HR-8483-119
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Sponsored by Darrell Issa (R-CA)
What it does
This bill would transfer approximately 836 acres of federal land in San Diego County, California — across three parcels — into trust status for the benefit of the Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians. The land would become part of the Tribe's reservation and be administered under standard federal Indian trust law. The bill explicitly prohibits gaming on the transferred land and preserves existing public access rights, water agreements, easements, and emergency access for federal agencies.
Who benefits
The Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians, who would gain expanded reservation land and the legal protections that come with federal trust status. The Tribe's members would benefit from increased land base for cultural, residential, agricultural, or conservation uses. Neighboring communities and the general public would retain existing recreational and scenic access to trails and roads on the land. Federal land management agencies (BLM and Forest Service) would retain emergency access rights.
Who is hurt
San Diego County and California would lose property tax revenue on the transferred parcels, as trust land is generally exempt from state and local taxation. Neighboring landowners or recreational users who rely on current access arrangements could face new tribal regulations governing that access, even though existing rights are preserved. Any private parties holding permits or leases on the land would be subject to tribal jurisdiction going forward. Competing land users or developers who might otherwise seek to acquire or use the parcels would lose that opportunity.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Barona Band was relocated to its current reservation in the 1930s after being displaced from its ancestral lands, and that this transfer represents a modest restoration of land to a federally recognized tribe with a documented historical connection to the area. They contend that the bill's explicit prohibitions on gaming and its preservation of public access, water rights, and emergency easements address the most common concerns about land-into-trust transfers, making this a carefully scoped and responsible action.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that removing land from the county tax base shifts the fiscal burden of local services — roads, emergency response, schools — onto remaining taxpayers without compensation, a recurring concern with land-into-trust transfers nationwide. They contend that even with preserved access rights, placing land under tribal jurisdiction creates regulatory uncertainty for neighboring property owners and recreational users, and that such transfers should go through the standard administrative process at the Department of the Interior rather than being legislated parcel-by-parcel by Congress.