Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - Tribes might to be open to changes in land transfer method

Tribes might to be open to changes in land transfer method

MIKE McCLEARY/Tribune Three Affiliated Tribes chairman Marcus Wells, right, talks with Gov. John Hoeven on Tuesday to discuss the transfer of lakeshore land on Lake Sakakawea from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to the tribes. Wells called the property transfer the "starting to heal the wounds of the past."

Mar 07, 2007 - 04:05:25 CST

By BLAKE NICHOLSON
Associated Press Writer

The Three Affiliated Tribes might support changing the method of a Lake Sakakawea shoreline land transfer but only if it does not slow the process, Chairman Marcus Wells Jr. says.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is proposing to transfer 24,000 acres of land no longer needed for the Garrison Dam project, which created Lake Sakakawea more than half a century ago. In the process, it flooded tribal land and split the Fort Berthold Reservation in two.

The transfer would give the U.S. Interior Department ownership of the land, which it would hold in trust for the tribe. Wildlife management areas and boat ramps would not be included.

Gov. John Hoeven, who met with Wells and other Tribal Council members on Tuesday, restated his opposition to the plan. He said he would prefer legislation in Congress that would address such issues as land access and weed control.

"They haven't answered any of those questions," Hoeven said. "This transfer, as they're proposing it, doesn't serve the people of North Dakota."

State officials have questioned whether the corps has the authority to transfer surface land rights under the 1984 Fort Berthold Mineral Restoration Act, as it intends. Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem has said the state might consider a lawsuit to stop the plan.

Hoeven on Tuesday noted that legislation was used seven years ago when the corps transferred Missouri River land to the state of South Dakota and two American Indian tribes.

Corps officials did not immediately comment on Tuesday's meeting between Hoeven and the tribal officials.

Wells, who presented Hoeven with a quilt before the meeting, told the governor his intent Tuesday was to listen to the state's view. The meeting was cordial, and Wells said in an interview later that the tribe is not averse to any land transfer idea that works.

"The best solution is where there are no unanswered questions," he said.

Tribal officials say the land transfer would help rectify the taking of property from tribal members for the Missouri River dam project in the 1950s.

"It's never going to make us 100 percent," Wells told Hoeven. "But the more of these things that can be done, the easier it is to ... heal."

Hoeven said the land transfer proposal in its current form has too many flaws.

"I don't believe it serves the native people or the non-native people" of North Dakota, he said.

Hoeven also told Wells that the corps proposal, because it does not address such things as money for weed control, might "create greater problems and greater cost" for the tribe.

Wells and Councilman Frank Whitecalf said in an interview that the tribe already seeks federal grant money for weed control on the reservation, and that it is working to create even more access points to the lake.

However, Whitecalf agreed with Hoeven that a land transfer plan should include federal money for such matters as weed control, and said the tribe should not be fighting the state on that.

"We have to work together with the state to get federal money," he said.

News > State

Printer friendly version Tribes might to be open to changes in land transfer method

Comments

please wrote on Mar 9, 2007 10:22 AM:

" TAT good to see you live in bismarck, your so concerned about the rez but yet you live in the pressance of the terrible white man. Give me a break. You call another commenter on this blog racist, Sorry pal but your the one who is racist, it spews from every word you write. As far as the land goes, what do you care, you don't live there anymore....... By the way I have Indian friends who fish also. "

givethelandback wrote on Mar 8, 2007 11:37 AM:

" this is to address the numerous blatant fallacies contained within this article and within comments. FIrst, the Governor says this does not serve ND citizens. Hello, it is not intended to. It is intended to right wrongs of the past in an equitable mannner for the three Tribes which have suffered immeasurably at the hands of the United States. This is note a state issue. Lets not just talk about the lands taken for the dam and overlook history; but look farther back into the past and consider the million of acres of aboriginal land taken from these tribes pre-garrison. WOrried about access to the Lake, i was here last summer and witnessed dozens of boats and fancy trucks entering the four bears marina for a boat show or something like that. Correct me if i am wrong, but were they not passing over tribal lands on the Pennisula to access the marina and i did not see one brown face behind these wheels. As for the comment that these lands were taken from white people and individual indians, please.... these lands were aboriginal lands reserved to the tribes pursuant to Treaties with US and were illegally taken from the Tribes long before the Garrison taking act. There is plenty of caselaw to support this. These lands belong to the Tribes as a whole; give them back already. And please before you make ignorant bigoted comments, know your history of this Tribe. The State of North Dakota's arguments are so misleading, insulting and derogatory. "

Huh? wrote on Mar 8, 2007 7:44 AM:

" Owed to TAT? What the blankety blank? Most of this land was taken from private citizens for the construction of the reservoir. To take that land and now give it to TAT is the epitome of the fleecing of America, The federal government payed the original landowners, we can argue about if the price was right at a different time, but the TAT land has been paid for twice. That's right, not once, but twice. So now to "give" back lands to the TAT government that were taken from white people and individual TAT members just seems like a really BAD idea. And for a government that is running nearly $125 million dollars in the red to say, "we'll do is go back to the federal government and ask them for the money to manage it". Again, what a losing proposition to the U.S. taxpayer. Give TAT the land and still pay to manage it? Two injustices don't make a right! "

Common Sense wrote on Mar 7, 2007 7:09 PM:

" It's even more interesting to see how so many people are making this an issue of race. Although it’s not as publicized, thousands of land owners in the entire Missouri River Valley, in three states suffered the same injustices. I don’t understand why that is so hard to comprehend. People from Van Hook killed themselves over the injustices. Why isn’t everyone joining together? It's an issue of what is best for the land--OF FINALLY FORCING THE CORPS TO BE ACCOUNTABLE for THEIR ACTIONS! Instead of trying to divide ourselves from one another, why aren't we collaborating to try and force the Corps to live up to their word? And with that I'll quit. You can't make a blind man see, so there is no point in painting him pictures. Tata. "

Common Sense wrote on Mar 7, 2007 7:02 PM:

" *Sigh.* Your judgment of character is about as accurate as your facts and knowledge on the subject… Yes, the TAT lost more than land; they lost a way of life, they lost their family connections, they lost a lot. But as was said in Waterbuster, the documentary, it's time to quit looking back and start looking forward, or even at the present. Take, for instance, the present circumstances. I've spoke to so many people both white and Native who disagree with it. There are just too many "ifs," "ands," or "buts," to even make this transfer successful so that proper land management can take place. Plus, why would the tribe take land from their own people. It seems a little hypocritical to me. Next, think of the insensibility of it. Take for instance that the TAT is millions of dollars in debt and how proper land management and weed control would be impossible at this stage. In addition, think about how easily the Corps of Engineers is trying to hand this over. They seem about as hurried to give it back as they were to take it away FROM EVERYONE in the Missouri River Valley. Quit pretending all of us on the Fort Berthold Reservation were alone in this. Continuing on, for being so suspicious of white state officials, you would think someone would be suspicious of the Corps for wanting to give it back. Ever wonder why? Think it's because they are so tired of spending the time and money on trying to keep it up, they know it's a lost cause? They are sooooo excited to pan this disaster off on somebody else! After all they put us through for the last fifty years, why would anyone be willing to take their mess and responsibility? Why, after all of this, would anyone be willing to let them off the hook? "

TAT in Bis wrote on Mar 7, 2007 6:15 PM:

" Again I say the TAT lost more than "LAND". This is something you and 99% of all white people can never comprehend. "commonsense" yea right, When you get alittle older and wiser you might begin to understand until then oh well. By the way, My families land still lies under the water. And yes I can tell your race, call me Carnac. The END! Buddy "

Pay Fair Market Rate..... wrote on Mar 7, 2007 4:56 PM:

" If the tribe wants the land, then they should compensate the current owners, the tax payers, a fair market rate for the land. The tribe has been given three seperate payments for the loss of the land for construction of the dam. The excess land should either go to the state or to the families who previously held the deeds for the land. If neither the state, nor the individuals want the acquire the land, then it should be sold at auction to the highest bidder. "

Chuck wrote on Mar 7, 2007 3:44 PM:

" It's tribal land and should be rightfully returned. Hopefully the lake is not polluted. "

Please read and undersand wrote on Mar 7, 2007 3:39 PM:

" I ask who was on this sacred land first? Who came to America thinking it was the West Indies? Who decided to take this land by their own means necessary, by violent terrorist acts? First of all this land did not belong to anyone but the creator, when we all die it will still be his not ours. Why do you still fight over the land, we did not fight over the land but our ancestors fought for the right to live in a peaceful manner, before the terrorists came. Now why must we still speak up and argue for what is ours? Did not your government give the land to us? Is the governement taking it away again? "

Common Sense wrote on Mar 7, 2007 1:18 PM:

" I admit the Garrison Dam was a shoddy plan, but had you known the history and facts, you would know the flooding and navigation was intended to confront problems downstream--which is still being given priority over conditions up here. As for recreation, it helped substitute for the way of life that was lost when prime agricultural lands were flooded. Why take that away now? Those lands will never be good for farming again--at least not in our lifetime. By the way, the 4 Bears Marina doesn't benefit from recreation? What about the tribal fishing licenses from which they profit? The Tribes have been compensated for that land since then. Three times, as a matter of fact. Read up on 1980 trials and you will see it there. I believe the amount came out to about the 140 million mark. Far more than many others were compensated in the 1950s. And finally, you cannot tell my race by my opinions posted on here. Because I disagree with the land transfer does not automatically make me a white racist. I've got news for you buddy. It's just the opposite. I just can tell when something is not right. Judging someone as a racist only points to the judge as a racist. And for the last time, that land did not belong to the Tribe then. It belonged to individual owners. Give it to the owners, your family gets your land back. The end. "

TAT in Bis wrote on Mar 7, 2007 11:39 AM:

" Myself and my parents lived the so called history. I am quite aware of the "facts". Your grandparents were compensated for their land loss. The TAT lost more than "land". Where is the "river navigation" between garrison and williston? Fort Berthold was not complaining about "floods". Recreation is the only reason now white people even care about this, that and a RACIST attitude in this state. It seems anything with Indian issues and W. Stenjum is right there still fighting the Indians. "

Common Sense wrote on Mar 7, 2007 9:09 AM:

" My grandparents also farmed on that land and had their land taken away. Why should it go back to one entity when the land belongs to hundreds of separate families. Give it back to those families, white and Native American, if anyone. And the dam wasn't constructed so white people can fish. It was constructed for flood control and river navigation. Recreation was an afterthought. Read the history and learn the facts. "

TAT in Bis wrote on Mar 7, 2007 8:28 AM:

" Worrying about the weeds and access my foot. Chairman Wells you would not be the first Indian to "sign on the line". This land is not a GIFT, it is part of what is OWED to us. A small part I might add. If hoeven and stenjem say it has flaws, it is simply because it is not what THEY want. Our parents, grandparents, forefathers gave up a entire way of life so white people can fish. Many treaties and promises were signed and spoken but they were all broken. I DO NOT want you and the council to roll over and give into this blatant RACISM. This land should go back to US. "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.