REVIEW I - Native American Rights Fund

Continued on page 2

A critical part of this quest was tosecure rights to sufficient w~rfor its people and its economy.The Native American Rights Fundhas represented the Tribe in thisquest since 1987.

The Tribe's opportunity toobtain an adequate water supplyfor its future began in 1982 whenthe United States filed water rightsclaims for the Tribe in state watercourt. Subsequently, the UnitedStates, the Tribe and the State ofMontana entered into negotiationsto settle the Tribe's water rightsclaims. The Tribe fashioned awater rights settlement plan tofurther the ultimate goal of making the Rocky Boy's Reservation aself sustaining homeland. The settlement plan consists of four mainelements: (1) quantification of onReservation water and establishment of an administration program; (2) supplementation of theon-Reservation drinking watersupply to meet future populationneeds; (3) construction of onReservation facilities to deliverdrinking and irrigation water; and

SummerIFall1997

National Indian Law LibraryLE NILLNO_OI~~/,qq~

REVIEW I

water for the Tribe and to developthe Tribe's agricultural projectswere undertaken. However, theselargely failed because of poor planning and implementation by theFederal Government, and becauseof the legal uncertainty over thenature and scope of the Tribe'swater rights. While the FederalGovernment's efforts to secure land

and water for theTribe declined

over the years, the Tribe continued to press forward in its questfor a viable permanent homeland.

Volume 22, No.2

In 1916, the United States setaside the Rocky Boys Reservationfor the Chippewa Cree Tribe.However, the United States recognized that the 1916 Reservationlacked sufficient land and water tomake the Reservation a viablehomeland for the Chippewa CreeTribe. During subsequent years,various Federal effortsto obtain additional land and

~",,~~#l...

CHIPPEWA-CREE TRIBE, !{mJ:E===

STATE OF MONTANA SIGN HISTORIC COMPACT

I. Introduction

NARF LEGALREVIEW

-----------

Historic Compact page 1-8

NARF Updates page 9-11 and 14

In Memory of Mildred Cleghorn page 12-13

NARF Attorney page 15

New NARF Board Members page 16-17

Otu'han page 18-21

NARF Resources and Publications page 22-23

Chippewa-Cree Tribecontinued from page 1

(4) compensation for federal failureto protect the Tribe's water rightsand Tribal release of claims againstthe federal government for suchbreach of trust. The Tribe's settlement plan is to be carried outthrough a Compact with the Stateof Montana settling issues of quantification and administration of onReservation water supplies, andthrough congressional legislationratifying the Compact, providing asource of water to supplement theshort water supply on theReservation, authorizing the construction of an on-Reservation distribution and irrigation system, and

roviding an economic development fund. This article tells thestory of the century-long struggle ofthe Chippewa Cree Tribe to secure aviable homeland, and in particularthe on-going struggle to securerights to water for drinking and forsustaining the Tribe's agriculturaleconomy.

II. Historical Background

Federal assistance to theTribe in achieving the Tribe's waterrights settlement goals has faHen farshort of Tribal expectations.Unfortunately, as shown by the history of the Rocky Boy's Reservation,this situation is consistent with previous conduct of the United Statesin carrying out its trust responsibilities to the Chippewa Cree Tribe.

A. The Establishment of the RockyBoy's Reservation.

The Rocky Boy's Reservationis located in north-central Montanaon several tributaries of the MilkRiver. The present Reservationencompasses approximately108,000 acres. The originalReservation was established in1916 by executive order settingaside a portion of the abandonedFort Assiniboine MilitaryReservation. The Rocky Boy'sReservation was created as a homeland for a band of Chippewa peopleled by "Stone Man," also known as"Rocky Boy," and a band of Creepeople led by "Little Bear."

Rocky Boy's band and LittleBear's band customarily migratedon a seasonal basis throughout theMilk and Marias River areas irrespective of the United States-

Canadian boundary. The fact thatthe white man had created aboundary between the UnitedStates and Canada held no meaning for the bands. However, theunfortunate result of their seasonal migrations in disregard of theUnited States-Canadian boundarywas that the United States, duringthe years in which reservationswere being established for otherIndian groups, regarded the ~bands as Canadian Indians notentitled to federal benefits provided to American Indians. Hence,from about 1888 to 1916, theancestors of the Chippewa CreeTribe wandered throughout northern Montana homeless and struggling for existence under the mostsevere conditions. During thistime, the Chippewa Cree pressedthe United States for a permanenthome for the bands. The bands

page 2 NARF LE:GALRE:VIE:W

Historic Compact

were joined by certain influentialcitizens of Montana motivated bythe desire to transfer the burden ofproviding assistance to the poverty-stricken bands to the UnitedStates.

Early efforts to locate landson which to place the ChippewaCree failed, due to opposition bynon-Indians adjacent to the landsunder consideration. Even the'ecision of the United States to

place them on the old abandonedFort Assiniboine Military Reservewas strenuously opposed. The citizens of Havre wanted Congress togrant them the choicest part of theold military reservation - theBeaver Creek valley with an amplesupply of water - as a public parkand playground. A WarDepartment memorandum, datedOctober 1, 1891, illustrates theimportance of the Beaver Creekvalley to the viability of theMilitary Reservation:

[T]he post depended for itswater supply solely upon theBeaver Creek...and.. .it wasessential that not only thestream to its source but thewhole valley of the same beretained under the control of

the post authorities.... [I]fthe control of any part of theCreek should be given up,the post might as well beabandoned.

Consistent with this view, the federal agent charged with supervision of Rocky Boy's band, said:

If they should pass the billgiving only the two southtownships [not including theBeaver Creek valley] we willstill have the Rocky Boyproblem, as they will stillhave no home.

Nevertheless, buckling underpolitical pressure, Congress gavethe City of Havre the majority ofthe Beaver Creek valley eventhough it was located some distance away from the city boundaries. Congress gave the Indiansjust two townships and a portionof a third.

The Chippewa Cree tried tofarm their Reservation - describedin Annual Reports as a "rough, dryunsettled section of old militaryreserve" and "not suited to farming". These reports, from 1918through the 1930's, were repletewith statements that theReservation was not suited to

NARF LEGALREVIEW

farming, that irrigation was difficult if not impossible, and thatmore water was needed. Thereports indicated that farmingwould not lead to self-sufficiency;stock raising was felt to be the onlyfeasible activity, provided enoughwinter feed was available. Thesereports provide a litany of cropfailures due to drought, a shortgrowing season, lack of equipmentand horses, and a picture ofdogged perseverance against theseformidable odds.

Irrigation was essential tostock-raising as well. A 1937Federal Report related that 1937marked the sixth consecutive yearof near complete crop failure, and,that:

[t]he cattle industry receiveda severe blow this year whenno feed was produced tocarry the stock through thewinter. The breeding stockwas culled very closely andapproximately fifty percent ofthem were put on the market. Three hundred fifty-sixselected cows and one hundred thirty-eight steer calves

Continued on page 4

page 3

land out of commercial farm production forever. The program wasill-suited to the Chippewa Cree'sneeds. The government's decisionto utilize the program as a way toobtain more lands for Indians wasmade worse by the poor land selections made, when better landswere available. The governmentplanned to carve up the submarginal lands into subsistence farmsfor the Indians. But without wat~or sufficient irrigable land, evensubsistence farming was doomedat the outset to failure. Before theoptions could be exercised and thepurchases completed, however,funding for the submarginal landprogram failed. The federal government then attempted to exer-


were shipped to Dixon,Montana, for winter feeding.Thirty bulls and three milkcows are the only Indian cattle remaining on the reservation. The livestock men werevery discouraged.

The Commissioner of IndianAffairs lamented that theReservation was "entirely inadequate for the needs of the Indiansfor whose benefit it was setaside..... " Due to the prevailingunfavorable crop and livestockconditions, and the lack of irrigable land and water, the Tribe andthe United States began to look forvays to enlarge the Reservation.

B. Federal Failure to ProvideAdequate Water and WaterDevelopment Facilities on theReservation

Unfortunately, the UnitedStates' efforts to acquire additionalland and water for the Tribe werefar from adequate. The Federalsupervising engineer investigatedChippewa Cree water rights andreported in 1926 that Indian rightswere doubtful, and that diversionsby the Chippewa Cree fromReservation creeks should not beencouraged. The United States didnot make an official determinationas to whether this was legally correct; instead the United Statesdeferred continually to non-Indian

page 4

Historic Compact

interests. Thus, an irrigation project for the Rocky Boy'sReservation was not a priority forthe federal government.

In the 1930s and 1940s, theUnited States purchased land forthe Rocky Boys Reservation,adding approximately 45,000 acresto the Reservation. Unfortunately,the additional lands did little toalleviate the Reservation's watersupply problems. The landsacquired were scattered, of poorquality, and were without significant water resources. TheChippewa Cree Tribe still couldnot raise enough crops for livestock feed to meaningfullyimprove reservation conditions.The United States recognized thatthe Reservation was stillwholly inadequate as a ~ A .4self-sustaining home- ~ \ ., , , Iland. ~ "'-

Accordingly, in ~:-the 1930s, the Unitec1 ~

States took pur- .,... ...chase options for , ~~~ ~ ....the Chippewa- j ,. ~A ! ~ ~ "'-Cree Indian~ ~ , , ., ~on apprOXI-mately 30,000acres, utilizing ,funds appropriated from a Federalprogram for thepurchase of submarginal lands.The intent of thisprogram was totake submarginal

NARF LEGALREVIEW

cise the purchase options underthe Indian Reorganization Act,which allowed for lands to be purchased and added to reservations.

The Indian ReorganizationAct did not require the purchase ofsubmarginal lands. Nevertheless,rather than foregoing the submarginal purchase options and identifying lands for purchase bettersuited to the Indian's needs, theIndian Office exercised the illadvised options taken under thesubmarginal land program. Thisdecision was made against the recommendations of the ReservationSuperintendent, and over theobjections of the Indians and government personnel.

Subsequent purchases weremade to consolidate the scatteredsubmarginal lands in order tosimplify fencing and alleviatejurisdictional problems. Very little attention was given to obtaining irrigable lands with waterrights. In fact, good sources ofwater were sold or traded away inefforts to consolidate purchasedland through land and leaseexchanges.

In 1937, the United Statesdeveloped a detailed land purchaseplan, which involved collaborationof all units of the Indian Service.Even without consideration for anormal population increase of twopercent per annum, the plan calledfor the purchase of an additional660,000 acres, including 16,000acres of irri6/ltprl hnrl At A rod of-- - -0---- ............ _, _ .......................... ""' .... ....., ..

Historic Compact

$5,040,000, to serve the thenexisting Reservation population of150 families and 400 eligiblehomeless families. The purchasearea took in part of, and wasintended to benefit from, the MilkRiver Irrigation System. Whilenever followed, this plan hasapparently never been discarded.

C. Federal Mismanagement ofTribal Resources

Having failed to provide theChippewa Cree Tribe with aReservation with adequate landand water, the United States proceeded to mismanage the limitedtribal resources on the Reservationat great expense to the Tribe. Anexample is Bonneau Dam on theReservation which originally couldhave been designed and constructed, easily and at minor additionalcost, to provide irrigation to theTribe's croplands thereby enhancing the Tribe's self-sufficiency. Yetanother example is the chronicunder-performance of the Tribe'sagricultural lands due, amongother things, to lack of training,equipment, and water for irrigation. These same reasons underlaythe failure to develop hundreds ofacres of purchased lands for farming. The Tribe has suffered andcontinues to suffer, financially andotherwise, from the United States'mismanagement of its resources.

NARF LEGALREVIEW

III. The Compact

In 1982, pursuant to statelaw, the Federal Government filedwater rights claims in Montanawater court for the ChippewaCree/Montana Tribe. The Tribethen notified the State of Montanathat the Tribe wished to negotiatea settlement of its water rightsclaims. At that point, the Statewater court stayed proceedings tin.the Tribe's claims pending settlement negotiations involving theTribe, the State and the UnitedStates. The Tribe then commenced the formidable task ofnegotiating a compact with theState of Montana and the UnitedStates which settles its waterrights claims.

On April 11, 1997, after tenyears of extensive technical studies, and five years of intensivenegotiations, the Chairman of theChippewa-Cree Tribe and theGovernor of Montana signed anhistoric water rights compactbetween the two governments.The Chippewa Cree/MontanaCompact accomplished the firstelement of the Tribe's settlementplan - it quantifies the Tribe'swater rights and establishes a jointTribe/State water administrationsystem. The Compact was ratifiedby the Tribe on February 21, 1997and was approved by the MontanaLegislature on April 10, 1997. The

page 5


Chippewa-Cree Tribe thus becamethe third tribe in Montana, afterthe Northern Cheyenne Tribe andthe Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes ofthe Fort Peck Reservation, toagree to a water rights compactwith the State. However, with fewexceptions, all provisions of theCompact are subject to approval bythe United States Congress.

The Compact establishes theTribe's water rights to the BigSandy, Box Elder, and BeaverCreeks on the Reservation, andcontemplates tribal rights to supplemental water for drinking. TheCompact provides for 9260 acre-~et of water per year from the Big

Sandy Creek and its tributaries,and 740 acre-feet per year fromBeaver Creek. The Tribe reservesthe right to divert from surfacewater flows for irrigation andother uses from the Lower BigSandy Creek, Gravel Coulee, andfrom Box Elder Creek. On BeaverCreek, the Tribe reserves the rightto divert from surface water flowsfor recreational uses, subject to arequirement that 280 acre-feet bereturned to the stream.

The Compact also calls forTribal administration of its waterrights. The Compact specifies thatany change in water use must bewithout adverse effect on otherwater users. To resolve disputesconcerning water use betweenTribal and non-tribal water users

page 6

Historic Compact

under the Compact, a pre-adjudication Tribal/State administrativeprocess is established, and an adjudicatory process is establishedconsisting of a Compact Boardmade up of three members: oneTribal, one local off-Reservation,and one chosen by the other two.

The Department of theInterior ("Interior"), while supportive of the quantificationaspects of the Compact, declinedto sign the Compact for the UnitedStates primarily because the issueof a supplemental water supply forthe Tribe had not been resolved.With the signing of the Compact,Congressional legislation becomesthe next step. This will necessarily involve continuing negotiationswith Interior to obtain its support.

IV. Congressional Action Soughtto Ratify Compact and ProvideOther Elements of Tribe'sSettlement Plan

The Compact settles thequantification/administration element of the Tribe's settlementplan. The remaining three elements of the plan can only beresolved by congressional action.However, the Compact does contain provisions by which the Stateagrees to support federal legislation that will ratify the Compact,and authorize and appropriatefunds to implement all elements ofthe Tribe's settlement plan, including facilities needed to implement

NARF LE:GALRE:VIE:W

the Compact, a federally fundedproject to supplement the drinking water supplies on theReservation, a domestic waterdelivery system, and an economicdevelopment fund. The settlement plan element that has provento be the most problematical isthat caIling for supplementation ofthe Tribe's drinking water supply.The Tribe's technical analysis indicated that planning for a drinkin~

water supplementation projectwould need to commence immediately and would need to involvethe importation of water to theReservation from an offReservation source. The Tribe'sanalysis also led to the conclusionthat the importation projectshould utilize water from the TiberDam and Reservoir. Accordingly,the Compact contemplates an allocation of 10,000 acre-feet of waterto the Tribe from the TiberReservoir and the construction ofa pipeline from the Reservoir tothe Reservation. The Tribe considers a drinking water supplementation project so important that, inthe Compact, the Tribe reservedthe option to withdraw from theCompact if such a project is notconstructed within a designatedperiod of time.

The federal government initially indicated to the Tribe thatInterior could not support apipeline project in the immediatefuture. The federal governmentreasoned that the Tribe's future

Historic Compact

-

drinking water needs could beserved by retiring the Tribe's irrigated lands and using the savedwater for drinking. The federalnotion of using all available onReservation water resources fordomestic purposes, leaving theTribe with no water for agricultural purposes, was immediatelyrejected by the Tribe. It flew in theface of the Tribe's past and ongoing efforts to develop onReservation agriculture enterprises in accordance with long-standing Federal and Tribal Reservationpolicies. It also threatened termination of jobs and products produced by the Tribal agriculturalenterprises and relied upon byTribal members.

Interior responded by offering to purchase land for the Tribeto replace the land retired to provide drinking water and to agree toa study of Tribal drinking waterneeds after a period of about fortyyears. After a joint Federal/Tribalevaluation of this proposedapproach, the Tribe rejected itbecause the evaluation showedthat the proposal to purchasereplacement arable lands for theTrihp \A/;lC nAt ('Act of'f'o('t;\lO '''A111~-~ ~"-'- • ... "-"v ...... VL \",,-vvl. \..-11,",,""\..lVv, \1\1 V 10.4.1\.4.

likely involve lands separated fromthe Reservation thereby creatinguse problems, and threatened toraise significant political resistance from the State of Montanaand other non-tribal interests.Furthermore, the Tribe r~jected

the Federal proposal that contemplated a future study of waterneeds because the governmentcould not guarantee that the needsidentified by the study would beaddressed.

In the Compact, the State ofMontana pledged its support of theTribe's settlement plan, includinga project to supplement the Tribe'sdrinking water supply. The construction of a pipeline project todeliver water to the Reservationfrom Tiber Dam and Reservoir, anoff-Reservation source, is theoption identified by the Tribe'stechnical analysis as the bestmeans of supplementing theTribe's drinking water supply. Inthe course of discussing thisoption with the State and theFederal Government, it becameapparent that many non-tribalcommunities with drinking waterproblems might be able to resolvetho;v' rWAhlotYlC ('Ad offprti\Jp]\J h\J\..11"",,.1.1 p'" v/oJ ...., _v "" J ""'J

NARF LE:GALRE:VIE:W

tieing into the Tribe's pipeline.These communities expressed aninterest in participating in theTribe's proposed pipeline proj~t.With the State acting as facilitator,the Tribe and representatives ofthe non-Indian communitiesformed an Ad Hoc Committeecomposed of three Tribal and threenon-Indian members to evaluateand advance the concept of aregional pipeline project.Congress appropriated $300,000for the preparation of a feasibilitystudy of the proposed pipeline project and other possible alternatives. The State of Montana appropriated funds for the completion ofthis study. The study is expectedto be completed in the fall of 1997.

Meanwhile, the Tribe and theState are continuing to work withInterior to find mutually acceptable ways of resolving Interior'sconcerns about the Compact andother issues related to the Tribe'slarger settlement plan. Recently,Interior agreed to participate inthe regional pipeline feasibilitystudy and proposed to expand thenumber of water supply alterna-

Continued on p~ge 8

page 7


tives selected by the Ad HocCommittee from the three originally chosen for final analysis proceeding selection of the preferred alternative. To expedite the process ofresponding to Interior's proposal,the Tribe and the State urgedInterior to 1) conduct a rapid reviewof existing information on the alternative involving utilizing anenlarged on-Reservation reservoiras a source for supplemental drinking water, and indicate wh~tl1er

Interior agrees with the Tribe lhatthis is not a feasible option; 2) agreeto the formation of a joint workinggroup, composed of representatives

the Tribe, the State, Interior andme Department of Justice, to discuss pending federal issues otherthan those associated with theimportation issue; 3) agree to discuss alternative approaches to federal legislation, including combining or separating a regional drinking water system from the Compact,and alternative sources of funding,and 4) continue, on a timely basis,substantive discussions with theTribe on a settlement fund.

~ Conclusion

In the early years of this century,federal policy resulted in the opening of vast acres of former Indianreservations in the West, andencouraged non-Indian settlement,mn iY'Y'i6/ltinn hu rnn,tY11rtin6 (bin,-- _._~ -- ~ ~o-_ """,1 """'''''' 0 .....

page 8

Historic Compact

and reservoirs at Federal expense todeliver, again largely at federalexpense, water to non-Indian irrigators. During that era, the tribalwater rights and tribal needs forfacilities to utilize water wereignored by the federal trustee whilenon-Indians obtained cheap waterfor irrigation, including Indianwater. Only after 1976 when theMcCarran Amendment was held bythe United States Supreme Court tosubject tribal water rights to stateadjudications for quantification, didthe federal trustee formulate policies for the settlement of tribalwater rights. Several such settlements have been completed.However, none have been completed during the tenure of the ClintonAdministration.

In addition, at odds with federal policy to settle tribal waterrights is the federal policy to balance the budget - with tribal programs and projects expected toabsorb an uneven and unequalshare of budget cuts while the disparity between the majority societyand Indian societies continues towiden. This is but another exampleof the conflict of interest that hashistorically compromised the federal trustee's duty to provide for thebest interests of Indian tribes. NonIndian interests received their shareof funds to put western water to usein an era of federal reclamation projects. Tribal needs for water andwater facilities were ignored duringthn,p "PAY, Thp fprlPl"A 1 c5,....\lPYn_,.,........ -....J .......... •, ......_........ .... .................... _ ........ _ ... 0,_ ............ .1..1.

NARF LE:GALRE:VIE:W

ment should not use the currentbudget policy as yet another excuseto ignore tribal water needs. Thefederal trust duty to protect tribalwater rights should be given top priority under federal budgetary guidelines.

The Chippewa-Cree/MontanaWater Rights Compact, intended topermanently settle all existing waterrights claims of the ChippewaCree/Montana Tribe in the State ofa'Montana, accomplishes one important element of the Tribe's settlement plan. The remaining threeelements must be obtained throughCongressional action. Because ofthe permanence of the settlementonce secured by congressional legislation, the Tribe seeks a settlementthat provides not merely for its present water needs, but also for itsfuture water needs.

The Native American RightsFund believes that the history of theUnited States' poor land choicedecisions, poor land management,and failure to obtain water for theRocky Boys Reservation justifies asubstantial federal contribution tothe Chippewa-Cree water settlement in the form ofauthorization offederal projects and an economicdevelopment fund. By agreeing tothe Tribe's settlement plan, theUnited States would finally fulfill itstrust responsibility to the Tribe toprovide sufficient water to supportthe Rocky Boy's Reservation as aviable, self-sustaining homeland forthp rhinnp\A,,,_ryOO '1'yiho ~\..0 ............ -.'.I..L.Lpp ........ wu. ........... '-'''"' .1..1.1."""-'_ ~

NARF UPDATES

NARF Updates continued on page 10

Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) andtwenty state attorneys generalfiled amicus briefs on behalf ofthe State of Alaska urging theCourt to overturn the "Indiancountry" decision.

Oral arguments on thecase will be heard when theSupreme Court returns from itssummer recess. 0

The Supreme Court will nowdefinitively address for the firsttime the powers of Alaska Nativevillages, most of which have governed themselves for ages withno challenges from the State.

The Alaska NativeCommission, a study groupcharged with examining and suggesting resolutions for problemsplaguing Native villages, recentlyconcluded that tribal sovereigntyis the key to the survival of Nativepeoples. Yet, fearing loss of political control, the Governor andState Legislature appropriated a$1 million warchest to finance anappeal to the Supreme Court.

u.s. Supreme Court will hear Alaska TribalSovereignty Case

- Alaska State Legislatureappropriates $1 million tofight village -

The United StatesSupreme Court decidedon June 23, 1997 to hearthe case, State ofAlaskav. Native Village of

Venetie - a Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals decision which upheldVenetie's "Indian country" statusunder federal law and thus itsright to govern its own affairs.

"The State appropriated anunprecedented amount of moneyto fight this small 350 membertribe. It is unfortunate that theState of Alaska is obsessed withstif1ing tribal sovereignty eventhough it will benefit all Alaskaresidents," says Heather KendallMiller (Denaina Athabaskan andmember of the Native Village ofDillingham), attorney for theNative American Rights Fundwhich represents Venetie in thecase. She explains, "NativeAmericans everywhere are watching this case since it underscoresthe vital nature of self-determination and the steep climb we faceto get there."

The Ninth Circuit rulingaffirmed that Venetie - a tribesituated in remote wildernessAlaska and accessible year-roundonly by plane - possesses thesame rights as Indian tribes ofthe contiguous United States.

NARF LEGALREVIEW page 9

The Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribesof Oklahoma Claim Victory in Tax Case

, NARF Updates

the federal government enteredthe case as amicus curiae (friendof the court) in support of theTribes' right to tax.

Melody McCoy, NARF attorney and lead counsel says, "onehundred years ago the governmenttook away most of the Tribes' land.But it didn't take away the Tribes'sovereignty, and now it is clear theTribes can exercise their sovereignty on what little land theyhave left." «)

The Cheyenne and ArapahoTribes first enacted the tax in 1988to raise $1 million annually forroads, schools, and health care fortheir 10,000 members, many ofwhom live in poverty. Nineteen oilcompanies, who for decades havebeen extracting oil and natural gasfrom the allotments, immediatelychallenged the tax. The Tribesretained the Native AmericanRights Fund (NARF) to defendtheir rights, and Mustang becamethe first major tribal tax case to beheard in Tribal Court. As the caseproceeded through the tribal courtsystem and then into federal court,

-United States SupremeCourf denies oil companies' appeal-

On March 17, 1997,the United StatesSupreme Court deniedthe request to hearMustang Production

Company v. Harrison. The rejection means that the August 23,1996 ruling by the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the TenthCircuit will stand - thus affirming the right of the Cheyenne andArapaho Tribes of Oklahoma to taxoil/gas production on allotments.'1'he allotments, 160 acre land

..trcels held in trust by the federalgovernment for members of theTribes, are scattered throughoutnine counties in westernOklahoma. The allotments are virtually all that remains of theCheyenne and Arapaho's 4.5 million acre reservation which thefederal government took back in1890.

The Tribes had already wontheir case in tribal court and in thelower federal courts. The oil companies looked to the U.S. SupremeCourt, but were turned down. Theoil companies now concede thatthe case is over and that they mustpay taxes on their activities onallotments to the Tribes. The taxmoney that has been at issue inthis case - about $5 million-willt1e released to the Tribes.

page 10 NARF LE:CALRE:VIE:W

-

Pentagon Interim Rules Would OK Peyotefor Religious Use

NARF Updates

NARF Updates continued on page 14

valley of southern Texas and innorthern Mexico. Medical evidence, based on scientific studiesand opinions of medical doctors,former directors of the IndianHealth Service and anthropologists, demonstrates that peyote isnot injurious to the Indian religious user, and, in fact, is oftenhelpful in controlling alcoholisaland alcohol abuse among Indianpeople. Ingested as a solid or teain strictly prescribed religious ceremonies, the sacrament is neitheraddictive nor habit forming.Courts which have made factualfindings regarding the religioususe of peyote by Indians have correctly concluded that such is notharmful.

NARF attorney Bob Peregoyestimated that there are approximately 9,600 Native Americans inthe U.S. military. However, only100 to 500 are members of theNative American Church. Peregoywent on to explain that peyote isviewed as a natural gift from theCreator and the Church believes instrong family values, personalresponsibility, and abstinencefrom drugs and alcohol at alltimes. 0

military departments mayrequire pre-use notificationfor service members performing designated dutieswhen it is in the interest ofmilitary readiness or safety tonotify commanders of amember's intent to use peyote. Upon notification of useor intended use of peyote, themember's commander shallverify the member is anenrolled member of a federally-recognized Indian tribe.• Peyote shall not be used,possessed, transported, ordistributed when such actionwould violate the laws ofother countries.• The secretaries of the military departments may imposeadditional limitations withapproval by the AssistantSecretary of Defense for ForceManagement Policy. Suchlimitations are subject tocompliance with the ReligiousFreedom Restoration Act of1993. Before approving anysuch limitations, the AssistantSecretary will consult withrepresentatives of traditionalIndian religions for which thesacramental use of peyote isintegral to their practice.

Peyote, the scientific nameof which is Lophophora willaimsii,is a small, spineless cactus thatgrows primarily in the Rio Grande

- Native American soldiers would be allowedto use peyote for religious sacrament-The Pentagon issuedinterim rules that recognize and control thesacramental use of pey

ote by Native Americans in themilitary who are members of federally recognized tribes. NARFand the Native American Churchof North America have been working with Pentagon officials for overa year to draw up the new rules.The final rules will be releasedlater this summer.

The following limitationswill be included in the interimrules:

• Peyote shall not be used onduty or within 24 hours beforescheduled military duty.• Peyote may be possessed inamulet form (not for ingestion) and may be worn as anitem of religious apparel subject to service uniform regulations. Otherwise, peyote shallnot be used, possessed, distributed, or introduced aboardmilitary vehicles, vessels, oraircraft except when permitted by the installation commander.• A service member who hasused peyote shall promptlynotify his or her commanderupon return to duty. The


..

In Memory of Mildred Cleghorn"Songs Who Sing"

there are Songs Who Sing themselvesthev start in the heartbeat of Creation

. Thunder Medicine echoingechoingechoing through canyons of time

the Songs Who Sing themselves scale mountainsthen fly from world to world

Fire Medicine soundingbreathingflying through lightening and shooting stars

the Songs Who Sing themselves swim oceansthen come, then come down with the gentle night rain

with the morning dewwith mist on clear blue streams

the Songs Who Sing paint warriorswarriors on watch

on watch for bloodfor blood at dawn

the Songs Who Sing wail like mournerswail like mourners

mourners laying their children downlaying their children down

down in the sunset

the Songs Who Sing heal Mother Earthin the joy of birth

and skip beatsand skip beats

with rattles and sighsand sighs

the Songs sing the evening prayersfor Grandfather Cedars who talk in the night

the Songs sing the mid-day prayersfor Grandmother Moon and her circles of life

the Songs sing themselvesfor the Butterflies to hide in the teal blue sky

the Songs sing themselvesfor the Buffalo to roam through the passages of time

the Songs sing themselvesfor the Buffalo to dancefor the Buffalo to dancefor the Buffalo to dance with the Sunflowers again

the Buffalo are dancing again ~

the Buffalo are dancing again

and the Songs are still singingthe Songs are still singing

the Songs are still singingthe Songs are still singing

foryou

suzan shown hatja

The Board of Directors and staff of NARF givethanks to the Creator for giving us the opportunity to share some of Mildred's life with her.She will be deeply missed. Her life and hercontributions will always be honored.

United States Supreme Court Rules AgainstTribal Courts

NARF Updates

- Tribal courts lackjurisdiction over tortcases between nonIndians -

In Strate v. A-lContractors, the UnitedStates Supreme Courtagreed to review a deci

sion by the United States Court ofAppeals for the Eighth Circuit.The case involved the jurisdictionof the tribal court of the ThreeAffiliated Tribes of the FortBerthold Reservation in NorthDakota to decide a personal injurycase between two non-Indians onthe reservation. A non-Indian res-

'ent of the reservation was.. lvolved in an automobile collision on a state highway within thetribal reservation with a non-

Indian owner/employee of a landscape construction company located off the reservation but conducting business on the reservationunder a subcontract with theTribe. The Court of Appeals, in an8 to 4 ruling, held that the tribalcourt did not have jurisdictionover the case, reversing a previousfederal district court ruling thatfavored the tribal court's jurisdiction.

NARF argued that tribalcourts should have jurisdictionalong with state courts over motorvehicle torts that threaten thereservation community, even ifthey occur on state highways.However, on April 28, 1997 theU.S. Supreme Court ruled thattribal courts generally lack juris-

diction over tort cases betweennon-Indians involved in trafficaccidents on state highways withinIndian reservations. In its opinion, the Court relied on a previouscase, Montana v. United States,which ruled that absent congressional action, Indian tribes generally lack civil authority over nonIndians within reservations but on '-non-Indian land, unless the nonIndians enter consensual relationships with the tribe or its members, or their activities threaten ordirectly affect the tribe's politicalintegrity, economic security,health or welfare. 0

page 14 NARF LEGALREVIEW

NARF ATTORNEY

Heather Kendall-Miller

Heather Kendall-Milleris Denaina Athabaskanand is a tribal memberof the Native Village ofDillingham. Shereceived her Bachelorsdegree from theUniversity of Alaska-

Fairbanks in 1988 and her J.D.from Harvard Law School in 1991.After clerking with JusticeRabinowitz of the Alaska SupremeCourt, Heather received a two-yearSkadden Fellowship to work forAlaska Legal Services and theNative American Rights Fund inthe area of Alaska Native Rights.'-leather became a staff attorney\\'ith the Native American RightsFund in 1993 and received seniorattorney status in 1997. Heatherpractices exclusively in the area oftribal rights and subsistence whereshe has been successful in arguingfor fndian country status forI\!:t~ka tribes and in affirming subsistence hunting and fishing rightsfor Alaska Natives. 0


NEW NARF BOARD MEMBER

Wallace E. Coffey,Comanche, was electedto the Native AmericanRights Fund Board ofDirectors, replacingMildred Cleghorn whopassed away before thecompletion of her termon the Board. Wallacewas elected Chairman of

the Comanche Indian Tribe in 1991and reelected in 1994 to a secondthree-year term. Prior to beingelected as Chairman, he was theExecutive Director of the DenverIndian Center, Denver, Colorado. Hehas served in a variety of professional positions, including Dean ofStudents of the Nebraska Indian

Wallace E. CoffeyCommunity College, and asExecutive Director for the NebraskaIndian Commission.

He has a professional background in public relations and public broadcasting. He was listed inWho's Who for his work in telecommunications in 1982-83 and mostrecently was named to Who's Whoin American for 1995. He hasreceived numerous awards andrecognition for his work in Indianaffairs including: Tributes from theState of Colorado and Nebraska; anHonorary Associates of Arts Degreein Humane Letters from ParksJunior College, Colorado; anHonorary Commission as "Colonel"in the Nebraska National Guard; and

the Distinguished Service Awardhum the University of Colorado during commencement exercises inMay, 1990, the first American Indianto receive such a coveted award.

Wallace is active in AmericanIndian cultural activities, and hasserved as Master of Ceremonies forpow-wows and other cultural eventsfor over 27 years. 0


NEW NARF BOARD MEMBER

Mary T. Wynne, RosebudSioux, was elected to theNative American RightsFund Board of Directors,replacing EvelynStevenson who completed three terms on theBoard. Mary is currentlythe Chief Judge of theColville Tribal Court in

Washington State and is a 1978graduate of the University ofMinnesota Law School.

Mary has dedicated her life'swork to the premise that the fundamental role of tribal courts today isto define and apply tribal customand tradition within the mixedstructure of today tribal courts:mging from the mystical and tra-

Mary T. Wynneditional, to models of Anglo Saxonjurisprudence. Mary believes thattowards that end, it becomes essential to communicate across culturalbarriers in order that tribal courtjurisprudence receives the recognition and validity it deserves. To promote this cross cultural understanding, she has made numerouspresentations at tribal court andIndian law symposiums, and at judicial conferences.

Mary is a member of theNorth Dakota State Bar Association;the South Dakota State BarAssociation; Washington State BarAssociation; Federal District Courtof South Dakota; Federal DistrictCourt of North Dakota; the EighthCircuit Court of Appeals; the

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux TribalCourt; Rosebud Sioux Tribal Court;Pine Ridge Tribal Court; StandingRock Sioux Tribal Court; LowerBrule Tribal Court; and, the CrowCreek Tribal Court. She is alsoPresident of the Northwest TribalCourt Judge's Association, ViceChair of the National Indian CourtJudge's Association, and a memberof numerous other national organizations. 0 'i..

NARF welcomes bothWallace Coffey and Mary Wynne tothe NARF Board of Directors. Welook forward to working with themand learning from their years ofexperience and activism in Indiancountry.


NARF RESOURCES AND PUBLICATIONS

THE NATIONALINDIAN LAW LIBRARY

For themodern-dayIndian, infor-mation ispriceless inhelping theirfight to keeptribal homelands intact

and traditional tribal ways alive.The National Indian Law Libraryhas been providing Indian tribesand Indian law attorneys with awealth of Indian law materials forthe past 25 years. The materialsare documents ranging from legalpleadings written in vital Indianlaw cases (from Tribal court toUnited States Supreme Court) to acollection of Tribal codes (thereare about 510 federally recognizedtribes in the United States.)

The National Indian LawLibrary began as a special libraryproject of the Native AmericanRights Fund. It is designed toserve as a clearinghouse for materials on American Indian Law fortribes, private and tribal attorneys,legal service programs, law firms,federal and state governments andagencies, and for students.Essentially, it was intended tocarry out one of the NativeAmerican Rights Fund's priorities,the systematic development ofIndian law.

page 18

The National Indian LawLibrary has the largest collectionof Indian law materials in thenation. The Library fulfills itsfunction by collecting all availablematerials related to Indian law.These materials are catalogued ona customized library applicationsoftware database and indexed forinclusion in the National IndianLaw Library Catalogue.

The National Indian Law LibraryPublications For Sale:

(Prices aresubject tochange,shipping andhandlingcharges areadditional)

The Bibliography on IndianEconomic Development, 2ndEdition. Designed as a tool for theprotection and regulation of commercial activities on Indian reservations. Included in the bibliography are articles, monographs,memoranda, Tribal codes, andmiscellaneous materials on Indianeconomic development. Cost forthis title is $30.00.

The National Indian Law LibraryCatalogue, Volume I. One of TheNational Indian Law Library'smajor contributions to the development of Indian law is the creationof this catalogue. It is arranged bysubject-matter index, author-titleindex. plaintiff-defendant index,

NARF LEGALREVIEW

and NILL number listing. Cost forThe National Indian Law LibraryCatalogue, Volume I is $85.00; the1985 Supplement is $10.00; the1989 Supplement is $30.00.

Top Fifty: A Compilation ofSignificant Indian Cases, compiled by the National Indian LawLibrary, costs $85.00.

Other Publications Offered ~Sale by The National Indian LawLibrary:(Prices are subject to change, shipping and handling charges areadditional)

American Indian Law: Cases andMaterials, 3rd edition, 1991, byRobert N. Clinton, Neil Jessup,Monroe E. Price, price is $45.00.

American Indian Law: Cases andMaterials, 3rd edition, 1992Supplement, by Robert N. Clinton,Neil Jessup, Monroe E. Price, priceis $10.00.

American Indian Law in a nutshell, 2nd edition, 1988, byWilliam C. Canby, price is $16.00.

Resources and Publications

American Indians, Time and the cost of $25.00. The ICCD Index isLaw, 1986, by Charles F. sold at $25.00.Wilkinson, price is $13.00.

Indian LandArea Map, 1992, pubBattlefields and Burial Grounds, lished by the U.S. Department of1994, by Walter Echo-Hawk and the Interior, price is $5.00.Roger Echo-Hawk, price is $15.00.

Indian Claims Commission TAX STATUS. The NativeDecisions 1946-1978. This forty- American Rights Fund is a nonthree volume set reports the work profit, charitable organizationof the Indian Claims Commission. incorporated in 1971 under theEach volume is sold separately at a laws of the District of Columbia.

NARF is exempt from federalincome tax under the provisions ofSection 501 (c) (3) of the InternalRevenue Code, and contributionsto NARF are tax deductible. TheInternal Revenue Service has ruledthat NARF is not a "private foundation" as defined in Section509(a) of the Internal RevenueCode.

MAIN OFFICE: Native Americ<tnRights Fund, 1506 Broadway,Boulder, Colorado 80302 (303447-8760) (FAX 303-443-7776).www.narf.org

Washington, D.C. OFFICE:Native American Rights Fund,1712 N Street, N.W.,Washington,D.C. 20036 (202-7854166) (FAX 202-822-0068).

ALASKA OFFICE: NativeAmerican Rights Fund, 310 KStreet, Suite 708, Anchorage,Alaska 99501 (907-276-0680) (FAX907-276-2466).

Mending the Circle: A NativeAmerican Repatriation Guide,1996, published by the AmericanIndian Ritual Object RepatriationFoundation, price is $40.00.

ANNUAL REPORT. This isNARF's major report on its programs and activities. The AnnualReport is distributed to foundations, major contributors, certainfederal and state agencies, tribalclients, Native American organizations, and to others upon request.

The Rights of Indians and Tribes,2nd edition, 1992, by Stephen L.Pevar~ price is $8.00.

THE NARF LEGAL REVIEW ispublished biannually by the NativeAmerican Rights Fund. Thirdclass postage paid at Boulder,Colorado. Ray Ramirez, Editor.There is no charge for subscriptions, but contributions arerequested.

4'elix S. Cohen s Handbook ofFederal Indian Law, 1992 edition,edited by Rennard Strickland,price is $85.00.

Federal Indian Law, Cases andMaterials, 3rd edition, 1993, byDavid Getches, Charles Wilkinson,and Robert A. Williams, Jr., price is$54.00.

Code ofFederal Regulations, Title25, 1995, published by U.S.Government Printing Office, priceis $15.00.

Handbook of American IndianReligious Freedom, 1991 edition,edited by Christopher Vescey, priceis $15.00.

The Indian Child WelfareHandbook: A Legal Guide to theCustody and Adoption of NativeAmericans, 1995, published by theAmerican Bar Association, price is$69.95.

NARF LE:GALRE:VIE:W page 19

OTU'HANIn the Journals ofLewis and Clark, it is noted that the Sioux had acustom ofgiving gifts in the names of those they wished to honor.

This custom is referred to as Otu'han - a Lakota word literally translated as "giveaway." Items of value suchas shawls, quilts and household items are gathered over a long period of time to be given away during powwows or celebrations in honor of births, anniversaries, marriages, birthdays, and other special occasions. TheOtu'han is also customary in memory of the deceased. The custom of giving in honor or memory of someoneis still very much alive among Indian people today. We are honored to list those donors making gifts to theNative American Rights Fund in spirit of the Otu'han. January - July 1997

Aside of my family I know little about........Marjorie Merjanian

All members of the Narraganset Tribe of RI. Ethel B. Lesser

Gigi Allison John M. Behel

Dr. Zelly Alpert... ",,,,,, Alan &Adele Magner

Cecilia Anderson " L. M. & Teresa Albuerene

J" Harvey Anderson, Jr Lois F. Anderson

Blanche Marie Annetts ",,,,,,,,,,.,, Paul W. Annetts

Dori C. Armbrecht... .. """" .., , Richard S" Armbrecht~leanor F. Armbrecht Richard S. Armbrecht

Dr. George Armbrecht.. " Richard S. Armbrecht

Lt. Col. (U.S.A. Ret.) R P. Armstrong Louise Galpin

Dorothy Baldwin """ ,,,,,,,, ,, .. ,,.Nancy West

Elaine Ball " " " """Russell J. MarsUncle Frederick Douglass Barnes Mark Halfmoon

Mollie Beattie " , Susan Jewell

Jason Belardes Toby & Anita Campion

Joan, J. D., & Marsha Bell John Fulton

Floyd Benson ,.Marie Sutton & David & Karen Ethier

Floyd Benson Bruce & Kay Folendorf

Floyd Benson " Dawn & Kenneth Lindgren

Floyd Benson ",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, , Elsie Straits

Floyd E,. Benson " ",Dorothy M. Benson

Floyd E. Benson ".""" " Edna Mellis

Floyd E. Benson " ,.Ardy & Dori Mendoza

Floyd E. Benson Elizabeth B. Miller

Tracy Berglund ".." ,.,." ,,, , Stephanie Stolte

Dr. Paul Ernest Bergold Margaret M. Bergold

Judy Berkun , Eleanor Yachnes

'(enneth Berman "" " Paul Hancock

In honor or memory of: by: Daniel Black Horse " Lynn Loftin

Georjean Blanton Larry & Barbara Shaw

Diane Boehm Robert & Frances Boeh~

Diane Boehm ".. ,,,,,, .. ,, .. ,, .. ,, Eva Mintz

Aquilina Bourdukofsky Karin Holser

Esther M. Bourziel... Arnold E. Bourziel

Kathy Boyd Angela Martello

Tina Briggs ,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,.,, Dorsey Templeton

Christy Brigham ..,." "..,,,, ..Tom Brigham

Claude Broach Dale L. McEntire

Cynthia R Burke Paul, Kym & Tina Burke

Rev. Monsignor Edward 1. Burke " ".""."Marianne SheehanRobert H. Burnham ."""",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,.,,,,.,, ,,.Bruce MacLean

William Austin Burns , ", Regis J., Guest, Jr.

Mr. James Guy Byerly "..Gail Rhea

Helen E. Campolongo Douglas Galbraith & Family

Evelyn & James Carroll " "..Virginia C. Wade

Charles ".",,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,, .. ,, Ruth B. Ruckman

Marietta Abner Chenoweth Janet M. Powers

Harold Clark """ Ruby Garrett

Mildred Cleghorn " , "" " David B.. & Susan M. Berry

Mildred Cleghorn .." ",,,,,,,,,,,., "".", .. ",." Mary A. Goodman

Mildred Cleghorn L.W. Robbins Associates

Mildred Cleghorn Mrs. J'w. Morton, Jr.

Eleanor M. Clinton "" .. , Lewis C. Woodworth

Margaret Collins " , ".., Lawrence H. Geller

Sandy Cooper Harvey & Gail Zarren

Michaal Allen Couto " M. Elizabeth Wilding

Charles C. Crittenden " ,.. "" " Ann Witt

Norman Ted Custalow Henrietta J. Near

Brian Custy "" "", " Dr. Barbara Bunch


Otu'han

Jeremy Leslie Davidson Linda Markin

Pearl Irene Davis Harold Neave, Jr.Ana Mercedes Delgado Lawrence H. Geller

William F. Dixon Particia Dixon

John F. Dolan Patrick & Karen Mace

Millie E. Donlin Bobette A. Stringer

Robert T. Dumont, Jr Robert McAnally

Pauli Durham Virginia Staples

Janet Ela Gayle Cole

Rod Ellison Ruth Raynesford

John Engalls, Jr Rust & Arthur Pappathanasi

Dorothy Monnish Evans .Iona Stephen

Jennifer Brooke Faunt Karin Holser

Winifred Feezor ..James H. Cohen, Esq.

Donny Ferris Lynn Friedman Kessler, Ph.D.

Josephine Ferroli Patricia L. Cloward

Celeste Fischer ,Jerry Medol

Dolly Fiterman " Gayle Cole

Mr. Jesse Foster Cheyanne Alberti

Saul Rafael Frankel Barbara Carlson

Irving Friedel ..Joe & ~ynne Alfieri

John & Beverly Gaffney Carolyn Caggine

Joseph P. Galassini Florence D. Galassini

Geno Galvan Robbie Galvan

Pat Popejoy Gill Kenith J. Barkhurst

Alene Gilliat Louise Galpin

JoAnne K. Goss Timothy L. M. Goss

Molly Grassi Lucy F. Fairbank

Ginger Buckles & Michael Grelecki Carole M. Hinkley

Regis J. Guest, Sr Regis J. Guest, Jr.

Ken Hansen Valerie D. Face

Ira Hayes Thomas J. Tuohey

Mr. & Mrs. George Herbert ..John & Muriel Hayward

Derrico Hernandez Louise Edwards

Edgar J. Hinckley Carole Hinkley

Nathaniel Hobson Donald G. Hobson

Rev. A. H. Hoersch Sandra & Heather Ross

Hokan V. Hokanson Mr. & Mrs. A. C. Laufer

Sarah Howells . Gordon Parker

George Huhn Barbara Beasley

Dorothy Huke Helene Gottesmann

Mrs. Grace Hurwitz Marion K. GrinsfeIder

David Iacono Michael Iacono

Norman Ted Johnson Orien Vick

Mrs. Audrey Jones Tom Say-Gap Parsons

Sam Jones, Yurok of Weitchpee, CA Tom Say-Gap Parsons

Louise Kelly ,John J. Phillips

Heather Kendall Hope S. Miller

Stephen J. Kerek Thomas Kerek

Eleanor Agor Kleese Deborah Klees~'io.

Kerry Radcliffe & Ray Knox Alta & Stan Barer

Kerry Radcliffe & Ray Knox ,Jaime Culvahouse

Kerry Radcliffe & Ray Knox Walt & Helene Lelinski

Kerry Radcliffe & Ray Knox Gerald & Mary Anne Marble

Kerry Radcliffe & Ray Knox Michael Muehlhausen

Kerry Radcliffe & Ray Knox Susan Lynn Vesser

Ray & Kerry Knox ..John & Sara Ames

Richard C. Kortkamp Carabel Chankaya

Jeff Kresser Bill & Dot Bushey

Jeff Kresser Angela Clark

Jeff Kresser ..Joyce T. Clark

Jeff Kresser Claude & Joanne Poirier

Jeffrey Kresser Catherine Clapp

Jeffrey Kresser ..Joseph & Ernestine Locke

Jeffrey Kresser Dr. O. D. Tresmontan-Stitt

Pat Lickley Marianne Sheehan

Richard Little Melinda Kornblum

Orin Lee Lofgren Rod Troyer

Laurie S. Lohn Philip Rand

W. O. Love, Jr Charlie Love

Bill Gowry Luk Lorraine & Joseph Padulo

Leslie Lund ,Jerre Brimer

Deborah Ruth Lutz Robin & Jim Lutz & Family

Thomas R. Lynch, Jr Stefan Mantovani

David W. MacDonald Diane & Jane Nevinsmith

Manny Madison Eugene & Susan Letourneau

Continued on page 22

•


a \"~i~~ £)~.;~o

Oitt~han '~

Otu'han "giveaway"continued from page 21

Evelyn Malmgren Christal Malmgren

Many supportive friends Elizabeth S. Beale

Mary J. Mattson Leonard M. Perkins

Aunt May Phyllis Greenebaum

Iris & Rudy McDonald Anna Rourke

Emily .10 McFerren , Karin Holser

Tim McGinnis Maura Ellyn

Pat McKenna Grace Dangel

Ina Mcneil Charles Scheer

Sammie McPhaul Mark Haasis

Sylvia Meth Fotios & Helen Varsam

Laura Huth & Peter Miller Esther Patt

Ms. Yoshie Minami Hiroko Minami

Jason Moakley Sylvia Petriccione

David Mount ,Jerry Schuler

Rose Mualem Otalie Sanger

Michael Murnik Dr. Robert W. Goss

Jean Murphy Gina S.. Mueller

Katie Murphy Esther Murphy

William Murphy Robert W. Murphy

Edward Nans Winifred .1. Mosher

NARF Malcolm H. Adams

NARF Gary N. Goldsmith

NARF Mr. Robert Greenberg

NARF Patricia Perreault

NARF Gladys I. Wilson

Richard Nevara Helen Grant

H. E. Newton, Jr .Iona Stephen

Sonja Nikolay Georgia Gomez-Ibaner

Dennis Nyitray Russell R. Alameda, Jr.

Dr.. Alfonso Ortiz Frances Leon Quintana

Chandra Padover Jeanette W. Rabold

Parents & Brothers Mr. & Mrs. Frank McHale

Linda Parrot. Peggy S. Brown

Melissa Paskowitz Caren Melendez

Alan Perr Gabe & Marie Masters

Sandie Peters Gordon Gano

Christian Pflieger Robert A. Root

Mrs. Amparo Pinol Amparo Charneco

Patricia Popejoy Gill Kenith J. Barkhurst

Theresa Profeta Angela Martello

Rhiannon Rasmussen-Silverstein Sonja Rasmussen

Mr. & Mrs. D.R. Raynesford Ruth Raynesford

Robert T. Raynesford .Ruth Raynesford

Carl G. Reiber, Sr. Charlotte Thompson

Hildegard Reiserer. .Ingrid & Maurice LeBlanc

Sonne & Elaine Reyna Dolan Eargle

John Reynolds Kathryn Reynoldt..

Rene LaVon Rhym The Rhym Family

Annie Ringness Gayle Cole

Zack Robbins Betsey B. Granda

R. Robin Protestant Episcopal Church - U.S.A.

Andrea Robinson Seymour B. Robinson

Elizabeth Roeder William & Gladys Roeder

Chris Roper Rachel Hollander

Justice Ross Sandra & Heather Ross

Anthony Boca Rossa .Lorraine & Joseph Padulo

Lola Rudisch Dr. Gloria Rudisch

James Ryan Dr. Robert W. Goss

Ethel Saravia Marietta Saravia-Shore

Marion Schayda Mary P. Campion

Yohanan Schlegel Margie Bell

John H. Scioscia Beverley S. Hershey

Alan Scott.. ,Jodi L. Scott

Linda Shay Dorsey Templeton

Corinne Sheboy Richard K. Shipp

Dominic Sinianni ,Jim Sinianni

Louise B. Smith James H. Cohen, Esq ..

Helen Smith Paula Tennant

Brian McDonald Smith Harry & Delores Swedlund

Sandra C. Smith Paula Masucci

Helen Snyder Harvey & Helen Grant

Deborah M. Spencer Jane K. Matthews

Cecilia St. Pierre James H. Cohen, Esq.

Arthur Steinberg Howard & Millie Segal

Joan Strauss Harvey & Gail Zarren


t ":~$~

0" Otu'han :,

Ruth S. Suagee ..Jay T. Suagee

Eleanor Swanson Carl Eric Swanson

David Switzer Eugene & Susan Letourneau

Mr. Dan TaBois Mr. Louis TaBois

Mr. Lark Land TaBois Mr. Louis TaBois

Ms. Eleanor Taylor Barbara E. T. Douglass

Edward Schoenig & Chief Tom Thunder ......Patricia Kirschner

Jane Tollini Wolf Moon Inc. - Cris Williamson

B. Traven Harald Holt

Tribal Sovereignty Mrs. M. Hintersteiner

Violet Turk Eleanor Yachnes

Melanie 1Wo Eagle Ruth Laffey

Jennifer Veitenheimen Gayle Cole

Austin B. & May L. Watzel Lucy E. Cozzens

Otu'hanDonor's Name

James L. Weinstein EsteIIe Katz

Leoma Wersal Ms. Lisa Wersal

Ruth Wheeler Sharon James

Gerald Thomas Wilkenson CorneII Tahdooahnippah

Gladys Williams Larry & Joanne Kistler

Velma Williams Karen WiIIiams-Fasthorse

Ruth Wyman Esther Patt

Terry Wynne Mr. & Mrs. Richard B. Gray

Agnes & Yaun Yazzie Lois & Don B1aese

Address

Name:Given in Honor of (living)

Name:

City

For:

State

(occasion)

Zip

Given in Memory of (deceased)

Please Send Acknowledgment Card to (Name):

Address

o Please send more Otu'han forms

- - -~ - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

City

NARFLEGALREVIEW

State Zip

-.page 23

- , ~~~~ ",..,.,~

NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUNDThe Native American Rights Fund is a nonprofit organization specializing in the protection of Indian rights. The

priorities ofNARF are: (1) the preservation of tribal existence; (2) the protection of tribal natural resources; (3) the promotionof human rights; (4) the accountability of governments to Native Americans; and (5) the development of Indian law.

Our work on behalf of thousands of America's Indians throughout the country is supported in large part by yourgenerous contributions. Your participation makes a big difference in our ability to continue to meet ever-increasing needsof impoverished Indian tribes, groups and individuals. The support needed to sustain our nationwide program requiresyour continued assistance. Requests for legal assistance, contributions, orother inquiries regarding NARF's services maybe addressed to NARF's main office: 1506 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80302. Telephone (303) 447-8760.(Visit our website at www.narf.org)

BOARD OF DIRECTORSWill Mayo, Chairman Native Village of TananaGilbert B. Blue, Vice Chairman CatawbaDavid Archambault Standing Rock SiouxRoy Bernal Taos PuebloWallace E. Coffey... ComancheCliv Dore PassamaquoddyKathryn Harrison Confederated Tribes of Grand RondeJudy Knight-Frank Ute Mountain UteKaleo Patterson Native Hawaiian '"'-Ernie L. Stevens, Jr " Wisconsin OneidaRebecca Tsosie Pasqua YaquiMichael P. Williams Yup'ikMary T. Wynne Rosebud SiouxExecutive Director: John E. Echohawk (Pawnee)

NARF Legal Review1506 BroadwayBoulder, CO 80302

PRLl\!TED ON RECYCLED PAPER

NARF LeGALReVIeW

Non-Profit Grg.

U.S .. Postage

PAIDBoulder, Colorado

Permit No. 589

7

REVIEW I - Native American Rights Fund

Documents

Transcript of REVIEW I - Native American Rights Fund