phunterheirtestimonyhr5413[1]

8/8/2019 PHunterHeirTestimonyHR5413[1]

1/5

Testimony in Opposition to HR 5413

My name is _______________________. I am a Temecula Indian and I am an heir to an

interest in an allotment which will be affected by HR 5413.

I submit this testimony to express my concerns regarding HR 5413 (Act) and request

that the Subcommittee on Water and Power oppose the Act until such time as it isamended to address the issues presented in this testimony.

In order to provide the proper context for my concerns, I believe that it is important toaccurately portray the history of the Temecula Indians, the Temecula Indian Reservation,

and the allotments provided to Temecula Indians.

Since time immemorial, the Temeekuym- Temecula Indians- have called the Temecula

Valley home. Our history begins with our ancestral home village of Temeeku, which wasa center for all the Payomkawichum, or Luiseo people.

On January 5, 1852, a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship" between the United States

government and various Indian tribes was signed at the village of Temeeku on Little

Temecula Rancho. The treaty provided for large grants of lands to the Indians, including

land along the Temecula River where the Temecula Indians had always made their home.

Unfortunately, under pressure from the State of California, the Treaty, as well as othertreaties with California Indian tribes, was never ratified. Eventually a group of Temecula

Valley ranchers petitioned the District Court in San Francisco for a Decree of Ejection

against the Temecula Indians. In 1875, under an order of ejectment granted several yearsearlier, the sheriff of San Diego County evicted the Temecula Indians from their village

and their homes.

On June 27, 1882, seven years after being evicted, the President of the United States

issued an Executive Order establishing a reservation for the use and benefit of the

Temecula band or village of Indians. Over the years, several subsequent trustacquisitions were made, each one increasing the size of the reservation. (The original

executive Orders (1882 and 1893) setting aside the Temecula Indian Reservation and

other trust acquisitions are looked to as priority dates establishing the water rights

which are part of the settlement which would be confirmed and authorized by HR 5413).

And, in accordance with the Act of Congress approved January 12, 1891 (26 Stats 712),

allotments were made to the Indians residing on the reservation of the Temecula band orvillage of Mission Indians in the State of California. These allotments were subsequently

confirmed and been extended numerous times for the benefit of the Temecula Indian

grantees and their heirs.

My ancestor, Paulina Hunter, was one of the Temecula Indians who received an


2/5

allotment. Paulina Hunter received allotment #62. I currently have an ownership interest

in this allotment.

As an allottee interest heir and Temecula Indian I am concerned that the Act does not

properly protect my property rights and actually provides for infringement on said rights

by the Pechanga Band.

I therefore request your opposition to HR 5413 until the Act is amended to address thefollowing:

I. The Department of the Interior and Pechanga Bands Failure to Notify Allottees

of the Negotiations to Settle Water Rights

Prior to the commencement of negotiations on the water rights settlement and theintroduction of various acts to confirm and ratify the settlement, I was never notified by

the Department of the Interior or Pechanga Tribal officials that my rights and interests

were going to be negotiated. To date, all the negotiations have occurred without myparticipation or consent.

Temecula Indians and Temecula Indian Allottees have contacted the Department of

Interior representative in charge of the settlement negotiations, and we are in the processof getting a meeting with this person to discuss our concerns regarding the negotiations

and settlement. Until we can meet with the Department of the Interior and are included

in the settlement negotiations, I respectfully request that no further action should be takenon HR 5413.

II. Pechanga Tribal Officials do not Represent the Interests of all Temecula Indians

or Temecula Indian AllotteesDespite claims to the contrary, Pechanga Tribal officials do not and have never

represented me in the water rights settlement nor have they contacted me to ask for my

consent to represent my interests.

Pechanga Tribal officials and their representatives have acted without my approval in

their negotiations to settle the water rights claims associated with my allotment and intheir efforts to pursue Congressional action to approve and ratify the settlement.

Moreover, I and many other allottees do not trust Pechanga tribal officials to act in our

best interest, as this is not the first time that Pechanga tribal officials have acted to strip ordeny me use of my property and other basic rights.

Over the past six (6) plus years, Pechanga officials have disenrolled over 400 previously

recognized tribal members. Additionally, hundreds more have been denied membershipin the tribe under an illegal moratorium enacted to limit the number of people who

benefit from the tribes economic development ventures.

Those who have been disenrolled and denied membership include many allottees, myself

included, that would be adversely affected by the Act as it provides that the very officials


3/5

who have stripped or denied numerous allottees of rights set forth in tribal and federal

law shall be responsible for satisfying the very same allottees entitlement to water.

Considering the Bands actions to strip Paulina Hunter descendants of their citizenship, in

violation of tribal and federal laws, I do not want Pechanga tribal officials negotiating my

water rights or representing my interests in front of Congress in an attempt to ratify thewater rights settlement.

III. Temecula Indian and Temecula Indian Allottees should be Parties to the

Settlement Negotiations and consulted regarding pending Acts of Congress

HR 5413 and the other Acts reference priority dates establishing water rights associated

with the setting aside of a reservation for the use and benefit of the Temecula band or

village of Indians, those water rights must be protected and preserved regardless of anyclaims made by Pechanga tribal officials.

There are hundreds of Temecula Indians and Temecula Indian Allottees who will be

affected by the Settlement and HR 5413. The Settlement and the Act should benegotiated and drafted with the full consent and participation of the Temecula Indians

and Temecula Indian Allottees- to date that has not occurred.

The participation of the Temecula Indians and Temecula Indian Allottees should be a

requirement for approval, confirmation and ratification of the Settlement. Their inclusion

and participation should also be required for approval of HR 5413.

I respectfully request that the Subcommittee recommend that the sponsors of HR 5413

meet with Temecula Indians and Temecula Indian Allottees in order to discussamendments to the Act that would address their interests and protect their water rights

IV. HR 5413, and other Acts, should be Amended to Reflect the Ownership Interests

and Water Rights Due Temecula Indians and Temecula Indian Allottees

The Executive Orders setting aside a reservation for Temecula Indians, as well as the

allotments made to Temecula Indians in accordance with the Act of January 12, 1891 (26Stats 712) are utilized as key factors in determining the water rights at issue. However,

instead of Temecula Indians and Temecula Indian Allottees benefitting, Pechanga tribal

officials have falsely laid claim to representing the interests of the Temecula Indians,

Temecula Indian allottees, and their heirs.

Temecula Indians, Temecula Indian Allottees, and their heirs should be allowed to

determine those who will represent their interests in the settlement negotiations and thefuture development of the Act. I respectfully request that the Subcommittee require that

their representatives participate in future settlement negotiations and amendments to the

Act as a pre-requisite for moving forward.

V. The Settlement Agreement should be known as the Temecula and Pechanga

Settlement Agreement; Acts to Confirm and ratify the Settlement should also

Include Temecula in the name


4/5

As evidenced above, the water rights actually originate with the establishment of a

reservation for the Temecula band or village of Indians by various Executive Orders and

are further tied to the allotments made to Temecula Indians on the reservation.Therefore, it would be accurate to reflect this in the name of the HR 5413 and other Acts.

This would also be consistent with determination made by Pechanga tribal officialsregarding citizenship in the Band that Pechanga and Temecula Indians are distinct people

and ownership in an allotment on the reservation by a Temecula Indian does not meet the

requirement for citizenship.

As a distinct group with separate ownership interests in the water rights, amending HR

5413 to include reference to the Temecula Band and/or Indians is appropriate.

VI. The term Tribal Water Right should be Amended to Reflect Benefit for

Temecula Band and Temecula Indian Allottees

Furthermore, the authority to use, allocate, distribute and lease the tribal Water Right

should be subject to an agreement between the Temecula Indians, Temecula IndianAllottees, and the Pechanga Band.

Once again, we must look at the fact that priority dates in the Act which are used to

establish and quantify the water rights specifically reference actions taken on behalf of or

to benefit the Temecula Band and/or Temecula Indian Allottees- the Pechanga Band is

not mentioned. While the Pechanga Band may have an interest in the water rights issue,that interest flows mainly from claims that it solely represents the Temecula Indians and

Temecula Indian allottees in this issue. This is not true.

As stated above, determinations made by Pechanga tribal officials recognize that

Temecula and Pechanga people are distinct groups, and where the settlement and Act

address the water rights of both, each should be recognized in the title and throughout theAct.

VII. Entitlement to Water Shall be Satisfied by the Department of the Interior, the

Temecula Band, or the Pechanga Band; and Temecula Indians and/or Temecula

Indian Allottees shall not be Subject to the Pechanga Water Code or other Pechanga

Band laws

The Tribal Water Right should also be subject to conditions, permit requirements, and

other limitations established by the Temecula band, Temecula Indian Allottees, and the

Pechanga Band.

Since the groups are distinct, each should have their water rights interests protected

equally and none should be subjected to the codes or laws of the other. At the very least,the water rights of the Temecula band and Temecula Indian Allottees should not be

subject to the terms and conditions of a code enacted by the Pechanga Band under this act

or any other action that may infringe on their water rights, conditions of use, entitlement,

and distribution.


5/5

A separate water code governing such issues could be set in place by the Department of

the Interior after negotiations with the Temecula Indians and Temecula Indian allottees.

In no case should Temecula Indians and/or Temecula Indian Allottees, many who have

already been the victims of violations of Pechanga and federal law by Pechanga tribalofficials, be subject to a water code which may infringe on their water rights.

Conclusion

It is my strong belief that it would be pre-mature and irresponsible to approve HR 5413 in

its current form as a large group of affected water rights owners, namely Temecula

Indians and Temecula Indian Allottees, have been denied the right to participate in thesettlement negotiations. All parties affected by the terms of the Settlement and HR 5413

should have been previously notified and asked to participate in the negotiation and

drafting process. The failure to include Temecula Indian and Temecula Indian allottees

in the process has denied them the right to advocate on their behalf and protect theirproperty interests.

Therefore, I must restatement my opposition to HR 5413 and I urge the Sub-committee to

recommend that the author and co-sponsors meet with representatives of the Temecula

Indians and Temecula Indian Allottees to discuss the issues listed above. I also request

that the Sub-committee recommend to the Department of the Interior that it exercise itstrust responsibility to all affected parties and meet with the Temecula Indians and

Temecula Indian Allottees to discuss the current and future negotiations of the water

rights settlement.

And, until such time as the Act is amended and Temecula Indians and Temecula Indian

Allottees can confirm that they have been allowed to participate and/or be represented,with their consent, and the issues presented above have been addressed by the

Department of the Interior and the sponsors of the Act, I urge your opposition to HR

5413.

Respectfully submitted,

Name:

Address:

Allotment #:

phunterheirtestimonyhr5413[1]

Documents