HR-2302-119
Committee on Indian Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Sponsored by Tom McClintock (R-CA)
What it does
This bill would revoke a 1964 public land order and transfer approximately 265 acres of federal land in California — about 80 acres of Bureau of Land Management land and 185 acres known as Indian Creek Ranch — into trust status for the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians. The Secretary of the Interior would be required to complete the transfer within 180 days of enactment. The land would become part of the Tribe's reservation and could not be used for Class II or Class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
Who benefits
The Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians (Shingle Springs Rancheria, Verona Tract) would gain expanded reservation land held in federal trust, providing greater land security, potential for economic development, cultural preservation, and natural resource use. The Bureau of Indian Affairs would gain administrative jurisdiction over the land. Local and regional governments may benefit if the Tribe develops the land in ways that generate economic activity in El Dorado County, California.
Who is hurt
Current users of the BLM land — such as recreational users, hunters, hikers, or off-road vehicle users — may lose access to land that was previously open to the public. Neighboring landowners could be affected by changes in land use or jurisdiction. Local governments would lose any potential future tax revenue or land-use authority over the parcels, as trust land is generally exempt from state and local taxation and zoning. Competing interests, such as other parties who may have sought use of the BLM acreage, could be displaced.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this transfer corrects a historical inequity by restoring land to a federally recognized tribe that has a documented connection to the area, consistent with the federal government's trust responsibility to Indian tribes. They contend the explicit gaming prohibition addresses a common concern about land-into-trust transfers, and that expanding the Tribe's land base supports economic self-sufficiency and cultural preservation for a community with limited reservation acreage.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that converting public BLM land to trust status permanently removes it from the public domain, eliminating public access and local government land-use authority without a demonstrated, specific need tied to the particular parcels. They contend that the 180-day deadline may be insufficient for thorough environmental review and that the loss of local tax jurisdiction shifts costs onto surrounding communities and taxpayers who fund services near the expanded reservation.