8/9/2019 Opposition Letter to S 2956

1/2

July 21, 2010

Chairman Dorgan Via email and facsimileSenate Committee on Indian Affairs

838 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510Majority Fax: (202) 228.2589

Minority Fax: (202) 224-5429

Re: Opposition to S 2956

Honorable Chairman Dorgan and Committee Members

I am a registered voter, and I submit this letter in opposition to S. 2956 the Pechanga Band of

Luiseno Mission Indians Water Rights Settlement Act (Act). Additionally, I am one of the

hundreds of Indians who has been stripped or denied of my basic human and civil rights by

Pechanga tribal officials.

Over the past six (6) plus years, Pechanga officials have disenrolled over 400 previouslyrecognized tribal members. Hundreds more have been denied membership in the tribe under

an illegal moratorium enacted to limit the number of people who benefit from the tribes

economic development ventures.

Those who have been disenrolled and denied membership include many allottees who could

be adversely affected by the Act as it provides that the very officials who have stripped or

denied rights set forth in tribal and federal law shall be responsible for satisfying the allotteesentitlement to water. Additionally, S. 2956 fails to provide adequate protections for allottees

against future abuses by Pechanga tribal officials in the settlement and allocation of rightsunder the Act.

I also oppose S. 2956 as it fails to provide for and protect the rights of the Temecula band or

village of Indians and their descendants. The Reservation was set aside by Executive Ordersdated June 27, 1882 and August 29, 1893, for the use and benefit ofthe Temecula band or

village of Indians.

According to decisions made by Pechanga tribal officials within the last 6 years and

tribal documents recording said decisions, Temecula Indians and Pechanga Indians are

different people. In fact, Pechanga tribal officials have disenrolled or denied membership to

hundreds of individuals who can trace their lineage to the Temecula band or village ofIndians for whom the reservation was set aside. While theAct references the dates of the

Executive Orders referenced above as priority dates defining and determining the

characteristics of the water rights, the Act fails to provide any recognition of nor protect theownership rights of the Temecula Indians and their descendants. As a Temecula Indian, I

request that S 2956 be amended to protect my interests and the interests of other similarly

situated Temecula Indians.

8/9/2019 Opposition Letter to S 2956

2/2

There are other historical inaccuracies listed in the Act on which Pechanga officials claim

standing to request Congressional action, but this is not the first time that misinformation may

have been provided to move Congress to act on behalf of the Pechanga band. In regards to arequested Congressional action to protect tribal fee lands and transfer said lands into trust,

Pechanga Chairman Macarro testified to the United States House of Representatives

Committee on Natural Resources on April 17, 2002 that:

The sole purpose of the (land) acquisition is the preservation and protection

of the Luiseno peoples natural and cultural resources.

And, when specifically asked if the Pechanga Tribe had any plans for development of any

kind on the Great Oak Ranch property, Chairman Macarros response was as follows:

No, we dont. As stated in our application (to transfer to trust) there is no change

in use in the property,...

Chairman Macarro was then asked if the Pechanga tribe planned to use the Great Oak Ranchfor gaming purposes or any other purposes other than what you have just outlined. His

response was, No, the tribe does not.

Since the transfer of the Great Oak Ranch into trust, the Ranch has been turned into a staging

area for on-going construction projects both on the Ranch and associated with the casino

complex. The character of the Ranch has been drastically altered and in no way reflects theno change in use testified to and used by Pechanga tribal officials in lobbying Congress and

federal agencies for its protection and transfer to trust.

I believe that there is a need for further due diligence to ascertain the validity of the Pechanga

Bands standing and to confirming assertions made to Congress regarding the need for the

Act. I would further suggest that the testimony given by the Pechanga Band in support ofS.2956 be reviewed and scrutinized for accuracy and truthfulness prior to your Committee

taking any action on the bill.

Due to the Acts failure to adequately protect the rights of allottees and Temecula Indians, and

the other concerns/issues stated above, I re-state my opposition to S. 2956 and respectfully

request that your committee delay any action on the bill. If you will not delay action on the

Act, I request that you vote No on passage of the Act out of your Committee.

Respectfully submitted,

Name:Address:

Phone Number:Cc: Senator Boxer

Senator Feinstein

Committee members