Year End Thank You

On behalf of all of us at "Citizens Against" Reservation Shopping"(CARS), a huge thank you for your ongoing interest and support of our efforts to stop the casino proposed by the Cowlitz Tribe for the I-5/ La Center junction. This battle is far from over. At the same time, casino developers are no closer to winning approval for a La Center casino than they were six years ago when they first applied. We are in this to win, and with your support, we mean to do just that.

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!!

CARS News Brief

Nearly eight years have passed since the Cowlitz Tribe first applied to put land at the La Center-Interstate 5 interchange into trust—and the federal government still has not made a decision. Here’s a quick year-end update.


Cowlitz trust application in limbo
A February 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Carcieri v. Salazar) continues to cloud the future of the proposed Cowlitz casino. The ruling bars the Secretary of the Interior from taking land into trust for any tribe not under federal jurisdiction in 1934, when the Indian Reorganization Act was signed into law.

Since the Cowlitz Tribe was not acknowledged by the federal government until 2002, it appears it may not have land taken into trust until an administrative or legislative fix is found.

Both houses of Congress have introduced Carcieri-related legislation, but it does not appear to be going anywhere fast. Administratively, the Department of the Interior has not responded to a request for a list of tribes affected by the Carcieri decision, and dozens of tribes remain in limbo with unanswered trust land applications.


Off-reservation policy under review
The Obama Administration has announced that it is reviewing policies for off-reservation gaming applications. The Cowlitz application is considered off-reservation.

Bush Administration policies restricted tribes from developing off-reservation casinos that were not within a reasonable commuting distance of the reservation. Also, as the distance between a tribe’s reservation and its proposed trust land acquisition increased, so did the weight federal decision-makers gave to concerns of state and local governments.

The Cowlitz Tribe has no reservation, so it is difficult to say how a possible loosening of Bush Administration policies would affect the Cowlitz application. However, several federal determinations—and an earlier Cowlitz claim—have stated that the Tribe’s geographical, historical and cultural nexus is along the Cowlitz River, well to the north of the proposed casino site.


Tribal housing opens in Toledo
The Cowlitz Tribe hosted a ribbon-cutting ceremony earlier this week at its newly renovated senior housing project in Toledo, Wash., next to the historic Cowlitz Mission and cemetery. Toledo is about 60 miles north of Vancouver in the heart of the Tribe’s aboriginal homeland. CARS has long argued that this is where any tribal casino should be located as well.

The $5 million project turned the nuns’ quarters and classroom annex of the old St. Mary’s school into apartments for low-income seniors. According to an article in The (Longview) Daily News, only 10 or 12 Tribe members have signed up to move into the facility’s 32 units.

An April TDN article credited the Cowlitz Tribe with “starting a building boom in southern Lewis County” and said the Tribe was planning to build 30 single-family homes in Toledo as well.

The projects are funded with federal housing grants and economic stimulus money.


Casino developer injured
Seattle-based Cowlitz casino developer David Barnett, son of the late Cowlitz Tribe Chairman John Barnett, was seriously injured in a single-vehicle accident near his Shoreline home last month.

Barnett was apparently thrown from the bed of a pickup truck driven by his girlfriend. The King County Sheriff’s Office was investigating the incident as a possible case of vehicular assault.

Problem Gambling: Making Criminals of Trusted Employees

The Cowlitz Tribe filed its initial applications for trust land in 2002 and for a mega-casino and resort in 2004. Thanks in large part to a consistent outpouring of community sentiment against the proposal, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) has yet to make a final decision.

News on the Cowlitz proposal has been sparse recently, but stories illustrating casino-related problems abound. What follows is one that stands out.

Indian casino expert and author Jeff Benedict calls them the "eight uglies":

Suicide, divorce, foreclosure, bankruptcy, white collar crime, robbery, embezzlement, theft.

According to Benedict, these go hand-in-hand with the presence of out-sized casinos both on and off American Indian reservations.

In Oregon this month, the news media reported two separate cases of employee theft attributed to problem gambling. On October 16, Oregonian reporter Lisa Lednicer reported that 56-year-old Sandra Jena Klingman of Canby pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four years in prison for stealing more than $519,000 from Paul Schatz Furniture in Tigard, over a two-year period.

The Canby woman had worked for Schatz for 12 years and had no prior criminal record. The newspaper quotes owner Paul Schatz as remarking, "It's a betrayal of trust, that's the hardest thing. That someone we treated like family could look us in the eye every day. But that hasn't undermined our trust in our employees."

On the same day, Norma Orndoff of Klamath Falls was reported by the Herald and News Record to have pleaded guilty to three counts of aggravated theft and three counts of identity theft. She was sentenced to three months in jail and 5 years probation for stealing from her employer, a local roofing and siding company.

Both women were ordered to make restitution and undergo gambling treatment.

Studies indicate that problem gambling doubles within 50 miles of a large casino.

La Center says ‘no’ to MOU

A tip of the CARS hat to those of you who attended last night’s La Center City Council meeting and who wrote in to express disapproval of the city negotiating a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Cowlitz Tribe.

After sitting through four hours of city staff presentations and citizen comment, three anti-casino members on the council beat back a carefully orchestrated effort by Mayor Jim Irish to get the city to begin working with the tribe on casino mitigation issues. Council members Bob Smith, Linda Tracy and Troy Van Dinter rejected two motions designed to get La Center formally involved in a sewage treatment program designed to serve a massive casino-resort at the 1-5/La Center junction. It was the fourth time the council has refused to negotiate with the tribe.

A contingent of La Center neighbors began the public testimony by extolling the virtues of negotiations with the tribe, but to no avail. Other Clark County citizens from both inside and outside the city then weighed in to oppose such negotiations before two separate measures were defeated 3-2.

The Cowlitz casino developers badly need an MOU to complete their application to the U.S. Department of the Interior for a casino and reservation in Clark County.

Read about it in The Columbian: La Center council again rejects casino talks

Time change for Wednesday meeting

Please note: The meeting in La Center will be at 7 p.m., Wednesday, June 10 (See previous post for details.)

If you cannot join us, please contact the La Center City Council members:

Mayor Jim Irish (jirish@ci.lacenter.wa.us)
Councilmember Bill Birdwell (bbirdwell@ci.lacenter.wa.us)
Councilmember Mike Nolan (mnolan@ci.lacenter.wa.us)Councilmember Bob Smith (bsmith@ci.lacenter.wa.us)
Councilmember Linda Tracy (ltracy@ci.lacenter.wa.us)
Councilmember Troy Van Dinter (tvandinter@ci.lacenter.wa.us)

Or call (360) 263-5123.

Directions to the La Center Community Center, 1000 E. 4th St.: From Interstate 5, take Exit 16. Turn east onto NW La Center Road and head into town. Turn right onto West 4th Street. The Community Center is located near the ball fields, downhill from the high school.

Your presence is urgently needed Wednesday in La Center!

The lull in the casino war is over!

With time running out on a proposal the Cowlitz Tribe made to the City of La Center nearly a year ago, Mayor Jim Irish has called yet another public meeting to try and keep the tribe's offer alive. Irish is apparently hoping that if he can get enough people out, he will convince the three council members who have consistently stood against the casino to change their votes.

Please help us support council members Bob Smith, Linda Tracy and Troy Van Dinter with your presence at 6 p.m. Wednesday at the Community Center in La Center (1000 E. 4th St.).

Here are a couple of things to know:

Fact No. 1: Irish wants the city to negotiate an agreement with the tribe. The tribe currently has no agreement with any local government and badly needs one. (The memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Clark County has been invalidated.)

The U.S. Department of the Interior wrote in a January 2008 memo that any tribal casino trust application should include copies of "intergovernmental agreements" and that "Failure to achieve such agreements should weigh heavily against the approval of the application."

An agreement with La Center would constitute such an intergovernmental agreement.

If you oppose a casino as we do, help us help the council to maintain its current stance against negotiating with the tribe.

Fact No. 2: The Cowlitz Tribe (read: the casino developers) would love to lure the City of La Center into a deal in which the tribe would help finance a sewage treatment facility. The city would own, operate and have liability for it, and the casino-resort complex would be its largest and most important customer. Sound like a recipe for a successful relationship? A different, healthier alternative -- a regional sewage treatment facility -- is already in the planning stages.

We will leave you with a persistent question to ponder: Why does Mayor Irish consistently say he opposes the casino while he just as consistently supports the Cowlitz casino developers' cause?

Please join other casino opponents Wednesday at 6 p.m. at the La Center Community Center, 1000 E. 4th St., La Center.

Recent events related to the Cowlitz casino

The effort to keep a Las Vegas-style casino out of Clark County has turned into a lengthy vigil, lengthened further by the long transition period between the previous federal administration and the current. However, last week brought some movement:

• New leadership at BIA. The Department of the Interior now has in place an Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, the top decision-maker on casino applications and overseer of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The U.S. Senate confirmed former Idaho Attorney General and Brigham Young University law professor Larry EchoHawk, a member of the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma. His policy views regarding Indian gaming are not well known.
• Hearings on trust land for tribes. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs conducted a hearing on the U.S. Supreme Court's February Carcieri opinion, which has thrown into question the entire process for taking land into trust for Indian tribes. Carcieri states that the government has no authority to acquire trust land for tribes not under federal jurisdiction in 1934. The Cowlitz Tribe, not acknowledged by the government until 2000, is clearly affected. The House Natural Resources Committee has also held a hearing on Carcieri, with additional sessions expected in an effort to provide a "fix."
• Proposed casino site "urban" again. A Clark County Superior Court ruling returned the proposed casino site, in addition to thousands of other acres, to an urban designation. In 2008, the state's Growth Management Hearings Board had removed that acreage from urban status, as defined in the county's Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, and returned it to agricultural status. That made the proposed casino site ineligible to receive from the county the urban-level services a casino-resort would need. It still might be, if the ruling is appealed.

County-tribe MOU rescinded. Also, in early April, the Cowlitz Tribe entered into an agreement with Clark County rescinding the 2004 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding services, payments and other provisions enabling a casino in Clark County. The MOU had been invalidated in 2007 by the state Growth Management Hearings Board, which had ruled the document placed the county out of compliance with the Growth Management Act, a situation the county could no longer tolerate.

In a desperate attempt to maintain the most important elements of the agreement in force (we understand that MOUs are vital to casino applications), the tribe wrote a unilateral ordinance containing many of the same provisions as the MOU, and it was accepted by the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) in 2008. The NIGC, however, noted that the ordinance's enforceability had not been examined.

Believing the county is in need of some "insurance" should the federal government suddenly approve a Cowlitz casino, county commissioners wrote in April that they will rely on the ordinance should land be taken into trust.

We will continue to keep you informed.

Supreme Court ruling throws Cowlitz project into question

The Cowlitz Tribe might be ineligible to get the trust land it needs to develop its proposed mega-casino and resort, due to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling released today.

The ruling, Carcieri v. Salazar, limits the federal government’s authority to hold land in trust for tribes that received federal recognition after 1934, when the Indian Reorganization Act was passed. The Cowlitz Tribe received recognition in 2002.

It appears Congressional action might be required to sort out the legal quagmire this creates for any number of tribes, including the Cowlitz Tribe.

Read “Supreme Court ruling raises questions about Cowlitz casino” in The Columbian.

Let's clear up county's MOU confusion

Clark County remains mired in confusion over the impact a new memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Cowlitz Tribe would have on the tribe’s casino application.

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)—the agency that will make the final decision—has, however, sent out clear signals that can be summed up, “If you don’t want a casino, don’t produce an MOU.”

First, a key DOI decision maker, George Skibine, told CARS after the tribe’s MOU was invalidated in December 2007, that the lack of a valid MOU with Clark County could be “a deal-breaker” for the Cowlitz casino application. (Skibine remains in his role at DOI as a career employee, not a political appointee.)

Then, in January 2008, DOI sent out a guidance letter addressing the importance of intergovernmental agreements, such as MOUs. The letter states, “Failure to achieve such agreements should weigh heavily against the approval of the application.”

When CARS Chairman Ed Lynch addressed the commissioners Tuesday, he urged them not to work with the tribe on a new MOU. He said it could send DOI the message that the county is open to the casino. In 2008 the county went on record opposing the casino.

Commissioner Boldt questioned Lynch’s connecting a new MOU with casino approval. He asked Lynch about the outcomes of two casino applications in other states, one that had no MOU but was approved and one that had an MOU but was turned down.

Comparing those two applications with the Cowlitz project is utterly unhelpful. Those applications were completely different, and other circumstances outweighed the impact of their MOU status. For details, read CARS’ response to the commissioners, below.

Please tell your commissioners to say “no deal” to a new MOU with the Cowlitz Tribe.


Clark County Board of Commissioners: (360) 397-2232
Marc.Boldt@clark.wa.gov
Tom.Mielke@clark.wa.gov
Steve.Stuart@clark.wa.gov
boardcom@clark.wa.gov

Letter regarding the MOU's significance

CARS Chairman Ed Lynch sent this letter to the Clark County commissioners after addressing them Feb. 17.

Dear Commissioners:

At your meeting this morning, Commissioner Boldt asked how CARS can maintain that a memorandum of understanding (MOU) is integral to the Cowlitz application when the outcomes of two other unrelated applications seem to indicate otherwise.

He referenced the Mechoopda Tribe of Butte County, Calif. (a case with which Commissioner Stuart is familiar due to relatives living there), which had its casino and trust land request approved in 2008 despite its lack of MOU, and the Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin (with its partner the Mohegan Tribe), which had its request denied despite an MOU with Kenosha County and the city of Kenosha, Wis.

Clearly, an MOU by itself is no guarantee of anything. No one has ever claimed that the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI) process of making trust land and casino decisions is an exact science.

However, as you know, Mr. George Skibine of the U.S. Department of the Interior told CARS in December 2007 that the Cowlitz Tribe’s lack of a valid MOU with Clark County could be “a deal-breaker” for this casino application.

Missing the point

Using the outcome of these other applications as rationale for negotiating a new MOU for Clark County entirely misses Mr. Skibine’s point. In his conversation with CARS, Mr. Skibine did not say that an MOU was required for every project. CARS asked him specifically about the Cowlitz proposal for Clark County—a proposal that involves a questionable restored lands opinion, a poorly constructed Environmental Impact Statement and pending lawsuits. What Mr. Skibine said of the absence of an MOU was, “that could potentially be a deal breaker for them, yes.”

In January 2008, the DOI sent out a guidance letter addressing the importance of intergovernmental agreements. The letter states, “Failure to achieve such agreements should weigh heavily against the approval of the application.”[1]

Perhaps in the Mechoopda Tribe’s case the absence of other deficiencies enabled DOI to overlook its lack of MOU. For example, Butte County had stated its opposition to the Mechoopda project due to its location but also said the county was “committed to working with the Mechoopda Tribe on finding an acceptable location for a project.” [2] Also, there were no organized opposition groups there.

In the Menominee Tribe’s situation, however, the presence of an MOU was not enough to overcome other factors. DOI determined that the 170 miles between the tribe’s reservation and its off-reservation proposed casino site was not a commutable distance and would not assist in fostering a strong tribal community. Additionally, it found the tribe had not shown there was insufficient land on its reservation to “develop economic enterprises in order to address its unmet needs.”[3]

There had been concerns as well about the a partner in the project, Dennis Troha, who was charged by the federal government for willfully making false statements to FBI agents and illegally funneling more than $100,000 in political campaign contributions through others in an attempt to obtain government approvals for the proposed casino. (He pleaded guilty to lesser charges after cooperating with authorities.) The federal investigation into corruption related to the project has led so far to the convictions of four individuals, including one elected official. The investigation is ongoing.

Comparing apples and watermelons

As for the Mechoopda situation, comparing it with the Cowlitz casino application is like comparing apples and watermelons. Here are some of the differences:

Mechoopda Tribe
Casino size: 43,000 square feet casino building[4]
NEPA track: Environmental Assessment
Tribe membership: 425[6]
Members near casino site: 71 percent in Butte County[8]

Cowlitz Tribe
Casino size: 1,183,635 square feet casino-resort plus 20,000-square-foot office building, 12,000-square-foot cultural center[5]
NEPA track: EIS (used for projects with anticipated significant impacts)
Tribe membership: 3,500[7]
Members near casino site: 3 percent in Clark County [9]

In our situation, Clark County and the cities of Vancouver, La Center and Woodland have all signed resolutions of opposition to the proposed Cowlitz casino. Several citizen groups specifically oppose the casino, and many other groups have declared their opposition.[10]

Given the vast differences among these three casino proposals, the tribes and the local climates, it is not useful to use comparisons between the proposed Cowlitz project and the Mechoopda and Menominee projects to inform Clark County’s MOU strategy.

I appreciate the complexity of the decisions you have ahead.

Sincerely,

Ed Lynch

[1] Carl Artman, DOI Assistant Secretary. Letter to Regional Directors, Bureau of Indian Affairs. 3 January 2008. http://www.indianz.com/docs/bia/artman010308.pdf.
[2] “Butte County Pursues Litigation.” 25 March 2008. http://www.becnettripod.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/25march08.pdf. 19 February 2009.
[3] Skibine, George, DOI Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary. Letter to Lisa Waukau, Chairwoman of the Menominee Indian Tribe. 7 January 2009. http://www.indianz.com/docs/bia/skibine010709.pdf. 17 February 2009.
[4] Tuchinsky, Evan, “Mechoopda unveil casino designs,” Chico News & Review, 18 May 2006. http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=57110. 19 February 2009.
[5] Analytical Environmental Services, Final Environmental Impact Statement Cowlitz Indian Tribe Trust Acquisition and Casino Project. May 2008. 2-10.
[6] Tuchinsky.
[7] Russell, R. Letter to Mr. Stanley Speaks, Area Director of the BIA. 1 August 2006. In Whelan, Robert, "An Initial Review of the Cowlitz Final Environmental Impact Statement." 17 April 2007.
[8] Tuchinsky.
[9] Russell.
[10] See http://www.nothereplease.org/doing/againstCasino.pdf.

CARS chairman urges county: No new MOU

CARS chairman Ed Lynch thanked the Clark County commissioners this morning for their recent decision to abandon the county’s ill-fated 2004 memorandum of understanding with the Cowlitz Tribe. He also urged the commissioners not to negotiate a new agreement. His comments follow:

I’m Ed Lynch, here today representing Citizens Against Reservation Shopping. On behalf of our organization, I want to thank you for your decision to return to compliance by abandoning Clark County’s court appeal and with it the 2004 Memorandum of Understanding with the Cowlitz Tribe.

I’m here today, too, to ask that you leave that trouble-plagued document behind and not negotiate another. It’s hard to understand that you would, since this Board opposes a casino. As you know, BIA’s senior gaming official, George Skibine, told CARS directly last year that having no MOU attached to the Cowlitz application would likely be a “deal breaker” for the casino.

And why not? With the County, La Center, City of Vancouver, Woodland, along with others on record as opposing the Casino, there is no way that the federal government would proceed. Add to that, the tribe’s complete failure after three years to show any Cowlitz geographical, historical or cultural presence of significance below Kelso and the developers will be looking for a new home where they belong in Lewis County or northern Cowlitz County.

You can make the casino go away. If you are leaders, LEAD. If you should sign an agreement it will serve as a signal to the BIA of the county’s willingness to work with the developers to site a casino. Don’t do it unless you truly desire a casino in Clark County.

Although many area agencies were harshly critical of the Cowlitz Final Environmental Impact Statement, no local government was more direct in its condemnation of the Cowlitz FEIS than Clark County. Yet the Cowlitz Tribe’s response to the county’s concerns was to ignore them and pretend they didn’t exist. After the thousands of staff hours the county expended on the EIS, surely you wouldn’t negotiate another MOU without first getting tribal developers to seriously address the environmental and socio-economic issues the county’s experts raised time and again without recognition. Take as one example, the I-5 traffic problem. How can you negotiate on a new MOU without an independent, thorough, statistical analysis of traffic across the bridge; and the impact of a casino on that traffic, by a well regarded traffic consultant?

In April of last year, this board conducted three hearings around the county to elicit ideas for another MOU. More than 100 citizens turned out to speak—more than 70 percent of those speaking delivered two distinct messages to the county: They didn’t want an MOU, and they didn’t want a casino.

Gentlemen, I hope to God that we, the opposition to the scam, will prevail, and I believe we will. But, I also pray that you will actively join us and do your part to secure, maintain and advance our collective communities’ superior standard of living.

Ding-dong! The MOU is dead!

Clark County’s commissioners have finally let go of the county’s 2004 memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Cowlitz Tribe.

The MOU was invalidated in 2007, but the county had appealed that ruling. On Wednesday the board voted unanimously to drop its appeal, which commissioners said they had pursued because they disagreed with the state’s involvement in the matter.

The county-tribe MOU was an abysmal document developed before the tribe’s developers had defined the nature of their project. The county was spooked into signing it prematurely, and the result is a document that would never come close to mitigating the problems a mega-casino would bring to Southwest Washington.

The good news is this: A high-level federal decision-maker told CARS that the absence of an MOU could be a deal breaker for the Cowlitz project, and the Department of the Interior has affirmed in a guidance memorandum that it looks for valid intergovernmental agreements in casino applications. (Dropping the appeal also frees the county to apply for low-interest state loans for public works, but that’s another story.)

The bad news is this: For many months the county has been in quiet negotiations with the tribe for a new MOU.

CARS is very concerned that a new MOU could send the message that public support for the proposed casino is growing. We discourage the county from further negotiations.

However, if the county, which passed a resolution against the casino in 2008, insists on pursuing a new MOU, CARS has a few stipulations to suggest:

• Any adjoining land the tribe or casino developers might purchase in addition to the 152 acres they currently seek for reservation and casino development must be subject to the terms of the new MOU.
• The tribe should guarantee that any payments it promises in lieu of property taxes (because if taken into trust, the land would be removed from the tax rolls) would be in lieu of taxes on the developed land.
• The tribe’s contribution to problem gambling assistance should be increased significantly from the $50,000 (enough maybe to fund one extra counselor) it offered in the 2004 MOU.

While we’re on the topic of problem gambling, here are a few additional terms (with thanks to the Muskogee Phoenix) for the commissioners to consider:

• The casino should be required to post the odds of winning on each machine.
• A notice should flash on the screen of the machines periodically telling players how long they have been playing and how much money they have lost.
• The casino should not be allowed to have an ATM machine or to cash checks.
• The casino should be required to send monthly statements detailing wins and losses to its players.

Make no mistake. This MOU is essential to the casino proposal, and the Cowlitz casino developers are the ones who need it the most.

Contact your commissioners. Congratulate them for killing the MOU—and encourage them to keep it dead.

Clark County Board of Commissioners: (360) 397-2232
Marc.Boldt@clark.wa.gov
Tom.Mielke@clark.wa.gov
Steve.Stuart@clark.wa.gov
boardcom@clark.wa.gov

Read today's Columbian story, "County drops defense of 2004 casino deal."

Cowlitz casino partner faces tough times

The Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut -- an investor in the Cowlitz Tribe’s casino proposal for nearly five years -- is reeling under a series of financial challenges.

For the past few quarters, its mother ship, the Mohegan Sun casino in Uncasville, Conn., has experienced significant declines in gambling revenue. In September the Mohegan Tribe put its $734 million casino expansion on hold. In November its credit rating took a hit when Moody’s Investors Service lowered it from Ba2 to B1, a rating indicating securities that “lack characteristics of a desirable investment.”

Then, in early January, the U.S. Department of the Interior rejected a casino proposal from the Mohegan Tribe’s Wisconsin-based partner, the Menominee Tribe. The Menominee and Mohegan tribes had been working together for at least six years in an effort to develop a $1 billion casino at Kenosha, Wis.

The next week, The Day newspaper out of Connecticut reported that Mohegan tribal and casino officials had “presented a sweeping plan to rein in costs in the face of declining casino revenues and dire economic forecasts.” It includes salary cuts for all 9,800 casino employees, suspended 401(k) matches, a reduction in number of employees, reduced casino profit distributions to tribe members and discontinued construction of an $80 million community center.

Despite its troubles at home, the Mohegan Tribe is continuing its uphill battle with the proposed Cowlitz casino and supporting the Menominee Tribe’s plans to fight the federal government for approval of its proposed casino.