BIA's Sweeping Reforms of Surface Leasing do not "EASE FEDERAL PATERNALISM"

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

"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!

COBELL SETTLEMENT IS A FAIR AND JUST SETTLEMENT...IN LA LA LAND.

The Cobell Settlement is a fair settlement a just settlement, in LA LA Land. (la la land: A state of mind characterized by unrealistic expectations or a lack of seriousness.)

Recently Barack Obama, Black Eagle, made the statement that the Cobell settlement was fair and just. Some have said that he was mistaken. It couldn't be; he wouldn't say that to the Indian faces throughout all the land. "Someone" should tell him the truth. "Someone" should have told him that he might have been confusing a fair and just settlement to the African American Farmers with the pile o'crap being served to the people who collectively adopted him. There are as many reasons Indians adopt someone into their Nations as there are Indian Nations. One of those reasons is so that when Indians have a problem, the Indians and adoptees alike share in those problems now. "Someone" should have let him know that since he's been adopted, the Indians' problems are now "our" problems together, he and us.

In a recent Indian Country Today article Richard Monette offered an explanation for why Black Eagle would utter such an insult to Indian people in public: “He’s either being duped, or he doesn’t know, and someone is intentionally not letting him know.” "Someone" sure gets a lot of blame to chew on enit?

In the same article Kimberly Craven posits that maybe Black Eagle is "totally unaware" that thousands of Indians are opposed to the settlement, "or if he is, he obviously doesn't care." Let's hope that Barack Obama, our Black Eagle, is just unaware because otherwise the possibilties get more and more depressing.

There are obvious differences between Land-less Indians and large land-based-Indians, between D.C. Indians and reservation Indians, between assimilated Indians and traditional Indians. If you are from an Indian Nation with 16 whole acres to call your reservation, you will have different perspectives from large-land-based-Indians. If your Indian Nation's boundaries are encompassed within 16 acres or in some cases, even less, you won't have the same needs. Land-less Indians won't have 19 file cabinets full of land titles. Land-less Indians aren't wondering why surveys and maps designating treaty agreements were lost. Land-less Indians aren't wondering when cadastral survey corner markers will be replaced. Back in the day like around the early 1900s surveyors used posts to mark legal corners. By posts we don't mean they buried a fencepost. They buried a 16 inch piece of fir pine with a marker on top which was either plowed under, removed, lost in flooding, or rotted away. Now to establish cadastral surveys those corners have to be re-established. They aren't necessarily done by measurement; they are "legally interpreted" by people who may be STATE-elected officials who may or may not be collecting land information for their government's use. Land-less Indians aren't wondering why every single proof of land transactions were either destroyed, lost, or hidden away in a cave in Lenexa, KS. Not hidden? Try identifying which box the document is in, which book it's in, and the title of the document which has changed drastically over the years. Then try to identify how many tribes are in the same book or ledger and which tribe the entire ledger is filed under. Landless Indians don't have a plethora of cultural sites they work ceaselessly to protect. Land-less Indians won't have a fisheries department with 25 employees. They won't have a forestry department. Land-less Indians won't have hundreds of land leases to negotiate each year. Land-less Indians won't have to wonder why nobody seeks justice for the thousands of trespasses that occur daily on our reservations. They won't have the responsibility for supporting an entire government's infrastructure. And that is primary reason number one why the mis-informed and the land-less indians will gladly accept a pittance of $1000 dollars. Something out of nothing for them and a continued "status quo" of the lack of treatment our Native land issues.

But if you're an Oklahoma Indian with a law degree, by god, you must know what you're doing. If you're that big toe to President Obama on Indian Issues, surely you must have thought that throwing a mere pittance of $1000 dollars to every IIM account holder will not fix anything. Surely an Indian Advisor by now would have advised to provide true justice by providing for free Cadastral Surveys by objective surveyors with no conflict of interest, free appraisals by the same token, free N.E.P.A. evaluations, and funding to support a true lease compliance staff to recover millions in reparations every year from every single trespass onto our lands. Only then would you begin to discuss individual payments.

Black Eagle really is an advocate; it's just that he's advocating for a group of African American Farmers to receive a just and fair settlement of $48,500 dollars per farmer, while the Indian people he's been adopted by will receive $1000 per account holder and a bonus of $500 dollars depending on how much money you can prove the government had their hands on; all while Elouise Cobell and her lawyer buddies will walk away with 116 million dollars.

For those of you keeping track that means Native Americans will each receive 3% of what each of the African American Farmers will receive, except for Elouise and Company. Indians will receive 3% of what African American farmers will receive for not getting loans on land that used to be Indian land. Indians will receive 3% of what African American Farmers will receive for decades and generations of mismanagement of trust responsibilities and lost revenues.

It's hard to find anybody in the White Puzzle Palace, Non-Indian and Indian alike, who will understand the real fallacy with using the words just and fair when discussing the Cobell settlement. One would have thought that a large land-based-Indian tribal member would have understood but after the comments by Jodi Gillette at ATNI, one wonders if the leadership has stars in their eyes from a position in life or if they're the ones confused about what a rip off the Cobell settlement will be. Elouise cobell has a national spotlight and uses it with vigor to proudly proclaim the thousands of Indians in support of her settlement. The thousands of Indians who in reality don't support her cannot access the press with any effect to show their disapproval. When the Nez Perce Members who signed their letter of support of the settlement tried to have their names removed from the list, they were told there was no way to remove their names by one of the Cobell staff members. If the thousands of Indians who truly understand what trust responsibilities have been mismanaged cannot gain the support of President Obama, then perhaps Black Eagle will find he doesn't have the support of those same thousands of Indians. The realization may come as a surprise and too late for Black Eagle to recover from. Maybe that's what it will take for those in leadership to realize how many are opposed to the settlement.

Who's really in La La land? Those who argue for the settlement or those Indians who are waiting for a truly fair and just settlement to appear?

Peabody Coal and the Office of Surface Mining's activities are again called to question

The controversey around Peabody Coal still not only simmers, it has once again boiled over, or at least it looks to if things don't change in the immediate future.

More leaders need to know, as it has been pretty rampant as of late, that not every Indian speaks for EVERY Indian. If indeed the Life of Mine provision, addressed in this latest Indian Country Today Opinon Piece by the Hon. Ben Nuvamsa, was passed in the dark hours of a passing administration, then the powers that be, need to request clarification from the Hopi Tribe that this is what the Hopi Tribe is in agreement with.

Perhaps a referendum should be initiated from the new Hopi tribal administration to reveal what the true voice of the people is concerning the provisions of the Black Mesa Area Mining permit. This is the truest path to discovering if the Hopi people really want to grant such broad sweeping permission to the Peabody Coal Company.

Alternatively, if the Hopi Tribe's process permits it, the Hopi people should present an immediate Direct Initiative to determine their own opinion on how to supply the needs of the Mohave Generating Station, while still addressing the natural resource needs of the people in a way that is transparent, respectful of all that will be impacted, and in the end run is in the best opinion of an informed Hopi tribal population. (A Direct Initiative will go directly to a vote and circumvent the legal maze that many will not be familiar with or have the patience to endure)

A tribal law will hold status that should weigh heavily in any pending lawsuit

Both sides of the issue should be most supportive of a Direct Initiative because the majority will come out on top, and if either side believes it really is correct then this is the ultimate mechanism for putting money where mouth may be. Then there will be no questions left to answer.

No questions will be left except-what will the Hopi people do either with or without their resources in either scanario?

Yakama's dairy leasing mess

[Script in Green is Jan Whitefoot, reprinted in entirety with her permission]

"Please forward this. Thank you, Jan Whitefoot (509)-848-2539

Subject: Landowners beware

Letter to the editor

Landowners Beware

Have you taken the time to examine your leases before signing them? After talking to several people about leases, here is some information you might find interesting.

Trust land is being leased to dairies and or LLCs (Limited Liability Corporations) in dairy’s names. These leases includes some land owned by the tribe. Why should you be concerned? The dairies are still being encouraged to do business on the Yakama Reservation.

The Dairy Industry has made it legal to compost their dead cows on site. What’s wrong with this? Many feedlot cows die from disease, not old age. These animals are not being tested for prions (Mad Cow). All the law requires is 2 feet of manure under the dead animal and 3 feet of manure on top. No barrier under the animal is required. In some places our water table is 4 foot deep. Do you see the potential for disaster? According to John H. Kirk’s, University of California Davis, “Pathogens in Manure,” study, there are over 400 pathogens in manure. Over 200 of these pathogens are harmful to humans. Some paid dairy experts will try and tell you that composting destroys all harmful pathogens. Not true. If you get on WSU’s, mortality composting website and dig a little deeper, you will find neither composting and or digesters can destroy all the heavy metals, prions and diseases in feedlot manure. To make matters worse, a local manure composter says he gets ponch from the local slaughterhouse and has seen dead cows in the manure he uses. He calls his manure “organic compost.” I see these piles of manure stacked near tribal members backyards. These piles of manure have the potential to pollute individual tribal wells and make people sick.

Another issue with some leases I have examined is that the bonding which is on a lease to protect the land, is being waived. What’s wrong with that? In Chino, CA, where many of the Yakima Valley Dairies have migrated from, dairies have created a “Brown Zone,” where nothing will grow. Who pays for these ecological disasters costing millions of dollars to clean up? Take a look at the Sunnyside feedlot that was supposedly cleaned up. It created a 700 foot pile of manure. After several years nothing will grow on this property. What is the value of this land now? Who is cleaning the groundwater?

According to government guidelines on leases, when the lease is up, your property is supposed to be returned to you in good condition. Who is monitoring this situation? No one. There is no enforcement, no protection on these leases.

What happens if the ground water is contaminated on your property? Who pays? Who is liable?

The huge mega dairy trying to go in near the Tri Cities is proposed to use 1 million gallons of drinking water a day. We have a 14,000 cow dairy near Harrah. Do the Math. How much of our drinking water are these factory farms depleting? Did you know some of these dairies are getting this drinking water for free? What is happening to the aquifer underneath your property?

Last summer, a Sunnyside dairy brought manure in from Sunnyside and applied it on land on Pumphouse Road. What’s wrong with that? Dairies are supposed to apply manure in agronomic rates. Some local dairies/feedlots are using poop sprinklers to get rid of their manure. This may super saturate the soil where some crops may become poisonous for consumption by animals and or humans.

The WA State Dept. of Ecology's Granger Drain Study said 150 tons of nutrient loading (manure) a day was going into the Yakima River. The report by Greg Bohmn said the source of this manure was 5 dairies. What about the fish? Who's watching out for them? No fines. No one cares.

No one monitors this either. Do we want the Yakama Reservation to become the dumping grounds for the whole state? Our we willing to let these mega, corporate polluters lease our land, and leave when they have used up and destroyed our health, land, air and aquifer? What can you do as an individual? Question the officials preparing your leases. Demand that your land and resources be protected from outside exploiters. Jan Whitefoot , Harrah, WA 509-848-2539"

Smart land owners, lessors, and activists, and advocates will educate every tribal member and every other concerned land owner to aggressively negotiate leases in favor of the land owners or to have the Tribal Councils nation-wide pass resolutions specifically addressing the ownership of the waste materials generated on these CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations). The problem may lie in that your lease may say:

..."Joe Farmer will only farm Ben Dover yearlings delivered by Ben Dover, and sell any of the yearlings owned by Ben Dover Corporation to an authorized Ben Dover Buyer, while feeding Purino grain and feed products in accordance with an agreement between Ben Dover Corporation and Purino"....

The problem is that

• the Corporate (farm) Interests will own the delivered young animals
• The Yakama Owner/Operator/Land Owner will raise the animals to a marketable size
• The Yakama Owner/Operator/Land Owner will only use approved feed products (the corporation's friends)
• The Yakama owner will then sell the Corporate "cash cow" to the Corporate's friends or to the corporation itself.
• When it's all a done deal, the corporation walks away with a profit, and the Yakama land owner walks away with a profit.
• Then the waste is left behind, owned by........the Yakama Land Owner....

How come the corporation doesn't own the waste? The corporation will claim the millions of pounds of nitrogen and phosphorous, and hormon- injected manure left behind is a "resource" off of which the tribal farmer can make money. Well, if it didn't come in such large amounts maybe it would be a profitable business. But there is no way to safely and regularly get rid of that much waste. The Yakama land owner who was a farmer a few minutes ago raising the livestock for the corporation, minutes after the sale is now a waste-source-technician trying to figure out what to do with the mountain of manure that now outweighs the weight of the grown animals which just left the farm by several times .

The antidote to the entire fiasco? It's your lease. Aggressively negotiate the leases ahead of time to include language that when the animals leave the lot, the waste must be removed by the corporate owner of the animals. Or have tribal councils pass land lease resolutions that specifically stipulate that any waste generated by corporate operations on tribal land must be removed with the animals. The Land owner didn't own the animals, they didn't own the feed, they didn't own the medicine given to all the animals, so why should they be left holding the bag full of you-know-what, and now be responsible for finding some safe way to get rid of the waste generated by the Corporation's animals? I would think that tribal councils would be the safest way to ensure that BIA doesn't sign off on leases that can't be negotiated with these corporations. Somewhere in recent, memory I believe that BIA officials thought that "best use of the land" was spelled out in the Reservation-Wide-appraisals with the damning statement, "agricultural use" or whatever term the appraiser uses. That means that if you disagree with the corporations offer and refuse to sign, (let your land go idle) that the BIA has a right to come in and say they are acting in your best interest and will get you money from a lease that they will sign--since you won't.

Either it goes in the lease before-hand, or Tribal Councils outlaw leases which leave land owners (including Tribal Councils themselves) holding onto 20 million pounds of Bullshit that is now toxic waste and endangers the water table of not only the tribe but the surrounding community members as well. That is a whole different liability issue I would think, when a community would come in and request relief (damages) from a tribe because their water table was polluted by the "tribal" dairy, chicken, or hog farm operation.

Like Jan Whitefoot asked all of us land owners to do, "examine your leases". Examine them early and often. If you don't understand it, ask someone to help you understand what is in in your lease, and what isn't in your lease that needs to be in the lease language. Fulfill the notion that we truly are the guardians of the land.

Here's how you manage leasing

http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html

The only good Indians

http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/11/good-indians.html

Tribal Chairmen arrested defending the use of their land

http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/11/another-american-indian-tribal-chairman.html

Hog Farm Protest leads to arrests in South Dakota

http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/04/protest-over-battle-for-of-all-things.html

Hog Farm Protest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr8SM8-WQg8

This is only Chicken manure! Think of Dairy manure on a grander scale

http://www.rezkast.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=1065&title=FRONTLINE__quot_Poisoned_Waters_quot____Sneak_Peek_4___PBS

President Obama's Contract Reform Memo, a fix to the Grand Contracting Mess

Recently President Obama issued a memorandum directing his Departmental and Agency Heads to re-think the whole government contracting process.
Specifically he called for a move away from non-competitive and cost reimbursement contracts except in exigent circumstances. He called for a move toward competitive and fixed-price (performance-based I assume) contracts. President Obama said that the contracting process should not interfere with inherently governmental activities either.
I would like to propose that the treaty obligations are part of the governmental activities. The oversight of the government's accountability to oversee the land held in trust for Indians must not be held by a contracting vendor. They are afterall "vendors," these contractors. They are not the U.S. Government. When an appraisal firm in a city near a reservation assumes an appraisal contract from the Northwest Office of Special Trustee, Office of Appraisal Services and then allows two levels of sub-contracted vendors onto the project, where has accountability gone? I would think that since it resulted in grave errors in more than one appraisal, and that project had to be re-appraised, that the accountability was gone along with a good dose of pride. When discrepancies are discovered by the Tribe for whom the appraisal was being done, how do they address the issue with the Office of Special Trustee? There is no "real" grievance processs that is working. When the vendors make serious (grade schoolers could probably do better) mistakes where is the record for their performance? Why aren't tribes being listed as clients on the appraisals for reservation-wide appraisals? Why aren't tribal land owners being listed as clients on the appraisals for their land? If they aren't listed as clients, they cannot access the documentation that is used to appraise their land, their crops, their timber, their minerals. Only the client can access that information. Who is the client? The client is the Office of Special Trustee, and asking them questions will result in tirades where they question your own qualifications for appraising according the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices. What remains to be answered is how Appraisers reach their conclusions in "States of Non-Disclosure." But since the tribes aren't "clients" on the appraisal contract, somebody else will have to ask OST how the appraisers reach their conclusions. OST officers have not-too-kindly pointed out that the Tribe is not a client so they should just take the OST officer at his word.
When the vendors for surveying projects include contracted surveyors who are state, county, and city-hired surveyors who may also have a great deal of interest in boundary disputes and land taxes for the local tax payers, I would assume that there is a conflict of interest. When the Certified Federal Surveyors are state, county, city, and local government-elected officials, I would assume that they have a conflict of interest when they perform cadastral surveys for land being put into trust, for land that is in boundary dispute with either the local government or one of its constituents.
I would assume that if the CFEDS surveyors are members of an anti-sovereignty, or anti-indian organization, that there is a possiblity for a conflict of interest. If they display behavior that is less-than-objective what punishment exists to right the injustice? What happens? We jerk their contract and they go home to their home agency with their full-time job intact? If they bend the rules for themselves and they get caught, who will really press the issue for them to lose their licenses? The point is, appraisals, surveys, and wills are all of such a grave nature to the balance of accountability to the U.S. government that they should all be completed under the colors of the U.S. Government, not by a "vendor," over whom Indians hold no influence and no hope of justice in the event of any unjust actions.
For all these vendor-driven tasks, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Office of Special Trustee will tell you that the Tribes can make their own decisions about whether to accept the contracts or to reject them. That may be true in a perfect world but when the list comes to the Bureau of Indian Affairs employee, is it plausible to believe that they will tell superiors that the situation requires more work, more background checks? Will the BIA employees really reject a surveyor who is already on a list titled "CERTIFIED Federal Surveyors?"
I doubt it. Most Indians are oblivious to the entire process and therefore are not the ones to question about the problem. There are a few tribal land owners who are very conscious of the situation and can tell you that this is not the way things should be. Land owners, even though the vocal ones may be in the minority, are the fairest assessors of the impact from sending government responsibilities out to sloppy vendors, who will come back next year to sell us their services once again.
I am hopeful that President Obama and Secretary Salazar will steer the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of Special Trustee into spending the budget dollars in such a way as to have more GOVERNMENT surveyors, more government APPRAISERS, more government EMPLOYEES perform the trust duties. Since the great and holy probate judges require that trust land be probated with a will separate from non-trust interests, since they require such a level of sophistication that not every attorney will be familiar with the requirements--the Federal government should create more positions for probate specialists, more attorneys to work the probate process from creation of an "appropriate" will to probate hearing to probate appeal.
The budget process should be re-vamped; the services for which the U.S. Government is responsible should be maintained by the Government employee, not a vendor who despite his knowledge is not required to know all that is contained within the phrase "trust responsibility" as it applies to the honored tasks for which they have clearly not "just volunteered."

This isn't new.....
President Obama Contracting Memo
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-Departments-and-Agencies-Subject-Government-Contracting/

The Only Good Indian..... (11-5-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/11/good-indians.html


Dirk Kempthorne had it right (9-11-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/09/two-cheers-for-dirk-kempthorne.html

Lacking a Contracting Accountability (3-21-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/03/grand-contracted-mess.html

Appraisals: Keeping the poor poor (3-18-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/03/poorest-of-poor.html

Here's how you manage leasing (2-20-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2009/02/heres-how-you-manage-leasing.html

Where Surveying Money should be spent (1-09-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/01/run-numbers.html

Contracting for Customers (1-8-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/01/yet-more-motivations.html

Fraudulent leadership plagues the Office of Special Trustee (12-18-07)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2007/12/return-to-scene-of-crime.html

A Penney for your thoughts on Reservation Appraisals (12-4-07)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2007/12/penney-for-your-appraisal.html

Indian Reservation Surveys (11-30-07)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2007/11/surveys-on-reservation.html

Here's how you manage leasing!

If you ever wanted to know why land owners complain about the BIA leasing process, about Gross Revenue Crop Share versus Cash Rent Leases, read about how the Fort Hall Landowner's Alliance led by Ernestine Werelus has been effecting major change in how the leasing process is conducted on their land.

Read about how nefarious deals between a willing or un-educated employee and a farmer who bids low is now being stopped. Farmers will mail bids to the owners. No more Agency Letterhead sent to land owners who mistakenly have believed the bids to be under the approval of the agency employees.

A cautionary note to all landowners: make sure that the appraisals are kept under lock and key (literally) so farmers do not have access to the information of which they are not clients. (REMEMBER OFFICE OF SPECIAL TRUSTEE DOES NOT EVEN LIST THE TRIBE AS A CLIENT ON APPRAISALS THAT PASS THROUGH THEIR OFFICE SO IN ALL EQUALITY, KEEP THE INFORMATION FROM BEING SHARED OPENLY WITH THE FARMERS)

There are a lot of subtle changes that make a vast world of difference: BIA and OST officials should not allow single-low-bids to substitute for competitive bidding. Ask Donna and Ross if they have audited any agencies who are allowing single bids to be a competitive bid. They have been made aware of this practice, and so have BIA officials but we still don't seem to have any changes, a year later.

One more note of caution: Somebody should really explain to the rest of the world after they explain to Indians, how appraisers reach appraisal Fair Annual Rental Rates in states of Non-Disclosure. Idaho is one such state so, if nobody is required to disclose information, how do appraisers reach conclusions?

Amen to expressing a Native American's point of view

Talk Left .com ran an article during the recent presidential campaign.
It is relevant to discussing any of the appointments in President Obama's Administration.

Accordingly, it is also relevant that Native Americans should be following the appointments at every level of government. Question the footprints left in the appointees' history, not the person who made the footprints.

That's all this is about. And it's all that Evon Peters was purported to have been talking about: ("It's unfortunate that across America, our communities don't tend to dig deeper into the actual decisions that different leaders have made in their previous offices. ... My hope is that Native American people will be inspired to look into all candidates' track records on the tribal, state and national level.")

It's a recurrent issue: looking at who will have an impact on our way of life. Maybe we can be forgiven for pointing out the significant facts that are related to the people who the Federal Government appoints to serve the relationship between Native America and the Federal Government.

It would seem an easy thing to say that Heather Kendall-Miller fits the bill for evaluating how the Federal Government nurtures the relationship between Native America and the Federal Government.

http://www.adn.com/adn/features/indian_country/05a5.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec08/alaskawarming_07-10.html
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20124560,00.html
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/hpaied/people/miller.htm

An Administration's task

I am sitting here wondering who the next Special Trustee will be for the Office of Special Trustee. I'm already wondering who will replace Ross Swimmer. I'm wondering where Donna Erwin will go. I'm wondering where Doug and Jeff Lords will go. I'm hoping that the Carl Artman replacement will stay longer than it takes to confirm him. I'm hoping Majel Russell continues to do good things for Indian Country in any place but the Bureau of Indian Affairs Offices (which by the way are inside of Wash. D.C.). Who will President Elect Barack Obama appoint to replace all of them?

I'm hoping that somebody will finally hear what we've been saying for so long. Heck way back in 1999 even Senator Larry Craig had a good idea. So some of his time was well spent wherever he thought this quote up as reported in '99 on FCW.com by L. Scott Tillett:

"...Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, questioned whether the management of the funds "really belongs within the government."

"There are no excuses. There should be no excuses," said Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho). Many companies manage trust funds without so much as "a dime" out of place, Craig said.

"Why can't we be smart enough to hire the right people to do the job?"

At issue is nearly $2.4 billion in money that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) cannot accurately account for, although Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt said it has not been stolen."

Amen to the words from Larry Craig back then. And then I wonder what Bruce Babbitt meant when he said the 2.4 billion wasn't stolen? That must have meant that he knew where it was. If it wasn't accounted for, then how do you know it wasn't stolen? It must have meant that Bruce Babbitt knew it was being "borrowed." It wasn't stolen so what other excuse is there? Borrowed to pay down government debts, which they now say is not a measurable benefit when Eloise Cobell asks where all the unaccounted for funds are at.

And the management of the [trust] funds: didn't belong within the government? Thanks Frank, but the loss from hundreds of years of mismanagement should have been straightened out before the government decided to get out of the trust fund mis-management.

So who does President Elect Obama appoint to Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Bureau of Indian Affairs in 2009? Who does he appoint to replace Ross Swimmer and Donna Erwin at the Office of Special Trustee in 2009? Who does he appoint who can accept the resignation of Doug and Jeff Lords? Who can say?

The only thing I would hope for is that it isn't a self serving Coal Chairman (wonder where Ross will go?) or a golf-happy trio (they need a fourth to tee off) that gets left at Office of Special Trustee. My hope is in Barack Obama to do the right thing when it comes to cleaning office at the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of the Special Trustee in 2009.

I would hope like Senator Larry Craig said in 1999, that we're now "smart enough to hire the right people to do the job."

“The soul of Indian Country is at stake”
-Sally Willet from the Missoulian,
Administrative Law Judge
and Indian Land Working Group consultant

Another American Indian Tribal Chairman Arrested by Police?

Another arrest warrant for a sitting American Indian Tribal Chairman?

First Eugene Little Coyote was arrested (December 28, 2007) when he resumed duties as Tribal President of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe after his Tribe's Constitutional Court ruled that he was indeed still President after a failed attempt to oust him from office. It was a contentious issue and the Council appears to have been divided for what some have called jealousy and others may believe that it is over the Natural Resource over which the Tribe's land sits: Coal Bed Methane. The largest untapped CBM reserve in the United States.

Now, in October 2008, we have Ben Nuvamsa of the Hopi Tribe who is under threat of arrest for apparently resuming his daily legal duty as Chairman of the Hopi Tribe. What Tribal Court would arrest the Chairman? I'm of the opinion that they might impeach him, they might rule against his decisions, but arrest him? Eugene Little Coyote and Ben Nuvamsa despite being from opposite north and south ends of the United States of America might share crib notes and come up with the same conclusion. It isn't easy being on top, so whatever your reason, stick to it.

It is unfortunate though--unfortunate that the environment is what is most likely to take the hit for all the misgivings of our activities.

It's unfortunate that the Dirty Percaps have raised their head again as well. You know my concept of dirty percaps is where you keep the Native American populations poor enough so that they'll jump at the opportunity to make relatively little money off of what you want to mine, to exploit, to become rich over.

Mining jobs. Yes they make money. The economic multiplier from every dollar spent from those paychecks is a boost for the entire regional economy.

You will do well to note the previous statements and consider their implications. I said that Natives could make "relatively little money" and "every dollar spent from those paychecks is a boost for the entire regional economy." The money made is relatively little COMPARED to the money that Peabody Coal is making by feeding a really minor fraction of what is made toward the paychecks. "Every Dollar spent from those paychecks" means that the rest of the money, the big money, the money paid by foreign companies ends up in the corporate accounts and is spent wherever the corporate leaders happen to live. How much money? Well on their own site they quote a figure of $4.6 billion in revenues, and that their coal products fuel approximately 10 percent of all U.S. electricity generation and 2 percent of worldwide electricity. Wow! Say, uh, where did they get that much coal?

They don't get rich by making others rich, who does? But they'll get by on the Hopi Reservation by providing a decent paying job to a few people. Is that really all they should give? Understandably, they provide the means to the market, but I tend to agree with Carl Venne of the Crow Tribe and Ben Nuvamsa, that the days of leasing are over. Carl Venne is making headway toward owning the mining process up north. "Equity Ownership is what we want," said Ben Nuvamsa in the October 29 issue of Indian Country today article 'Black Mesa Project Controversey Rises.' I hope that the eyes of all Indian Country see what that means.

I am not a big fan of destroying the water table anywhere, with polluting the entire railway (it does happen and then later has to be capped to be used and to prevent further pollution from whatever was on the trains), with coal and what it does to the environment. I guess it has to happen, but at what cost? If the case is to be made that it should be utilized then don't take what amounts to pennies on the dollar. It isn't that I encourage people to get rich off coal, but in the absence of any alternative efforts at providing subsistence to your people, own the process. Do not lease it because the longer you lease the resource right, the more the leasee makes, and like a well-fed stray dog, they do get more comfortable with coming back for more helpings year after year after year.

Do companies need to mine resources? Of course. Do they need to do it on a reservation? Of course they do--if you ask them. Do Natives need to LEASE the resource right off the rez? No.

If this is going to cost the health of the land, make all the money you can so you can repair it. Now this Peabody coal is making enough to apparently "restore" mining sites in Indiana, so they obviously have a lot of money. Where are they getting it? I'll bet from all the mines they extract from. How much is really going back into the reservations where they operate? When the mine is gone, what is left? What is really sustainable that the mine is leaving behind? And how much are they making off the resource extracted from Indian Land?

I would hope that in the interest of the environment, the greatest thinkers in Indian Country would come up with alternatives to these people who tear up the earth and leave it like an open scab and then walk away.

Then again, Eugene Little Coyote and Ben Nuvamsa and Carl Venne may be those great thinkers each with a different solution. Ultimately, the solution should come from their tribes. So for now we'll hope that Ben Nuvamsa doesn't fall victim to the same hand cuffs that bound Eugene Little Coyote. None of us can say what the best solution for them is. Only their respective tribes can.

Just keep your eyes open on your reservation when the corporate interests come knocking on your door. Don't let the $20 dollar-an-hour paycheck (dirty percaps) sway your opinion from what you and your heritage originally stood for before somebody put a dollar sign on your environment.

According to the story BISON ROUNDUP LEADS TO LAWSUIT reported in the Billings Gazette by Laura Tode, George and Nelvette Siemion have a lawsuit pending against the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

It may come as somewhat of a surprise that the notices that were sent to them from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) were not picked up; well if you live off the rez it may come as a surprise. I personally have had several mail items returned to the sender because I didn't pick up the mail in time. It's a fact of life for some people and post office boxes.

But that is a minor point in this scenario. So don't take the red herring! Stick to the point!

The point is that there was a sovereign governmental process for processing bids. The TRIBAL members (PEOPLE LIKE YOU) who already had a lease in years past on the Crow Reservation had the chance to match the bid put out by the new (shadow) tribal member bids.

What is a shadow member? Much like many small TIMBER-BUSINESSES, it's a false front that a tribal member is an owner of a small business. If they are a timber company, then it means that they get preference in timber bids. If it's a Cattle company, they get preference in Grazing bids.

How does it work?

"Well Zeke, ya see that Tribal Member over there chewing on bubble gum doing, nothing in particular?"

"Do I see him, heck I can hear him popping bubbles!"

"Well Zeke, ya go make him an offer to make money for nothing"

"OK I get it. I make him a majority interest holder in 'our lil ol cattle company' and promise to give him 1 dollar an acre ($4,000 dollars) for getting me a preferential-like bid on them there 4,000 acres right?"

"There's a smart boy Zeke..."

Aha! Timber, Grazing, Tree planting, any number of businesses can make the world seem much different if they have a tribla member partner with a majority interest in their enterprise. Which is ok, as long as it's above board. If anybody else is a fan of 8-A Status stand up and burp loudly! That isn't the part that's wrong.

The part that's wrong is when BIA steps all over sovereignty. The part that's wrong is if this couple George and Nelvette Siemion don't get to pursue the appeal process to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals if they need to.

When you appeal to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, there are a multitude of areas where your appeal can be thrown out for seemingly small details. The death is in the details. Read your CFR very well if you're gonna sit down for a bout with the BIA. If you put the wrong words on the envelope or no words, THROWN OUT! If you fail to certify that you sent the appeal to all "parties of interest" THROWN OUT! If you fail to send to everybody in the world and their cousin, THROWN OUT!

Let's hope George Skibine will allow this appeal to follow it's natural route and if need be all the way to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals. Let's hope that this appeal gets taken care of before it reaches the Interior Board of Indian Appeals. If this appeal gets to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals then it means that somebody lower than them in the Bureau, the Region, the Area, the Agency, probably isn't doing their job. The Interior Board of Indian Appeals should be the last resort of George and Nelvette Siemion. But George and Nelvette Siemion should have every right to pursue this case all the way to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals, and George Skibine seems like just the objective person to let it run its natural course. There should be none of this stepping in and pre-empting a case instead of letting the Interior Board of Indian Appeals do just what they're supposed to do.

George should, in his non-acting position, not get involved, but make sure that every step, every superintendent, director, manager, specialist, is involved and pursuing justice, whatever that decision may be. Justice is what every tribal member is looking for. Let's hope that in this case, the tribal members get their say. Let's not go for a repeat of past Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary's woeful decisions against tribal sovereignty and objective judicial inquiries. George Skibine, may we introduce you to George and Nelvette Siemion? They have a Native Land Issue to discuss with the appropriate levels of the Bureau of Indian Affairs? Could you see to it that, without influencing anybody in either direction, everybody knows that an objective, judicial decision with respect to Tribal Sovereignty is reached--and if it isn't that as a last resort the Interior Board of Indian Appeals can look this case over?

Thanks George.

Gross Revenue Crop Share Vs. Cash Rent Leases

A Little Bit of Knowledge Can Hurt You

A lot of knowledge can help you. It’s when you don’t know the whole story that you can get shorted by someone, something, or a policy. The same goes for the land leases on the Nez Perce Indian Reservation. There are a lot of things that you need to consider before signing on the dotted line.

Gross Revenue Crop Share Leases:
In a typical Gross Revenue Crop Share Lease, you take a cut of the profits, and because it’s a Gross revenue crop Share; the total cost of farming expenses is covered by the operator-farmer. The original way this lease was set up back in the 30s-1950s was for 1/3 to go the Tribal land owner, 1/3 to go to the farmer-operator, and 1/3 to the maintenance and upkeep involved with farming; basically the expenses related to farming such as fuel, chemicals (fertilizer, pesticide), seeds and maintenance of farming equipment. The fight for 1/3-2/3 Crop Share Leases has been an issue since the 1950s when advocates argued that it was a fair deal for everyone involved in reservation farming.

So in a gross revenue crop share lease, your farmer should justify if they need more money for drainage or other requirements. If you don’t agree with your farmer but you want to be fair, you might ask for the farmer to open his books to you; you may ask him to show you his farm’s accounting books and show you where his expenses have gone before you sign any lease papers. A Gross Revenue Crop Share Lease is reflective of the profit available in that year’s market. Whatever the farmer can potentially make off his 1/3 crop share is exactly what the tribal landowner can make off his 1/3 crop share. For a Gross Revenue Crop Share Lease, in a bad year, we all suffer diminished returns on our crops. In a good year, for a Gross Revenue Crop Share Lease, we all share in the increased profit returns on our crops.

Cash Rent Leases:
If you make a Cash-Rent Lease you agree to a certain amount of money each year. That’s it. You simply make a minor profit. It is not based on any market. It does not fluctuate.
In a bad crop year, the farmer’s returns are not drastically affected by our cash rent. In a good crop price year, however, the large returns are not shared by everyone. In a really good year, if you have a Cash Rent Lease, you get your cash rent. That’s it. The profits are not shared equally when you have a simple cash rent lease.

You do not get to share in the amazing market prices. So if the price of wheat goes above $10 dollars a bushel like it did this year, if you have a Cash Rent lease, all you get is your cash rent. On the other end of your crops, however, your farmer can get a huge return because he paid you your cash rent, and now he can potentially go and market your crops at the $10 dollar per bushel rate. And if he had to pay on loans as we’ll see later, then the bank is making money off the crop by holding shares of wheat until the market is beneficial to them. In that case the crop just left the reservation along with all the profits.

Feeling like you missed out? Well, if you had a cash rent crop in effect this year, you did miss out on a potential gain. This year the price of wheat went over $10 dollars per bushel. What does this all mean?

It means that just this year alone you lost money in the above scenario on the table. Even if you got an up front cash signing bonus, is that just for this year? If it is then you lose money on every succeeding year. If your signing bonus is for every year, it better be for more than what you would make off a 1/3-2/3 crop revenue share lease. In the scenario in this table that means that your signing bonus on a Cash Rent Lease for everyone on the lease better make up $15, 166.67 dollars every year (or the amount you would receive at 1/3 of the total crop value).

The numbers are random in this table, but the formula is correct, and reflects a true return for 50 bushels per acre harvest on 100 acres when wheat was 10 dollars per bushel in 2007. The numbers are also only for a single tribal land owner. To be fair if you had five tribal owners then you would divide the “OWNER” amounts by five, or the total number of land owners. It is just meant in this form to magnify the division of profit going to the farmer-operator.

According to a United States Department of Agriculture publication released July 12, 2007 at http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Idaho/Publications/Producers_News/pdf/Crop%20Prod%200707.pdf Idaho’s expected winter wheat production for this year was up 59.9 million bushels, up 10 percent from last year. Harvested acreage of winter wheat yields, as of July 1, is expected to be 81.0 bushels per acre, up from last year's 77.0 bushels per acre. Producers with spring wheat are expected to yield an estimated at 68.0 bushels per acre, 5.0 bushels less than 2006.

So the estimation in the above table (at 50 bushels per acre) was obviously a conservative one. If you had a Cash Rent Lease, it should have considered the higher yields per acre that you would lose according to these more accurate statistics.

Summary
The main difference between Gross Revenue Crop Share and Cash Rent Leases:

Gross Revenue Crop Share Leases
· Full crop sales prices in good years are shared by everyone. (Good for Farmer and Owner)
· Bad years are shared by everyone, but impact of Tribal members is only 1/3 of the
total payout. (Good for farmer, and also guarantees tribal member 1/3 of any small profit made.)

Cash Rent Leases
· Full crop sales prices in good years are NOT shared by everyone. (Extremely good for farmer, bad for owner)
· Bad years are not shared by everyone, but impact of Tribal members’ cash rent is minimal (Fairly Good for farmer, and the Owner still ONLY gets their tiny cash rent payment)

So if you think about it, what’s the point of having a Cash Rent Lease when the good years’ profits are not shared by the Tribal Members?

In any year, farmers, without knowledge of the tribal member owners, may apply for Environmental Quality Incentives Program funding or technical assistance. This information can be found at http://www.id.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip/eqip_how_08.html. Farmers make efforts at meeting the requirements for this program and they could get money for it. The checks from the Natural Resources Conservation Service under the United States Department of Agriculture go directly to the farmer. Now his costs of farming have been offset and you didn’t even know about it. His 1/3 for the costs of farming has just been partially funded by the Federal government. Does your lease stipulate that any and all federal program offsets be reported to all the land owners and divided up at 1/3-2/3 share?

When fields are burned, you save the farmer up to three passes over a field depending on the situation. So, now the farmer is saving gas he would have spent tilling and preparing fields. His cost has just gone down again. This is even more reason to pass on the savings under other programs, and another reason to stick to a 1/3-2/3 Gross Revenue Crop Share Lease.

Did all the crop get sent to the nearest licensed elevator? If it says so in your lease, the entire crop should be sent to the nearest elevator. That ensures accountability. How? Well, then no “estimates of total yield” are used to figure out what your 1/3 share is. If it all gets sent to the nearest licensed elevator, then the total yield is there to divide up.

If farmers “estimate” how much your 1/3 of the crop in the field should be and then send the rest (an "estimated" 2/3) to their own personal storage bins, true accountability cannot be attained. In other words, we’ll never really know if the tribal owners got an actual 1/3 of the total crop. This merely keeps honest farmers honest, and identifies questionable procedures on the part of others, like “accidentally” sending a truck from one “lot” (field) to the elevator and accounting for it under the wrong “lot,” which is how elevators account for crops since they don’t physically see the fields and the crops cut on different fields. Even if the farmer is farming honestly, if the lease says the entire crop goes to the nearest licensed elevator, then, in all honesty, that’s what should happen. Any land owner can call the elevators and ask for the total amount of the crop sent to the elevator labeled under their lot. That will tell you if the entire crop was sent there.

Don’t feel like you’re the only one who missed out though. If a farmer requested a loan from the bank last year and did not allow time for the crop to be marketed, then as soon as the grain was cut, the banks were right there demanding money. As a result some farmers were forced to sell their grain at $6.00 per bushel before the full market potential was realized.

Agriculture is an extremely volatile market with a lot of pitfalls. Everyone needs to be market savvy and stay on top of the prices, leasing and loan provisions, and your rights as a land owner.

Another very important thing to remember when signing your lease is to either check yes or no to the question on the lease of whether the farmer can market your crop for you, if it’s on your lease. If you check yes, your farmer could sell your grain as soon as he cuts it (when prices are low because supply is high).

If you check no, then you could get a receipt for your crop at the elevator, watch the market for better prices, and sell your crops when you think the prices are better (when prices are higher because the supply is lower). Other countries’ crops are under drought conditions, so orders from overseas have had positive effects on the prices of grains for land owners this year. But if your farmer sold the crop for you the day after it went to the elevator, you lost your ability to market your crop. So read your lease carefully.

Remember through all of this, farming on the reservation is a privilege for non tribal members, not a right.

There is nothing written into the Code of Federal Regulations which gives farmers a right to farm Indian land.

The fact that they are farming here is a privilege, granted by the owners, and when we all profit equally, we all make best use of the land.

Don't let this kind of article fool you or your farmer at: http://ohioline.osu.edu/fr-fact/0002.html It has no basis for being used in Tribal land issues. And they seem to advocate for farmers, which isn't bad. But if you're a land owner or co-land owner, you need to advocate for yourself. I could elaborate on this article from Ohio State, but I'll leave it alone for now. Just know that there are a multitude of issues in this Ohio State article which do not apply to Indian Land, and they only seem to give one side of the story. There are other articles just like this one so be aware of them. They're out there, and some people would like to use articles like it to justify cash rent leases on Indian land.

Know the facts, know the history, fulfill the prayers of our ancestors who prayed for us to use wisdom to take care of the land.

Ground work

Before we get started, lets get one thing clear from the outset. This identification of "issues" is not personal. There is practically nobody in the Bureau of Indian Affairs Offices whom I do not have good feelings for, on a personal level. There is at least one person in the Office of Special Trustee Office with whom I feel I will never have good feelings for, but he's not Tribal so I think the problem is that the whole Native protection concept goes right over his head.

When I identify "issues" (some of you call them problems, screw ups, fluster clucks, etc), it is just that. I am identifying some thing, some action, lack of action, mistake, that could be done differently, better, quicker, or slower. I identify the issue and I will try not to blame anybody for the issue. I will clarify that by saying if it was my best friend doing the same thing in that position, it is the issue I am identifying. So don't think if your'e a BIA employee in any of these positions that I am slamming you. If you got replaced next week, and the FNG did the same thing you did, I would still be identifying the issue that is happening. It's not because of you, it's because the issue will affect us that I will identify issues.

There is no danger in trying to do something better. There is no shame in mistakes. There may be guilt, or responsibility assessed. Because like I've said before, guilt is feeling badly for having done something wrong. SHAME is feeling bad about who you are.

No shame, no foul, and hopefully no harm comes from looking at land "issues" objectively and asking all of ourselves,

"How can we do it better?"