Bill Overview
Title: Puyallup Tribe of Indians Land Into Trust Confirmation Act of 2022
Description: This bill takes approximately 17.264 acres of specified lands in Pierce County, Washington, into trust for the benefit of the Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation. Lands taken into trust shall be part of the tribe's reservation.
Sponsors: Rep. Kilmer, Derek [D-WA-6]
Target Audience
Population: Enrolled members of the Puyallup Tribe
Estimated Size: 6000
- The bill specifically targets the Puyallup Tribe of Indians by taking lands into trust for their benefit, therefore it directly impacts the members of this tribe.
- The US census data and tribal records indicate a membership of approximately 6,000 enrolled members of the Puyallup Tribe.
- The local population in Pierce County may also experience indirect effects due to changes in land management, governance, and economic activity.
- 'Taking of land into trust' can influence federal and state taxation, jurisdiction, and environmental regulations which might impact surrounding communities.
Reasoning
- The policy directly impacts the Puyallup Tribe members by potentially enhancing their economic activities and cultural sovereignty through increased control of land. This can boost their wellbeing by improving socio-economic conditions.
- The surrounding non-tribal population in Pierce County may experience economic changes indirectly, either benefiting from increased activity or feeling competitive pressures.
- Policy budget constraints, specifically within the first year, limit extensive immediate development or drastic changes, suggesting gradual rather than abrupt wellbeing shifts.
- Considerations should also include historical context of land trusts and social dynamics in the area, influencing personal perceptions and potential wellbeing.
- Members of the Puyallup Tribe that already live on or work in the lands now taken into trust might not experience notable change in wellbeing immediately but could see long-term benefits.
- Interviewing a diverse mix from within the tribe as well as some from the surrounding community will provide a comprehensive view of immediate and extended impacts.
- While the policy is federal, state, and local jurisdictions remain essential in interpreting and implementing land use terms, with potential implications for non-tribal residents' perceptions of the policy.
- Indirect impacts might include shifts in local governance priorities or infrastructures due to changes in land status.
Simulated Interviews
Tribal Council Member (Tacoma, WA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step towards regaining our ancestral lands and ensures future generations have resources.
- While it won't change things overnight, it signifies a long-term investment in our people's welfare.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 6 |
Artisan (Puyallup, WA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this could mean an uptick in local tourism and demand for cultural items.
- There are concerns about changes in jurisdiction affecting permits and business conditions.
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 educator (Fife, WA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This move helps preserve our cultural heritage, making future educational initiatives more feasible.
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 | 9 | 5 |
Real estate agent (Seattle, WA)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We're likely to see more development opportunities which could bolster real estate markets.
- There might be concerns about sudden value fluctuations due to policy ambiguity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Student (Tacoma, WA)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this adds opportunities for internships and experience in land management that can support my career aspirations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Local farmer (Puyallup, WA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could mean more stable partnerships with the Tribe, boosting local agriculture.
- Regulatory uncertainty makes some farmers hesitant.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Park Ranger (Pierce County, WA)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The land trust allows more comprehensive conservation efforts that align with our values.
- I feel empowered to make a lasting impact on our environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
County Official (Tacoma, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While this respects tribal sovereignty, it complicates zoning processes and jurisdiction clarity.
- We must adapt processes to accommodate these changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Health Clinic Administrator (Fife, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better control of land can expand health service facilities and promote wellness.
- Investments in infrastructure are critical for community health.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
IT Specialist (Puyallup, WA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There might be an increase in tech investments as part of development, which would be positive for my business.
- Economic instability due to taxation changes is a concern.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $150000)
Year 2: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $150000)
Year 3: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $150000)
Year 5: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $150000)
Year 10: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $150000)
Year 100: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $150000)
Key Considerations
- The bill primarily affects land management and jurisdiction between federal, state, and tribal authorities.
- The costs associated with land trust status are primarily administrative and potentially affect local taxation.
- Potential tribal sovereignty and local governance implications require careful consideration regarding land usage and local economic impacts.