David Gover and former NARFattorney Walter Echo-Hawk,as well as the sup-port staff that is instrumental in these types ofcases. We also appreciate our counterparts atthe U.S. Department of Justice and Bureau ofIndian Affairs for their tireless efforts over theyears, but we are mindful that it’s not over,” saidNARF Executive Director, John Echohawk. ❂

Tribal Supreme Court ProjectThe Tribal Supreme Court Project is part of

the Tribal Sovereignty Protection Initiative andis staffed by the National Congress of AmericanIndians (NCAI) and the Native American RightsFund. The Project was formed in 2001 inresponse to a series of U.S. Supreme Court casesthat negatively affected tribal sovereignty. Thepurpose of the Project is to promote greatercoordination and to improve strategy on litiga-tion that may affect the rights of all Indiantribes. We encourage Indian tribes and theirattorneys to contact the Project in our effort to coordinate resources, develop strategy andprepare briefs, especially at the time of the petition for a writ of certiorari, prior to theSupreme Court accepting a case for review.

Currently, three petitions for a writ of certio-rari have been granted in two Indian law orIndian law-related cases for the October Term2011. In Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, onApril 18, 2012, the Court heard oral argument inreview of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Tenth Circuit which held that the Bureauof Indian Affairs is liable for its failure to pay fullcontract support costs despite the “subject toavailability of appropriations” provision underthe Indian Self-Determination Act. In its peti-tion, the United States framed the question as to

whether the government is required to pay allthe contract support costs incurred by a tribalcontractor under the Indian Self-Determinationand Education Assistance Act where theCongress has imposed an express statutory cap



on the appropriations available to pay such costsand the Secretary cannot pay all such costs forall tribal contractors without exceeding thestatutory cap. The Tenth Circuit holding is indirect conflict with the holding of the FederalCircuit in Arctic Slope Native Ass’n v. Sebeliusin which a petition was filed by the tribal con-tractors and is being held by the Court with thequestion on whether the Federal Circuit erred inholding, in direct conflict with the TenthCircuit, that a government contractor which hasfully performed its end of the bargain has noremedy when a government agency over commitsitself to other projects and, as a result, does nothave enough money left in its annual appropria-tion to pay the contractor.

In the consolidated cases of Salazar v.Patchak and Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Bandof Potawatomi Indians v. Patchak, on April 24,2012, the Court heard oral argument in reviewof a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for theDistrict of Columbia that held: (1) Mr. Patchak,an individual non-Indian landowner, is withinthe “zone of interests” protected by the IndianReorganization Act and thus has standing tobring a Carcieri challenge to a land-in-trustacquisition; and (2) Mr. Patchak’s Carcierichallenge is a claim brought pursuant to theAdministrative Procedures Act (APA), not a caseasserting a claim to title under the Quiet TitleAct (QTA), and is therefore not barred by theIndian lands exception to the waiver of immunityunder the QTA. The D.C. Circuit acknowledgedthat its holding on the QTA issue is in conflictwith the Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuitswhich have all held that the QTA bars all “suits‘seeking to divest the United States of its title toland held for the benefit of an Indian tribe,’whether or not the plaintiff asserts any claim totitle in the land.” In its petition, the UnitedStates framed two questions presented: (1)Whether 5 U.S.C. § 702 [of the APA] waives thesovereign immunity of the United States from asuit challenging its title to lands that it holds intrust for an Indian tribe. (2) Whether a privateindividual who alleges injuries resulting from

the operation of a gaming facility on Indiantrust land has prudential standing to challengethe decision of the Secretary of the Interior totake title to that land in trust, on the groundthat the decision was not authorized by theIndian Reorganization Act.

In its petition, the Tribe framed two questions:(1) Whether the Quiet Title Act and its reserva-tion of the United States’ sovereign immunity insuits involving “trust or restricted Indian lands”apply to all suits concerning land in which theUnited States “claims an interest,” 28 U.S.C. §2409a(a), as the Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, andEleventh Circuits have held, or whether theyapply only when the plaintiff claims title to theland, as the D.C. Circuit held. (2) Whether pru-dential standing to sue under federal law can bebased on either (i) the plaintiff’s ability to“police” an agency’s compliance with the law, asheld by the D.C. Circuit but rejected by theFifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits, or (ii)interests protected by a different federal statutethan the one on which suit is based, as held bythe D.C. Circuit but rejected by the FederalCircuit.

In addition to its work before the U.S.Supreme Court, the Project continues to moni-tor Indian law cases pending before the lowerfederal courts and in the state courts. In certaincases, the Project may become involved in thelower court litigation—coordinating resources,developing litigation strategy and/or filing briefsin support of tribal interests. The Project alsocontinues to provide updates of Indian law casespending in the lower courts, updating the casesby subject-matter area: Post-Carcieri Litigation;Criminal Jurisdiction (Federal and State); CivilJurisdiction (Tribal and State); Diminishment/Disestablishment; Indian/Tribal Status;Sovereign Immunity; Taxation; Treaty Rights;Religious Freedoms; and Trust Relationship.Hopefully, these efforts will help us identifytrends or currents within distinct areas ofIndian law that can be effectively addressed priorto reaching the Supreme Court. ❂

Gary Hayes is an enrolled member of the UteMountain Ute Tribe and currently serves as theChairman. The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe is locatedin Colorado, New Mexico and Utah, comprisingover 600,000 acres, with its government seat inTowaoc, Colorado. The Tribe’s membership is2,085 and is governed by a Tribal Council con-sisting of seven elected officials. The Tribe’senterprises include a casino, hotel, two travelcenters, a construction company, a farm andranch and a pottery factory. All the tribal enter-prises serve to support the tribal governmentand fulfill public purposes, but more importantlyto provide the quality of life to its membership.The Tribe also has significant coal, gas and oilreserves, and has secured substantial waterrights.

In December 2005, Gary retired from theUnited States Navy after serving 25 years. Heserved 11 years of sea time on board aircraft carriers, USS CONSTELLATION, USS KITTYHAWK, USS RANGER, USS INDEPENDENCE,Attach Fighter Squadron (VFA-151) embarkedon board the USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN andserved on Staff with Commander, Carrier GroupOne. His shore tours included Naval SupplyDepot, Naval Station Subic Bay, Republic ofPhilippines, Comander, U.S. Pacific Command,Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii, and Naval AirStation, Sigonella, Italy.

In January 2006, Gary returned back homeand was elected into the Tribal Council for aneight month term. In October 2006, he was re-elected for a three year term and was electedas Tribal Chairman in October 2010. He wasappointed by the Tribal Council to serve on thefollowing committees and organizations: LawEnforcement, Economic Development, HealthCare, Tribal/Interior Budget Council (TIBC),National Congress of American Indians (NCAI),DOJ Tribal Nations Leadership Council (TNLC),Albuquerque Area Health Board (AAIHB) andHHS Secretary Tribal Advisory Committee(STAC). Gary has received numerous personalawards and military decorations, and a degreefrom Hawaii Pacific University.

Moses Kalei Nahonoapi`ilani Haia III, is theExecutive Director of the Native Hawaiian LegalCorporation (NHLC), a private, non-profit, public interest law firm. NHLC asserts, protectsand defends Native Hawaiian rights to land, nat-ural resources, and related entitlements. Mosesis a 1994 graduate of the William S. RichardsonSchool of Law, University of Hawaii. Prior tojoining NHLC in 2001 as a staff attorney, Moseswas in private practice where his work wasfocused on labor and employment law, civil liti-gation and Native Hawaiian rights. As a staffattorney with NHLC from 2001 through 2009,


NATI

VE A

MER

ICAN

RIG

HTS

FUND NEW BOARD MEMBERS



Moses was involved in a number of native rightscases dealing with the protection and preserva-tion of traditional and customary nativeHawaiian subsistence, religious and culturalpractices, and the state and county govern-ments’ trust duties related thereto. In 2007, hewas recognized by a major Honolulu daily news-paper as one of “10 Who Made A Difference” forhis work related to the protection and preserva-tion of historic and cultural properties.

Moses has been a Board member of the NativeHawaiian Advisory Council and the NativeHawaiian Bar Association. He has publishednumerous articles on Native Hawaiian history,culture and water rights.

Julie Roberts-Hyslop was born and raised inTanana Alaska, graduated from Tanana HighSchool in 1973 as Valedictorian and attendedSheldon Jackson Jr. College in Sitka Alaska.Julie also attended University of AlaskaFairbanks.

She has been employed as a Heavy Dutymechanic for four years in Prudhoe Bay forAtlantic Richfield. She also worked for theVillage Corporation for 10 years as a Land andOffice Manager and was employed by the TananaTribal Council for 10 years as the ExecutiveDirector. She then worked as a truck driver forthe Teamsters Union for 3 years and is currentlyemployed as a Housekeeper for the TananaElders Residence and the Clinic.

Julie currently serves on the following boards:

President of the Native Village of Tanana and hasbeen on the Tanana Chiefs Conference Board ofDirectors for the past 5 years. She has alsoserved on the local school board for over 10years; Head Start Committee; Tanana CityCouncil; served on the Village CorporationBoard Tozitna Limited; Served on the AlaskaFederation Board ; Yukon River Panel , an inter-national board that addresses Yukon RiverSalmon.

Stephen R. Lewis, Lt. Governor of the GilaRiver Indian Community in Arizona, graduatedfrom Arizona State University with a Bachelorsof Science degree and pursued graduate studiesat John F. Kennedy School of Government atHarvard University. Mr. Lewis has long been anadvocate for Native American issues nationallyand locally.

Stephen has served the Community as aGaming Commissioner for the Gila RiverGaming Commission, as a member of the Board of Directors for the Gila River Telecom-munications, Inc., and most recently, as mem-ber of the Board of Directors for the Gila RiverHealthcare Corporation. In the area of Indianeducation, he was selected to serve as a Boardmember for the National Indian EducationAssociation (NIEA), and a delegate to the WhiteHouse Conference on Indian Education.Stephen was also selected to the National IndianGaming Commission’s (NIGC) Task Force onMinimum Internal Controls for Indian Country,

served as a trainer for the National IndianGaming Association (NIGA), and served as ateaching assistant for the National JudicialCollege’s Tribal Commissioner Training.

In the area of mass media, he organized andstaged the first ever showing of Native films anddocumentaries at the Sundance Film Festival inPark City, Utah and was an associate producerfor the groundbreaking and critically acclaimedsix-part documentary, “The Native Americans.”Currently, Stephen serves on the Board ofDirectors for the Children’s Action Alliance(CAA), a non-profit organization working toimprove children’s health, education and securitythrough advocacy.

Peter M. Pino, Tribal Administrator andTreasurer for the Zia Pueblo of New Mexico since1978, received a Bachelor of Arts from NewMexico Highlands University in 1970 and anM.B.A. from the University of New Mexico in1975. Peter is tasked with the administration ofall Tribal, State, and federal projects and pro-grams. He coordinates community developmentprojects from concept to completion; establish-es management systems for the Pueblo; and is the Tribal Liaison between other Pueblos,State of New Mexico, federal agencies and com-mercial business firms. Peter also establishesand implements Pueblo investment policies andadministers the Pueblo Tax Ordinance.

Peter has been a Tribal Council member since1967 and is currently a Board member of the

Greater Sandoval County Chamber ofCommerce. He has been a Board member ofFutures for Children; Board of Commissionersfor the New Mexico Game and Fish Depart-ment; Board member of the Mesa VerdeFoundation; Board member of the Crow CanyonArcheological Center; Chairman and Boardmember of Education Funds, Inc.; and Vice-Chairman, Board of Commissioners, State ofNew Mexico Office of Indian Affairs.

The Board and staff of the Native AmericanRights Fund look forward to working with ournew Board members and in learning from theirexpertise in Native American affairs. ❂


NATI

VE A

MER

ICAN

RIG

HTS

FUND


National Indian Law Library

The National Indian Law Library needsyour financial support

You probably are familiar with thegreat work NARF does in court roomsand the halls of Congress relating totribal recognition, treaty enforcement,trust fund settlements, NAGPRA, andmore. Did you know that NARF also isthe go-to resource for legal research inIndian law?

Advance Justice through Knowledge!Support the National Indian LawLibrary!

Historically, Indian people and advo-cates fighting for indigenous rightshave found themselves limited by theirability to access relevant federal, state, and tribalIndian law resources. In direct response to thischallenge, the National Indian Law Library(NILL) was established over forty years ago as acore part of the Native American Rights Fund(NARF). Today the library continues to serve asan essential resource for those working toadvance Native American justice. As the onlypublic library devoted to Indian law, we supplymuch-needed access to Indian law research, newsupdates, and tribal law documents. To extend thetradition of free public access to these services weask for your financial support.

Each year, NILL responds to more than 1,000individual research requests and receives severalhundred thousand visits to its online resources.Whether it’s through updates to the online Guideto Indian Child Welfare or additions to the exten-sive tribal law collection, NILL is committed toproviding visitors with resources that are notavailable anywhere else! Additionally, our IndianLaw Bulletins and news blog deliver timelyupdates about developments in Indian law andensure that you have the information you need tofight for indigenous rights. However, we are not

resting on our laurels; we are constantly improvingour online resources and access to tribal lawmaterials. With your support we plan to developan innovative and valuable community basedwiki-source for Indian law information and greatlybroaden the scope of the Tribal Law gateway.

The bulletins, research resources, extensivecatalog, and personal one-on-one librarian assis-tance can only exist with your help. The NationalIndian Law Library operates on an annual budgetof $190,000—primarily from the donations ofconcerned and motivated individuals, firms, businesses, and tribes who recognize NARF andNILL as indispensable resources for NativeAmerican justice.

By donating, you stand with the NationalIndian Law Library in its effort to fight injusticethrough access to knowledge. You help ensurethat the library continues to supply free access toIndian law resources and that it has the financialmeans necessary to pursue innovative andgroundbreaking projects to serve you better.Please visit www.narf.org/nill/donate now formore information on how you can support thismission. ❂

Justice Through Knowledge!

Jenny Monet



NATI

VE A

MER

ICAN

RIG

HTS

FUND

• Arctic Slope RegionalCorporation

• Bering Straits NativeCorporation

• Bristol Bay Native Corporation

• Colorado River Indian Tribes

• Curyung Tribal Council

• Forest County PotawatomiFoundation

• Native Village of Eyak

• Native Village of Port Lions

• Old Harbor Tribal Council

• Pechanga Band of LuiseñoIndians

• Poarch Band of Creek Indians

• Pueblo of Pojoaque

• Puyallup Tribe of Indians

• San Manuel Band of MissionIndians

• Seminole Tribe of Florida

• Seven CedarsCasino/Jamestown S`Klallam

• Shakopee Mdewakanton SiouxCommunity

• Confederated Tribes of SiletzIndians

• Suquamish Indian Tribe

• Tanana Chiefs Conference

• Tulalip Tribes

• Yoche Dehe Wintun Nation

It has been made abundantly clear that non-Indian philanthropy can no longer sustainNARF’s work. Federal funds for specific projectshave also been reduced. Our ability to providelegal advocacy in a wide variety of areas such asreligious freedom, the Tribal Supreme CourtProject, tribal recognition, human rights, trustresponsibility, tribal water rights, Indian ChildWelfare Act, and on Alaska tribal sovereigntyissues has been compromised. NARF is nowturning to the tribes to provide this crucialfunding to continue our legal advocacy onbehalf of Indian Country. It is an honor to listthose Tribes and Native organizations who havechosen to share their good fortunes with theNative American Rights Fund and the thousands

of Indian clients we have served. The generosityof Tribes is crucial in NARF’s struggle to ensurethe future of all Native Americans.

The generosity of tribes is crucial in NARF’sstruggle to ensure the freedoms and rights of allNative Americans. Contributions from thesetribes should be an example for every NativeAmerican Tribe and organization. We encourageother Tribes to become contributors and partners with NARF in fighting for justice forour people and in keeping the vision of ourancestors alive. We thank the following tribesand Native organizations for their generous support of NARF thus far for our 2012 fiscal year– October 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012:

CALLING TRIBES TO ACTION!



THE NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND

NARF Annual Report: This is NARF’s major report on its programsand activities. The Annual Report is distributed to foundations, majorcontributors, certain federal and state agencies, tribal clients, NativeAmerican organizations, and to others upon request. Ray RamirezEditor, [email protected].

The NARF Legal Review is published biannually by the NativeAmerican Rights Fund. Third class postage paid at Boulder, Colorado.Ray Ramirez, Editor, [email protected]. There is no charge for subscriptions, however, contributions are appreciated.

Tax Status: The Native American Rights Fund is a nonprofit, charitableorganization incorporated in 1971 under the laws of the District ofColumbia. NARF is exempt from federal income tax under the provisions of Section 501 C (3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and

contributions to NARF are tax deductible. The Internal RevenueService has ruled that NARF is not a “private foundation” as defined inSection 509(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Main Office: Native American Rights Fund, 1506 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80302 (303-447-8760) (FAX 303-443-7776).http://www.narf.org

Washington, D.C. Office: Native American Rights Fund, 1514 P Street,NW (Rear) Suite D, Washington, D.C. 20005 (202-785-4166) (FAX 202-822-0068).

Alaska Office: Native American Rights Fund, 801 B Street, Suite 401,Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907-276-0680) (FAX 907-276-2466).

The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) is the oldest andlargest nonprofit national Indian rights organization in the coun-try devoting all its efforts to defending and promoting the legalrights of Indian people on issues essential to their tribal sover-eignty, their natural resources and their human rights. NARFbelieves in empowering individuals and communities whoserights, economic self-sufficiency, and political participation havebeen systematically or systemically eroded or undermined.

Native Americans have been subjugated and dominated.Having been stripped of their land, resources and dignity, tribestoday are controlled by a myriad of federal treaties, statutes, andcase law. Yet it is within these laws that Native Americans placetheir hope and faith for justice and the protection of their way oflife. With NARF’s help, Native people can go on to provide leadership in their communities and serve as catalysts for justpolicies and practices towards Native peoples nationwide. Froma historical standpoint Native Americans have, for numerousreasons, been targets of discriminatory practices.

For the past 42 years, NARF has represented over 250 Tribesin 31 states in such areas as tribal jurisdiction and recognition,land claims, hunting and fishing rights, the protection of Indianreligious freedom, and many others. In addition to the greatstrides NARF has made in achieving justice on behalf of NativeAmerican people, perhaps NARF’s greatest distinguishingattribute has been its ability to bring excellent, highly ethicallegal representation to dispossessed tribes. NARF has been successful in representing Indian tribes and individuals in casesthat have encompassed every area and issue in the field of Indianlaw. The accomplishments and growth of NARF over the yearsconfirmed the great need for Indian legal representation on anational basis. This legal advocacy on behalf of Native Americanscontinues to play a vital role in the survival of tribes and theirway of life. NARF strives to protect the most important rights ofIndian people within the limit of available resources.

One of the initial responsibilities of NARF’s first Board ofDirectors was to develop priorities that would guide the NativeAmerican Rights Fund in its mission to preserve and enforce thelegal rights of Native Americans. The Committee developed fivepriorities that continue to lead NARF today:

• Preservation of tribal existence• Protection of tribal natural resources• Promotion of Native American human rights• Accountability of governments to Native Americans• Development of Indian law and educating the public about

Indian rights, laws, and issues

Under the priority of the preservation of tribal existence,NARF works to construct the foundations that are necessaryto empower tribes so that they can continue to live accordingto their Native traditions, to enforce their treaty rights, toinsure their independence on reservations and to protecttheir sovereignty.

Throughout the process of European conquest and coloniza-tion of North America, Indian tribes experienced a steadydiminishment of their land base to a mere 2.3 percent of itsoriginal size. Currently, there are approximately 55 millionacres of Indian-controlled land in the continental United Statesand about 44 million acres of Native-owned land in Alaska. An adequate land base and control over natural resources arecentral components of economic self-sufficiency and self-determination, and as such, are vital to the very existence oftribes. Thus, much of NARF’s work involves the protection oftribal natural resources.

Although basic human rights are considered a universal andinalienable entitlement, Native Americans face an ongoingthreat of having their rights undermined by the United Statesgovernment, states, and others who seek to limit these rights.Under the priority of the promotion of human rights, NARFstrives to enforce and strengthen laws which are designed toprotect the rights of Native Americans to practice their tradi-tional religion, to use their own language, and to enjoy their culture. Contained within the unique trust relationship betweenthe United States and Indian nations is the inherent duty for alllevels of government to recognize and responsibly enforce themany laws and regulations applicable to Indian peoples. Becausesuch laws impact virtually every aspect of tribal life, NARF main-tains its involvement in the legal matters pertaining to account-ability of governments to Native Americans.

The coordinated development of Indian law and educating thepublic about Indian rights, laws, and issues is essential for thecontinued protection of Indian rights. This primarily involvesestablishing favorable court precedents, distributing informa-tion and law materials, encouraging and fostering Indian legaleducation, and forming alliances with Indian law practitionersand other Indian organizations.

Requests for legal assistance should be addressed to theLitigation Management Committee at NARF’s main office, 1506 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80302. NARF’s clients areexpected to pay whatever they can toward the costs of legal representation.

NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND BOARD OF DIRECTORSGerald Danforth, Chairman .................................................................................. Wisconsin Oneida

Natasha Singh, Vice-Chairman .................................................................. Native Village of Stevens

Marshall McKay, Treasurer .................................................................... Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation

Virginia Cross ...................................................................................................... Muckleshoot Tribe

Moses Haia.................................................................................................................. Native Hawaiian

Gary Hayes ………………………………………………………………. Ute Mountain Ute Tribe

Julie Roberts-Hyslop …………………………………………………… Native Village of Tanana

Ron His Horse Is Thunder ................................................................................ Standing Rock Sioux

Stephen Lewis ……………………………………………………... Gila River Indian Community

Mark Macarro .............................................................................. Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians

Peter Pino ………………………………………………………………………………. Zia Pueblo

Buford Rolin ........................................................................................ Poarch Band of Creek Indians

Barbara Anne Smith .............................................................................................. Chickasaw Nation

Executive Director: John E. Echohawk .................................................................................. Pawnee

NARF LEGAL REVIEW • VOLUME 37, NO. 1 • WINTER/SPRING 2012

Native American Rights Fund1506 BroadwayBoulder, CO 80302

Non-Profit Org.

U.S. Postage

PPAAIIDDBoulder, Colorado

Permit No. 589

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Documents

NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUNDfunds in the Treasury or invest them outside of Treasury in a range of statutorily approved financial instruments. If deposited in the Treasury, since 1984