SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Tensions between casino operating tribes and their neighbors reached a fever pitch in California recently in the form of numerous clashes including the first ever staged protest by casino opponents.
The incidents occurred in various parts of the state. From the Southern California deserts to the slopes of the snow capped Sierra to the bucolic wine and redwood country north of San Francisco, tribes have encountered hostile reactions from neighboring groups and local governments.
The week of May 5:
o One hundred protesters picketed the San Manuel operated casino in San Bernardino tying up traffic for hours. The protesters were marching in reaction to a proposed casino expansion that would add a large parking garage and entertainment center as well as more than 300,000 square feet to the existing facility.
o In the Sierra foothills, El Dorado County has filed a lawsuit against the BIA; United States Department of Interior; as well as the National Indian Gaming Commission. The suit alleges negligence on the part of the federal government in regard to environmental impacts by a casino and five-story hotel complex proposed by the Shingle Springs Rancheria. The county has already spent nearly $300,000 on legal fees to fight the proposed casino. This suit follows a similar suit filed against the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) last year over a proposed tribally funded exit off ramp and overpass that the county contended violated environmental laws.
o In the town of Sonoma, a packed town hall meeting sponsored by Sonoma County Supervisor Valerie Brown addressed the potential impacts of a proposed casino by the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria and their Las Vegas backers, Station Casino, Inc. Graton is attempting to acquire 2,000 acres of land near the marshes leading to San Pablo Bay in a rural area in the far southern portion of the county.
Local residents expressed concern that the proposed casino would tie up traffic on Highway 37, a narrow two-lane road that traverses the salt marshes of San Pablo Bay and is considered one of the most dangerous roads in the state.
The Graton Rancheria chairman, noted author Greg Sarris, told Indian Country Today in 2000 during the tribe’s re-recognition bid that gaming would never be an option for the tribe.
These incidents do not even include recent newsworthy items related to tribal casino development and expansion.
At the other end of Sonoma County from the proposed Graton casino, on the hillsides of the Alexander Valley the Dry Creek Band of Pomo has drawn fire from county officials over disputes arising from fire safety code concerns. The casino was a target of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors who claimed that the tribe never once sought to work with them over issues of increased traffic, law enforcement and building safety.
All of these incidents are highlights of a problem with roots deep in California history. On one hand there are the tribes who faced near annihilation and two centuries of prejudice and political and financial impotency finally finding a way to economic prosperity and political clout. The tribes, who never had a say as they saw their lands turned into strip malls and parking lots.
California Nations Indian Gaming Association president Jacob Coin was quoted recently in Indian Country Today as saying that he found it ironic that California’s counties and cities suddenly want the tribes to share their wealth after centuries of being ignored by their prosperous neighbors.
On the other hand you have neighboring governments and non-tribal members who contend that the tribes have overstepped their boundaries and have violated the original intent of Propositions 5 and 1A, which they say were intended only to bring economic opportunity and relief to existing casinos. These opponents say that they did not want to create a Nevada-like atmosphere in California with towering garish urban casinos and hotels that local governments have no recourse to address their concerns.
This was highlighted by one of the protest signs at the San Manuel demonstration, which was reported in the Los Angeles Times. The sign stated, “Don’t make us sorry,” in reference to the big majority that tribes received from the state’s voters legalizing tribal gaming.
At the root of every dispute usually lies one fundamental difference in perspective and this case is no different. A common thread that connects all of these incidents seems to be how differently tribes and local governments view their scope of authority.
Tribes insist that they are working with local governments and their operations inject money into the local economies by providing hundreds, and sometimes thousands of extra jobs and voluntary donations to the local communities.
Jill Eaton, director of tribal communications for San Manuel says that she does not understand why the protestors from the Belvedere Neighborhood Association decided to picket San Manuel and says she does not understand the backlash.
Eaton points out that the tribe held public meetings on April 14 and 29 to address neighbor concerns. She says that the tribe will be meeting with local officials from the city council and has the support of the mayor. Calls to San Bernardino Mayor Judith Baez to confirm this statement were not returned by press time.
“We don’t understand why they (the protesters) are out there, since we have gone through all the normal channels of communication,” says Eaton.
In fact Eaton’s assertions were echoed by several other tribes, all claiming that they had gone through the proper channels of communication with local governments and homeowners associations. Why then are the problems escalating in such a way.
Dry Creek tribal chairwoman Elizabeth Elgin DeRouen says it is a problem of protocol. DeRouen claims that the tribe has tried time and again to work with the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and had even agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding.
However, DeRouen claims that the county Board of Supervisors abruptly cut off talks and began to dictate rather than negotiate with the tribe. This, believes DeRouen, is at the heart of most of the disputes between tribes and local governments.
“The problem, in our case and in many others, are that the local governments do not understand tribal sovereignty, and (they) are not willing to work with tribes as sovereign governments, but rather as subordinates,” says DeRouen.
In fact Sonoma County Supervisor Valerie Brown says that the tribe does not have sovereign powers because of the fact that California is a Public Law 280 state, a controversial law in Indian country that permits the states to have police jurisdiction over Indian tribes.
“What we’re saying is that if the county is expected to provide police, fire and some other services then we need to have some input into how the tribe handles the matter,” says Brown.
Brown contends that much of the disagreement over sovereignty stems from vaguely written and broadly interpreted state and federal policy regarding tribal sovereignty. She predicts that there will be much litigation surrounding sovereignty and many of the issues might not be resolved until the laws are clearer.
Brown also feels that it is not the supervisors but the tribe that are creating an adversarial relationship and points to the Cloverdale Band of Pomo Indians, who are proposing a casino only about 10 miles from the Dry Creek facility. She says that is in favor of the Cloverdale facility because the tribe has shown a willingness to work with the county and has submitted the proper studies and impact reports, which she claims Dry Creek has failed to do.
Victor Rocha, the proprietor of Pechanga.net says that Brown’s interpretation of sovereignty is the problem. He feels that her lack of understanding as to how to approach tribes in the proper manner is creating much of the problem and accuses Brown of “fanning the flames” by using “a bossy demeanor” when dealing with tribes.
Rocha admits that local governments and non-Indian neighbors often have legitimate issues but he says that problems only occur when the local governments do not deal with tribes on a government to government basis.
Regarding the San Manuel case, Rocha says that he finds it ironic that local citizens have chosen the casino as a point of their frustration.
“Look, Patton Hospital for the criminally insane is right next door to the San Manuel casino and they’re worrying about casino expansion,” says Rocha.
Rocha says that most tribes have gone above and beyond the state standards and points to successes such as the Barona tribal casino’s use of recycled water on their property and the energy-efficient state-of-the-art facility used by the Morongo tribe.
“Until local governments can grasp the notion of tribal sovereignty and learn the proper method of communication with the tribes and not just seek to impose their will, there are going to be problems.”
