{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://boebert.house.gov/media/press-releases/congresswoman-lauren-boebert-stands-ute-mountain-ute-tribe-and-defends-tribal", "Congresswoman Lauren Boebert Stands Up for Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and Defends Tribal Sovereignty and Property Rights", "2022-11-04", "2022", "2022-11", "Republican", "House", "CO", "Lauren Boebert", "B000825", "boebert.house.gov", "boebert", "https://boebert.house.gov/media/press-releases", "scraper", "Congresswoman Lauren Boebert led an effort supporting the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe by urging the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to reexamine their determination letter restricting the Tribe\u2019s efforts to restore tribal land.\n\nCongresswoman Lauren Boebert stated, \u201cThe Bureau of Indian Affairs\u2019 one-sided decision ignored the critical concerns of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. Instead of addressing the Tribe\u2019s particular concerns regarding reservation land holdings, they gave the Tribe the bureaucratic run-a-round and relied on other irrelevant factors to make their detrimental decision. I am urging the Bureau of Indian Affairs to reconsider its decision.\u201d\n\nUte Mountain Ute Tribal Council Chairman Manuel Heart said, \u201cWe really appreciate Congresswoman Boebert and her letter in supporting the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. We have met with DOI in the past through the Solicitor\u2019s office, and we feel that the Pinecrest Ranch is in Restricted Fee Status. Based on the original purchase of the Ranch and the settlement agreement with the Courts and the DOI. We went through the courts and there was a settlement agreement made on the mistake of ownership of the said Trust lands in New Mexico, between the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and the Navajo Tribe. These lands purchased should have been put into the records of Ute Mountain Ute Tribal ownership from Trust to Trust instead of restricted fee or the current status of Fee Land. Thank you.\u201d\n\nBackground:\n\nLeading an effort to clarify a Bureau of Indian Affairs decision regarding the Ute Mountain Ute Pinecrest Ranch in Gunnison, Congresswoman Lauren Boebert sent a congressional oversight inquiry to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.\n\nCongresswoman Lauren Boebert is actively working to advocate for Tribes in Colorado\u2019s Third Congressional District:\n\nIn a legislative provision signed in law, Congresswoman Boebert secured $10 million for the Indian Irrigation Fund to address the deferred maintenance backlog and increase water storage projects like the Southern Utes\u2019 Pine River Indian Irrigation Project.\n\nCongresswoman Boebert introduced the House companion to the bipartisan Dolores River National Conservation Area and Special Management Area Act, which protects tribal water rights and allows for the continued use of the area for agriculture and other uses.\n\nThe full text of Congresswoman Boebert\u2019s congressional oversight inquiry is available here and below:\n\nDear Secretary Haaland and Assistant Secretary Newland,\n\nI write in support of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe to request clarification of a June 9, 2022, letter to the Tribe by Patricia Mattingly, Regional Director of the USDI/BIA Southwest Regional Office. In this letter, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) asserts a determination that the parcels of land which comprise the Tribal-owned Pinecrest Ranch are \u201cunrestricted fee land not subject to Federal restrictions against alienation.\u201d This determination is contrary to the Ute Mountain Ute\u2019s position that their Pinecrest Ranch Parcel 1 property in Gunnison, Colorado is owned in fee but subject to Federal supervision and restrictions against alienation.\n\nI wish to raise several concerns regarding the BIA\u2019s determination. The Bureau\u2019s attempt to arbitrarily anchor Parcel 2 to Parcel 1 avoids a fair determination on Parcel 1 \u2013 which the Tribe purchased in trust to restore reservation lands. Rather than combining the parcels to tackle management challenges, the USDI/BIA should have taken a cooperative approach and facilitated a fair determination on the nature of Parcel 1. For example, it would likely be beneficial for the Tribe if they could simultaneously use and manage the reservation lands in Parcel 1 and be compensated for providing their own management (as permitted by Public Law 93-638). It goes without saying that the Bureau\u2019s one-sided review unfortunately ignored critical Tribe-centric details.\n\nThe June 2022 letter failed to examine facts as they existed when the Tribe purchased Pinecrest Ranch, the various legal implications of the BIA\u2019s actions at Pinecrest Ranch, and the trust relationship and consultation \u2013 as well as interpretations of current law \u2013 regarding restricted fee lands. Instead of addressing the Tribe\u2019s particular concerns regarding reservation land holdings, the Bureau of Indian Affairs focused far too much on arbitrary and tangential case examples. For example, in the Lummi Tribe case referenced by the BIA, the Lummi Tribe was trying to regain reservation lands lost through unintended consequence of stewardship practices and private property sales by their membership. This example is not comparable to Tribal land purchased\u2014such as the Pinecrest Ranch\u2014 to replace land taken by the federal government that the government was then unable to return.\n\nIn addition to finding fault with the BIA\u2019s logic in the determination letter, it is also concerning that the Bureau is effectively weaponizing the use of certain words and phrases to benefit the Bureau\u2019s apparent position. For example:\n\n1. Reacquired lands (page 1, \u204b 2, line 2): \u201cThe Tribe did not previously hold title to the property (e.g., it is not reacquired lands). . .\u201d This seems to imply that only property which was previously owned/titled to the Tribe can qualify as reacquired lands.\n\na. Anchoring reacquired lands to only those physical parcels previously owned by a Tribe would seem to disadvantage a Tribe whose previously owned parcels were lost by action of the federal government and can therefore never be reacquired.\n\nb. It\u2019s indisputable that tribes have the right to acquire land, including for the reason of reservation restoration. Such purchases should have the same rights as a land exchange when the property is purchased from the funds held in trust.\n\n2. Fee lands (page 3, \u204b 2, last line): \u201cAccordingly, the idea of restrictions on alienation with respect to fee land would not have been considered by Congress when passing the Non-Intercourse Act in 1834.\u201d In this and other statements, the BIA effectively justifies its position by citing its own opinion that fee land is not qualified for restrictions on alienation. A more substantive foundation from the BIA would be welcome.\n\na. The BIA\u2019s implication that the government\u2019s lack of foresight in the 1834 Act would exclude fee land from the restrictions on alienation is arguably contrary to the overall principle of tribal land restoration on which the 1834 Act was written.\n\nb. The BIA\u2019s effort to define fee land as inapplicable to restrictions on alienation is also contrary to the 1953 Act referenced in the BIA\u2019s letter, which clarified that purchased fee land will remain taxable.\n\nThe USDI/BIA have a duty to act in good faith and provide stewardship for the benefit of the Tribe and in honor of Tribal treaties. I request that you answer the following questions regarding the USDI/BIA process and approach in reaching their June 2022 determination:\n\n1. On page 4 the BIA states that, \u201c\u2026to the best of our knowledge, Pinecrest was not reacquired lands\u2026,\u201d which seems to indicate a lack of investigation. What effort did the USDI/BIA make to cooperate with and collect relevant information from the Tribe before reaching the June 2022 determination? (See April 29, 1874: Agreement with the Ute Indians in Colorado, Sections 3-5, which define the Secretary of Interior\u2019s responsibility to support, by review and investigation, and protect the Tribe in purchase of lands from funds held in trust.)\n\n2. Why did the USDI/BIA choose to render a decision after the purchase rather than support the Tribe by assembling a commission to assist them? (Ratified US government agreement with Ute Mountain Ute Tribe dated May 1, 1888, Section 4.)\n\n3. Is the USDI/BIA Southwest Regional office the appropriate venue and authority for making such an impactful determination, especially given this determination is contrary to the Tribe\u2019s position?\n\nThere appears to be a disturbing lack of support from the government toward the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe\u2019s general efforts to restore their Tribal lands. As the Member of Congress charged with representing all constituents of Colorado\u2019s Third Congressional District, I submit this letter with reminder of past promises to Tribes and the government\u2019s responsibility to serve the people, not rule over them. I do acknowledge Tribal and Federal government affairs are complex, and in recognition of that fact, voluntarily extend your duty to respond from 30 to 45 days. Thank you in advance for your review of these questions and concerns arising from the June 2022 letter from the BIA\u2019s Southwest Regional Office. I look forward to your answers and clarifications.\n\nSincerely,\n\nLauren Boebert\n\nMember of Congress", 1, "2026-03-30T01:40:41Z", "2026-04-08T03:24:37Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://boebert.house.gov/media/press-releases/congresswoman-lauren-boebert-stands-ute-mountain-ute-tribe-and-defends-tribal"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 0.8044538553804159, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}