Governor opposes putting Quapaw land in trust

Gov. Asa Hutchinson and his staff have urged the Bureau of Indian Affairs to deny the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma's application to place 160 acres in Pulaski County into federal trust, expressing uncertainty over its the future use.

Placing land into federal trust gives the federal government the title to the land but allows the tribe to exercise jurisdiction over the area with limited respect to state and local laws.

"The beauty of this process is the comment period that allows all pertinent government to be heard," Tribal Chairman John Berrey said in a statement issued to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on Thursday evening.

"This will not deter the Quapaw Tribe from returning to our home in Arkansas," he continued. "It's our destiny and we see this as just another temporary obstacle in the path."

The tribe applied to place the land into trust Dec. 23, initially with support from state and local officials. The 160 acres of largely soybean farmland surrounds Quapaw graves and artifacts, and the graves of former slaves discovered nearly 12 years ago.

The Quapaws are indigenous to Arkansas and were forcibly removed to Oklahoma in 1824.

The application contains no intended use for the land other than protection of the graves and artifacts, and continued farming.

In a two-page letter introducing the state's response, Hutchinson notes that state law makes grave-tampering illegal. Hutchinson also questioned whether the remains discovered are Quapaw or are "that of an earlier people."

In the 36-page response, state officials argue that future uses of the land could negatively affect the state, such as operating payday lending or allowing cigarette companies to manufacture there. Payday lending is increasingly popular among tribes, the state asserts. Additionally, cigarette companies are taking advantage of the lack of cigarette taxes associated with production on tribal land.

The state's response includes a letter from Ron Oliver, manager of the Arkansas Racing Commission, asserting that the absence of taxes on any casino placed on the property would give the tribe an advantage over other gambling facilities in Arkansas. Now, only Oaklawn Racing and Gaming in Hot Springs and Southland Park Gaming and Racing in West Memphis are allowed to operate gambling facilities in the state.

"Because the effect on our two existing racetracks would obviously be negative, I believe the effect on the Arkansas Racing Commission would be detrimental," Oliver wrote in a letter dated April 21.

In the past few months, area officials' suspicion that the tribe plans to build a casino has been active, although tribe officials have repeatedly stated that they have no plans to build a casino.

"We see this as a concern by the state about something we aren't doing," Berrey said.

Berrey has said he doesn't want to sign any agreements prohibiting the tribe from conducting certain future activities on the land because he doesn't want to limit the authority of a future tribal leader.

The tribe operates two casinos in Oklahoma, in addition to childhood learning centers, a convenience store, a golf course, a tribal museum, a fitness center, a construction management team and counseling services.

The tribe's land lies east of Little Rock and south of the Little Rock industrial port, which is home to 3,500 jobs and is looking to expand south using funds from the half-percent city sales tax approved in 2011.

Last month, Little Rock Mayor Mark Stodola wrote a four-page letter to the Bureau of Indian Affairs in opposition to the tribe's application, saying he was concerned about any use of the land that wasn't industrial.

Two weeks before that, Pulaski County attorneys wrote a letter opposing the application and citing technical flaws with the paperwork.

The letter from the state further argues that the Quapaw tribe should have applied to place the land into trust as "off-reservation" land and not "on-reservation" land because the tribe ceded the land through treaty.

Berrey contends that the land was deeded to the tribe with the intention of it being a permanent homeland.

The difference between "on-reservation" and "off-reservation" applications is the level of scrutiny applied to the applications. Should a piece of land be taken into trust through either application, the conditions of the trust would be the same.

Additionally, the state's letter says, state efforts to protect the environment and public health in and around the property would be hindered if the tribe did not enter into separate compacts with state agencies to allow for protection.

"The fact that the land in question contains burial grounds and is located in a flood plain necessitates a thorough review and consideration of the environmental impact of placing this land into trust," Hutchinson wrote.

Metro on 06/19/2015

Upcoming Events