Umatilla Tribe Opposes Colville Tribe’s Pasco Casino Plan: A Clash of Economics and Culture
The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) has vehemently opposed the Confederated Tribes of the colville Reservation’s (Colville Tribe) plan for a new casino in pasco, Washington. The CTUIR cites perhaps devastating economic consequences and challenges the cultural justification for the project.
The Colville Tribe’s application seeks to place 194 acres into trust for a casino and hotel complex. This location,a mere 3.7 miles from the CTUIR’s boundary and within the aboriginal lands of the Yakama Indian Nation, is highly contentious. The CTUIR’s 1855 treaty defines their aboriginal, or “ceded,” lands, encompassing the south-central Washington area surrounding the proposed Pasco site. The proximity of the proposed casino to the CTUIR’s land is a central point of their opposition.
The geographical distance between the proposed casino and the Colville reservation—165 miles—raises concerns about job creation for Colville tribal members. The colville Tribe already operates three casinos on its reservation. The CTUIR argues that the Pasco casino would not meaningfully benefit the Colville Tribe’s workforce.
The CTUIR’s economic concerns are substantial. Their Wildhorse Resort & Casino, near pendleton, Oregon, employs approximately 1,060 people and provides important family-sustaining wages and benefits. “it is also the largest source of tribal funds that support the governmental programs and services provided by the CTUIR,” the tribe stated. The proposed Colville casino, they contend, would severely impact Wildhorse’s revenue and employment, leading to reduced funding for essential tribal services. This impact extends to charitable giving; Wildhorse dedicates 3% of its net gaming revenue to grants in four Oregon and three washington counties, including Franklin County, where Pasco is located. A reduction in wildhorse’s revenue would directly translate to less funding for these vital community programs.
The CTUIR also challenges the Colville Tribe’s cultural justification for the casino. The application claims the Pasco site is necessary “to reestablish a trust land base in the customary territories of the Colville Tribe’s constituent tribes, which include, among others, the Palus,
” a claim the CTUIR disputes. They point to the fact that Palouse Tribes’ chiefs signed the Yakama treaty of 1855, and an 1872 Executive Order establishing the Colville reservation explicitly states it was for bands “not parties to any treaty,
” excluding the Palouse.
The CTUIR emphasizes the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) trust obligation to protect their interests. They argue the BIA should not approve a casino over 100 miles from the Colville reservation that would negatively impact the CTUIR’s economy, especially given the Colville tribe’s existing resources. The CTUIR asserts their standing as a “nearby Indian tribe” under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), given their trust land within 25 miles of the proposed site, and the Umatilla reservation’s closer proximity (42.9 miles) compared to the Colville reservation (112 miles). The BIA’s failure to respond to their concerns and recognize their standing is a further point of contention.
The CTUIR concludes by stating, “The BIA cannot honor its trust obligations to the CTUIR by approving an off-reservation casino for the Colville Tribe that will have a devastating impact on the CTUIR economy, our government and the services we offer our tribal community.” they firmly oppose the application, asserting that the Colville Tribe dose not need another casino, especially one with such potentially devastating consequences for the CTUIR and the Yakama Nation.
“it is also the largest source of tribal funds that support the governmental programs and services provided by the CTUIR.” Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
“to reestablish a trust land base in the customary territories of the Colville Tribe’s constituent tribes, which include, among others, the Palus,” Colville Tribe Application
“not parties to any treaty,” 1872 Executive Order
“The BIA cannot honor its trust obligations to the CTUIR by approving an off-reservation casino for the Colville Tribe that will have a devastating impact on the CTUIR economy, our government and the services we offer our tribal community.” Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
Clash of Trust: Unpacking the Economic and Cultural Dynamics Between Umatilla and Colville Tribes
In a landscape where indigenous sovereignty and economic survival intersect, the potential advancement of a new casino by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation has sparked heated debates and underscored deep-seated tensions between neighboring tribes.How does this development threaten the delicate balance of trust lands, economy, and cultural heritage among indigenous communities? Let’s explore with Dr. Alex Rivera, an expert in Native American economic and cultural studies.
The Geopolitical Tug-of-War: Understanding Tribal Borders and Rights
Senior Editor: Dr. Rivera,to start,could you provide some ancient context that explains why the Umatilla tribe is so opposed to the Colville Tribe’s casino plan?
Dr. Alex Rivera: Certainly. The dispute centers on issues of territorial rights and economic impact rooted deeply in history. The Confederate Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) argue that the site in Pasco, Washington, lies within their ancestral lands as defined by the 1855 Treaty. This already contentious boundary becomes more complex when considering the historical agreements like the Yakama treaty and the 1872 Executive Order,which exclude the Palous bands from Colville lands. The CTUIR fears that this proposed casino—being so proximate to their lands yet far from the Colville reservation—contravenes both legal and cultural precedents and threatens their economic stability.
Economic Implications: Jeopardizing a Lifeline for Community Services
Senior Editor: What are the primary economic concerns raised by the CTUIR, and how might these concerns manifest in tangible ways for the community?
dr. Alex Rivera: The economic impact goes beyond mere revenue loss. CTUIR owns the Wildhorse Resort & Casino, which is a vital economic engine providing over a thousand jobs and bolstering the tribe’s governmental and social services.The introduction of a competing casino merely 3.7 miles away could potentially divert patrons, reducing revenue by notable margins. This reduction not only jeopardizes employment but also impacts their ability to fund essential services and community grants, reducing resources allocated for vital societal needs like healthcare, education, and cultural preservation.
Cultural considerations: Reasserting Historical Narratives
Senior Editor: How does the cultural justification from the Colville Tribe play into this disagreement, and why is it significant?
Dr. Alex Rivera: Cultural claims are pivotal as they inform tribal identity and historical narratives. The Colville Tribe’s assertion that the Pasco site would “reestablish a trust land base in the customary territories” is rejected based on historical documents indicating the Palous were parties to the Yakama treaty. This claim is not merely semantic; it ties into broader tribal identities and the legitimacy of territorial claims. The CTUIR and others see this as an prospect to rectify or contest perceived historical inaccuracies, underscoring the delicate balance between cultural validation and legal frameworks.
Legal Integrity: The Role of the Bureau of Indian Affairs
Senior Editor: Could you elaborate on the legal obligations of the bureau of Indian Affairs in this context and why the CTUIR believes their concerns have been disregarded?
Dr. Alex Rivera: The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act provides provisions that recognize tribes with trust lands within certain proximity as having substantial interests in proposed developments. The CTUIR argues they qualify as a “nearby indian tribe,” which entitles them to more than a passive role in the approval process. Their concerns are rooted in the trust responsibility of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to protect tribal interests,suggesting that approval of the project would breach this obligation by potentially inflicting economic harm. The lack of response from BIA to CTUIR’s grievances adds to their contention that these responsibilities are not being honored.
Looking Forward: Solutions for Sustainable Development
senior Editor: What might be a constructive path forward for both tribes to consider,ensuring economic stability and respect for cultural heritage?
Dr. Alex Rivera: engagement through dialogue and mediation can serve as effective means of resolution. Ther’s a need for collaborative agreements that can distribute the economic benefits equitably, perhaps through shared development initiatives or joint ventures. Also, reinforcing avenues for cultural exchange and mutual understanding can aid in resolving historical tensions. Above all, development plans should include comprehensive impact assessments and community input to balance economic gains with cultural and social integrity.
Final Thoughts: This ongoing dispute between the Umatilla and Colville tribes highlights the intricate relationship between economic development and cultural heritage among indigenous communities. Readers are encouraged to consider how historical contexts and modern developments intersect in meaningful ways, impacting not just the tribes involved but indigenous groups worldwide. Share your thoughts in the comments below or join the conversation on social media. How can indigenous perspectives shape our understanding of sustainable development?