Larry Echo Hawk could not be further from the truth in making the statement in an Indian Country Today article (see here) that the “sweeping reform of federal surface leasing regulations for American Indian lands" will, "break the chains of paternalism that the federal government has held over tribes for too long."
It might in some areas, but when it comes to Tribes and Landowners who grow crops and who utilize a Gross Revenue Crop Share lease, this "sweeping reform" will sweep their rights right into the trash. This proposed reform requires IIM pay for any leases with more than 10 owners. Any leases with 10 owners or less HAVE to all agree to Direct Pay, even if the majority of the owners agree to Direct Pay.
IIM Pay is REGULATED PAYMENT BY CHECK FROM OST, for your crops on your land. And it usually has a time limit to be paid by. If you wanted to hold onto your crops until the market went in your favor by holding a ticket from your grain elevator, under this reform you will lose that ability. Many crops come into the grain elevators at one time. They all get put into a holding pattern until they get quality tested which may take until March or later sometimes. The problem with IIM Pay is that it will require payment by a deadline that fits one OST finance clerk;s misguided schedule in life.
This proposed reform does not eliminate Gross Revenue Crop Sharing being allowed in a lease, but it will confuse OST (big surprise there) in how they handle payments for a Crop Share Lease when payment is made in the form of a weighted share of the crop, which incidentally, is still allowed.
The best option is to leave the Direct Pay option the way it is currently in the CFR. If direct pay is negotiated in a lease, the burden of proof of payment (which is IN THE CFR) is on the person who pays the landowner. Simple. Not elegant, but it has to be more reliable than the years of mismanagement of trust that has been displayed in the Pre-Cobell era.
To the Finance Clerk in Office of Special Trustee who can't keep track of our Gross Revenue Crop Share leases: Please come to the rez to get instruction for how this piece of garbage will mess things up for thousands of land owners before this reform is signed into law.
related entries: bia' sweeping land leasing reforms
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
"BIA's Sweeping Reform" of Land Leasing
Click this link to see the Federal Register Release on the BIA's Sweeping Reform of the Federal Leasing Process.
In the proposed reform as seen on the above page, you will note the severe restrictions on Direct Pay Options. If you have 11 landowners on a piece of land, there will be no more direct pay. It will only be allowed on land with 10 owners or less.
And ALL 10 owners have to consent to the Direct Pay. This is a specific slant against direct pay, otherwise, you would have a proposed regulation that says that whatever the "majority" of landowners agree to, is what should be enacted on a lease. Besides that, according to the current CFR, Direct pay is an option already on the books and 100% is NOT REQUIRED for you to receive direct pay from your farmer. This will have disastrous results!
If OST comes in and requires a farmer to pay them for your lease by November 1st, you will not have any option to play the market and you will not get anything that says anything about your harvest.
All you're going to get is a check. There is nothing else given. You don't know WHEN your crop was sold, HOW much crop you had, WHAT THE PRICE/BUSHEL was for your crop. What a wonderful way for accountability to fly out the window with your crop.
This is a policy in direct opposition to Crop Revenue Sharing. There will be confusion and as usual the OST will listen to their finance clerk in Albuquerque who knows nothing of agricultural marketing/harvesting operations.
This should be at least one point that tribes and tribal members should be in opposition to in this proposed regulation.
Assistant Secretary Larry Echo Hawk said on Native Times, "The revised regulations will bring greater transparency, efficiency and workability to the Bureau of Indian Affairs approval process, and will provide tribal communities and individuals certainty and flexibility when it comes to decisions on the use of their land.”
So how is it when I have a gross revenue crop share lease where my farmer pays me with a weighed share of my crops that, under this new leasing reform, I am going to get transparency, efficiency and workability? Under this proposed reform, all I am going to get is a check and that's it. The check doesn't even say what it's for. It doesn't tell me what my crops sold for, when they were sold, or what the total bushel per acre for my allotment was.
You know a funny thing about those crops: There is no guarantee that the protein levels for your crops can be determined before November 1st. There is no guarantee that the quality of the crop versus weed and waste content can be determined before November 1st. They do a seed test on many crops which takes about a month to determine if your seed crops are quality that can be sold. So, how am I going to get a check for my "supposedly sold" crop when it hasn't even been divided up and tested yet? Sometimes the crops in bumper years aren't totally quality-checked until March because of the backlog.
But rest assured, that ONE FINANCE CLERK at OST will rest easy knowing that all the numbers line up nice and straight.
This is a horrible piece of this reform. The current 25 CFR 162. 226 states the lease can be negotiated for "DIRECT PAY" from the farmer or operator. 162.227 even stipulates how payment must be made under Direct Pay options.
There will be even more confusion now for our poor OST Clerk in Albuquerque because, how in the world will they pay land owners who have Crop Revenue Share leases? Legally by November 1st? Talk about Trust Mismanagement! A clear case for screwing the land owners again. How long ago was the Cobell suit? The ink's not even dry and now this!
In the proposed reform as seen on the above page, you will note the severe restrictions on Direct Pay Options. If you have 11 landowners on a piece of land, there will be no more direct pay. It will only be allowed on land with 10 owners or less.
And ALL 10 owners have to consent to the Direct Pay. This is a specific slant against direct pay, otherwise, you would have a proposed regulation that says that whatever the "majority" of landowners agree to, is what should be enacted on a lease. Besides that, according to the current CFR, Direct pay is an option already on the books and 100% is NOT REQUIRED for you to receive direct pay from your farmer. This will have disastrous results!
If OST comes in and requires a farmer to pay them for your lease by November 1st, you will not have any option to play the market and you will not get anything that says anything about your harvest.
All you're going to get is a check. There is nothing else given. You don't know WHEN your crop was sold, HOW much crop you had, WHAT THE PRICE/BUSHEL was for your crop. What a wonderful way for accountability to fly out the window with your crop.
This is a policy in direct opposition to Crop Revenue Sharing. There will be confusion and as usual the OST will listen to their finance clerk in Albuquerque who knows nothing of agricultural marketing/harvesting operations.
This should be at least one point that tribes and tribal members should be in opposition to in this proposed regulation.
Assistant Secretary Larry Echo Hawk said on Native Times, "The revised regulations will bring greater transparency, efficiency and workability to the Bureau of Indian Affairs approval process, and will provide tribal communities and individuals certainty and flexibility when it comes to decisions on the use of their land.”
So how is it when I have a gross revenue crop share lease where my farmer pays me with a weighed share of my crops that, under this new leasing reform, I am going to get transparency, efficiency and workability? Under this proposed reform, all I am going to get is a check and that's it. The check doesn't even say what it's for. It doesn't tell me what my crops sold for, when they were sold, or what the total bushel per acre for my allotment was.
You know a funny thing about those crops: There is no guarantee that the protein levels for your crops can be determined before November 1st. There is no guarantee that the quality of the crop versus weed and waste content can be determined before November 1st. They do a seed test on many crops which takes about a month to determine if your seed crops are quality that can be sold. So, how am I going to get a check for my "supposedly sold" crop when it hasn't even been divided up and tested yet? Sometimes the crops in bumper years aren't totally quality-checked until March because of the backlog.
But rest assured, that ONE FINANCE CLERK at OST will rest easy knowing that all the numbers line up nice and straight.
This is a horrible piece of this reform. The current 25 CFR 162. 226 states the lease can be negotiated for "DIRECT PAY" from the farmer or operator. 162.227 even stipulates how payment must be made under Direct Pay options.
There will be even more confusion now for our poor OST Clerk in Albuquerque because, how in the world will they pay land owners who have Crop Revenue Share leases? Legally by November 1st? Talk about Trust Mismanagement! A clear case for screwing the land owners again. How long ago was the Cobell suit? The ink's not even dry and now this!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
