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-
Chippewa-Cree Tribecontinued from page 3
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 Tribecontinued from 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
Chippewa-Cree Tribecontinued from page 1
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
NARF LEGALREVIEW page 11
..
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
NARF LEGALREVIEW page 15
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
page 16 NARF LEGALREVIEW
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 LEGALREVIEW page 17
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
page 20 NARF LEGALREVIEW
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
•
NARF LEGALREVIEW page 21
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
page 22 NARF LEGALREVIEW
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