HR-5682-119
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sponsored by Darrell Issa (R-CA)
What it does
This bill would transfer approximately 860 acres of Bureau of Land Management land in Riverside County, California, into federal trust status for the benefit of the Pechanga Band of Indians, making it part of the tribe's reservation. The land would be restricted to open space uses only, including protection of its archaeological, cultural, and wildlife resources. Gaming would be explicitly prohibited on the transferred land.
Who benefits
The Pechanga Band of Indians, a federally recognized tribe in Riverside County, California, would gain expanded reservation land and greater control over adjacent cultural and natural resources. Archaeologists and cultural preservation advocates would benefit from statutory protections for the land's archaeological sites. Wildlife conservation interests would benefit from the open space and habitat protections. Local and regional outdoor recreation users may benefit if open space access is maintained.
Who is hurt
Competing land users who currently access Bureau of Land Management land — such as off-road vehicle users, hunters, or recreational users — may lose access if the tribe restricts entry after the trust transfer. Neighboring landowners and local governments in Riverside County could be affected by the removal of land from the county tax base, as trust land is generally exempt from state and local property taxes. Businesses or developers with any interest in the BLM parcels would lose any future access to that land.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Pechanga Band has deep ancestral and cultural ties to this land, and that placing it in trust fulfills longstanding federal treaty and trust obligations to federally recognized tribes. They contend the bill's strict open space and no-gaming restrictions directly address concerns about commercial development, ensuring the land serves conservation and cultural preservation purposes rather than economic exploitation.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that taking land out of BLM administration removes it from public access and eliminates it from local government tax rolls, shifting costs onto Riverside County residents without their input. They contend that land-into-trust transfers bypass normal state and local land-use planning processes, reducing accountability for how the land is managed and potentially setting a precedent for further removals of public land from federal multi-use management.