A decades-long battle over nearly 9,500 acres in Oklahoma is coming to a head in Washington, D.C.
Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) secured a provision in the farm bill that would prohibit the transfer of the land, which currently houses a USDA research facility and contains significant oil and gas reserves, “except as specifically authorized by law.”
Part of Fort Reno is home to the Oklahoma Central Plains Agricultural Research Center (formerly the Rangeland Research Institute), a USDA facility that Lucas calls “one of the crown jewels of our nation’s agricultural research facilities.”
The provision could eliminate the need to extend the relocation moratorium in future farm bills and pave the way for expanded agricultural and climate research, but it has also raised concerns within the USDA and among leaders of the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes, who have fiercely asserted ownership rights to the land dating back more than 150 years.
A USDA spokesperson told The Hill that Governor Lucas’ rule “is a move that ignores decades of tribes’ hard work and hundreds of years of tribal history.”
“USDA recognizes that land transfers are complex, but is committed to finding long-term workable solutions with tribes,” a USDA spokesperson said.
Cheyenne and Arapaho Gov. Reggie Wassana told The Hill that when he last met with Lucas in 2021, he “begged him to support us.”
“Anyone who puts forward a bill that says the land won’t be returned doesn’t seem to be making an effort to work with tribes,” Wassana said.
Since 2002, every version of the Farm Bill, the massive package of legislation governing food and agriculture programs passed by Congress roughly every five years, has included language prohibiting land from being “alienated or transferred in whole or in part.”
In previous iterations of this clause, date of expiry Or extend that date Five, 10 and 15 years The bill has been revised since the 2008 Farm Bill. However, the most recent language on page 547 of the bill states: Approximately 1,000 pages of draftis past its deadline, meaning any move to transfer the land would have to go through Parliament, closing off the administrative avenues.
“Because this is a local issue unique to Oklahoma’s 3rd Congressional District, the committee worked directly with the facility’s representative, former House Agriculture Committee Chairman Lucas, in drafting this provision,” Ben Goldy, a spokesman for House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-Pa.), who introduced a draft of the bill in May, told The Hill.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack also opposed the idea that he “should be restricted” from working with tribes to move potential repatriation forward in Congress. National Congress of American Indians in June.
“The current House version of the farm bill that’s passed the Agriculture Committee has provisions that basically say we cannot do this under any circumstances. Obviously, we have to strongly oppose this idea, and I’m prepared to do so. And in the context of this conference, I’m doing that now by saying that it’s not acceptable to us,” Vilsack said.
“There is significant research being done [at the Oklahoma and Central Plains Agricultural Research Center] “We would like to see that study continue,” Vilsack added. “Is there a way to restore the land and continue the study? I think there is probably a way, and I think we should look at it more quickly and more thoroughly.”
Balancing research and the possibility of returning Fort Reno
Oklahoma and Central Plains Agricultural Research Center Research Programs and Projects It is divided into four research units: Agricultural Climate and Hydraulic Engineering, Livestock, Feed and Pasture Management, Peanuts and Small Grains, and the Southern Plains Climate Hub, which focuses on ways to mitigate climate-related risks to agricultural production.
Lucas pushed for the expansion of research, Asking for $1.3 million From May Renovate Part of the facility.
“The center’s mission is to improve crop- and pasture-based livestock systems, made possible by the vast tract of pristine grassland in which it is located, which allows for unique research into livestock systems and plant genetic resources throughout the region,” Lucas said in a statement to The Hill through a spokesperson.
“The reality is that this type of research can only be done in El Reno, but it benefits all communities across Oklahoma and the Central Plains.”
In an Aug. 1 letter to President Biden, Wassana said that if Fort Reno is returned to the tribe, the tribe plans to lease a portion of Fort Reno to the Department of Agriculture to continue research and develop the remaining portion.
The tribes say they want to transform the roughly 2,000 acres into a recreational complex that would include an amusement park, water park, campground and grassland restoration.
They hired Chicago-based Handen Partners. Economic Impact ReportThe report concluded that the development would create about 3,000 jobs and generate about $1 billion in economic activity per year.
Wassana also told The Hill that the tribe would consider developing or exploring underground reserves to mitigate potential losses from surrounding wells.
There are about 35.1 million barrels of recoverable oil and more than 475 billion cubic feet of gas beneath Fort Reno, according to John Paul “JP” Dick, president and petroleum engineer for Pinnacle Energy Services, who was hired by the tribe to assess the reserves and their potential revenues.
“Total cash flows generated from potential investments Royalties, taxes, lease bonuses and surface income are potentially [$1.65 billion] Dick estimates it depends on oil and gas pricing. Preparatory Report.
There are several company-owned wells around Fort Reno, but Dick told The Hill that “it’s possible that water is being discharged from the surrounding wells, but I don’t believe that a significant amount of water is being discharged.”
Tribes ask President Biden to return land
The Biden administration’s tribal land restitution policy represents an opportunity for tribes’ long-standing efforts to reclaim Fort Reno.
In November 2021, Vilsack and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland Joint Secretary-General Order Recognizing “the policy of the United States to return tribal homelands to tribal ownership,” it pledges to “facilitate tribal requests to place lands in trust status” when the Secretary of the Interior acquires and holds title to lands for the benefit of tribes or individual members.
The process of placing land in trust is usually mandated by Congress or done administratively by the Secretary of the Interior. 2021 Report The report was prepared by the Congressional Research Service, which told The Hill it was being updated.
“Before the tribes could obtain legal title to the Fort Reno lands without Congressional action, they would need to overcome several interagency hurdles due to riders included in successive farm bills over the decades,” Wassana wrote in a letter to Biden last week.
Wassana further said that the Agriculture Bill and its current provisions: Expires September 30th And then he returned to his tribe.
The House has yet to vote on the bill, and the Senate Agriculture Committee has yet to release a draft farm bill, so another similar continuing resolution is likely. Passed last November Specifically, the land transfer provisions have been extended until September 30, 2024.
As a USDA spokesman acknowledged, the issue of tribal claims to Fort Reno is complex and has been the subject of intense debate for decades.
Lucas has moved to permanently transfer future land transfers to Congress, but a spokesman for him did not respond to The Hill’s inquiry about whether he thought the issue of tribal land claims had been resolved.
The dispute dates back to 1869, when President Grant issued an executive order claiming more than five million acres of land in Oklahoma as tribal property.
In 1883, President Arthur signed an executive order allocating 9,493 acres of land “for the base of Fort Reno” to be used “for military purposes only,” but did not specify what would become of the land after it had served its military purpose.
Congress transferred 1,000 acres of the land to the Department of Justice in 1937 for use by the Bureau of Prisons, and the remainder was transferred to the Department of Agriculture for “livestock and agricultural purposes” in 1948. In 1954, the land was placed on “standby” for the military.
Now that the land is no longer used for military purposes, the tribe has sought the return of Fort Reno, but the road has not been an easy one.
Tribal officials Donated over $100,000 “We can help you,” former President Clinton told tribal leaders at a donors luncheon in 1996, after which the Democratic National Committee returned the donation and sent him a letter, according to the Associated Press. cigar shop wooden india According to Politico, Trump did so in 1999 to remind people of the promise.
But Clinton left office without transferring the land to the tribe, which sued in 2006, arguing that “reversion rights” to Fort Reno were vested when military use ceased decades ago.
In 2007, a U.S. District Court in Washington dismissed the tribe’s lawsuit, finding that the 12-year statute of limitations for the Land Rights Restoration Act, which allows landowners to challenge government encroachments on their land, had expired.
The opinion also included a footnote “alternatively concluding” that as a result of the 1965 settlement, the tribes “lost all rights, claims and demands in and to the lands.” [Fort Reno lands]”And you are hereby barred from asserting any such rights, claims or demands against the Defendants in any future litigation.”
The tribe Agreed to a $15 million settlement In 1965, several years after filing a claim with the Indian Claims Commission in 1958, alleging that they had been severely damaged by an 1891 agreement to “permanently and absolutely cede, transfer, convey, relinquish and surrender” their land claims to the ICC for $1.5 million, the ICC returned the $1.5 million in exchange for the land claims.
But the tribes claim they were never paid compensation, raising doubts about the settlement.
In 1999, Home Office lawyer John Lechy A memorandum was issued The ruling concluded that “the tribes have a convincing argument that they did not cede the land in 1891 and have not received compensation for the land, and therefore have a legitimate right to seek the return of the land,” but that it is ultimately up to the Department of Agriculture to determine whether the Fort Reno land is surplus land that can be returned.
The Interior Department’s Bureau of Indian Affairs did not respond to a request for comment to confirm its position, and Lechy declined to comment.
In 2009, the D.C. Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C. Circuit also overturned a lower court footnote that had found the tribes had lost their claims under the 1965 settlement, leaving the issue unresolved.
“We have not reached a separate conclusion from the Court that the tribes’ 1965 settlement of the ICC lawsuit also bars their current lawsuit,” he said, referring to the dismissed quiet title lawsuit. Court Order.
As the deadline for the farm bill approaches, pressure is mounting on the USDA as tribes push for the return of disputed lands before Lucas’ provisions cut off their administrative recourse.
Vilsack has signaled a desire to pursue some sort of compromise, but it remains to be seen what action the department will take.
