US Government Documents related to Indigenous Nations

Follow

• 

  Reclamation: Managing Water in the West; An Overview of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program

  United States Bureau of Reclamation and Roger S. Otstot

  This undated summary released by the Bureau of Reclamation offers a concise overview of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin flood control plan which was enacted when Congressed passed the Flood Control Act of 1944. This plan led to the construction of several dams in the Missouri River basin, including the Garrison Dam. The completion of the Garrison Dam displaced the majority of the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara people living on the Fort Berthold Reservation. This document contains tables, graphs, maps, and a photograph.

• 

  Opinion Regarding the Status of Mineral Ownership Underlying the Missouri River Within the Boundaries of the Fort Berthold Reservation (North Dakota)

  United States Department of the Interior and Robert T. Anderson

  This memorandum, dated February 4, 2022, from the United States (US) Department of the Interior (Office of the Solicitor) to the Secretary and Assistant Secretary of Land and Minerals Management, the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, and the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs rescinds the Solicitor’s May 26, 2020 opinion regarding mineral rights on the Fort Berthold Reservation which declared the state of North Dakota to be the owner of said rights. This memorandum reaffirms the January 17, 2017 opinion of Solicitor Hilary Tompkins that the rights belong to the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation. This document contains maps and photographs.

• 

  Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta

  United States Supreme Court and Brett Kavanaugh

  This United States (US) Supreme Court decision, argued April 27, 2022 and decided June 29, 2022 expanded the reach of state jurisdiction to allow for prosecution of crimes that occur on Indigenous land, regardless of whether or not a state is named as having such jurisdiction under US Public Law 280. In 2020, the US Supreme Court's decision on McGirt v. Oklahoma established that much of the eastern part of the state of Oklahoma is Indigenous land and therefore falls under either tribal jurisdiction or Federal jurisdiction. In 2015 Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta was charged and convicted of child neglect by the state of Oklahoma, but he appealed based on the fact that the state of Oklahoma did not have the jurisdiction to charge and sentence him, per the McGirt ruling. The US Supreme Court decided that "States have the jurisdiction to prosecute crimes within their territory except when preempted by federal law or by principles of tribal self-government." Oklahoma is not a named state in US Public Law 280, which means that this ruling sets a precedent for any state to expand jurisdiction into Indigenous land. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion with Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Berrett joining. Gorsuch dissented along with Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

• 

  Status of Mineral Ownership Underlying the Missouri River within the Boundaries of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (North Dakota)

  Department of the Interior and Daniel H. Jorjani

  This memorandum, dated May 26, 2020, from the United States Department of the Interior (Office of the Solicitor) to the Assistant Secretary of US Indian Affairs and the Assistant Secretary of Land and Minerals Management rescinds the Solicitor’s January 18, 2017 opinion regarding mineral rights on the Fort Berthold Reservation and asserts that the state of North Dakota, not the Three Affiliated Tribes, is the legal owner of the submerged lands beneath the Missouri River. The Solicitor cites the “Historical Examination of the Missouri River within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, Precontact-1902” and his interpretation of laws and case precedent to support this opinion.

• 

  McGirt v. Oklahoma

  United States Supreme Court and Neil M. Gorsuch

  This United States (US) Supreme Court case, decided July 9, 2020, clarified the boundaries of Indigenous land within the state of Oklahoma (OK) and, by extension, the limits of Oklahoma’s jurisdictional reach. Following the perpetration of his crimes in 1997, Oklahoma state court convicted Jimcy McGirt of three sexual offenses; however, McGirt contended that the state lacked the jurisdiction to try him for these crimes because he is an enrolled member of the Seminole Nation and because his crimes took place on the Creek Reservation (Muscogee Nation). Oklahoma argued that although an 1883 Treaty established a section of land for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, it was not called a “reservation” in the treaty and therefore was not federally recognized as such. The Supreme Court found that the term “reservation” was likely not in common use in 1883 but the language of the treaty clearly establishes the land as reservation land for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. Oklahoma also argued that the allotment era disestablished the sovereignty of the reservation community, but the Supreme Court held that US public law does not indicate disestablishment. At stake in this case is the state of Oklahoma’s right to prosecute Indigenous people for crimes committed in a section of Northeastern, Oklahoma that encompasses most of the city of Tulsa. The Supreme court ruled in favor of McGirt, reversing the lower court’s ruling. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the court. Justices Roberts, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissented with Thomas (except as to footnote 9).

• 

  Opinion Regarding the Status of Mineral Ownership Underlying the Missouri River within the Boundaries of the Fort Berthold Reservation (North Dakota)

  United States Department of the Interior and Hilary C. Tompkins

  This memorandum, dated January 18, 2017, from the United States (US) Department of the Interior (Office of the Solicitor) to the Assistant Secretary of US Indian Affairs and the Director of the US Bureau of Indian Affairs responds to an inquiry requesting an opinion on mineral rights ownership on the Fort Berthold Reservation. The state of North Dakota and the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation submitted competing claims of ownership. The memorandum provides a history of the area, settlement, trade, treaties, the river and its flood and flood control history, the Garrison Dam, and the reasons why each party claims to have mineral rights. Based on this history, the Solicitor provides the opinion that the original bed of the Missouri River within the boundaries of the Fort Berthold Reservation were originally owned by the tribes and are therefore held in trust for the benefits of the tribes as granted by the Mineral Restoration Act of 1984. This document includes several maps and photographs as attachments.

• 

  Interior Department and Army Corps Announce Restoration of Tribal Lands for the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation; Transfer Restores Nearly 25,000 Acres of Tribal Homelands Lost to the Garrison Dam Project

  Department of the Interior and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works

  This news release, dated December 20, 2016, from the United States (US) Department of the Interior and the US Assistant Secretary of the Army announces the return of 24,959 acres of land on the Fort Berthold Reservation to the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation. The returned land was part of the 153,000 acres of land taken by the United States Government for construction of the Garrison Dam. The authority of this transfer is granted by the Fort Berthold Mineral Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-602). This press release provides some background on the Garrison Dam Project and the process behind the land return. Principle Deputy Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Lawrence S. Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy, and Three Affiliated Tribes Tribal Chairman Mark Fox provide comments for the press release.

• 

  Fact Sheet: Potential Transfer of Garrison Dam/Lake Sakakawea Project Lands

  United States Army Corps of Engineers

  This 2016 fact sheet released by the United States (US) Army Corps of Engineers, discusses the potential return of lands within the Fort Berthold Reservation to the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation. The lands in question are part of 153,000 acres that were taken for the construction and operation of the Garrison Dam. The authority of this return is granted by the Fort Berthold Mineral Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-602). The fact sheet includes a brief history of the lands in question, the process of the return, and the status of the return.

• 

  Memorandum of Agreement Between the Department of the Interior and the Department of the Army Pursuant to Section 206(b) of the Fort Berthold Mineral Restoration Act, Public Law 98-602 (1984)

  United States Department of the Interior, US Department of the Army (Civil Works), and US Department of Indian Affairs

  This Memorandum of Agreement, dated May 6, 2015, from the United States (US) Department of the Interior, the US Department of the Army (Civil Works), and the US Department of Indian Affairs, outlines the process by which a portion of land that was taken from the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation for construction and operation of the Garrison Dam be returned to the Three Affiliated Tribes. The authority of this return is granted by the Fort Berthold Mineral Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-602).

• 

  Effects Report: Potential Transfer of Garrison Project Lands Within the Fort Berthold Reservation Boundaries Pursuant to the Fort Berthold Mineral Restoration Act

  United States Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Nebraska

  This report, dated April 2008, from the United States (US) Army Corps of Engineers (Omaha District, Nebraska) explains the potential transfer of unused lands from the Garrison Dam Project to the Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation. The land transfer proposed to return a portion of land out of the 153,000 acres taken by the US Government for the construction of the Garrison Dam. The authority of this transfer is granted by the Fort Berthold Mineral Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-602). This report is broken into six sections: Introduction, Authority, Criteria, Proposed Determination, Determination, and Conclusion. An overview of public response to the proposal and consideration of public comments and concerns are included; however, the appendices which should include public meeting transcripts are blank. This document includes a map.

• 

  Appendix I: Comments by Comment Number, 2006

  US Army Corps of Engineers

  This comments matrix, published in 2006, provides a summary of the public comments made in 2006 regarding the proposed return of land to the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation. These comments were recorded from transcripts of six public meetings held in Bismarck, North Dakota (ND) on June 26; in Hazen, ND on June 27, in Dickinson, ND on June 27; in Williston, ND on June 28; in New Town, ND on June 29; and in Minot, ND on June 30. The matrix also includes comments received outside these meetings via email and letter. The proposed return of land, based on the Mineral Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-602), would return a portion of the land taken for the Garrison Dam project to the Three Affiliated Tribes.

• 

  Draft Effects Report: Potential Transfer of Garrison Project Lands Within the Fort Berthold Reservation Boundaries, Pursuant to the Fort Berthold Mineral Restoration Act

  US Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Nebraska

  This report, dated May 2006, from the United States (US) Army Corps of Engineers (Omaha District, Nebraska) explains the potential transfer of unused lands from the Garrison Dam Project back to the Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation. The land transfer proposed to return a portion of land out of the 153,000 acres taken by the US Government for the construction of the Garrison Dam. The authority of this transfer is granted by the Fort Berthold Mineral Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-602). This report is broken into four sections: Introduction, Background, Proposed Determination, Public Comment and Response. This report includes the full transcripts of public meetings held on the matter, a spread sheet of all public comments made on the matter, and a table of public comments with responses. This document includes a map.

• 

  Appendix E: Comments by Number, 2005

  US Army Corps of Engineers

  This comments matrix, published in 2005, provides a summary of public comments made in 2005 regarding the proposed return of land to the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation. These comments were recorded from transcripts of three public meetings held in Bismarck, North Dakota (ND) on May 24; in Dickinson, ND on May 25; and in Williston, ND on May 26. The matrix also includes comments received outside these meetings via email and letter. The land return, based on the Mineral Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-602), proposed to return a portion of the land taken for the Garrison Dam project to the Three Affiliated Tribes. This document can also be found as part of “Draft Effects Report: Potential Transfer of Garrison Project Lands Within the Fort Berthold Reservation Boundaries, Pursuant to the Fort Berthold Mineral Restoration Act.”

• 

  Three Affiliated Tribes Health Facility Compensation Act

  United States Congress and US House of Representatives

  This report from the United States (US) House Committee on Resources, dated June 3, 2004, was written to accompany US Senate Bill 1146 which proposed the construction of a rural health care facility on the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota. The estimated cost for construction of said facility is 20 million dollars. This facility is part of a continued attempt by the US government to compensate for loss of property, infrastructure, and way of life for the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara people who were forced off their land on the Fort Berthold Reservation due to the construction of the Garrison Dam. This report includes details about the proposed construction including a cost breakdown. The report also includes the changes that US Senate Bill 1146 would make changes to existing US Public Law 102-575, “An Act to Authorize Additional Appropriations for the Construction of the Buffalo Bill Dam and Reservoir, Shoshone Project, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, Wyoming." Public Law 102-575 is also known as ''Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992” and contains the subsection known as “Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act.” US Senate Bill 1146 became US Public Law 108-437 on December 3, 2004.

• 

  Equitable Compensation Act: Hearing Before the Committee on Indian Affairs United States Senate; One Hundred Seventh Congress, First Session on Federal Obligation to Equitable Compensation to the Fort Berthold and Standing Rock Reservations

  United States Congress and US Senate

  This record, dated August 30, 2001, is a transcript of a follow-up hearing with the Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing Rock Nation to evaluate how the 1992 Equitable Compensation Act has served the tribes and if it has helped restore economic stability. Testimony from tribal members indicates that many promises made prior to the building of the dam were never met, that the promises were met were fulfilled 40-45 years after the dam was built, and, more importantly, that what was lost can never be compensated for with money. At the time of this hearing, the Three Affiliated Tribes were still without adequate health and educational resources. The report includes statements from several tribal members as well as additional materials including the Final Report of the Garrison Unit dated May 23, 1986.

• 

  Bruce Lien Co. v. Three Affiliated Tribes

  District Court of North Dakota and Andrew W. Bogue

  This court case, decided on August 28, 1996, presented the problem of tribal council authority to enter the tribe into binding contracts. The disputing parties in this case entered a contract for co-operation of casino activities at Four Bears Motor Lodge while Wilbur Wilkinson was part of the Tribal Council. When the council changed leadership, the validity of the contract between Bruce Lien Co. and the Three Affiliated Tribes was challenged by the new leadership who alleged that Wilkinson did not have the authority to bind the Three Affiliated Tribes to the contract. Bruce Lien Co. felt they were entitled to additional compensation for start-up costs and disputed increased licensing fees imposed by the tribes. The court ruled that the issue of whether or not Wilkinson had the authority to enter into a contract on behalf of the Three Affiliated Tribes needs to be decided first and foremost. As such, the court ruled that tribal remedies need to be exhausted before the case can move forward.

• 

  Technical Corrections in Certain Indian Laws

  United States Congress and US House of Representatives

  This United States (US) House report from the Committee on Natural Resources, dated April 19, 1994, was written to accompany US Senate Bill 1654 which proposed technical corrections to existing Indian laws. This report provides a background on US Senate Bill 1654 and proposes amendments. Among other corrections, the bill proposes to amend the White Earth Reservation Land Settlement Act of 1985 and to extend the allotted time for land transfers as written in the Three Affiliated Tribes and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act. US Senate Bill 1654 became US Public Law 103-263 on May 31, 1994.

• 

  Duncan Energy v. Three Affiliated Tribes (1994)

  United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

  This court case, decided on June 8, 1994, was the result of an appeal of an earlier decision made on September 28, 1992. This suit was initially filed by Duncan Energy (and others) who were operating oil and gas wells in the northeast quadrant of the Fort Berthold Reservation. They contended that the northeast quadrant of land was not part of the Reservation per the act of 1910 and as such they were not subject to taxation and employment ordinances set by the Three Affiliated Tribes. The 1992 ruling found that act of 1910 did not diminish the Reservation and that the Three Affiliated Tribes did have authority over the northeast quadrant; however, that court also found that the Three Affiliated Tribes did not have authority to claim a severance tax on the extraction of gas and oil from their land nor did they have the authority to impose their employment ordinance on companies operating in that quadrant. The outcome of this case (the appeal) upheld the ruling that the boundaries of the reservation do include the northeast quadrant; however, it reversed the decision of the North Dakota district court noting that the court needed to dismiss the case for failure to exhaust tribal remedies or that the case should be revisited after tribal remedies are exhausted.

• 

  Making Certain Technical Corrections

  United States Congress and US Senate

  This report from the United States (US) Senate Committee on Indian Affairs dated November 19, 1993, was written to accompany US Senate Bill 1654 which proposes technical corrections to Indian laws. The report specifies that US Senate Bill 1654 proposes to extend the deadline for the sale of lands to their former owners (per the specifications of US Public Law 102-575 which contains the “Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act”). US Senate Bill 1654 became US Public Law 103-263 on May 31, 1994.

• 

  Duncan Energy v. Three Affiliated Tribes (1992)

  District Court of North Dakota

  This court case, decided on September 28, 1992, established that the northeast quadrant of the Fort Berthold Reservation was part of the Reservation (therefore within tribal jurisdiction) but found that the Three Affiliated Tribes did not have taxation and employment authority over the gas and oil companies operating in that quadrant. Per Tribal Tax Code, any property on the Reservation used for business or profit is subject to a one-percent taxation and per the Tribal Employment Rights Office Ordinance (TERO), any employers within the Reservation must give preference to Native American workers. The Three Affiliated Tribes attempted to levy a severance tax on the extraction of gas and oil from their land and to enforce TERO on the oil and gas companies working in the northeast quadrant. Duncan Energy (and others) filed suit to prevent the tribe from collecting this tax and from enforcing TERO. Duncan energy contended that the northeast quadrant was no longer part of the Fort Berthold Reservation due to the 1910 sale of “surplus” lands after allotment; however, the court found that the act of 1910 did not diminish the boundaries or jurisdiction of the Reservation. However, the court also found that the imposition of the tax and the hiring ordinance on Duncan was outside of tribal jurisdiction. The Three Affiliated Tribes appealed.

• 

  An Act to Authorize Additional Appropriations for the Construction of the Buffalo Bill Dam and Reservoir, Shoshone Project, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, Wyoming

  United States Congress

  This United States (US) public law (Public Law 102-575), passed on October 30, 1992, also known as the “Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992” contains a number of acts providing additional appropriations for various reclamation projects in the United States. The subsection known as the “Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act” (found on page 4,731) states that the US Congress did not adequately compensate the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara tribes (The Three Affiliated Tribes) or the Standing Rock Nation (Standing Rock Sioux Tribe) for prime lands that were taken for construction of the Garrison and Oahe dams. As such, these tribes are owed further financial compensation. The law outlines compensation measures for the tribes, noting that per capita payments are prohibited.

• 

  Implementing Certain Recommendations of the Garrison Unit Joint Tribal Advisory Committee Regarding the Entitlement of the Three Affiliated Tribes and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to Additional Financial Compensation for the Taking of Reservation Lands for the Site of the Garrison Dam and Reservoir and the Oahe Dam and Reservoir and for Other Purposes

  United States Congress and US House of Representatives

  This report from the United States (US) House Select Committee on Indian Affairs, dated November 26, 1991, was written to accompany US Senate Bill 168 which aimed to provide the Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing Rock Sioux with fair compensation for lands taken for construction of the Garrison Dam and Oahe Dam as well as the return of land that was taken but not used for the dam projects. The report summarizes the background and need for US Senate Bill 168, and it acknowledges that the implementation of the Pick-Sloan Plan effectively forced the Three Affiliated tribes off their land which was prime agricultural land. The report acknowledges that the Standing Rock Sioux were similarly forced off prime land within their reservation due to the Oahe Dam construction. The report further contains a summary of legislative history, including the input of the US Army Corps of Engineers and the US Bureau of Indian Affairs. It concludes with recommendations from the committee. US Senate Bill 168 was introduced but never passed the US Senate or US House.

• 

  Authorizing the Acquisition of Additional Lands for Inclusion in the Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site, and for Other Purposes

  United States Congress and US House of Representatives

  This report from the United States (US) House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, dated July 30, 1990, was written to accompany US Senate Bill 1230 which proposes to expand the Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site in North Dakota by 465 acres to better represent the ancestral homelands of the Mandan and Hidatsa tribes. The proposed expansion included burial grounds. This report seeks to amend US Senate Bill 1230 to increase funding for the development of the historic site and to change the wording of Section 1 “Acquisition of Additional Lands” to specify certain parameters for acquiring land. US Senate Bill 1230 was approved and became US Public Law 101-430 on October 15, 1990.

• 

  An Act to Regulate Gaming on Indian Lands

  United States Congress

  This act, dated October 17, 1988, also known as United States Public Law 100-497, and popularly known as the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, was enacted to provide a statutory basis for the operation and regulation of tribal gaming, and to declare the need for the establishment of independent Federal regulatory authority, Federal standards for gaming on Indian lands, and a National Indian Gaming Commission, in order to meet congressional concerns regarding gaming and to protect such gaming as a means of generating tribal revenue.

• 

  Hunger and Nutrition Problems Among American Indians: A Case Study of North Dakota; Hearing before the Select Committee on Hunger House of Representatives One Hundredth Congress First Session, Hearing Held in New Town, ND July 10, 1987

  United States Congress and US House of Representatives

  This report from the United States (US) House Select Committee on Hunger, dated July 10, 1987 includes the transcript of a hearing held in New Town, North Dakota focused on nutrition and diabetes among Three Affiliated Tribe members on the Fort Berthold Reservation. The hearing includes expert testimony from health and nutrition experts and residents of the Fort Berthold Reservation. The opening statement made by Representative Mickey Leland acknowledges the devastating impact that the Garrison Dam had on the Three Affiliated Tribes and he indicates that in addition to the information from the hearing, he will also consider the recommendations made by the Garrison Unit Joint Tribal Advisory Committee (JTAC). He also provides the statistic that among the Three Affiliated Tribes, 1 in 3 people over the age of 40 is diabetic. The report includes the statements made by members of the Three Affiliated Tribes, nutritionists, physicians, and other experts at the hearing as well as additional supplemental material.