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.
[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.
