Document Actions

CRIT: Colorado River Indian Tribe

Up one level
Feb. 5, 2014: Reply form Judicial Council
CRIT tribal lands listed on judicial council web site is incorrect.
May 13, 2013: CRIT Requires Business Lic. of Business outside of Res.
 
March 21, 2013: Tuttle v. Secretary of the Interior Salazar
Lease dispute
Feb. 15, 2013: Riverside Sheriff Responds to Rio Loco Resident
 
Dec. 18, 2012: IBIA Ruling on Tuttle
 
July 29, 2011: CRIT v Blythe Boat Club
Brief Concerning pro se Representation
July 29, 2011 CRIT v French to Judge King.pdf
 
June 10, 2011: Water Wheel Camp v. CRIT
A tribal court system exercised jurisdiction over a non- Indian (Water Wheel Camp) a closely held corporation and its non-Indian owner (Bob Johnson) in an unlawful detainer action for breach of a lease of tribal lands and trespass. It entered judgment in favor of the tribe. It should be strongly noted that the question over the ownership of the land was NOT permitted to be asked - this judgement does not decide the western boundary of the CRIT Reservation, only CRIT's tribal court jurisidiction over Mr. Johnson due to a lease.
Reclamation Withdrawn lands
MAP produced by the Bureau of Reclamations. This map identifies all lands withdrawn by Public Land Orders authorized under the Congressional Act of 1902 and most recent corrections 1997. The land is in the name of the USA, it is not in trust and there is no congressional act identifying a reservation.
June 6, 2011: Blythe Boat Club Notice of Appeal
and Petition of Appeal
May 10, 2011: Larry Ward County of Riverside - Tax Assessor
Response to Stand Up For California PRA request. What is the status of the land along the River?
Riverside County PRA Acknowledgment.pdf
 
May 4, 2011: CGCC Response to Stand Up For California
The CGCC responds to the new information provided by Stand Up For California regarding the payment of RSTF funds to a tribe with more than 350 slot machines.
April 13, 2011: Incident Report - Tresspass
 
April 1, 2011 Letter to CGCC - CRIT RSTF
Stand Up For California wishes to provide you with new information regarding payments from the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund (RSTF) to the Colorado River Indian Tribe (CRIT). It appears to us that recent events pertaining to whether or not the CRIT has Indian lands in California are of import to the CGCC. Thus, we are supplying you with the accompanying information, and suggest that you may wish to reconsider the Commission’s methodology for determining a Non-Compact Tribe.
March 31, 2011: Tuttle Motion
The Attorney General of the colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT) was formally advised some two and one half years ago that the Stae of California has concluded that no land on the West Bank of the colorado River is within CRIT's reservation.
March 31, 2011: Water Wheel Files Claim for Damages against Riverside County
The former Secretary of Legal Affairs letter has provided additional evidence of State authority and jurisdiction over the land.
March 7, 2011: U.S. Dept. of Justice Responds to Congresswoman Bono-Mack
 
February 24, 2011: DOI responds to Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack
How does this get around the 1999 U.S. Supreme Court Stipulated Judgement that all parties signed and agreed the land is in dispute? Is the BIA ignoring the Supreme Court, again?
March 2, 2009: AG Shepard Responds to Andrea Hoch
CRIT Responds to Article in Gaming Legal News March 25, 2011 Recently, a newsletter published by Dickinson Wright, the law firm representing Robert Johnson and Water Wheel Camp Recreation Area, Inc., published an article which mischaracterizes correspondence from the former Governor of the State of California’s Legal Affairs Secretary to the Colorado River Indian Tribes and ignores the Tribe’s response to that correspondence. We invite the public to review both the September 12, 2008 letter from the former Legal Affairs Secretary to the Colorado River Indian Tribes as well as the Tribe’s March 2, 2009 response. Despite Dickinson Wright’s characterizations to the contrary, the Letter from the former Legal Affairs Secretary does not express the position of the State of California, rather it asks the Tribe for its position with regard to the impact of federal legislation from 1902, 1904 and 1911. It is important to note that neither the former Legal Affairs Secretary nor the former Governor of California ever indicated any disagreement with the Tribe’s March 2. 2009 response. IT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO NOTE - THERE IS NO COMPACT WITH THE STATE AND NO CRIT CASINO ON CALIFORNIA LANDS.
Sept. 12, 2008: Governor's Letter to Eric Shepard, AG CRIT
CRIT’S LONG-STANDING CLAIM TO CALIFORNIA LAND WAS NEVER DISCLOSED
Feb. 7, 2011 Holt Group Review of CRIT Lands
 
Feb. 8, 2011: Order Granting Acceptance of Amicus Briefs
 
Jan. 1. 2011: Ltr. to Court from Law Offices of Janov
Oral aruments can move forward
Feb. 3, 2011: Court Order Denies Water Wheel a Reply to U. S. Amicus Brief
 
Jan. 7, 2011: Water Wheel Letter to Court
Regarding unfortunate and untimely death of CRIT lead attorney
Jan. 2011: Water Wheel Appeal date set
Feb. 17, 2011, San Francisco
Dec. 22, 2010: Tuttle Brief
Land is not part of the CRIT Reservation nor is it in Trust
October 4, 2010: Notice to Quit
President of West Bank Homeowners association is served a notice to quit
Sept. 2010: BBC Reply’s to CRIT Tribal Court
 
Sept. 30, 2010: Motion of Opposition to Opposition of Tribal Parties
Tribe opposed Water Wheels responds to the U.S. Amicus Brief
Sept. 21, 2010: BLM Responds to Stand Up For California
 
Sept. 10, 2010: Water Wheel Reply to United States Amicus Curiae
 
Sept. 3, 2010: Reply in Support of Writ of Restitution
 
Sept. 2, 2010: Motion to File Emergency reply
 
August 31, 2010: Ltr. Director Bishop BLM
"...our organization wishes to express serious concerns over the limited character and method of procedure for the cadastral survey of the “disputed area”. It appears the purpose of this survey is to provide the Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT) with a manageable western boundary of its reservation. However, the instructions are inapplicable. This is explained below. Additionally, serious questions of CRIT’s jurisdiction over the land within the survey area are currently before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as well as the Interior Board of Indian Affairs (IBIA). "
August 26, 2010: Lt-Federal Actions affecting Boundary Dispute
 
August 25, 2010 Tuttle Briefing Schedule
 
August 23, 2010: Blythe Boat Club Reply to CRIT
Blythe Boat Club is a non-profit organization with 100 members and their families, has been at its present location for over 63 years. We provide unlimited access to the river for the Riverside County Sheriff Department, Bureau of Reclamation, and Department of Fish and Game to name a few. Attached please find our letter of response to the CRIT along with a copy of the CRIT: Notice to Quit Premises, a copy of our Record of Survey recorded with the County of Riverside and the letter from The Holt Group addressing their discovery
August 23, 2010: Public Acts Request of Riverside County
 
August 18, 2010: William C. Tuttle Appeal
 
August 12 2010: CRIT to Blythe Boat Club
Eviction Action
August 12, 2010: Water Wheel Reply Brief
 
August 9, 2010: Congresswoman Bono-Mack to Salazar and Holder
 
August 1, 2010: WBHA letter to Congresswoman Bono-Mack
The determination included in the DOJ letter remains consistent with the position asserted by the Department of the Interior since the infamous '69 Secretarial Order. However, there are gross deceptions and distortion of facts that I would like to address here. The single most offensive factual distortion in the letter is the contention that the '69 Secretarial Order established a meander line western boundary for the full 25 miles of "west bank" from Riverside Mountain to the La Paz Arroyo. The fact is that Secretary Udall only used the Benson Survey for the northern 2/3 of the western boundary. The southern 1/3 (8 miles) is not the meander line, not the Benson Survey, but riparian according to the Dept. of the Interior. The reason for this deception is explained below.
July 29, 2010: Riverside Sheriff On CRIT Law Enforcement Officers
Letter to CRR4J Board Member
Riverside County Document - Cites California Lands
Page 1-5 Riverside County Policy as it pertains to the handling of our specific situation Page 6 Email from Lieutenant Hubbard as to California’s Eviction Process Page 7 Memo from Joe Rank – Riverside County Counsel Page 8 Law Citation that states Indian Lands in California will adopt California Law Page 9-10 Potentially Applicable Landlord Tenant Laws
July 20, 2010: Diversion of State Money CRIT
The language of the compact is plain and direct. "Federally recognized tribes that are operating fewer than 350 Gaming Devices are Non Compact Tribes." There is no language stating on which side of a State boundary the gaming devices must be. There is no language that states there must be jurisdiction over the gaming devices. It is a request for a number, a verifiable number. CRIT has 475 gaming devices; Fort Mojave has 1,100 gaming devices, verifiable in the Tribes' Arizona Tribal State Compact or through the Arizona Department of Gaming.
July 20, 2010: The Lower Colorado River Land Use Plan Summary
The Report is available below - it was issued by the U.S. Dept. of the Interior in 1964. The plan intended to lease the lands in question to Riverside County to manage the development of commercial and recreational facilities. All State Laws, i.e. CEQA were to apply. Conflicts were to be resolved in Local Courts.
2010.07.19 to LT WOOD_001.pdf
 
July 19, 2010: Tuttle IBIA - agency action
BIA inserts itself to terminate a lease in good standing - without authority to do so.
June 18, 2010: WBHOA-to-Chairman-Enas
Clarifications
July 13, 2010 WBHA ltr Sup Benoit
 
July 2010: Survey of Blythe Yacht Club (Filed 7-19-1948)
The purpose of this record of survey is to establish and monument the property described in instrument No. 2399 and filed in BK 995 PG 370 Recorded 7-19-1948 Official Records of Riverside County.
June 30, 2010: Letter to Riverside Cap. Vigue
Why has the policy of the Riverside Sheriff changed?
June 28, 2010: Water Wheel's reply brief
 
June 14 2010 CGCC Number of Gaming Devices.pdf
The Compacts created a framework where certain tribes (Compact Tribes operating "Gaming Devices" pursuant to licenses drawn from the license pool) would pay into the RSTF and others (Non-Compact Tribes) would receive money from the RSTF. Within this framework, "Non-Compact Tribe(s)" and "Gaming Devices" must only be considered to the extent that they are in the State of California. Your reference to an older device certification form (CGCC-C2005.02) impliedly makes this clear. Simply put, California has no jurisdiction over "Gaming Devices" in other states nor do the Compacts speak to limiting payments based on "Gaming Devices" in other states.
June 7, 2010: 2.2 Million Improper Diversion of State Money.pdf
 
May 27, 2010: Trespass Notice
CRIT is expanding its eviction process to include numerous residents along the River.
May 24, 2010: United States Amicus v. Water Wheel
 
May 21, 2010: CRIT- Amicus v Water Wheel
 
April 22, 2010: New Briefing Schedule
For the 9th Circuit
May 14, 2010: Water Wheel v CRIT
 
May 11, 2010: Riverside Sheriff Sub Station Expense
The Colorado River substation was budgeted 5.1 million dollars 2008/2009, however the actual cost of service to the taxpayers is another question. The Station handled 5299 service calls.
March 23 2010 EPA to Water Wheel.pdf
 
March 17, 2010 : MEMO to Riverside County
 
March 9, 2010: Letter to County Counsel Riverside
 
Oct. 23, 2009: Notice of Appeal re Water Wheel by Plaintiffs
 
Oct. 22, 2009:Notice of Appeal re Water Wheel by Defendants
 
Oct. 15, 2009: Brief Summary of CRIT Land Dispute
 
Oct. 6, 2009: Water Wheel responds to court decision"
PALO VERDE TIMES NEWS October 6, 2009
Oct. 3, 2009: WHAT THE FEDERAL COURT DID, AND DID NOT, DO ON THE WATER WHEEL LITIGATION
 
Sept. 29, 2009: Court speaks- CRIT and Residents see judgment differently
John Wright · Tuesday, September 29, 2009 Parkerville News
Sept. 22, 2009: Water Wheel Camp Recreation Area Inc. Robert Johnson v. Honorable Gary La Rance
On September 23, 2009, we received a ruling from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The Judge ruled that the CRIT Tribal Court had no jurisdiction over Robert Johnson personally, and ordered that the judgment against him in the tribal litigation is null and void. He ordered that portion of the Tribal Court judgment vacated and specifically directed CRIT to pursue no further action against Robert Johnson. In short, CRIT cannot take any action against Robert Johnson which is associated with his presence at Water Wheel Resort, or its operations. However, the court concluded that there was Tribal Court jurisdiction over Water Wheel Resort because it had operated under the Lease for 32 years and was by this time a holdover tenant. However, there is no execution of judgment provision in the Federal Order, meaning that CRIT currently does not have authority to evict Water Wheel. With this, it seems clear that CRIT cannot evict Water Wheel Resort unless it first obtains an Order of Eviction from a state court. However, filing such an action constitutes a tribal waiver of sovereign immunity, which in turn would establish a legal right by Water Wheel Resort to defend the suit on the issues associated with the boundary issue -- including that the land is not held in trust and it is not within the Colorado River Indian Reservation. The federal laws prohibiting the CRIT Reservation from expanding into California would be fair game in that litigation.
August 6, 2009: Federal Court Order
United States District Judge Campbell requests additional briefing from parties. He wishes to consider the merits of this action to determine if CRIT tribal court has jurisdiction over the Public Domain lands in California (not in trust and not part of the reservation) that has been leased to non tribal citizens by the United States Department of the Interior. Briefs are due August 21, 2009.
July 16, 2009: BLM Order # Group 1584
Instructions for resurvey and posting of signs for the Western Boundary of the Colorado River Indian Reservation - This is troubling as there has been no congressional legislation or court ruling to resolve the western boundary as required in the 1999 Settlement Agreement in the Az v CA court ruling. (as of 3-2010)
June 2009: CGCC responds to CRIT's Eligibility for RSTF Monies
 
March 27, 2009: Water Wheel Camp Recreational Area v Hon. Gary Larance, CRIT
Seeks declaration that no tribal jurisdiction exists over Water Wheel or Robert Jonson and declares Tribal Court has no jurisdiction over Water Wheel or Robert Johnson in the Tribal Court Action or any subsequent action arising from a dispute under the Water Wheel's Lease.
March 2009: Carcieri Decision Impacts
 
Feb. 2009 Letter to Riverside County Counsel
 
Feb. 2009: Reply from SOI to Stand Up For California
 
October 2008: Stand Up For California Request for formal investigation
 
2008: Letter Campaign
All elected officials agree the land is in dispute.
Oct. 2008: Stand Up For California to Riverside County
Questions regarding disputed area and County jurisdiction
Sept. 2008: Colorado River Citizens For Justice to CGCC
INQUIRY AS TO ELIGIBILITY OF THE COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBE (CRIT) TO RECEIVE REVENUE SHARING TRUST FUND (RSTF) MONIES AS A NON-COMPACT TRIBE
June 16, 2008: US DOJ to Congresswoman Mary Bono
 
Feb. 22, 2008: Congresswoman Bono Mack to US Attorney
 
May 27, 2007: Western Boundary Dispute
Prepared by
April 5, 2006: CRIT ltr to Congressman Maze
CRIT states that Big River is within the CRIT Reservation - See Master Lease signed in 1964 -- this is BLM land leased to the CRIT
Oct. 2006: Colorado River Residents for Justice
CRIT Boundary Dispute AZ v. California Settlement Agreement explained
May 23, 2006: Stand Up For California to the City of Blythe
Stand Up For California writes to this honorable Council today to alert you to serious questions regarding the validity and enforceability of the Municipal Service Agreement (MSA) between the City of Blythe (City) and the Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT).
May 2006: Stand Up For California Request of the Governor
Certification of CRIT California Indian lands and verification of status as a non compact tribe
April 27, 2006: Governor to Mr. French
We have carefully reviewed your proposal to address the land dispute between residents in the area and the Tribe to satisfy the independent public policy criteria outlined in the Governor's Proclamation. While we appreciate the homeowners' situation and understand that resolution of the land dispute would greatly benefit the residents in your association, we do not believe that resolution of the land dispute alone substantially serves an independent public policy that would warrant the Governor's consideration of a Section 20 concurrence for the Tribe. Moreover, any increased economic benefits to the County would not satisfy the independent public policy criteria.
May 5, 2005: MSA between the City of Blythe and CRIT
 
Feb.5, 2004 WBHA ltr to Wilson - Attachment to July 2010 Letter
 
June 19, 2000 AZ v CA Ruling
 
March 4, 1999, memorandum in Support of Joint Motion to Recommend approval of Stipulation and Agreement
A Feb. 23, 1999 Stipulation and Agreement in the Arizona v. California case (Arizona III) The Settlement Agreement at page three provides: “C. Disputed Boundary the parties agree not to seek adjudication in this phase of the litigation of the validity, correctness, or propriety of the January 17, 1969 Order of the Secretary of the Interior. Western Boundary of the Colorado River Indian Reservation from the tip of Riverside Mtn. Through section 12 T.5 S., R23 E SBM CA. No 90-1-5-668, 41-54 (1969 Secretarial Order – (this should be solicitor opinion)) The united States, but not the other parties to this Stipulation and Agreement, agree that the lands described in the 1969 Secretarial Order, are included within the Reservation set aside by the Executive Order of May 15, 1876 and are held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Tribes. The State of California disagrees, and expressly reserves the right the challenge the validity, correctness, and propriety of the 1969 secretarial Order.”
Jan. 1999: US. Supreme Court Memo in support of Jt. Motion
This motion recommends approval of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, signed by Attorneys for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Feb. 23, 1999: Stipulation and Agreement
Includes signatures of all affected parties.
1-1997 West Bank HM v CRIT.pdf
 
Feb. 8, 1997: CRIT Agenda on Settlement Agreement
 
1997: Public Lands Order
A clean up order for withdrawal of lands needed by the Bureau of Reclamation
April 3, 1996: U.S. DOI to Congressman Bono
 
October 30, 1995: Attorney Lindskog to Congressman Bono
 
LtFromCongress1996.pdf
 
Sept. 20, 1993: Memo Order 14, by Special Master Frank J. McGarr
Concludes: The Executive Order of 1876 which is controlling in this dispute, established the western boundary of the Colorado River Indian Reservation as a riparian boundary and not as a fixed line.
1986: First American Title Company
Lease on Colorado River Indian Reservation - Rio Loco Ranch RIV - 1707487-RJ
NEW: March 31, 1983: Final Interagency Agreement BR & BLM
This agreement is the result of over 3 years of intensive negotiations and reviews by the Washington office staffs and several reviews by the field staffs. The agreement provides for cooperative efforts between Reclamation and BLM which should improve the efficiency of land management, enable reimbursement for services rendered to each other, improve management of intermingled lands, and provide for the exchange of a wide range of specific services. The provisions of this agreement should be implemented immediately in dealing with the BLM. Attached documents are the Congressional Authorizing Statutes and Public Land Orders.
March 1983: AZ v CA Motions for Reccomended Decree
Articulates the State's, the US DOJ and the Tribal positions
NEW: 1976:Congress creates - California Desert Conservation Area
As soon as practicable after October 21, 1976, the Secretary shall file a revised map and a legal description of the California Desert Conservation Area with the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States Senate and the House of Representatives, and such map and description shall have the same force and effect as if included in this Act. Correction of clerical and typographical errors in such legal description and a map may be made by the Secretary. To the extent practicable, the Secretary shall make such legal description and map available to the public promptly upon request.
Lt2DeptIntDenham1975.pdf
 
USvDenJudgement1974.pdf
 
USDOJSettlement1974.pdf
 
1974: US v Lonesome Valley Land and Cattle Co.
Judgement While the BBC is not a party to the case, its land is identified as within the Reservation
1969 DOI Memorandum.PDF
 
1969: Solicitors Opinion on Western Boundary
 
March 30, 1966 US DOJ to Congressman Udall
The meander line
1964: PL 88-302 Leasing Lower Colorado River Lands Requirements
House and Senate Reports in Releated Items: SEC. 5. The Act of June 11, 1960 (74 Stat. 199), as amended by the Act of September 5, 1962 (76 Stat. 428), is amended to read as follows: "The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to approve leases of lands on the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Arizona and California, for such uses and terms as are authorized by the Act of May 11, 1938 (52 Stat. 347; 25 U. S. C. 396a et seq.), and the Act of August 9, 1955 (69 Stat. 539), as amended (25 U. S. C. 415 et seq.) including the same uses and terms as are permitted thereby on the Agua Caliente (Palm Springs), Dania, Navajo, and Southern Ute Reservations: Provided, however, That the authorization herein granted to the Secretary of the Interior shall not extend to any lands lying west of the Page 1005 present course of the Colorado River and south of section 25 of township 2 south, range 23 east, San Bernardino base and meridian in California, and shall not be construed to affect the resolution of any controversy over the location of the boundary of the Colorado River Reservation: Provided further, That any of the described lands in California shall be subject to the provisions of this Act when and if determined to be within the reservation."
NEW: Jan. 1964: The Lower Colorado River Land Use Plan
The Lower Colorado River Land Use Plan is a far reaching program for conservation and recreation development along 265 miles of the Lower Colorado River, encompassing both banks of the river from the southern edge of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area to the Mexican border. See related items below for details of land use and status. Maps.
Feb. 1964 Master Lease for River Front land in San Bernardino
The BLM land was leased to the BIA, CRIT and a Nevada LLC in 1964. This is a 65 year lease.
March 12, 1963: Interstate Compact AZ and CA
Part 1, defining the boundary between the State of California and Arizona.
March 12, 1963: Interstate Compact AZ and CA
Part 2, Exhibits - Defining the boundary between the State of California and Arizona.
1937 Secretarial Order
 
Dec. 5, 1960: AZ v CA Special Master Rifkind Report
Part Two: Pages 269 - 278 Riparian Boundary
1904 Act - Diminish Reservation Lands
 
1876 Executive Order defines Reservation Boundaries
 
1865 Act creates CRIT Arizona Reservation
 
March 3, 1865 Act (13 Stat 559), EOs by US Grant.pdf
The Act of March 3, 1865, is actually an appropriations law providing sums of money for various Indian services throughout the U.S. Each section appears to provide funds for services in a particular region. The CRIT provision appears in the section dealing with “Indian Service in the Territory of Arizona.” (See Attachment). In this section, every sentence contains a limitation on funds and lands for Indians in Arizona, not California. This puts the intent of Congress in context, though the plain language of the sentence establishing the CRIT reservation leaves no room for doubt. Included are all three of U.S. Grants EO’s. All declare that the EO’s are issued pursuant to the Act of 1865. The first EO issued in 1873 correctly provides for a reservation within only Arizona. The second and third, however, drop the Arizona limitation while including a boundary description encompassing lands in California. I doubt the omission of the Arizona limitation in the last two EO’s was an oversight. It seems President Grant was knowingly exceeding the limits placed on him in the Act of 1865.

Personal tools