10 Key Unresolved Questions to Ask About the Santa Barbara County/Chumash Agreement
- What happens after 2040? The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) expires in 2040. What happens then? Is the Tribe then allowed to do anything it wants on Camp 4, including building a massive amount of commercial development as it proposed in March 2016 and another Casino?
- What guarantees do residents have that open space and ag land will be protected? The agreement references the land uses spelled out in Alternative B of the Environmental Assessment (EA) and notes that land will be preserved as open space and ag use. Once the land is in trust, as indicated in the agreement, then under tribal sovereignty anything can be changed even before 2040.
- What happens if federal legislation is not enacted? The agreement assumes that H.R. 1491 will be amended to incorporate the terms of the agreement. What happens if H.R. 1491 is neither appropriately amended or is not enacted? Is the agreement moot or subject to change by a future County Board of Supervisors and Tribal Council?
- Where is the prohibition on future casinos? The agreement contains no specific prohibition against gaming on Camp 4. The County responds that it is relying on the restrictions and limitation contained in the Environmental Assessment (EA) undertaken by the BIA to add Camp 4 to the Chumash Reservation. First, the County went to Federal Court challenging EA as woefully inadequate as the basis of any regulatory action for Camp 4. Secondly, merely referencing the EA generally in the MOA does not assure compliance by the Tribe. To be enforceable, the limits, conditions, and restrictions of the agreement must be legally and specifically incorporated into the agreement using proper legal language. That is not the case as it stands.
One has to wonder why the Tribe opposes including the restrictions into MOA. From all indications, in this MOA, the County has given up on opposing the expansion of gaming in the Santa Ynez Valley. Is this true?
- Does the small amount the Tribe is required to pay to the County cover potential costs to taxpayers? The agreement provides that the tribe will pay the County a flat fee of $178,500 annually as “approximate offsets to the potential losses and impacts to the County and are intended to support an approximate level of County services to Camp 4, and affected communities.” How was this amount determined? Was it based on planning and engineering of needed infrastructure or delivery of services?
- How is the modest amount of funding the agreement requires that the Tribe pay a source of additional funds to meet new demands? The agreement specifically says that the $178,500 the Tribe will pay will be deducted from the amount it Tribe currently pays to the state that ultimately makes its way to the County under its gaming compact to mitigate impacts from its Casino operations. How is this a new revenue source to address the additional financial needs that will result from this agreement? In other words, isn’t this a ‘bait and switch?”
- Why are County taxpayers forced to pay the extra costs of public safety and other services? The agreement acknowledges that additional fiscal impacts of “law enforcement, fire, and traffic/roads, will be mitigated solely by the County at no additional cost to the Tribe for the term of this Agreement.” So is it correct that these additional costs are the sole responsibility of current and future non-tribal county taxpayers? How does this impact the deficit the County budget is already projecting?
- How does the agreement limit the exporting of groundwater water from Camp 4? There are no provisions in the agreement concerning water consumption. According to a study undertaken by Santa Barbara County, Camp 4 lies on top of a major aquifer that contains a significant amount of the Valley’s best quality water. Aside from a minor limitation regarding landscape watering in a drought, there is no meaningful restriction on water consumption on Camp 4 spelled out in the agreement. The term “no water exportation” is never explicitly used in any documentation, referenced or otherwise.
As noted previously, the County says it is relying on the restrictions contained in the EA undertaken by the BIA to add Camp 4 to the Chumash. As noted already, the County went to Federal Court to challenge EA because of its inadequacy. Secondly, simply referencing the limitations contained in the EA about water use does not assure compliance by the Tribe. To be enforceable, the limits, conditions, and restrictions of the agreement must be legally incorporated into the agreement using the proper legal language. That is not the case. Without this, residents could be at risk from the Tribe potentially exporting water out of the valley for its profit.
- How does the County reconcile its previous legal arguments against the Camp 4 Environment Assessment (EA) to now supporting an agreement with the Chumash that relies on it? The proposed deal reflects an absolute and complete reversal of the County’s previous position on Camp 4. In fact, the County has gone to court on behalf of residents and taxpayers asserting that the environmental analysis undertaken by the federal government on Camp 4 is wholly inadequate. Now, the proposed agreement incorporates this flawed study. The County does not justify this complete flip-flop. Was there any legal, technical or economic analysis undertaken?
- Will there be a height restriction for the development occurring on Camp 4? The agreement relies on alternative b on the EA which spells out the land uses on Camp 4. However, the EA spells out that tribal housing would be constructed along with a 12,000 square foot tribal facility with that would accommodate 400 people. There is no height restriction and does not define “commercial activities.” As such, suggested limitations in this regard suffer from the same defect of the failure to adequately incorporate constraints on any and all commercial activities.
Andi Culbertson says
I think that one essential issue is why the County feels compelled to support HR 1491 if the Chumash enter into an agreement. I have written before that the County must disclose to the public whether the agreement to support HR 1491 was a requirement of the Chumash for them to enter into the agreement. The mere fact that there is an “opportunity’ to include the County agreement in HR 1491 hardly supports the County’s contention that they have an enforceable agreement. if they have such an agreement, they do not need to support 1491.
Also, there is absolutely no explanation of the manner in which they arrived at the $178K figure. Show the math! The County has a $65 million deficit. The lost tax revenue will need to be answered either with increased costs to the community or reduced services. The State may not agree to forgo its “share” of the casino payments to help our County.
Bottom one – the County should focus on getting a good and enforceable agreement. This is possible even if HR 1491 passes. We know this because the Chairman of the Chumash has said they are doing this agreement as “neighbors”. If that is true, then HR 1491 – which eliminates local control completely – is irrelevant.
Jerry Shoemaker says
How did they come up with the number of 143? How many descendants are there that are available for housing? How many are living on the reservation now. Would those not living on the reservation be willing to move into a one acre tract home?
Kerri Marshall says
I have recently moved back to Santa Barbara County and was so glad it had retained its beauty and rural feel that I feel incredibly lucky it hasn’t been ruined by poor land use laws that other areas I lived have started to suffer from. The key issue is that if we support an unsustainable and unsupportable agreement such as this one, we put ourselves in a poor position to be able to amend or eliminate a very outdated piece of legislation-“fee to trust”. Not only are we at risk of ruining a limited and precious resource for us all, but we are potentially putting at risk the ability of our local government to provide adequate services and protection to residents if the funds become drained by non-tax paying over development. We are over-burdening the existing tax base and making it more difficult for current long time residents to live here or sell when they must.
The Santa Ynez Valley gives all Americans-whether we live here or not–a chance to see what ancient residents–whether Chumash or Spanish, or later California transplant –were able to enjoy as sacred to their soul, yet also allow us in the modern age to be close to urban areas to be able to continue to live our professional lives. To have this rural agricultural ranch and farming land as well as all private property in the area threatened by a “loophole” such as the outdated “fee to trust” regulation is inconceivable and un-American. We must all pull together to amend or eliminate the “fee to trust” and make it better for all Americans so future generations will be able to come to the Santa Ynez Valley and feel connected to the land and its heritage.