Bill Overview
Title: Advancing Tribal Parity on Public Land Act
Description: This bill addresses tribal interests in the disposal and management of public land. Specifically, the bill prohibits the federal government from disposing of public land or National Forest System land unless the Department of the Interior or the Department of Agriculture (USDA) determines, through consultation with any interested Indian tribe, that such disposal would not impact the rights and interests of any interested tribe and would not impair access to a reservation. Interested Indian tribe means an Indian tribe with (1) historic, precontact, cultural, or religious connection to a cultural site located on the tract of public land; (2) a former reservation located on the tract of public land; or (3) treaty rights or other reserved rights associated with the tract of public land. Interior and USDA must, prior to conducting a sale of a tract of public land, notify all tribes of the availability of land for sale. Further, Interior and USDA must sell the tract of land to an interested Indian tribe that submits a bid at fair market value. Land acquired by an interested tribe shall be taken into trust by Interior for the benefit of the tribe. Additionally, the bill revises various public land provisions, including to (1) add the interests of tribes to the list of considerations for land exchanges, and (2) authorize tribes to acquire land for recreational and other public purposes. The bill also requires each public land advisory board to include at least one representative of an interested Indian tribe.
Sponsors: Rep. Grijalva, Raúl M. [D-AZ-3]
Target Audience
Population: Interested Indian tribes with connections to U.S. public lands
Estimated Size: 4760000
- The bill directly impacts tribes with historic, precontact, cultural, or religious connections to public land.
- The bill affects tribes with former reservations located on public lands.
- Tribes with treaty rights or other reserved rights associated with these lands are also impacted.
- The bill ensures that interested tribes are consulted before any disposal of public land.
- Tribes are given opportunities to purchase public lands at fair market value before they are offered to other parties.
- The bill mandates that Indian tribes are considered in land exchange decisions, impacting their ability to regain or acquire lands historically significant to them.
- The requirement for representation on public land advisory boards impacts tribal governance and involvement in land management decisions.
Reasoning
- The focus is primarily on the American Indian and Alaska Native populations directly impacted by the policy.
- We include a range of ages, geographic locations, and direct connection to potentially affected lands to simulate diversity.
- Some individuals in our interviews might not see direct impacts, representing those indirectly aware or involved.
- Budget constraints suggest impacts may be gradual and felt more on administrative and access levels initially.
- The policy's immediate effects are localized, but it has potential long-term adaptations for wider community benefits.
- Indirect impacts may stem from increased tribal representation on public land advisory boards, potentially influencing broader policy decisions.
Simulated Interviews
Tribal Council Member (Arizona)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step forward in asserting our historical connections to land.
- I believe it will help protect our cultural heritage sites.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Social Worker (South Dakota)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having access to more public lands can boost educational and cultural programs for our youth.
- Representation on advisory boards gives us a voice in important decisions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Rancher (New Mexico)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see a direct impact on my daily activities.
- However, any policy that facilitates better land management is welcome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (California)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could enhance collaborative efforts in environmental protection.
- It's likely to create a stronger network for tribal advocacy on land issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Retired Park Ranger (Montana)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Addressing tribal concerns can lead to better management of our national lands.
- This initiative is long overdue; it acknowledges historical injustices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Lawyer (Oklahoma)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could offer more legal leverage in land disputes.
- It facilitates increased land ownership possibilities for tribes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Student (Alaska)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this policy will enhance efforts to preserve native plant species.
- It represents a chance to revive traditional ecological knowledge.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Community Organizer (Washington)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Including tribes in land sales is a positive move for our sovereignty.
- Tribal representation on advisory boards can lead to more informed land-use decisions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Urban Planner (Nevada)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Such policies could improve integration of tribal lands in urban strategies.
- This aligns with sustainable development goals involving indigenous lands.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Journalist (New York)
Age: 51 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy acknowledges the role of tribes in the historical context of US lands.
- I see it as a significant move for future legislative actions regarding indigenous rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Key Considerations
- Consultations with tribes are crucial in mitigating any adverse impacts on tribal rights and cultural sites.
- The administrative burden on federal agencies needs to be managed within current resources or through additional funding.
- Potential legal challenges could arise from stakeholders impacted by changes in the land disposal process.
- Increased tribal participation could lead to improved long-term policy outcomes regarding public land management.