Executive Director, New Mexico Municipal League,
Santa Fe, N. Mex.

DEAR MR. RIDER: There is enclosed a statement concerning legislation relating to jurisdiction of Indian tribes and matters on which you will be testifying for the New Mexico Municipal League Friday, March 29, 1968 in Washington, D.C. Will you please deliver the attached statement from G. B. Robertson, City Manager of Albuquerque, relating to this city's particular position on this proposed legislation and explain to the committee that if further notice had been possible, members of the city governing body would have been present to testify in person.

Your courtesy in this matter will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

FRANK L. HORAN,
City Attorney.

A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, N. MEX., RELATIVE TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC LAW 83-280 RELATIVE TO INDIANS

We are very recently advised that there are several proposals now pending in Congress to amend Public Law 83-280 (67 Stat. 588) so that the State of New Mexico (or any other state) may not exercise jurisdiction over Indian country unless the Indian council or tribe consents to the jurisdiction. We understand a hearing on one of these bills will be Friday of this week, March 29. I am viewing the matter in its relationship to Albuquerque. There are three Indian pueblos near Albuquerque: Isleta on the south, Laguna on the west, and Sandia on the north. Sandia Pueblo is 10 miles from the northern City limits; the Isleta Pueblos is 10 miles from the south City limits; Laguna is 35 miles away.

The proposal would provide that neither state legislation nor city and county legislation would apply to Indians unless they took affirmative action to approve. It may be helpful to illustrate some of the possible points of disagreement. It has been proposed that a pulp mill be established on the Isleta Indian Reservation south of Albuquerque. The location in the Rio Grande Valley would assure distribution of the air pollutants throughout the Valley area of Bernalillo and Sandoval counties, and the well-known contaminants from the pulp mills would become part of the atmosphere in this area. If the proposals before Congress were enacted the City of Albuquerque could do nothing about it, nor could the State of New Mexico without the consent of the Isleta Tribe. The latter may hardly be expected to accept control where the financial inducements for tribal gain are so great.

Since the building of the Panama Canal, malaria control through mosquito abatement has been familiar to Americans. Along the Rio Grande Valley, mosquito breeding is a continuing hazard which has not been reduced in systematic fashion by unified efforts at control because of the overlapping governmental jurisdictions which extend along the river and the lack of authority in certain special service districts to utilize funds for such purpose. If the legislation is passed, the effort to unify the control over areas of this kind will be aborted by the power of the Isleta Pueblo in this area to refuse to accept the responsibility for doing their part in the tribal area.

Although discussion of the problems of industrialization in our Indian pueblos may appear speculative as of today, recent legislation enacted by Congress for the encouragement of industrialization in the hope of improving the lot of American Indians does provide economic inducements to manufacturers which will ultimately turn speculation into reality. When this occurs the other results of industrialization may be expected to follow. It is not hard to foresee that families working in or with such industries will have school children and that convenience will dictate the building of school facilities on tribal areas. We have already found in New Mexico that compulsory school attendance does not apply to the Indians; and one can easily foresee that this kind of differentiation will result in a denial to the Indian child of his right to an equal education, not because of the selfishness of the white man, but because of the existing restrictions on the enforcement of school attendance laws and the indifference of some tribal leaders to the need for education.

A food processing plant presently exists on one of the nearby Indian reservations. This plant, and others in the future, must depend on off-reservation sales, It is essential that any such food processing operation comply with all state and local laws relating to food sanitation, water supply, liquid and solid waste disposal, vermin control, labeling, weights and measures, etc.

The collection, transportation and disposal of solid wastes must be handled on an area-wide basis. Most governmental units are too small to economically handle this land pollution problem by themselves. The only solution lies in a cooperative, area-wide approach. The City of Albuquerque has just received a $65,000 United States Public Health Service planning grant to plan for effective solid waste disposal for the Middle Rio Grande Area from Bernalillo to Belen. This area includes the densely populated areas of two Indian reservations.

This metropolitan area shares problems of surface and sub-surface water resources and problems of water pollution control with nearby Indian reservations. Pollution producing activities on an Indian reservation may adversely affect the quality of this precious natural resource for all nearby or downstream private, municipal or industrial water users.

The Welfare Department of the State regards the Indian tribes as perhaps the most serious social problem matrix with which they have to deal. That this is so for obvious reasons need not be argued. However, if the proposed legislation is to be enacted, the attempts of the State to require actions which will take care of the dependent children, the sick and the disadvantaged will run head-on into the prohibition contained in the proposed legislation against action taken without a consent of the tribe.

Recently, in the metropolitan area of Albuquerque an initial attempt has been made to establish regional planning, and all agencies of the Federal Government responsible for administering programs of the Demonstration Cities Act of 1966 have insisted that the region must include the Indian pueblos I have mentioned, together with some surrounding areas. A council of governments has been established and has determined to invite the Indian tribes to participate in its government and operation. The proposed legislation can and will give a veto power to the tribal leaders on proposals made by the Council of Governments and will effectively interfere with regional planning.

That the doubts here expressed are not academic is demonstrated by the result of an effort by the Village of Espanola to annex a small part of the Santa Clara Indian Pueblo to the village and to impose its village one-cent sales tax on sales made by the supermarket which leases land from the Indians there. The Supreme Court of New Mexico in 1961 ruled that the tribe is a political entity over which the village can exercise no jurisdiction. Your Food Stores v. Village of Espanola, 68 N.M. 327, 361 P. 2d 950. As a result, the merchants in the shopping center have an advantage over other merchants "across the street" and the village is supplying services to an area which is not contributing its fair share to the community.

A further illustration of the kinds of controversies which have already occurred is the case of Batchelor v. Charley, 74 N.M. 717, 398 P. 2d 49 (1965). There the creditor brought suit on a promissory note against an Indian who lived not on the reservation but on land leased from the United States under the Taylor Grazing Act. The Supreme Court of New Mexico followed the rule announced by the Supreme Court of the United States in Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60, 82 S.Ct. 562, 7 L.Ed.2d 573 and ruled against the debtor.

Again, in 1966, a native of New Mexico ran over an Indian on a highway running through an Indian reservation. The survivors sued for civil damages and the defendant asserted that the law of New Mexico does ont apply to tortious conduct on an Indian reservation. The Supreme Court of New Mexico overruled the defense. Paiz v. Hughes, 76 N.M. 562, 417 P.2d 51.

These cases, and others not reviewed here, demonstrate how jurisdictional barriers are used to interfere with tax administration, contract performance, and tort liability sometimes with success and sometimes not. The proposed legislation will increase these barriers and build a wall around the Indian. What is intended to protect him will but isolate him. It is directly contrary to our present momentum by which the Indian and other minorities are taking their rightful place in the civilization of the Twentieth Century.

Although this statement has been formulated by the City Manager of Albuquerque and his professional staff, it embodies the conclusions on policy matters which have been reached by the governing body, that is, the City Commission of Albuquerque.

Respectfully submitted.

GARLAN B. ROBERTSON,
City Manager.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Clarence Acoya, executive director, New Mexico Commission on Indian Affairs. Mr. Acoya, we are glad to have you before the committee. Do you have a written

statement?

STATEMENT OF CLARENCE ACOYA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NEW MEXICO COMMISSION ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

Mr. ACOYA. Yes, sir; I do. Honorable Chairman and members of the committee, I have a statement from the Governor of the State of New Mexico in behalf of the Indian pueblos. I wish to read the statement, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Mr. ACOYA. A statement in behalf of the 19 Pueblo Indians of New Mexico.

Mr. MEEDS. Do we have copies? You do not have a copy?

Mr. ACOYA. No, sir; I do not. I just got this this morning.
The CHAIRMAN. He can read it and we will pass it around.

Mr. ACOYA. Thank you.

I am asking Clarence Acoya, Executive Director for New Mexico Commission on Indian Affairs to convey my support in the direction expressed by the letter of transmittal and resolution adopted by the All-Indian Pueblo Council of New Mexico.

The resolution expresses concern for sections of Title I and II of S. 1843, where in the opinion of the All-Indian Pueblo Council, constitutes an invasion upon their inherent authority to administer justice within the scope of their governmental organizations and a threat to the total way of self-government justified as being sovereign.

It has been my understanding, through my contact and association with the Pueblo Indian entities in the State of New Mexico, that their people have always had the basic guarantees of freedoms parallel to those found in our own Bill of Rights.

I would appreciate your consideration for revision of those sections in the bill so that the Pueblo people are not threatened in the direction of undue hardship leading to a breakdown in their systems.

It is my sincere desire that the Indian citizenry of New Mexico work out a system conducive to continued good working relationships with all our citizens in order that we continue the harmony for the sake of a meaningful development in the direction of progress for all. Thank you for the opportunity to convey this message. David F. Cargo, Governor of the State of New Mexico.

The CHAIRMAN. We have a statement that was presented as a part of Mr. Montoya's statement; but it was not put in the record, because it did not show that it was signed. At least I could not see that my copy was signed.

Now, this is all very well and good but what position does the Governor take on this legislation at the present time? Is he for the Indian rights bill as it is presented in Senate bill 1843, House bill 15122, and House bill 15419, or is his position that he wants a closer consideration of titles I and II of the Senate bill 1843?

Mr. ACOYA. Yes, sir. This is it. He is in favor of supporting the Pueblo Indians in the revision or what they are asking under titles I and II, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

The gentleman from Washington?

Mr. MEEDS. Just a preliminary question. Are you representing the Governor here? Do you speak for him in all respects on this matter? Mr. ACOYA. Yes, sir; on Indian matters.

Mr. MEEDS. Where is the State of New Mexico with regard to their constitutional revision or whatever is necessary to acquire jurisdiction under 280?

Mr. ACOYA. They have never entertained the matter, sir. As a matter of fact, under the Constitution, of course, a disclaimer is this, that the State will never assume jurisdiction over Indian lands unless it is either revised, the Constitution is revised through referendum or by a constitutional vote.

Mr. MEEDS. And is that being proposed at all at the present time? Mr. ACOYA. No, sir; never has.

Mr. MEEDS. So that the positions taken by former witnesses that the prevalence arising from the lack of jurisdiction by communities and by States, there does not appear to be much relief in sight for them at the present time by the State taking jurisdiction, does there?

Mr. ACOYA. No, sir. That is true.

Mr. MEEDS. If you-and speaking for the Governor-if the State of New Mexico was to take jurisdiction, would it be your position that the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution should not apply to Indians living on reservations?

Mr. ACOYA. If the State did take jurisdiction?

Mr. MEEDS. Right.

Mr. ACOYA. I think his position is that he supports that the Bill of Rights apply with the exception of titles I and II be worked out so that it would be conducive to continued good relationship with the Indian pueblos.

Mr. MEEDS. Are you aware that title I is, in effect, a granting of the first 10 amendments to Indians on reservations?

Mr. ACOYA. Sir, I did not get the question.

93-452-68- 7