Privatizing the Reservation?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Articles Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship 2019 Privatizing the Reservation? Kristen A. Carpenter University of Colorado Law School Angela R. Riley UCLA School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Legislation Commons, and the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Citation Information Kristen A. Carpenter and Angela R. Riley, Privatizing the Reservation?, 71 STAN. L. REV. 791 (2019), available at https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/1235. Copyright Statement Copyright protected. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship at Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Stanford Law Review Volume 71 April 2019 ARTICLE Privatizing the Reservation? Kristen A. Carpenter & Angela R. Riley* Abstract. The problems of American Indian poverty and reservation living conditions have inspired various explanations. One response advanced by some economists and commentators, which may be gaining traction within the Trump Administration, calls for the “privatization” of Indian lands. Proponents of this view contend that reservation poverty is rooted in the federal Indian trust arrangement, which preserves the tribal land base by limiting the marketability of lands within reservations. In order to maximize wealth on reservations, policymakers are advocating for measures that would promote the individuation and alienability of tribal lands, while diminishing federal and tribal oversight. Taking a different view, this Article complicates and challenges the narrative of Indian poverty and land tenure advanced by privatization advocates. We focus on real estate and housing in Indian Country to make three points. First, we argue that the salience of Indian homelands as places of collective religious significance, socioeconomic sustenance, and territorial governance has been lost in the privatization debate, which also largely disregards issues of remedial justice associated with conquest and colonization. Second, we introduce to the legal literature new empirical data and economic analysis from the Native Nations Institute demonstrating that the current system of land tenure in Indian Country is much more varied, and recent innovations in federal-tribal housing and finance * Kristen A. Carpenter is Council Tree Professor of Law, University of Colorado Law School; and Member from North America, United Nations Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Angela R. Riley is Professor of Law and Director, Native Nations Law and Policy Center, UCLA School of Law; Co-Chair, United Nations Indigenous Peoples Partnership Policy Board; and Chief Justice, Citizen Potawatomi Nation Supreme Court. The authors would like to thank Miriam Jorgensen and Randy Akee, along with the Native Nations Institute, for groundbreaking empirical work in this field. Deep gratitude goes to the many people in Indian Country referenced throughout this Article who have contributed to our knowledge and shared with us their experiences with tribal innovation on the ground. We extend our sincere appreciation to Greg Ablavsky, Jim Anaya, Chairman Rocky Barrett, Greg Bigler, Rick Collins, Steve Cornell, Carla Fredericks, Carole Goldberg, Joe Kalt, Sarah Krakoff, Stacy Leeds, Lance Morgan, Ezra Rosser, Jessica Shoemaker, Rebecca Tsosie, Charles Wilkinson, and Rob Williams for inspiring our thinking on this and other topics. We thank Brandon Stoffers for outstanding research assistance. 791 Privatizing the Reservation? 71 STAN. L. REV. 791 (2019) programs are more promising, than some of the calls for privatization would suggest. Finally, using specific examples from Indian Country, we highlight a model of indigenous self-determination and sustainability, rooted in the international human rights movement, that deserves attention in ongoing domestic policy debates about land tenure, and which has the potential to advance the well-being of humanity more broadly. 792 Privatizing the Reservation? 71 STAN. L. REV. 791 (2019) Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 794 I. A Legal and Cultural History of Land Tenure in Indian Country ................................ 807 II. Privatizing Indian Country ................................................................................................................. 825 A. Innovations in Indian Country Housing ........................................................................... 827 B. Assessing Federal Statutory Programs ................................................................................ 830 1. The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 ............................. 831 2. The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) ....................................................................... 835 3. The Cobell settlement and Indian Reorganization Act section 5 ................ 837 4. The HEARTH Act ................................................................................................................ 839 III. Self-Determination and Sustainability .......................................................................................... 841 A. Indigenous Worldviews and Property Laws .................................................................. 850 B. The Human Rights Paradigm: Self-Determination and Sustainability ............ 856 1. Self-determination ............................................................................................................... 856 2. Sustainability ........................................................................................................................... 858 C. Examples from Indian Country .............................................................................................. 862 1. Ho-Chunk: sustainable economies and pragmatic innovation on the reservation ................................................................................................................ 864 2. Citizen Potawatomi: institution building and economic development following a legacy of removal ......................................................... 867 3. Penobscot: finance and culture after land claims ................................................ 870 4. Kanatsiohareke Mohawk Community: healing the land and the people ......................................................................................................................... 873 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................... 877 793 Privatizing the Reservation? 71 STAN. L. REV. 791 (2019) Introduction In popular culture, American Indian reservations often appear as islands of neglect and despair.1 These depictions draw from grains of truth, some of them quite devastating. Last winter on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, for example, a twelve-year-old girl reportedly attempted suicide because she was freezing.2 Many Indian reservations are plagued by high rates of poverty,3 along with substandard housing, poor health, crime, and other social ills.4 The problems of Indian poverty and living conditions on reservations have inspired various explanations. But one account, advanced by economists and commentators,5 has started to gain traction and is now seen as part and parcel 1. A recent example is the film Wind River, in which a white FBI officer investigates the murder of an Indian woman against a backdrop of poverty and lawlessness on the frozen Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming. See WIND RIVER (Acacia Entertainment 2017); see also Ian Frazier, On the Rez, ATLANTIC (Dec. 1999), https://perma.cc/DT47-MAB6 (“‘Bleak’ is the word attached in many people’s minds to the idea of certain Indian reservations . .”). For a very different perspective, see DAVID TREUER, REZ LIFE: AN INDIAN’S JOURNEY THROUGH RESERVATION LIFE (2012) (describing the cultural cohesion of reservation life and its link to tribal sovereignty from the residents’ perspective). 2. See Eleanor Goldberg, Native Americans Who Can’t Afford Heat Take Desperate Measures to Stay Warm, HUFFPOST (Jan. 13, 2018, 10:40 AM ET), https://perma.cc/5KE6-CZ8X. 3. See, e.g., Jens Manuel Krogstad, One-in-Four Native Americans and Alaska Natives Are Living in Poverty, PEW RES. CTR.: FACT TANK (June 13, 2014), https://perma.cc/EK3P -7XBK. 4. See Stephen Cornell & Joseph P. Kalt, American Indian Self-Determination: The Political Economy of a Successful Policy 5 (Joint Occasional Papers on Native Affairs, Working Paper No. 1, 2010), https://perma.cc/BVH8-KKGD. 5. For academic perspectives, see TERRY L. ANDERSON, SOVEREIGN NATIONS OR RESERVATIONS?: AN ECONOMIC HISTORY OF AMERICAN INDIANS 111-37 (1995) (arguing that lands held in fee are more agriculturally productive than trust lands); Terry L. Anderson & Bryan