What’s unfortunate is that CSAC misrepresents the fee-to-trust process itself. Federal law says the Secretary of the Interior “must consider the need of the individual Indian or tribe for the additional land and the purposes for which the land will be used when evaluating trust acquisition requests.” So the purpose of the land transfer has to be clearly stated in the application.

This process is even more complex when it involves environmental compliance. While county authority is governed by the California Environmental Quality Act, Tribes operate under the framework of the federal National Environmental Policy Act and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. So applications for land into trust must be documented under a complex compliance grid that includes the purpose of the land acquisition, environmental and socioeconomic factors — and even impacts to surrounding jurisdictions. All of this paperwork actually starts with county records, ranging from environmental compliance reviews to title searches.

Another issue that CSAC misrepresents concerns public notice. Cities and Counties are given a 30-day notice when a land into trust application has been filed and is finally complete. The BIA gives local governments at least 30 days to respond, but in practice it’s often 60 days or more after extensions. The BIA only issues a notice of application to local governments at the end of the process, which can take years. This is by design; there is no need to burden already overworked and understaffed local governments with applications that may never be considered.

After the 30-day notice, local governments also have the opportunity to respond to Draft Environmental Assessments, the Final Environmental Assessment, and determinations, such as the Finding of No Significant Impact and the Notice of Decision.

Perhaps the greatest misrepresentation by CSAC is the idea that the BIA process is biased, approving land into trust with little review. This argument is entirely backward.