P'A.CZZ'ZC CrA.& A.MID MWMCBMOC CC) 1VCZ A.MM77 SEALE STREET, 31ST FLOOR ~ SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94106 ~ (415) 781 4211

IIOHN CL MORRISSCYYICC taCSIOCNS 110 OCOCSAL COUNSCL

MALCOLMH. PURBUSSSassooaTS oca SEEL coUN scL

CHARI dd T, VAN ISdU ddNPHILI~ A, CRANdt tIR,HdNRY J, LaPLANTdRICHARIS A CLARIId

JOHN dt OISSONAEOET41f CESESAL ECSSEEL December 30, 1977

'~~Orrq>

''-'ettkkeJ N44kNltET

AkfHU1 L NILLNAH J ~14etef OHLSAEHOAH oekfeON LU~ SOCSJ411 f EALLIN JS

OILSEST I NASIHESOLtNN Wee f, J ~CHASLE ~ W TNISSELLOkltltL4 4ISSCNJOSESN I SELLTNOHAOOV 44wo

~ EHIC4 44UNECL

JOSNU4 ONHLCV J Stfte OAUI SASTHE114 ~ Cef I 44144N SftrtH 1 OU1EELEIOH ~ 441EIOT ~ ESHASO J OELIAOANTA~ IHAH ~ 0 t1 f4 N WILLIA»N EerkeeeOker 1, EHelHAS J41ESN ~ ENSLEST JeOSHALO CSICES4N JOHN N TSTEokrl~ 4 OILCEET ~411414 A OOSOEANHEfTC OkttH HETE1 W NAHSCHEN14SCST I N4111 ~ t JUAN tl JATOSESNIT 1, SUSITE 1 14tlkLO LAUSNEINENTNE4441E I. LHI4SE14 JS Iktett 4 LIASOH1IEN414 f LOCEC JAHES 4 LOOSOONN411T W LOtt~ Je, SltltA14 I NEI~ ~1IENASO N Nee ~ oeUSLAS A. OOLESST

NI4HAEL 1EISEN144N NSSEST 1 1ICEETTWee 4 SANSSN SNISLET A SANOt1SON~ UE AHH LEVIN ~ CNItr J4C ~ W ONUCCokrle J. WILLIAHSON SHISLET AHWSO~ OU ~ C 1 WeefHIHSTON

HAff4 1lt4'f4

Mr. Semu HuauteRed Wind Foundationp. O. Box. 518Santa Nargarita, CA 93453

Dear Mr. Huaute:

g )"„-78~K,!'iablo

Can on — DocIEots 50-275 50-323; t:I ';".'.~ g~J

As of this date we have not received the letter whiSalvadore'uiz earlier had indicated would be forthcoming. Ourundexstanding was that this letter would set forth in detail thenature and scope of the Indian concerns with respect, to the artifacts,the burials, and the matter of access. We also had understood thatin addition to clarifying the concerns of the Indian peoples inso-far as they relate to these issues, the letter would designate thosemembers of the Indian community selected as spokespersons with whomwe could discuss the various issues.

We have been somewhat reluctant to begin any discussionrelating to these issues until we had received that letter andthereby had some idea of the exact concerns of the Indian peoplesand the proper party to whom we might. respond. Within the lastseveral weeks, however, we have received information regardingevents which have transpired, and we believe it would be worthwhileto set forth our perception'f the matter as it now stands. Wehave chosen to address this letter to you inasmuch as we are informedthat you had been selected as a spokesperson for the Indian groupsat an earlier meeting and because we understand that Nr. Ruiz isno longer an appropriate party to'ontact regarding these matters.

It is our understanding that prior to December 15, 1977,the San.Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Office had control over andpossession of the 66 burials exhumed during the Diablo Canyon.archaeological study. in 1968. Those remains had been deliveredto'.the Sheriff's Office by the San Luis Obispo .County. Archaeological

I

Mr. Semu Huaute December 30, 1977

Society (SLOCAS) sometime during the first week of December of thisyear. Prior to that time possession of the burials had resided with

~ SLOCAS.

As reported in the Saturday, December 17, 1977, editionof the San Luis Obis o Telegram-Tribune, the remains are presently

- in the possession of certain members of the Indian community..Specifically, on December 15, 1977, the San Luis Obispo CountySheriff's Office >s reported to have turned the remains over toyou, Semu Huaute, spiritual leader of the Red Wind Foundation.Although the final disposition of the remains has, appropriately,not been disclosed, it is our understanding that the remains havebeen interred in a sacred, secret Chumash cemetery. We believethat the decision to so inter the 66 burials was an appropriate'one.

As we are both well aware, the burials issue was onlyone of the items to be resolved. Perhaps the more difficult ofthe issues still remains to be discussed, the disposition of theartifacts. In addition, we believe there still remains a need toassure the Indian people involved that PGandE does have an appre-ciation for the archaeological and religious problems which mustbe faced should any future development of the area around DiabloCanyon occur. Accordingly, we are attempting to develop a policyto ensure that similar concerns which may arise in future projectsof this type may be effectively handled. We also are consideringactions which we might take to demonstrate to the Indian peoplesof the area that no intentional and unnecessary desecration ordestruction of areas of Indian archaeological and religious originsis occurring on property over which we have any control.

As to the issue of the artifacts, it would appear thatthe status of the dispute has been recently clarified, if notresolved, by virtue of our discovery of a document, a copy ofwhich is attached, which relates the terms and conditions underwhich PGandE turned over to SLOCAS certian artifacts in question.Although prior to the discovery of this document there remained avery real question as to the ownership of the artifacts, by virtueof this document it is presently our position that ownership ofthe artifacts now in the possession of SLOCAS resides with andhas re sided with SLOCAS since the gift on March 21, 1972.

Our position concerning the artifacts in the possessionof SLOCAS is simple. The artifacts were uncovered .in land eitherowned in fee by PGandE or leased by it.. By agreement of the feeowner of those lands over which PGandE had only a leasehold interest,PGandE undertook to make a gift of those items found on land towhich't had fee title and of those found upon the lessor's land.

I

H

Il

Mr. Semu Huaute December 30, 1977

4

As to those items to which it had fee title by virtue of theirlocation, PGandE was the clear owner in fee simple. As to thoseitems found on -the lessor's land, the lessor was owner in fee and ~-authorized PGandE to turn them over to SLOCAS.

The document attached, which establishes SLOCAS's rightsin the artifacts, was executed by duly authorized representativesof PGandE and SLOCAS. On its face it presumptively establishesthat a gift of said artifacts was made by PGandE to SLOCAS onMarch 21, 1972. It is our opinion that the document is adequateto establish that a gift was in fact made, as that term is definedby California Civil Code Section 1146. The artifacts were volun-tarily turned over to SLOCAS without any retention of control byPGandE, were accepted by SLOCAS, and no consideration passed inthe transaction. As such, all title passed to SLOCAS and the gift.is irrevocable as set forth in California Civil Code Section 1148.

Unlike the items now in the possession of SLOCAS, titleto the artifacts and other material displayed in the PGandE DiabloCanyon Visitor Information Center still resides in PGandE. As such,we would be willing to discuss with representatives of the variousIndian peoples any suggestions which they might have with regardto the way these artifacts are now displayed.

We believe the present display at our Information Centeris both sensitive to the importance which the Chumash Indians hadin the history of the area, and provides a useful and appropriatemechanism for broadening public understanding of the Chumash culture.-Certainly in a small display it is impossible to do justice to anyculture. Nonetheless, we believe the displays is a positive steptoward raising the awareness of visitors and local residents tothe strong Indian tradition in the area.

Despite the good intentions behind our display we recognizethat the Indian peoples involved in this matter may have differentfeelings regarding the method of the display. It may be that somebelieve certain items should be removed, displayed differently, orthat the display could otherwise be improved. In the alternative,it may be that the Indian people feel that all reference to theChumash history should be removed and returned to the earth. Webelieve that the latter course would be contrary to the best inter-ests of the Indian people. We would prefer to discuss constructivemeasures which might be taken to improve the present manner inwhich the Chumash as well as pre-Chumash history is displayed.

A final item which only can be briefly commented on hererelates to the question of access to Diablo Canyon. I am sure thatyou appreciate that we are extremely hesitant to consider any such

-n

Mr. Semu Huaute " December 30, 1977

requests. As mentioned earlier, we have security and legal concernswhich in one- manner or, another restrict what we believe"we'can doin this area. On the other hand, we recognize the Indian people's

'oncernthat our activities in the area may be unnecessarily destroy-ing possible sacred areas of the Chumash and the desire on the partof the Indian people. to see for themselves that such activity isnot occurring. Accordingly, we believe that further discussion isneeded in this area in order that;, the concerns expressed by bothsides can be accommodated.

1

As mentioned- in the first paragraph of this letter; -wefeel somewhat hindered in our discussion of the issues mentionedherein by virtue of the fact that we have not yet received. the.letter which Salvadore Ruiz indicated was forthcoming. Neverthe-less, we felt it necessary to state in clear terms our concernsand position with respect to these issues with the hope that thediscussion would be of. assistance to you and will allow theremaining issues to be promptly resolved. In any event, we look '.forward to your response.

Sincerely,

ROGER J PETERS

RJP: nrAttachment

cc w/enc: Service ListCarl NeiburgerSan Luis Obispo County

Telegram-Tribune1321 Johnson AvenueSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401,

Victoria RobertsNative American Heritage CommissionGovernor's OfficeState of California1400 Tenth Street, Room 200Sacramento, CA 95814

Tu Blu JaysP. O. Box 65Santa Ynez, CA 93460

Ed OlivesSanta Ynez Indian ReservationSanta Ynez, CA 93460

Harch 21, 1972

Receipt Eor Gift ofArchaeolo~ ical t.aterialsfrom Pacific Gris and Electr'ic Company

The San Luis Obispo County Archaeolo'.ical Society is pleased toaccept the archaeolooicnl materials obtained from the Diablo Canyone>:cavations, dir-ctcd by Rob=rta Greenwood. The list of materials isdocumented in h r log and is complete except Eor those materialsreturned to tlr. Robert tiarre and those removed by klrs. Greenwood Eordisplay at the P ~ G. & E. Visitor's Center.

t'hile we cannot accept a financial liability for those materials,we do accept the responsibility Eor reasonable care. Ve do acceptthe responsibility Eor making these materials available Eor study and/ordisplay under carefully controlled conditions. Since these materialsare irreplaceable and are not comim"rcial items, we ma!ce no estimateof value.

Dr. Charles E. DillsField DirectorSite Recorder

Supplementary Statement bya Representative of Pacific Gas and Electric Company

~ I do hereby certify that PaciEic Gas and Electric Company hasthe, legal authority to make this gift.

pm~"gaC

JNtcarpi~ g] <Py ft'.i'~/

9 poclciln0 a . ~+CC"~

Gp] .

I J~«

Mr. Semu Huaute December 30, 1977.

cc w/enc: (cont'd)

Rote Lotah23B FairviewGoleta, CA 93016

Lee Dixon, DirectorSanta Barbara Indian CenterCounty of Santa Barbara1614'tate StreetSanta Barbara, CA 93101

Lester Marston, Escr.California Indian Legal Services1860 S. Escondido Blvd.P. O. Box 1868Escondido, CA 92025

Charles E. Dill's1371 Avalon StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401

Dr. Knox MellonState Office of Historic

Preservation. P. O. Box 2390

1220 K StreetSacramento, CA 95814

Michael H. BuremanOffice of Review and

Compliance, DenverAdvisory Council on Historic

Preservation1522 K Street, N. W.Washington, D. C. 20005

Harold L. LopezCentral Coast Indian Council728 — 13th StreetPaso Robles, CA 93446

Advisory CouncilP.O. Box 25085Denver CO

!

John Oliveres King, Executive DirectorCapistrano Indian CouncilP. O. Box 304San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675