Recognition that States, local governments and tribes must interact on a day-to-day basis has encouraged the development of intergovernmental agreements. Judicially enforcable working agreements that resolve jurisdictional or substantive disputes while recognizing each entity's sovereignty. These Memorandums of Understanding (MOU's) or Municiple Service Agreements (MSA's) have become a "device of necessity" for tribes and regional governments. Both groups have recognized the benefits of negotiated agreements for effective delivery of social services, economic development and resource protection.

In July of 2002, the California State Association of counties in conjunction with the California State Sheriffs Association and the California League of Cities released their Survey of tribal gaming impacts on County governments.  In 2002 there were 54 operational casinos maintained by 53 tribal governments in 34 of California's 58 counties.   Of the 34 Counties impacted by tribal gaming there were 78 tribal governments and only 18 local agreements to address mitigations. Only a handful of these agreements were comprehensive and address the concerns of the greater community.

Further the 2002 Survey indicated that Statewide Indian casinos had cost the counties more than $200 million in non-reimbursed road, water, sewage, and fire and law enforcement costs.  Tribal governments are not required to pay local or state taxes on its business or property.  Yet these governments use the services of their local jurisdictions transferring the cost of these services to the revenue pools of local governments.  County or city general funds are dependent on taxpayers, citizens and business that pay local and state tax.

The efforts of the Counties, Cities and the Sheriffs paid off in 2004 with the required component of judicially enforcable agreements in the amended tribal state compacts.  In 2006, both the California State Association of Counties and California League of Cities adopted a state policy on tribal gaming that established common ground upon which to begin negotiation of intergovernmental agreements. 

Today as we begin the year of 2009, the list of "judicially enforceable local agreements" continues to grow.  The 2004 re-negotiated compacts required the development of local agreements.  This component now appears to be a standard in any compact re-negotiation. Local agreements mitigate land use issues and services.  Issues and services which ensure the health and safety of the public such as law enforcement, fire and ambulance, and an equitable sharing of natural resources.

The "judicially enforceable local agreement" component requires a Tribal Environmental Impact Statement and the requirement to mitigate significant off-reservation impacts which affect the shared resources of the regional community. The required local agreements restore the voice of citizens who were previously left out of the decision process, as tribal governments decided what was best for the tribe only.

In the event that negotiations collapse the compacts provide an arbitration process. This is a necessary component which provides a solution to an impasse.  However, it is less desirable than working out differences over the practice of good planning principles and performing adequate due diligence.   

 

Current Agreements — by rr — last modified 01-05-09 01:56 PM