The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

1

the state of indian country arizona | volume 1 2 Artwork: Randy Kemp, Choctaw/Euchee/Muscogee-Creek (Turtle Clan)

Randy Kemp is an environmental graphic designer, sr., for Arizona State University and an alumnus of the ASU Katherine K. Herberger College of Arts where he earned a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree specializing in Painting. Before coming to ASU, Randy earned an Associate of Arts degree from the reputed Bacone Junior College in Muskogee, Oklahoma. There he studied under the artistic leadership of prominent American Indian artists: W. Richard West, Sr., Solomon McCombs, and Ruthe Blalock Jones. His artwork has been exhibited in prestigious museums, galleries and private collections throughout the world.

A report presented by the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., the ASU Office of the President on American Indian Initiatives, and the ASU Office of Public Affairs. Copyright Arizona Board of Regents 2013. The sunburst logo is a registered trademark and the Arizona State University wordmark is a trademark of the Arizona Board of Regents. Copyrights to original works remain with the authors, artist, and photographers. The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013 contents

5 ASU Letter 1 President Michael Crow 6 Foreward John Lewis, ITCA 8 Introduction Diane Humetewa, Esq. 12 Cultural Rights Matters: American Indian Struggles for Burial Rights, Repatriation, and Religious Freedom Dr. James Riding In 20 Profile: The Apache Tribes 22 Assessing the Challenges in American Indian Population Data Norm DeWeaver 28 Profile: The Pai Tribes 32 American Indian/Alaskan Native Health and Human Services Delivery Systems Dr. Eddie Brown, Dr. John Molina, Jacob Moore, and Walter Murillo 42 Profile: The O’odham Tribes 46 Leveraging Native Language & Culture for Future Success Mario Molina 52 Profile: Southern Paiute Tribes 54 Tribes in Arizona and Sustainability: Natural Resources, Energy, and Environmental Management Dr. Patricia Mariella 70 Profile: The River Tribes 74 Economic Development in Indian Country in Arizona Carl Artman, Esq. 80 Profile: Hopi, Navajo, Pascua Yaqui and Zuni 84 Credits and Acknowledgments 2 Tribal Map The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

PAGE Ak-Chin Indian Community Pascua Yaqui Tribe 3 San Juan Kaibab-Paiute Tribe Southern Paiute Cocopah Indian Tribe Salt River Pima-Maricopa Tribe Indian Community Navajo Nation Colorado River Indian Tribes San Carlos Apache Tribe Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Havasupai Hopi San Juan Southern Tribe Tribe Paiute Tribe Fort Mojave Indian Tribe Hualapai Tribe Tohono O’odham Nation Quechan Tribe Tonto Apache Tribe Gila River Indian Community KINGMAN White Mountain Apache Tribe FLAGSTAFF Havasupai Tribe Fort Mojave Tribe Zuni Tribe Yavapai-Apache Nation CAMP VERDE Hualapai Tribe Yavapai-Apache Nation Yavapai Prescott Indian Tribe PRESCOTT Yavapai Prescott Tribe Hopi Tribe PAYSON Pueblo of Zuni Kaibab Paiute Tribe Tonto Apache Colorado River Tribe Indian Tribes White Mountain Navajo Nation Fort McDowell Apache Tribe Yavapai Nation

PHOENIX San Carlos Salt River Apache Tribe Pima-Maricopa Gila River Indian Community Fort Yuma- Indian Quechan Tribe Community Ak-Chin Indian Community YUMA Cocopah Tribe

Tohono TUCSON O’odham Pascua Yaqui Tribe Nation 4 The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

Arizona State University’s evolution into the New American University is guided by eight design aspirations that begin with Leveraging Our Place. 5 This goal is first because it acknowledges that we are uniquely situated in a diverse and culturally rich geographic region−Arizona. To thrive as a top-tier public university, ASU must embrace its cultural, socioeconomic, and physical setting. ASU’s physical “place” is situated on or near the ancient homelands of various American Indian tribes. Though these Tribal Nations, indigenous to the region, were relegated to reservation land, they have survived intact and continue to adapt and thrive in our ever changing and challenging environment.

This State of Indian Country Arizona Report was developed to shed light on the 22 Tribal Nations located primarily within the boundaries of the state of Arizona and on their unique legal status with both Arizona and the United States. This report examines the state of tribal members who are both citizens of Arizona and of their respective tribal nations, which is different than being considered a minority group. It describes the influences Tribal Nations have in shaping the future of Arizona’s public policies and economies, while simultaneously maintaining their own unique cultures, values, economies, and independent governments. It captures snapshots of Tribal Nation initiatives aimed at progressive future growth while adhering to principled traditional cultures that have sustained American Indian people for centuries.

ASU is honored to partner with the Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA) in the development of this inaugural report. Since 1975, the ITCA has served as a common voice and advocate for Tribal Nations and Communities whose perspectives have been historically disregarded even when the dialogue involved their own members and governments. I respectfully thank the ITCA and its Member Tribes for their contributions to this report. Additional contributions to this report were made by the ITCA staff, the Phoenix Indian Medical Center (Indian Health Service), and Native Health, Inc. Their expertise is critical to our efforts to present an accurate picture of Tribal Nations in Arizona.

ASU is well positioned to take on this important work because it maintains one of the largest populations of American Indian student, faculty and staff in the nation, as well as some of the largest American Indian Studies academic curricula and American Indian focused programs. Contributions were made by ASU faculty, staff and students from the American Indian Studies Program, the Center for Indian Education, the American Indian Policy Institute, the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law Indian Legal Program, the ASU Office of Public Affairs, and the President’s Office on American Indian Initiatives. We hope that the collaborative effort between ITCA and ASU faculty and programs can begin to articulate the perspective of Tribal Nations and Communities to a much broader audience that understands little of Arizona’s first caretakers.

As Assistant Executive Director, Alberta Tippeconnic, helped guide ITCA for thirty-five years. ASU’s legacy includes Alberta Tippeconnic as a distinguished alumni and former staff member. Alberta was known for her steadfast resolve to ensure tribal people are treated with respect and understanding. Alberta was an early contributor to the planning, development, and design of this report. While she left us before its completion, I hope that the State of Indian Country Arizona Report honors the principles that guided Alberta in her life work.

On behalf of all those that contributed to this endeavor, I hope that you find this report thought provoking, educational, and a reflection of the critical work undertaken by ASU to foster a better understanding of the dynamic place we call Arizona.

Michael M. Crow President 6 As the inaugural State of Indian Country Arizona report, there were many challenges to consider. “ Tribal governments are individual sovereign nations with the ability to interact with other governments independent of one another and on a Nation-to- Nation basis. Therefore, The State of Indian Country Arizona is as much an effort to accurately describe the legal, social, and economic relationship between the 22 Tribal Nations and the state of Arizona.

foreword The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

Foreword 7 By John Lewis, Executive Director, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.

The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, and the ASU Office of the President on American Indian Initiatives, in partnership with ASU for Arizona – Office of Public Affairs, is pleased to present The State of Indian Country Arizona. This publication is the result of a special collaboration between the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona and Arizona State University to share the unique perspectives and rich diversity of Tribal Nations and American Indian people located throughout the state of Arizona. ASU faculty from the American Indian Policy Institute, the American Indian Studies Program, the Indian Legal Program, and guest authors collectively contributed to this report. Considerable time was taken to ensure that the interpretation and representation of Indian Country in Arizona is presented in a way that respects the sovereignty and integrity of each respective tribe. As the inaugural State of Indian Country Arizona report, there were many challenges to consider. Tribal governments are individual sovereign nations with the ability to interact with other governments independent of one another and on a Nation-to-Nation basis. Therefore, The State of Indian Country Arizona is as much an effort to accurately describe the legal, social, and economic relationship between the 22 Tribal Nations and the state of Arizona. As independent Tribal Nations, access to comprehensive, available, and accurate data is an inherent challenge. However, within these limitations we discovered opportunities to build stronger collaborations between Tribal Nations and ASU that can benefit the vitality of tribal communities and build a better understanding of the tribes in the state of Arizona. The terms American Indian, Native American, Indigenous, and Native people are used interchangeably throughout this report to identify people indigenous to North America, whose ancestors planted, hunted, danced, sang, lived, and prayed in this region throughout past millennia. What emerges in this report is an appreciation for Tribal Nations who hold fast to their core spiritual values as reflected in their traditional culture and language; diligence in continuing and protecting their governance models; and resilience in ensuring the success of future generations of American Indian people. On behalf of the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, thank you to all those that have helped to make this publication possible. It is our hope that through this effort, the general public will better understand the unique nature of independent sovereign nations within a nation and recognition of the economic impact, vitality, and influence the Tribal Nations have throughout the state of Arizona.

John R. Lewis Executive Director Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. 8 Every tribe uses stories to pass on its wisdom and values. The oral history of story telling is common among tribes and is used to pass down traditional cultural knowledge and understanding from generation to generation. Long before written languages, elders, parents, aunts and uncles told stories to their children to teach them valuable lessons about their relationship with the world around them. Children understood that they were privileged to listen to these stories and that knowing theses stories would help them better understand their peoples’ past and to be firmly grounded in ancestral knowledge that will prepare them for their own future. In this tradition, the State of Indian Country Arizona presents several important stories about Indian people today in Arizona. In every case, the facts presented are vital, but it is equally important to understand why we chose to share these particular topics. Every section of this report reflects the common values of our Native American communities and culture. Like traditional basketry or weaving, each story is a strand in the societal introduction fabric that not only sustained the tribes through difficult challenges of the past, but also strengthens each tribe well into the future. By telling our stories, our goal is to help the general public to become more knowledgeable of the cultural, social, economic, and spiritual richness that is Indian Country in Arizona. The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

Introduction 9 By Diane Humetewa, Esq.

In 1885, when the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona by failed federal policies of tribal termination, removal from established the Tempe Normal School,1 Arizona Territory was aboriginal homelands and attempts to assimilate tribal members an expansive landscape that appeared ripe for exploration and into mainstream society. Over the last fifty years, federal policies settlement. Yet it was home to dozens of Indian nations whose have evolved to acknowledge Indian tribes as governments that ancestors had always lived on this land. While the young Arizona are fully capable of self-governing. legislature contemplated the role of higher education for Arizona The federal government’s responsibilities to and relationship with settlers, twenty-two Indian nations grappled with how to survive in Indian nations are shaped by acts of Congress, Administrative newly defined reservations mandated by the federal government policies and Executive Orders that are all subject to U.S. Supreme Indian removal policies.2 Court interpretation. The earliest decisions the Court compared Nearly 130 years later, Arizona State University has evolved into Congress’s relationship with Tribes to that of a guardian and a one of the largest public universities in the nation. Simultaneously, ward and reminded Congress that Indian tribes ceded millions of American Indian populations and their governments have grown acres of land to the U.S. in exchange for its protection, provision in size and complexity. This growth has been multifaceted. No of care for the health and welfare of tribal members and specific other group of people in the nation has been affected by federal land on which to settle.5 “Indian Country” is the legal term used and state government policies quite like the American Indian. To to describe the land to be occupied by tribal nations and the term understand the state of Indian Country in Arizona, one must first has expanded into a complex legal description onto itself.6 understand the historic status of tribal governments in Arizona By virtue of the exclusive authority of Congress to deal with relative to their relationship with the state and the nation. Indian tribes, State governments may not interfere with tribal 7 American Indians and Indian tribes have a unique status in the self-governance. The Enabling Act of 1910 authorized Arizona’s United States. American Indians are a distinct class of citizen admission into statehood and it also required Arizona to adopt because they have a political and legal relationship with the a state Constitution. When Arizona convened to draft its State United States unlike any other racially diverse group.3 Indians Constitution, provisions therein specifically exempted Indian lands from taxation and acknowledged the U.S. Congress’ jurisdiction are at once citizens of the nation, their individual states and over Indian lands.8 Nonetheless, over the years, Arizona routinely citizens of their own tribal governments. Tribal governments challenged their own laws and made various attempts to exert its are independent sovereigns that have a direct relationship with authority in Indian Country. the federal government.4 This “government-to-government” relationship is complex because it is shaped by United States State challenges to tribal sovereignty, such as attempts to tax history and its’ political and legal evolution. That history is marred certain activity occurring in Indian country, created tension 10

between the states and tribes and made it more difficult for their Commission of Indian Affairs to address the conditions experienced relationships to progress. by Indians living in Arizona. The Commission’s work has culminated in a yearly “Indian Nations and Tribes Legislative Day” where the American Indians were also among the last to be granted state voting Arizona State Legislature and Arizona Tribal Government leaders rights, including in Arizona. In 1928, a Gila River Indian Community meet in a Special Session at the start of each legislative session to member filed a lawsuit to gain the right to vote in state elections. discuss state legislation and policies that affect Indian Country in The Arizona Supreme Court denied voting rights for Indians because Arizona. they were under federal guardianship and the Arizona Constitution denied voting rights to “mental incompetents and people under On September 14, 2006 the Governor of Arizona signed Executive guardianship.”9 In 1947, two members of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Order 2006-14, Consultation and Cooperation with Arizona Tribes. Nation successfully filed suit seeking to overturn the 1928 decision Like the U.S. President’s 2000 Executive Order 13175 on Tribal and gained state voting rights for Arizona’s tribal members. Consultation, the Governor’s Order required each Executive Branch Over time, tribal governments have established relationships with agency to develop and implement a consultation policy to guide its the states in which they reside since they share common geographic work and interaction with Arizona tribal governments when the state boundaries and a bona fide interest in cooperation for their own agency’s work could affect a Tribe. In December 2008, the Arizona benefit and for the benefit of their tribal members. For their part, Board of Regents established its own Executive Order 1-118, which states like Arizona accepted that Indian tribes are governments requires the State’s three universities to establish a consultative operating within their state boundaries. They recognize that their own approach with tribal governments when university activities can developments often warrant the use of tribal economic and natural affect a tribal community. This signaled an historic change to the resources. States have also acknowledged that American Indian usual practices of research or project development and fosters open populations in their towns and cities have grown exponentially and communication between state agencies and tribal governments. that tribal governments and their members significantly contribute ASU embraced the Executive Order to support research and project to state identities, economies, and successes, including political development that achieves meaningful impacts on issues that matter successes. to tribal communities. This first “State of Indian Country Arizona” The evolution of the relationship includes an important recognition report was developed in this spirit. ASU is proud to partner with that the state’s relationship with each of the twenty-two Indian Arizona Tribes to produce this important and timely report. We look tribal governments is unique because each tribe is unique as forward to continuing our relationship with tribal governments to are the needs of their tribal members. To foster state and tribal contribute to and promote a better understanding of the past, present relationships, in 1953, Arizona’s 21st Legislature established the and future state of Indian Country in Arizona. n The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

11

Diane J. Humetewa, Esq., is Special Advisor to ASU President Michael M. Crow on American Indian Affairs, Special Counsel in the Office of ASU’s General Counsel and Professor of Practice in the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. Ms. Humetewa was the former U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona (2007-2009) and the first Native American female to hold that position. Diane has held various positions as a public lawyer, including as counsel in the U.S. Senate and in the U.S. Department of Justice. She is a member of the Hopi tribe.

1 See Arizona House Bill 164, “An Act to Establish a Normal School in the Territory of Arizona.” 2 The Indian Removal Act was signed into law by President Andrew Jackson in 1830 and was the policy of the United States through 1858. 3 See Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974). 4 Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832). 5 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831). 6 See 18 U.S.C. 1151; See also Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, 522 U.S. 520 (1998). 7 U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8. 8 Arizona State Constitution, Article 20, Section 4 and Section 5 (ratified in 1910). 9 See July 15, 2008, U.S. House Floor Statement of former Cong. Harry E. Mitchell “Commemorating Arizona Native American Right to Vote Day.” 12 A June 2012 meeting at Sandra Day O’Connor School of Law at Arizona State University, brought together more than fifty Indian delegates from Arizona and other states to discuss solutions to the problems facing them. They focused on three areas of cultural rights: the right to burial protections; the right to repatriate stolen human remains, burial offerings, and cultural items; and the right to freely worship at their off-reservation sacred places. These issues stem from an appalling history of cultural suppression. – Dr. James Riding In We begin with a story about Cultural Rights as our ancestors are from here and because we are taught to hold certain beliefs, things, and places as sacred. cultural rights The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

Cultural Rights Matters: American Indian graves, that are necessary for the Land Management, and National 13 dead to make the transition to the Park Service subsequently issued Struggles for Burial Rights, Repatriation, spiritual world. permits that allowed the mining, and Religious Freedom Despite manifesting an un- ranching, timbering, and recre- yielding desire to preserve their ational industries to desecrate By James Riding In customary ways of living, by the sacred landscapes. Federal land Cultural rights are human rights. For years, late 1800, American Indians had managers often denied Indian fallen under a system of U.S. religious practitioners access to American Indians have been engaged in highly oppression that treated them as those places. contentious, uphill struggles to reclaim cultural incompetent wards of the gov- Compounding matters, pothu- ernment. The U.S. government, nters and archaeologists looted rights denied them by the U.S. government. A working in concert with Chris- Indian burials on public and June 2012 meeting at Sandra Day O’Connor tian groups, planned a coercive reservation lands with impunity. School of Law at Arizona State University, brought program to transform Indians into Under the Antiquities Act of 1906, mirror images of white Americans U.S. authorities attempted to ban together more that fifty Indian delegates from in thought, beliefs, and behavior. the illicit operations of pothunters Arizona and other states to discuss solutions From the 1880s to the 1930s, the while requiring archaeologists to Bureau of Indian Affairs outlawed obtain permits before conducting to the problems facing them. They focused on non-Christian religious practices excavations on public and reser- three areas of cultural rights: the right to burial on reservations. This effort dam- vation lands. These legal diggers protections; the right to repatriate stolen human aged Indian cultures but did not agreed to place exhumed human destroy them.1 As evidenced by remains, grave contents, pottery, remains, burial offerings, and cultural items; and the 2012 gathering of delegates and other items in public repos- the right to freely worship at their off-reservation at ASU, Indians in Arizona have itories for study in perpetuity.2 yet to be deterred from working Because of its arid climate and sacred places. These issues stem from an to preserve their cultures and to long history of Indian occupancy, appalling history of cultural suppression. protect their right to practice their archaeologists viewed the South- cultures. west as a rich land for plying their Through Federal Indian removal trade. Pot hunting continues to Before foreign colonizers arrived deities live and where they pray, policies, American Indians lost be a pastime in many rural com- in the Southwest, Indians of places where their ancestors control over millions of acres of munities. As a result, many Indi- Arizona had the freedom to live in once lived, migrated, harvested land, which the U.S. government an cultural items have been and accordance with their respective medicinal plants, and buried had appropriated. These stolen continue to be sold on the open values, beliefs, and customs. their dead. When burying their lands then became public domain. and black markets both nationally Their sacred cultural landscapes deceased loved ones, American Federal agencies such as the and internationally.3 include mountains where their Indian ancestors placed objects in U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Meanwhile, on reservations, In- 14 dians experienced starvation and Peabody Museum, Arizona State punishments for participating in University, the Museum of Ari- religious and healing ceremonies. zona, Field Museum of Natural In this environment, individuals History, and the Phoebe Hurst oftentimes violated the customary Museum. These remains were laws and creation accounts that placed on public display and structured their lives by selling occasionally studied.5 religious objects entrusted to their care to museum curators. Then Burial Protections and too, outsiders sold stolen reli- Repatriation gious items to museum curators Despite suffering tremendous and private collectors. Museums losses of land, freedom, and largely functioned without moral or resources, Indians in Arizona sur- ethical constraints in their amass- vived the onslaught. In defending ing of vast Indian collections for their distinct political and cultural study and display.4 rights, Indians drew inspiration The impact of these federally and guidance from long-standing items from museums. They Hawaiians, a process to repatriate sanctioned grave looting and cultural values and beliefs. During also worked to ensure that their human remains, funerary objects, museum collection practices was the 1930s, although the U.S. spiritual leaders and worshipers objects of cultural patrimony, and devastating. Nationwide, over government lifted the religious would have access to sacred sacred objects in the control and 200,000 human remains and bans placed on them during the places on federal lands and that possession of hundreds of mu- millions of burial items ended up 1880s, the government did not federal land managers would stop seums, except the Smithsonian in museums and federal agencies. ensure that Indian sacred lands making decisions that would affect Museums, and federal agencies Indians in Arizona suffered greatly located off reservations would the integrity of those places. To across the nation. Still, under from the looting of sacred sites. be protected from desecration gain attention to the injustices NAGPRA, museums and federal Museums obtained possession or made accessible to religious confronting them, Indians agencies have the final authority of enormous collections of Indian practitioners. Nor did it act to stop organized and held marches, to determine the cultural affiliation cultural items, including numer- archaeologists from looting Indian rallies, and protests. They also of items in their collection. As ous sacred objects and objects graves or protect remote Indian lobbied Congress for assistance a result, Native Americans are of cultural patrimony. Human graves from pothunters. with some success.6 severely disadvantaged by only remains ancestral to the Tohono During the late 1960s, many The Native American Graves having the right of consultation in O’odhams, Akimel O’odhams, Indian activists and their allies Protection and Repatriation Act this process.7 Hopis, Navajos, Zunis, Yavapais, sought to halt the looting, end the [“NAGPRA”] was signed into law Although NAGPRA enables Apaches, Hualapais, Mohaves, destruction of their burial sites, November 1990. It provides Native Americans to repatriate and and others were excavated and and recover ancestral human Native Americans, defined in the rebury large numbers of human shipped to such places as the remains and revered cultural law as Indian nations and Native remains and funeral objects, many The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

museums and federal agencies protect Indian religious and cul- failed in most instances to provide the religious freedom of Indians 15 have responded slowly, if not defi- tural rights, but they leave deci- relief but have also tightened the and their ability to use the First antly. Old attitudes about scien- sion-making authority in federal grip of federal control over Indian Amendment and the Religious tists’ rights to preserve collections hands, without allowing Indian religious freedom. With Lyng Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 of Indian remains, grave goods, participation in the pre-planning v. Northwest Indian Cemetery to protect their sacred places and cultural items continue to be and planning stages.9 Protective Association,12 485 U.S. from desecration. Attempts to championed in some settings. Some federal land managers 439 (1988) and a host of other stop further desecration of the Nationally, institutions have have worked cooperatively federal cases, Indians learned San Francisco Peaks and Mount retained possession of more than with Indian religious leaders, two important lessons. First, Graham ended disastrously. Yet, 120,000 human remains, or about but others have ignited bitter judges have the power (and will- these defeats have not squashed two-thirds of all human remains, protests by ignoring the sacred ingness) to hand down decisions the spirit of Indian resistance. that they have classified as nature of lands under their care. that strike at the heart of Indian Ola Cassadore Davis, a San culturally unidentifiable. A 2009 In Arizona, since AIRFA, the belief systems. Second, the U.S. Carlos Apache who died on GAO report found that key federal Forest Service twice allowed the Constitution does not protect their November 25, 2012, at the age agencies have failed to comply expansion of skiing operations religious freedom. In Lyng, the of 89, was one of those gallant fully with the law’s requirements. on the San Francisco Peaks, a U.S. Supreme Court held that the defenders of Indian spirituality. Some agencies have not complet- mountain of profound religious construction of a Forest Service She led the fight to save Mount ed the required inventories of hu- significance to at least thirteen road through an area sacred to Graham from further desecra- man remains and cultural items.8 Indian nations whose members three Northern California tribes tion being planned by the Forest maintain that the construction did not violate the First Amend- Service, University of Arizona, Sacred Places imposes a substantial burden on ment’s Free Exercise Clause. Max Planck Institute of Germany, The record shows that Con- their free exercise of religion. In Writing the court’s majority opin- the Vatican, and others. The gress responded half-heartedly 1984, the Forest Service also ion, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor mountain sits on a vast stretch to the Indian pleas for religious approved construction of an held that the road was allowable, of land that the U.S. government freedom. The American Indian astronomical telescope project even if it destroyed the area’s sa- confiscated in 1872 from the Religious Freedom Act of 1978 atop Mount Graham, against credness and the Indians’ belief San Carlos Apaches. Viewing (AIRFA) requires that federal land the opposition of the San Carlos system, because the government the telescopes as a threat to managers stop interfering with Apaches who view the mountain was not using coercion to prevent her peoples’ existence, Ola Indian worship at sacred places. with profound reverence.10 Other the plaintiffs from practicing their organized the Apache Survival Executive Order 13007 of 1996, endangered places in Arizona religion. She also wrote, “Whatev- Coalition, which included environ- Indian Sacred Sites, directed include Big Mountain, Oak Flat, er rights the Indians may have to mental groups and others. With land managers to accommodate South Mountain, and Red Butte. the use of the area, those rights her husband Mike at her side a Native American religious ceremo- Nationally, more than a hundred do not divest the Government of few years back, Ola gained inter- nies and avoid actions affecting sacred areas are threatened.11 its right to use what is, after all, national attention to her cause the physical integrity of sacred Indian attempts to use the its land.”13 as she traveled tirelessly across sites. These measures ostensibly colonizer’s courts have not only Lyng threatens to undermine Europe and the United States.14 Recommendations from The ASU Meeting on the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (June 18-19, 2012)

16 The NAGPRA Roundtable was hosted by the ASU Amer- The participants proposed the following changes: ican Indian Legal Program, the ASU American Indian • Empower the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Studies Program, and the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. Review Committee to render enforceable decisions rather than advisory recommendations. The meeting brought together tribal participants who • Demand that institutions with NAGPRA responsibilities discussed many of the cultural rights issues facing them demonstrate a greater level of transparency, accountability, and and proposed solutions to carry tribal rights forward. understanding. The event’s planners selected Arizona State Univer- • Establish an educational process to inform museums and federal agencies about Indian beliefs concerning the dead, funerary sity as the meeting site because of its law school’s objects, and cultural items. long-standing willingness to host symposia about NAG- • Provide training for tribal governments about NAGPRA and its PRA and religious freedom issues. The delegates’ rec- consultation process beyond what is now being provided by the ommendations to federal, state, and tribal governments National NAGPRA, the agency in the National Park Service that oversees the implementation of this law. on strengthening NAGPRA to protect Indian cultural • Encourage tribal governments to work in coalitions to pursue rights are described below. shared group identity claims for the repatriation of culturally unidentifiable human remains. Disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains and the • Encourage individuals to write letters to Congress stating their repatriation of funerary objects concerns regarding NAGPRA’s unresolved issues.16 Adopted in 2010 by the Department of Interior, the rule govern- Amend the definition of NAGPRA and strengthen its criminal ing the disposition of the culturally unidentifiable human remains provisions requires museums and federal agencies to offer to repatriate those human remains in their collections classified as culturally unidentifi- In Bonnichsen v. United States (9th Cir. Feb. 4th, 2004), an appellant able. This rule leaves the repatriation of funerary objects up to the court upheld a lower court’s decision that rejected the cultural discretion of the holding entities, allowing hundreds of thousands affiliation claim by four plaintiff Indian nations to a very old set of of burial items to remain sequestered in non-Indian hands. All human remains, known as Kennewick Man, on the basis of NAGPRA’s major scientific organizations with NAGPRA interests opposed the definition of “Native American.” “Native American” is defined as rule on the grounds that it contravened a supposed compromise “of or relating to a tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous to between Indians and the archaeology/museum industry that had the United States.” Indians need to keep pushing for a NAGPRA enabled NAGPRA to become law. Conversely, Indians support the amendment to replace the “is indigenous to the United States” rule’s repatriation provision but challenge its exclusion of funerary language with “is or was indigenous . . . .” It should not come as a objects from mandatory repatriation. They see this omission as a surprise that the archaeology/museum industry lobbied Congress violation of their human rights and U.S. law, which specify that the to reject the amendment. Conversely, the Obama administration dead cannot be stripped of their property.15 supports amending NAGPRA in this manner. The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

Part of the intent of NAGPRA is to penalize grave looters and prohibit reliable repositories of knowledge regarding information pertaining 17 the trafficking of Native American human remains. Yet, scarce to sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony instead of arrests, few prosecutions, and inadequate fines have done little to relying on scholars as expert witnesses in repatriation matters. deter these crimes. A lack of law enforcement personnel assigned to investigate NAGPRA crimes and weak fines and penalties for those Protecting sacred places, ancestors, and burial grounds who commit violations provide little incentive to enforce the law. The A critical aspect to this session was discussion on the range participants asserted that: of problems stemming from mainstream America’s inability to • The U.S. government should establish meaningful punishments comprehend Indian concepts of the sacred. U.S. court decisions and expand the statute of limitation for NAGPRA crimes to bring pertaining to sacred sites have been particularly problematic, them into conformity with similar crimes committed against especially with the courts’ increasing reliance on the theory of laches museums.17 to deny Indians justice. Ways to avoid the Lyng menace may lie in • The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs should revive the establishing protective measures through meaningful consultation proposed “and or was” amendment, requesting the House with federal agencies, developing positive relations with local and of Representatives to become involved, and reaching out to state officials, and updating and strengthening existing executive supportive members of the archaeology community. orders pertaining to sacred places. Religious freedom issues could be avoided by creating co-management and co-stewardship with • Public and floor statements should be collected from the federal agencies over culturally sensitive lands. The nomination of amendment’s adherents to bolster the cause. Traditional Cultural Properties on public lands for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could protect those areas from Museum and federal agency non-compliance with NAGPRA harm allowed by the Mining Act of 1872 and other measures. Expressing mistrust and disapproval toward museums, the partici- Participants declared that: pants stressed that these institutions must be held accountable for • executive order revisions must be conducted in consultation with their actions and encouraged to help the process of healing within elders and spiritual leaders; Native American communities by admitting their wrongdoing. To this end, they recommend that: • coalitions of Indian nations and environmental organizations be formed to create a supportive network for the purpose of • Museums not be allowed to stall or block repatriation initiatives by protecting endangered sacred lands; claiming that the ambiguity of NAGPRA’s definitions makes such actions impossible to pursue. Rather, in these cases, the canons • federal agencies incorporate the principle of free, prior, and of construction, which hold that ambiguities in the law must be informed consent, as specified by the United Nations Declaration resolved in the favor of Indian interests, should be used. on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in their decision-making structures.18 • National NAGPRA must not allow museums to change the cultural designation of cultural items eligible for repatriation to suit their own designs. • Museums should give more credence to community elders who are 18 The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

In closing, although Indians in 19 Arizona and elsewhere face great obstacles in their struggles for cultural rights, they are fully committed to defending these rights. n

James Riding In is a Pawnee, an associate professor of American Indian Studies at Arizona State University, and the editor of Wicazo Sa Review. His scholarly works have been published in numerous academic journals and books. He is the co-editor of “Native Historians Write Back: Decolonizing American Indian History”.

Notes 1 Generally see, Suzan Shown Harjo, “Suzan Shown Harjo’s Statement for UN Special Rapporteur James Anaya,” Indian Country Today Media Network.com, April 27, 2012, 7 12 assessed on December 10, 2010, under extreme duress, Steve Titla Native American Graves Protection and Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Code_ and Naomi Thurson, “The Apache Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. § 3001- Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439 3013 (2006). (1988) of_Indian_Offenses; and NAGPRA,” Arizona State Law Journal 44 (Summer 2012): 803-08. 13 8 Riding In, “Introduction,” 621; generally Ibid., 453. 2  The American Antiquities Act, 16 U.S.C. 5 see, Rebecca Tsosie, “NAGPRA 14 431-433. For an overview of this history of the Alysa Landry, “Sacred Site Defender, human remains controversy, generally and the Problem of ‘Culturally Ola Cassadore Davis, Walks On,” 3 James Riding In, “Introduction: Human see, James Riding In, “Without Ethics Unidentifiable’ Remains; The Indian Country Today Media Network. Rights and the American Indian and Morality: A Historical Overview of Argument for a Human Rights com, December 4, 2012, assessed Repatriation Movement: A Imperial Archaeology and American Framework,” Arizona State Law on December 8, 2012, at http:// Manifesto,” Arizona State Law Indians,” Arizona State Law Journal Journal 44 (Summer 2012): 809-50. indiancountrytodaymedianetwork. Journal 44 (Summer 2012): 620. 24 (Spring 1992): 11-34. 9 Harjo, “Harjo’s Statement.” com/article/sacred-site-defender-ola- 4 6 Generally see, Suzan Shown Harjo, cassadore-davis-walks-146093. Code of Indian Offenses (1833), 10 Generally see, Elizabeth Brandt, Department of the Interior, Office “Native American Human Rights “The Fight for Dzil Nchaa Si An, Mt. 15 “NAGRPA Round Table Report,” a copy ays of Indian Affairs, assessed on Acts: A Brief Account of Some W Graham: Apaches and Astrophysical of this report is in the files of this December 10, 2010, http:// that Native Peoples and Friends Won Development in Arizona,” Cultural author. en.wikisource.org/wiki/Code_of_ Repatriation and National Indian Survival Quarterly 19 (Winter 1995): 16 Ibid. Indian_Offenses. For a discussion Museums Laws,” Arizona State Law 50-57. of the sale of Apache sacred objects Journal 44 (Summer 2012): 681-96. 17 Ibid. 11 Harjo, “Harjo’s Statement.” and objects of cultural patrimony 18 Ibid. Apache Tribes The four Apache tribes with a land base in Arizona are all culturally related and share a Southern Athabaskan language.

20 San Carlos Apache Tribe

Federally Brief Description: Recognized: 1871 The tribal lands of the San Carlos Apache Tribe spans Gila, Graham, Acreage: 1,826,541 acres and Pinal counties in southeastern Arizona, roaming over a land- Population: 12,214 scape that ranges from alpine meadows to desert. Encompassing Peoples: Apache 1,826,541 acres, the tribal lands of the San Carlos Apache Tribe was established by Executive Order on November 9, 1871. Contact: Over one-third of the San Carlos Apache Tribe’s land is forested San Carlos Apache Tribe (175,000 acres) or wooded (665,000 acres). PO Box “0” San Carlos, AZ 85550 The Apaches are descendant of the Athabascan family who migrat- Phone: (928) 475-2361 ed to the Southwest in the 10th century. Over time, many bands of Fax: (928) 475-2567 Apache were relocated to the reservation from their traditional home- Website:  sancarlosapachetribe- lands, which once extended through Arizona and New Mexico. nsn.gov Congressional District: 1 Legislative District: 7 Tonto Apache Tribe

Federally Brief Description: Recognized: 1972 The Tonto Apache Tribe (originally named Te-go-suk, Place of the Yellow Acreage: 85 acres Water) is located adjacent to the town of Payson in northwestern Gila Population: 110 County approximately 95 miles northeast of Phoenix, and 100 miles Peoples: Tonto Apache southeast of Flagstaff, Arizona. Contact: The Tonto Apache people are the direct descendants of the Tonto Apaches, a Western Apache band, who lived in the Payson vicinity Tonto Apache Tribe long before the advent of the Anglo. The large Rio Verde Reserve, Tonto Apache Reservation #30 near Camp Verde, was established in 1871 for the Tonto Apache and Payson, AZ 85541 Yavapai Indians. The Reserve was dissolved in 1875, when they were Phone: (928) 474-5000 forcibly moved to a fort near the tribal lands of the San Carlos Apache Fax: (928) 474-9125 Tribe. Some Tonto Apache people gradually returned to Payson after 20 Congressional District: 4 years of exile to find that white settlers had taken much of their land. Legislative District: 6 The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013 White Mountain Apache Tribe

Federally Brief Description: Recognized: 1891 The White Mountain Apache are part of the Western Apache group, and Acreage: 1,664,984 acres related to the San Carlos, and Tonto Apache people. Their traditional Population: 13,500 homelands reside in the White Mountain area. The people were once 21 Peoples: Apache nomadic, however, they now occupy permanent dwellings and depend on livestock, agriculture, tourism, and various tribal enterprises for Contact: their livelihood. White Mountain Apache Tribe Before the 1880s, the Apaches traveled widely through their mountain PO Box 700 homeland to take advantage of seasonal plant and animal resources. Whiteriver, AZ 85941 As American soldiers, miners, and ranchers invaded Apache lands in Phone: (928) 338-4346 the 1850s and 1860s, relations worsened and the U.S. Army began Fax: (928) 338-1514 a campaign to remove the Apaches from their homelands. By 1875, Website: http://www.wmat.nsn. the Army relocated all Apaches to a fort near the tribal lands of the us/ San Carlos Apache Tribe. No longer able to move freely through the Congressional District: 1 mountains, the people were forced to live on rationed foods and give up Legislative District: 7 their reliance on their mountain resources. On November 9, 1891, by Executive Order, the tribal lands of the White Mountain Apache Tribe were established. The reservation originally included tribal lands of the San Carlos Apache people, but an act of Congress, in 1897, separated the White Mountain Apache Tribe and the San Carlos Apache Tribe. Yavapai-Apache Nation

Federally Brief Description: Recognized: 1934 The Yavapai-Apache Nation is comprised of descendants of two dis- Acreage: 1750 acres tinct cultures which inhabited the region prior to European contact; the Population: 2,365 Yavapai and Dilzhe’e Apache. On February 27, 1875, the Yavapai and Apache were force marched from the Verde Valley to the San Carlos Peoples: Wipukpa Yavapai Reservation, 180 miles away. and Apache Contact: 25 years after being forcibly removed from their homelands, approxi- mately 200 Yavapai and Apache returned to the Verde Valley. Yavapai-Apache Nation 2400 W. Datsi Street Despite the many hostilities they faced, the Yavapai and Apache re- mained within their homelands until 1909 when a reservation was Camp Verde, AZ 86322 re-established. Although comprised of two distinct tribes, the Yavapai Phone: (928)567-3649 and Apache shared a common history and a common community which Fax: (928)567-3994 bound them together. Website: www.yavapai-apache.org In 1934, following the Indian Reorganization Act, the Yavapai and Congressional District: 1 Apache people were officially recognized as a sovereign people and Legislative District: 6 became known as the Yavapai-Apache Tribe. 22 As tribal people, we trace our history in millennia. Our modern history is a story of rigorous and sometimes murderous efforts by the United States government to exterminate and assimilate us. Today, we are citizens of our respective tribes, the state of Arizona, and the United States. Accounting for tribal populations is not an easy feat.

Population statistics validate that we’re still here and shows that we will continue to be here, since we are mostly a young and growing population. Being counted based on obscure criteria creates distortions of who, what, and where we are as tribal people.

We tell this story because our traditional teachings tell us to give thanks for every living thing and the beauty all around us. demographics The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

Assessing the Challenges in American Indian of the Interior. That publication released by the Census 23 has not been issued for the last Bureau. It’s all a matter of Population Data five years. self-identification. By Norm DeWeaver Tribal rolls include members To complicate matters further, wherever they live. This can be starting in 2000 the Census There is a unique federal responsibility for the anywhere in the world. Though Bureau allowed persons respond- well being of Indian tribes and Indian people in less true for tribes with land in ing to a Census questionnaire to Arizona, more than half of the identify with more than one race. the United States. In return for giving up most members of some tribes may live People could say that American of the land, water and other resources in Arizona outside the borders of the land Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) is base governed by that tribe. This their only race. This produces a and throughout the rest of the country, tribes and complicates the data on Indian count of what the Census Bureau their members were promised major economic populations, which can be as calls the AI/AN “alone” popula- and other support. much about where people live as tion. Or people could say that whether they are counted. they identify as Indian and, at Only one agency of the federal the same time, as a member Yet the federal government col- Public Law 93-638. government conducts a house-to- of a different race – White, lects very little data on the Indian As sovereign nations, tribes house enumeration of the Indian African-American or another. To population and Indian communi- are the only entities that have population living in the United the Census Bureau, these people ties. Much of what is collected is the right to determine who their States. That agency is the U.S. are AI/AN persons “in combina- of limited value for designing ef- citizens are. This is done through Census Bureau (Census Bureau), tion with one or more other fective federal policies. Similarly, the process of enrollment – which makes this count every ten races.” The sum of the AI/AN the information that is available becoming a formal member of years as part of the decennial “alone” population and the “in does little to help tribes plan for an Indian tribe. Enrollment census of the general population. combination” (Indian multi-racial) their own futures. records are created and And only one agency of the population is shown in Census The data problem begins at the maintained by each individual federal government publishes tabulations as the AI/AN “alone most basic level: who should be tribe. These records are the only data for Indian reservation areas, or in combination” population. counted as an Indian person? accurate counts of the number using their borders as they are This option to simultaneously From a tribal point of view the Indian people. legally defined. That agency is the identify as a member of two answer is simple. An Indian There is no single source for Census Bureau. or more races produces very person is a member of an Indian tribal enrollment data covering all But the Census Bureau does different measures of the size of tribe. The principle is explicit tribes. Estimates of the number not count Indians in the same the Indian population. In Arizona in the basic policy statement of of enrolled Indians, by tribe, were way tribes do. Anyone who says 296,529 persons were recorded the relationship between tribes formerly published in a biennial they are Indian, regardless of in the 2010 Census as AI/AN and the federal government, the report of the Bureau of Indian Af- tribal enrollment, is included in alone. Another 56,857 persons Indian Self-Determination Act, fairs (BIA) in the US Department the Indian population numbers said they were Indian but also 24 American Indian Reservation Demographics in Arizona1 members of another race, for a cluding Indian reservation areas, total AI/AN “alone or in combina- through a survey conducted sepa- Labor Force Status – AI/AN Alone (Age 16 and Older)2 tion” population of 353,386. rately from the decennial census. Reservation land in Arizona only In Arizona, as in other states, This survey is called the American Number Employed Participation Rate Range very few of those identifying Community Survey, or ACS. 39,554 45.4% 37.9% - 75.5% as multi-racial Indian people Although it collects essentially live in reservation areas. On the same information – on Number Unemployed Unemployment Rate Range the reservation land in Arizona, education, employment, 13,449 16.4% 4.1% - 33.1% 98% of the persons who said income and other population they are Indians said that they characteristics – that used to be Poverty Status – AI/AN Alone3 are not members of any other collected in previous decennial Reservation with any land in Arizona4 race. Outside of the reservation censuses, the ACS is different Persons in Poverty Poverty Rate Range land in the state, just 72% of in important ways. 93,606 39.6% 18.2% - 58.4% the AI/AN population said the The ACS is an ongoing survey, same thing. Moreover, the distributing questionnaires to Reservation Population – 2010 AI/AN Alone characteristics of the Indian a sample of households every Arizona Total Reservation Population 162,119 alone population and the Indian month of every year, unlike the multi-racial population differ in once-a-decade census with which Reservations with Any Land in Arizona5 240,747 significant ways. In any analysis most Americans are familiar. 6 2000/2010 Reservation Population Counts Compared – AI/AN of the Indian population, the There is no major outreach effort 2000 2010 Pct Change count for a given area depends to familiarize the population with 243,894 240,747 -1.3% on which number is used – the the ACS, unlike the big promo- 2012 Total Enrolled Member Population for the 22 Tribes7 423,728 alone count or the alone or in tional campaigns that accompany combination count. each decennial census. Most 1Averages for the combined 21 reservations in Arizona - except San Juan Southern Paiute 2The Employed/Unemployment Rates does not include those not in the workforce, such as elderly, students, military In the past, the decennial importantly, the ACS is a much service, and discouraged workers. census collected data on the smaller survey than the one in 3This data was taken from the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) dataset for 2006 to 2010. It is subject to sampling and non-sampling error, which may significantly reduce the reliability of the data. socio-economic characteristics past decennial censuses that col- 4Counts include all reservation land, including portions outside Arizona. of the population, as well as its lected population characteristics 5Counts include all reservation land, including portions outside Arizona. 6U.S. Census Bureau 2010 Decennial Census size. That’s no longer the case, information using a “long form” 7Inter Tribal Council of Arizona – 2012 Tribal Profiles – including those living off their respective reservations and reservation land with portions outside of Arizona. further complicating the informa- questionnaire. tion available on Indian people The demise of the decennial and Indian reservations with land census “long form” and the in Arizona. switch to the ACS have produced The Census Bureau now col- significant new challenges for lects population characteristics the users of data on the Indian information for all local areas, in- population. The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

25 26 The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

A major challenge involves data collected in past decennial data on the people they serve to programs and in their own 27 whether the ACS is producing censuses. a plethora of federal agencies. enrollment offices. In the end, data that accurately represents Information from the most To take a case in point, the this may be the most appropriate the characteristics of the entire recent ACS data set, which smallest tribe in Arizona running response to the challenge Indian population on a given includes responses to question- the Temporary Assistance for of dealing with the issues reservation or in any other local naires collected from 2006 to Needy Families (TANF) program surrounding the data on the community. The ACS total for the 2010, shows an unemployment is required to report to the Indian population in Arizona. n AI/AN alone population in 2010 rate for the Indian population on US Department of Health Norm DeWeaver is a consultant who has fails to account for 14% of the the Navajo reservation of just and Human Services the worked with the National Congress of AI/AN alone population actually 16%. This represents a nearly same amount of very detailed American Indians on census data and counted in the 2010 decennial 40% drop from the rate record- information on each participant has provided analysis of census data for census. In Arizona, the figures ed in the 2000 Census. It is as the Arizona Department of tribal workforce programs for decades. He has conducted analysis of the changes are significant, though less strik- also below the rate for the Fort Economic Security does for the in the census over the past 15 years, ing. The ACS count is 4% less McDowell Yavapai reservation, a state’s TANF program. Tribal particularly the transition from the than the number of AI/AN alone much smaller reservation located and off-reservation Indian job “long-form” to the American Community persons counted in the state in entirely in the relatively job-rich training programs must report Survey. Mr. DeWeaver was previously the Director of the Indian and Native American the last census. Phoenix metro area. In context, specific characteristics data on Employment and Training Coalition. The Census Bureau points out the ACS number looks highly every one of the participants that the ACS is not about count- implausible. they serve directly to the US ing the total size of any popula- ACS data is particularly unreli- Labor Department. Every UPDATE – In March 2013, Arizona tion. Rather, the ACS is about able for the smaller reservations federal program providing State University announced the counts of the characteristics of in Arizona. As an example, the funding to a tribe has its own Tribal Indicators Project, which a population – the number of ACS indicates that very few Indi- reporting system; none are will gather, prepare, and analyze people in a given area with more an people on the Ak-Chin reser- coordinated with the systems American Indian census data in a than a high school diploma or vation have a formal education of other programs, even when partnership between tribes, the American Indian Policy Institute GED, the number of people un- beyond high school and that the same Indian people may be at ASU, the American Indian employed, the number of people none has a bachelor’s degree or served, in different ways, by Studies at ASU, and the Center for with incomes below the poverty higher, findings that tribal officials multiple programs. Population Dynamics at the ASU level and other socio-economic may well question. One solution to the dearth Global Institute of Sustainability. characteristics. It is ironic that so little reliable of reliable data on the Indian The ACS, because of its data on Indian people and Indian population would be a major small sample size and for other reservations is available for mak- tribal-federal effort to develop reasons, appears to do a less ing intelligent policy decisions the capability of tribes to collect reliable job of reporting the or guiding planning at the tribal relevant information on their characteristics of the Indian pop- level. Tribes have long been populations from the records ulation than did the “long form” required to provide voluminous they keep for their own service Pai Tribes Pai tribes are culturally related and speak diverse dialects of the Yuman language. Their ancestral lands include Central and Northwestern Arizona. The Yavapai-Apache Nation is an amalgamation of two different linguistic/ cultural groups: The Yavapai are part of the Pai tribes and the Apache share kinship with the other Apache tribes. 28

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation

Federally Brief Description: Recognized: 1903 The current boundaries of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation mark Acreage: 26,400 acres only a small portion of the ancestral territory of the bands of the Population: 960 Yavapai, whose homeland was the vast central area of Arizona Peoples: Yavapai, Apache and the Mogollon Rim. The reservation was designated in 1903 Contact: when the “kwevikopaya,” or Southeastern Yavapai, who lived in the Matazal-Four Peak and Superstition Mountain region, were granted Ft. McDowell Yavapai Nation 24,680 acres of the old Fort McDowell Military Reserve. This has PO Box 17779 been one of the most important outposts in the southwest during Fountain Hills, AZ 85269 the Apache Wars, which occurred between 1865 and 1891. Phone: (480) 837-5121 Fax: (480) 837-1630 Located in Maricopa County, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation lies Website: http://www.ftmcdowell.org/ approximately 23 miles northeast of Phoenix. The Fort McDowell Congressional District: 6 Yavapai Nation economy is closely tied to the surrounding communi- ties of Rio Verde, Fountain Hills, Mesa, Scottsdale, and Phoenix. Legislative District: 23 The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013 Hualapai Tribe

Federally Brief Description: Recognized: 1883 The Hualapai call themselves, “Hwal`bay”, which means “People of Acreage: 992,463 acres the Tall Pine.” The Hualapai live on lands encompassing about one Population: 2,210 million acres along 108 miles of the Colorado River and the Grand 29 Peoples: Haulapai Canyon. The Hwal`bay call this middle river corridor “Hakataya” or Contact: “the backbone of the river.” Hualapai Tribe The Colorado River is a significant landmark for the Hualapai. PO Box 179 Historically, all of the Yuman language family tribes were located on, Peach Springs, AZ 86434 near, or in close proximity to the Colorado River. Phone: (928) 769-2216 An Executive Order established lands for the Hualapai Tribe in Fax: (928) 769-2343 1883. Peach Springs, the tribal capital, is 50 miles east of Website: http://hualapai-nsn.gov Kingman on Historic Route 66. Congressional District: 1 Legislative District: 7

Havasupai Tribe

Federally Brief Description: Recognized: 1880 “Havasuw `Baaja”, the people of the blue green waters, are the Acreage: 185,516 acres traditional guardians of the Grand Canyon. Related to the Yuman, Population: 650 the Havasupai have from the beginning, inhabited the Grand Canyon Peoples: Havasupai and its environs. Contact: Traditionally, the Havasupai farmed during the summer, and hunted Havasupai Tribe and gathered during the winter. By 1919, with the establishment of PO Box 10 the Grand Canyon National Park, the Havasupai Tribe was restrict- Supai, AZ 86435 ed to 518 acres, 5 miles wide and 12 miles long in a side canyon. Phone: (928) 448-2731 When the US government restricted their use of their winter home- Fax: (928) 448-2551 lands on top of the Canyon, the people became dependent on the Website: http://www.havasupai government for necessities. The Havasupai Tribe has since had tribe.com/ returned to them 188,077 acres of their former homelands which Congressional District: 1 makes up their current tribal lands. Legislative District: 7 The Havasupai tribal lands are located in Coconino County, at the southwest corner of the Grand Canyon National Park. The nearest community to their tribal lands is Peach Springs, 64 miles south- west from Hualapai Hilltop. Yavapai-Prescott Tribe

Federally Brief Description: Recognized: 1935 From prehistoric times, the Yavapai people lived as hunters and gath- Acreage: 1,425 acres erers practicing occasional agriculture on more than 9 million acres 30 Population: 187 of central and western Arizona. The three primary groups of Yavapai Peoples: Yavapai maintained good relationships with each other and are now located at Fort McDowell, Camp Verde, and Prescott. The Yavapai people are Contact: known for weaving excellent baskets. Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe The tribal lands of the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe are 1,425 acres 530 East Merritt Street and are adjacent to the City of Prescott, Arizona, in central Yavapai Prescott, AZ 86301 County. Phone: (928) 445-8790 Fax: (928) 778-9445 Website: http://www.ypit.com/ Congressional District: 4 Legislative District: 1

Yavapai-Apache Nation

Federally Brief Description: Recognized: 1934 The Yavapai-Apache Nation is comprised of descendants of two dis- Acreage: 1750 acres tinct cultures which inhabited the region prior to European contact; the Population: 2,365 Yavapai and Dilzhe’e Apache. On February 27, 1875, the Yavapai and Peoples: Wipukpa Yavapai Apache were force marched from the Verde Valley to the San Carlos and Apache Reservation, 180 miles away. Contact: 25 years after being forcibly removed from their homelands, approxi- Yavapai-Apache Nation mately 200 Yavapai and Apache returned to the Verde Valley. 2400 W. Datsi Street Despite the many hostilities they faced, the Yavapai and Apache re- Camp Verde, AZ 86322 mained within their homelands until 1909 when a reservation was re-established. Although comprised of two distinct tribes, the Yavapai Phone: (928)567-3649 and Apache shared a common history and a common community which Fax: (928)567-3994 bound them together. Website: www.yavapai-apache.org In 1934, following the Indian Reorganization Act, the Yavapai and Congressional District: 1 Apache people were officially recognized as a sovereign people and Legislative District: 6 became known as the Yavapai-Apache Tribe. The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

31 32 We tell the complicated story of Health and Human Services to explain how tribal people receive these critical services, which were originally promised by the federal government in exchange for the taking of valuable land, water, and other natural resources. This report describes the many physical, social, and emotional challenges that face tribal people in our quest to be healthy as individuals, communities, and nations.

We tell this story because in our traditional culture we are taught to seek balance in our lives, mentally, physically, emotionally, and spiritually, and in harmony with the world around us. health and human services The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

American Indian/Alaskan Native Health and the result of the federal trust can be attributed to a multitude 33 responsibility guaranteed by nu- of factors including: lower edu- Human Services Delivery Systems merous statues and presidential cational achievement, increased By Eddie Brown, DSW, John Molina, M.D., J.D., Jacob Moore, MBA, orders put in place throughout poverty, inability to access to and Walter Murillo the history of the relationship health services due to culturally between Tribal Nations and the incompetent providers, language Much of the general public and the health care U.S. federal government.1 barriers, and the unavailability of sector do not fully understand the depth and To receive these federally services. In Arizona this health mandated services, individual disparity for AI/ANs is consistent scope of the American Indians/Alaskan Natives Indians must be enrolled mem- with AI/ANs nationally. (AI/ANs) health and human services delivery bers of their respective tribes. Various indicators can be used Services may vary depending to assess the health status of systems. The overwhelming levels of health upon where the individual a population. Two important disparities that affect the AI/ANs population only resides; on or near, or off their indicators to examine the health eclipse the complexity of the delivery systems. reservation. State health and status in a population are infant human resources and services mortality and the median age of are also available to American death. Both of these indicators The need for adequate care address; Sovereign Status and Indians as citizens of the state also provide useful data related and services is far greater than Authorities, Health Disparities, in which they reside provided to a population’s access to and the limited resources available. AI/ANs Health and Human they meet the eligibility criteria utilization of healthcare resourc- Through greater understanding Services Delivery Systems, and and do not receive a duplication es. Finally, a risk profile can also between tribal governments, Report Summary and Recom- of services. used to assess a population’s federal, state, and local agen- mendations. risk of dying from various diseas- cies, and private providers, Health Disparities es and conditions. stronger collaborations can Sovereign Status A health disparity is the signifi- begin to address AI/ANs health Federally recognized Indian cant difference(s) in the presence Infant Mortality care inequities, which will cre- tribes are sovereign nations of disease and health outcomes • The AI/AN infants have ate healthier communities that that possess inherent govern- between racial and ethnic groups. the second highest infant bring positive benefits to both ment authority and powers Nationally, a major health dispar- mortality rate (8.4 per 1,000 Tribal Nations and the state of for the administration and ity exists among the American live births), as compared to Arizona. delivery of health and human Indian and Alaskan Natives (AI/ the average Arizona infant This report provides a broad services through unique gov- ANs) as this group experiences mortality rate (4.8 per 1,000 overview of the AI/ANs Health ernment-to-government relation- a significantly poorer state of live births).4 and Human Services Delivery ships with the federal govern- health (health status) when com- Infant mortality is an import- Systems. This overview in- ment. The federal resources and pared to other Americans. This ant indicator of a community or cludes individual vignettes that services available to AI/ANs are health disparity among AI/AN population’s health status as 34 it is impacted by factors such as well as in utilization of the 20th century there was a the combined reservations lands as maternal health, quality and prenatal care substantial decline in infectious throughout Arizona.11 access to medical care, socio- disease, mostly due to improve- • On the average were 19 years Health Disparities Summary economic conditions, and pubic younger at time of death com- ments in environmental condi- Although there have been health practices. pared to White non-Hispanics tions. However, during this same time frame a rise in chronic substantial improvements in Median Age of Death • Had a high mortality from alco- diseases, especially diabetes. the delivery of health care and • In Arizona, the median age hol-induced causes, diabetes, There is an even more alarming social services for AI/ANs, more of death for AI/ANs from all influenza and pneumonia, rise in the social pathologies needs to be done to narrow the causes is 59.0 years com- motor vehicle accidents and of violence and unintentional serious gap in health disparities pared to 76.0 years for all mortality from other uninten- injuries due to the ill effects of between AI/ANs and the major- Arizonans.6 tional injuries: all contributing alcohol and drug abuse.9 ity population in Arizona. The the premature death rate of disproportionate health care The median age of death pro- This trend is evident in Arizona 76.5 percent higher than the need of AI/ANs warrants greater vides information related to the where the five leading causes average Arizonan. collaboration and coordination provision of health care activi- of death of AI/ANs, in order of between diverse health care ties such as: health education, • Ranked worse than the state- occurrence, are for males: dis- delivery systems. The health dis- disease prevention and detec- wide average on 46 of 70 ease of the heart, unintentional injuries, cancer, chronic liver parities of AI/ANs are an issue tion, and treatment for chronic health risk indicators, such as; disease and diabetes, and for of equity and equality in access and infectious diseases.7 • 1.4 times higher: Assault females: cancer, diseases of the to quality health care. (homicide) Risk Profile heart, diabetes, chronic liver dis- • 1.6 times higher: Mortality ease and unintentional injuries.10 AI/ANs Health and Human A risk profile examines specific of young adult 20-44 years Of these leading causes of Services Delivery Systems health indicators to assess a death, cancer and unintentional Given the challenges that population’s risk of dying from • 2 times higher: Motor vehi- injuries are the most important Tribal Nations and Communities various diseases and conditions, cle related injuries contributors to death for AI/ANs. face with health disparities, it is when compared to a state’s • 2.5 times higher: Diabetes A second major contributor to important to know how and where overall average risks. • 3.4 times higher: Chronic AI/AN health disparities is tied AI/AN receive their health care In Arizona, the 2008 risk liver disease and cirrhosis to socio-economic status. AI/ and social services. The follow- profile for AI/ANs show that this • 4 times higher: Alcohol-in- ANs comprise only about 4.6% ing is an overview of the health population has a higher risk pro- duced deaths of the total state population. care and social service delivery file as compared to the state’s However, AI/ANs experience 8 system, which consists of many average population. In 2008, Trends in Health Conditions disproportionately high mortality people and entities that work AI/AN residents in Arizona: There has been a significant and morbidity rates compared to diligently to meet the needs of • Ranked poorly on measures of change in the health trends of the general population and have AI/ANs both on tribal lands and maternal lifestyle and health, AI/ANs. Over the second half of a poverty rate of 39.6% among in urban communities. The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

AZ Indian Health Care System Graphic: American Indian Health Management & Policy

IHS PL93-638 Federal Tribal The overall system is a con- contract or compact with the State of Arizona functions 35 AI/AN IHS through a Tribal Health glomeration of federal, state, Healthcare as a pass-through agency for local, and private agencies, Consumer Authority (THA) federals funds that bring much providers, and policies. A need Health • Pr oviding services to urban needed health care resources Sector exists for improved coordination AI/ANs to Tribal Nations and Communi- to provide a more comprehen- Non-Indian IHS is not the sole provider of ties. Other state agencies, such sive health care and social Health as, the Arizona Department of Provider health care to AI/AN individuals. service delivery system. IHS, THA’s, and Urban programs Economic Services, and the Arizona Department of Health Federal and State Structures have the ability to third-party bill Services also deliver services for Delivery of Health Services the federal Centers for Medicare to individual tribal members and Indian Health Service and Medicaid Services. Since Federal government respon- the Arizona’s Medicaid agency work collaboratively with tribal sibility for providing health The mission of the Federal is the Arizona Health Care Cost and urban Indian health care care services to AI/AN can be Indian Health Service (IHS) is, Containment System (AHCCCS), and social service providers. traced back to treaties enacted “to raise the physical, mental, between 1776 and 1858 which social and spiritual health of AI/ included medical care as partial ANs to the highest level: and its compensation for ceding lands goal is to “assure that compre- and other resources. Histor- hensive, culturally acceptable ically, AI/AN ceded over 400 personal and public health million acres of Indian lands in services are available and ac- exchange for a trust obligation cessible to AI/AN people.”13 IHS to provide for the health, educa- remains the foundation of the tion, and welfare of AI/AN.12 federal government’s obligation Along with Indian Health to provide health services to AI/ Service, the AI/AN health care AN people and communities. delivery system includes other Unfortunately, services are agencies, such as, Centers for severely underfunded and the Medicare and Medicaid Services need far exceeds the available (CMS), various state agen- resources. cies, and tribally managed and funded programs. The following IHS health care facilities chart graphically describes the can be grouped into three primary entities involved in categories: delivering health care and social • Operated directly by IHS services to AI/ANs in Arizona. • Operated by the tribes by 36 The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

Federal and State Structures Department of Interior Bureau near their reservation community. Arizona Department of 37 for Delivery of Human Services of Indian Affairs – Human • W elfare Assistance – This Economic Security Services Similar to the health care program provides welfare The Arizona Department of delivery system, the delivery of The Bureau of Indian Affairs, assistance to American Indians Economic Security (DES) works Human Services (social ser- Phoenix Area Office, Division of who have no access to Tem- with Arizona’s 22 Tribes to vices) is coordinated through Human Services provides federal porary Assistance to Needy coordinate the availability and federal, state, tribal agencies mandated human services to Families (TANF), do not meet accessibility of State and Federal and private providers. And like Arizona’s 22 federally recognized eligibility criteria for TANF, or human services to children, the health care delivery system, tribes either through Federal/ have exceeded the lifetime youth, adults and elders. The the need far exceeds the avail- Tribal Self-Determination limit for TANF services. The following is an overview of DES able resources for a popula- contractual agreements for BIA services are designed to services provided to residents of tion with significant social and Tribal governments to operate be secondary in nature, and federally recognized tribes based health disparities. The following programs or through the direct Indians that meet eligibility of on tribal consultations, Inter is an overview of the Human delivery by the BIA Agency other federal or state programs Governmental Agreements (IGA), Service delivery system for AI/ Offices. Services are provided are referred to those programs and tribal identified needs. AN people and tribal Nations. to Tribal members residing on or for services. Services include: • Division of Benefits and General Assistance, Child Medical Eligibility – Temporary Assistance, Non-Medical Insti- AI/AN Social Service Delivery System Assistance for Needy Families tutional or Custodial Care of Social Services Funded by • BIA funded and delivered social services on or near (TANF) Bureau of Indian Affairs: reservations Adults, Burial Assistance, and Emergency Assistance. • Division of Employment • BIA 638 contracted and tribal delivered social and Rehabilitation Services services on or near reservations • Indian Child Welfare Act – This program prevents the separa- (DERS) – Employment Assis- tance (EA), Workforce Invest- Social Welfare Services • Federal funds directed to states for the administration tion of Indian families and also Funded by U.S. and delivery to state citizens, including Indians on provides assistance for the ment Act (WIA), Child Care Department of Health and and off reservation reunification of families. Administration (CCA), and Reha- Human Services (Pass bilitation Services Administra- Thru Funds): • Federal fund directed to tribal governments for the • Housing Improvement tion (RSA). administration and delivery to tribal citizens on, near, Program – The program is or off reservation designed to provide funding • Division of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) – Indian Child • Federal funds passed through state administration to for needed housing repairs tribal governments for delivery of social services and renovations to eliminate Welfare Act (ICWA), Title IV-E substandard housing Reimbursement, Family Sup- Social Services Funded by • State funded and delivered to Indians on and off and homelessness on or port, Preservation and Reuni- the State: reservation as citizens of the state and meet state near federally recognized fication Services, Specialized eligibility requirements reservation communities.14 Substance Abuse Treatment, 38 Child Home Based Services, Economic Security (DES). The Department of Agriculture/Tribal in which tribal health and social and Consultation. DES Division of Benefits and IGA’s directly administer this service programs function is • Division of Aging and Adult Medical Eligibility provides a program. In cases where both needed. A collaborative effort of Services (DAAS) – Independent single AHCCCS Health Insurance, the Food Stamp Program and assessing the overall health care Living Support Services, State KidsCare, Food Stamps and TANF the FDPIR program are made delivery system can help build a Health Insurance Assistant Cash Assistance application form available to tribal members on stronger more strategic frame- Program (SHIP), Long Term for eligibility determination. The the reservation, eligible tribal work that can mutually benefit Care Ombudsman (LTCO), On- single form is made available residents must decide in which both Tribal Nations and the state 16 Site Monitoring and Technical at all DES local offices. of the two programs they wish to of Arizona by creating healthier Assistance, Arizona Early However, tribal governments participate. communities. Intervention Program (AzEIP). are not authorized to determine eligibility for the above benefits Health and Human Service Report Summary and Delivery System Summary • Division of Developmental and American Indian reservation Recommendations Disabilities (DDD) – Medicaid residents are required to visit To someone with little knowl- The history of the health and funded home and community- State DES local offices to edge or understanding of the human service delivery systems based services. submit their application. In health and human services for AI/ANs is steeped in commit- • Division of Child Support some cases tribal governments available to AI/ANs, the initial ments that were made between Enforcement (DCSE) – Office have developed IGA’s to provide impression based on the infor- Tribes and the US federal govern- of the Attorney General and for tribal TANF/DES co-located mation listed above is that there ment. As citizens of their respec- DCSE works individually with offices on reservations that are a multitude of agencies and tive tribal Nations and state, AI/ tribal governments to address provide tribal residents with one- programs available to address ANs are afforded the same priv- jurisdictional issues and seeks stop services. the needs of AI/ANs. However, ileges and access to programs to have legally obligated child the majority of programs oper- and services as any other citizen support payments heard in US Department of Agriculture ate with very limited resources of Arizona. tribal courts.15 and in many cases only meet a Despite the multiple systems Food Distribution Program on portion of the overall need. The of care available to AI/ANs, the Indian Reservations (FDPIR) US Department of Agriculture lack of coordination and, in some historic trauma that Tribal people Participants in FDPIR cases, the lack of authority for have been subjected to has left Supplemental Nutrition (also referred to as the Food tribal providers to make eligibility a lasting and challenging impact. Assistance Program Commodity Program) are low- determination creates a bureau- The significant health disparities Eligibility for participation in income American Indian and cracy of inefficiencies and limited in comparison to other racial and the US Department of Agriculture non-Indian households that live effectiveness. ethnic groups are staggering and, Supplemental Nutrition on or near a reservation and Given the magnitude of the in part, the result of socioeco- Assistance Program (Food have at least one person who is a health disparities among AI/AN nomic factors and inadequate re- Stamps Program) is administered member of a federally recognized people, a systematic assessment sources for an effective culturally by the Arizona Department of tribe.17 Tribes through the U.S. of the environment and systems appropriate health and human The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

services infrastructure. Tribal Nations and healthy greater understanding of the com- in Generation Seven Strategic Partners. 39 Much work needs to be done communities supports a healthy plex challenges that face Tribal Mr. Moore obtained a B.S. degree in Finance and an Executive M.B.A. both to create stronger collaborations state. Arizona currently benefits Nations and people. With fore- from the ASU W.P. Carey College of and coordination with federal, from federal pass-through funding sight, vision, and collaboration, Business. He also served on the Arizona state, and local agencies, along to AI/ANs as these funds reduce Tribal Nations, federal, state, and State Board of Education for six years. with private providers. The first the burden on state resources. local agencies, along with private Walter Murillo (Choctaw) is the Executive step is to better understand the With the advent of Indian gaming, providers, can improve the health Director of Native American Community basic legal structure that tribal many Tribal Nations have become and human services delivery sys- Health Center, Inc. (DBA NATIVE HEALTH), people are afforded as members major employers and contribute tems and turn around the signif- where he has worked for 17 years. of sovereign nations with distinct revenue back to the state icant health disparities in Indian NATIVE HEALTH provides holistic, patient centered, culturally sensitive health cultural considerations. Lack of through multiple tax and revenue Country. n and wellness services primarily to the understanding at all policy levels sharing sources, which includes American Indian population in the greater only compounds the inability to funds directly to the state’s Eddie F. Brown, DSW, (Pascua Yaqui/ metropolitan Phoenix area. address basic health and human trauma care centers. Investment Tohono O’odham) is a Professor of American Indian Studies and Executive 1 Authorities - The special relationship service needs. by the state of Arizona into a Director of the American Indian Policy The second step is to establish comprehensive AI/AN health between Federal and State Institute at Arizona State University. Dr. Governments and Indian Tribes is consistent reliable data based on care delivery system creates a Brown has administered social welfare affirmed in statutes and various sound research and information. mutually beneficial relationship programs at the federal, state and Presidential and Governor Executive tribal levels and conducted research Orders including, but not limited to: Other states have taken the ini- between Tribal Nations and the and demonstration projects addressing tiative to work collaboratively with state. welfare reform, Indian child welfare • Indian Citizen Act of 1924 their respective Tribal Nations, In July 2003, the U.S. Commis- compliance, mental health assessments, • The Snyder Act, P.L. 67-85 federal, state, and local agen- sion of Civil Rights issued a re- and diabetes prevention. • Older Americans Act of 1965, P.L. cies to devise better systems of port titled: A Quiet Crisis: Federal Dr. John Molina, MD, JD, (Pascua Yaqui/ 89-73 as amended support and identify and address Funding and the Unmet Need in San Carlos Apache) is a graduate of • Indian Self-Determination and the University of Arizona, College of tribally determined health and Indian Country, which identified Education Assistance Act, P.L. 93- Medicine and Arizona State University, human service priorities. In April the inadequacy of resources to 638, as amended Sandra Day O’Conner College of Law. His 2010, the American Indian Health address the disparities affecting clinical practice has been with the Indian • Food Stamp Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-113, Commission for the State of Tribal Nations. Ten years lat- Health Service and Las Fuentes Clinic, P.L. 95-113, 91 Stat. 913-1045) a community-based clinic he founded in Washington released an Ameri- er, available resources remain • Native American Programs Act of his community of Guadalupe, Arizona. His can Indian Health Care Delivery limited and never sufficient to 1974, P.L. 93-638, as amended academic interest is in Indian Healthcare Plan that provides a good model adequately address AI/AN health Law and Policy, Healthcare Disparities, • Indian Health Care Improvement Act, for building a comprehensive AI/ disparities. and Patient Centered Medicine. P.L. 93-644, as amended ANs health care delivery system The AI/AN health disparities • Social Security Act, Titles XIX, XX, and Jacob Moore, MBA, (Tohono O’odham/ in collaboration and coordination remains a quiet crisis and is an XXI Akimel O’odham/Lakota/Dakota) is the with state government. issue of inequity and inequality Tribal Relations Coordinator for the ASU • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of Ultimately, building healthy that can only be pursued with a Office of Public Affairs and also a partner 1995, P.L. 104-4 40 The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

• Personal Responsibility and Work Arizona, 2009 Data Book, Table 2D-1 15 Arizona Department of Economic 41 Opportunity Reconciliation Act of in Arizona Health Status and Vital Security Tribal Consultation Report 1996, P.L. 104-193 Statistics 2009, page 27. for State Fiscal Year 2012. • Presidential Executive Memorandum 7 Duffy, MLB. Topics in Health Statistics. 16 http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/ to the Heads of Executive Center for Health Statistics. New 17 http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/ Departments dates April29, 1994 Jersey Department of Health and programs/fdpir/ Senior Services. January 2004. 04- • Presidential Executive Order 13084, 01 Accessed on November 21, 2012 18 American Indian Health Commission Consultation and Coordination with from: www.state.nj.us/health/chs/ for Washington State, Opportunities Indian Tribal Governments, May 14, topics0401.pdf. for Change: Improving the Health of 1998 8 Health Status Profile of American American Indians/Alaskan Natives in • Presidential Executive Order 13175, Indians in Arizona. Arizona Washington State, American Indian Consultation and Coordination with Department of Health Services. Health Care Delivery Plan – 2010- Indian Tribal 2008 Data Book, Table 5, page 5. 2013, April 2010 • Executive Order 2006-14 Consultation Accessed on November 21, 2012 and Cooperation with Arizona Tribe from: www.azdhs.gov/plan/report/ hspam/indian08.pdf 2 Native American Health Care Disparities Briefing. Executive Summary. 9 Young, TK. Recent Health Trends in the Office of the General Counsel. U.S. Native American Population, in Commission on Civil Rights. 2004. Recent Health Trends in the Native American Population. Page 53- 3 IHS Fact Sheet Rx. Indian Health 72. Accessed on November 21, Disparities. Accessed on November 2012 from: http://www.nap.edu/ 21, 2012 from: www.ihs.gov/ catalog/5355.html PublicAffairs/IHSBrochure/ Disparities.asp 10 Health Status of American Indians in Arizona, 2009 Data Book, Table 5.14 4 Infant Mortality in Arizona, 2010, in Arizona Health Status and Vital Disparities Persist among Infant Statistics 2009, page 108. Deaths. Arizona Department of 11 Health Services. Accessed on US Bureau of the Census, American November 21, 2012 from: http:// Community Survey 5-year Estimates azdhs.gov/phs/owch/pdf/issues/ for 2006 to 2010, Table ACS S1701. InfantMortalityIssueBrief2010.pdf 12 Opportunities for Change: Improving 5 MacDorman MF, Rowley, DL, Solomon the Health of AI/ANs in WA State, I, Kiely, JL, Bardner, PG, Davis, 2010-2013 American Indian Health MS. Infant Mortality. From Data Care Delivery Plan to Action, CDC Public Health 13 Indian Health Services, Indian Health Surveillance for Women, Infants, and Services Introduction, http://www. Children. Accessed on November ihs.gov/index.cfm?module=ihsIntro 21, 2012 from: www.cdc.gov/ 14 Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. reproductivehealth/ProductsPubs/.../ Department of Interior, Budget pdf/birout6.pdf. Justifications and Performance 6 Health Status of American Indians in Information for Fiscal Year 2013. O’odham Tribes The four O’odham tribes are linguistically related and their ancestral lands include Central and Southern Arizona and extend into Mexico, which is primarily arid desert lands that once included perennial rivers and lush riparian areas. The Maricopa Tribe is equally incorporated into the Gila River Indian Community and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community. 42

Ak-Chin Indian Community

Federally Brief Description: Recognized: 1912 The Ak-Chin Indian Community is nestled into the Santa Cruz Valley Acreage: 21,480 acres of Southern Arizona. Located at an elevation of approximately Population: 934 1,186 feet, the Ak-Chin Indian Community lies 58 miles south Peoples: O’odham of Phoenix in the northwestern part of Pinal County. In this arid Contact: Sonoran desert climate, no streams slice through the landscape and no mountains rise steeply from the desert floor. Two washes Ak-Chin Indian Community traverse the reservation from north to south. 4507 West Peters & Nall Road Maricopa, AZ 85239 Ak-Chin is an O’odham word, which means, “Place where the wash Phone: (520) 568-1000 loses itself in the sand or ground.” The people of the community Fax: (520) 568-1001 depend on the flood plains created by winter snows and summer Website: http://www.ak-chin.nsn.us rains for water and farming. Congressional District: 1 Legislative District: 11 The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013 Gila River Indian Community

Federally Brief Description: Recognized: 1859 The location of the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) traces its roots Acreage: 373,365 acres to the Hohokam, prehistoric Indians who lived and farmed along the Gila Population: 16,500 River Basin centuries ago, and ancestors to today’s O’odham speaking 43 Peoples: Pima, Maricopa peoples. Today, the community is the homeland for two distinct Tribes, Contact: the Akimel O’odham (O’odham), and the Pee-Posh (Maricopa). The Pee-Posh, a Yuman band that migrated from the southern Colorado Gila River Indian Community River area, became an ally of the O’odham. Together they banded and PO Box 97 fought against surrounding warring enemies. The Pee-Posh established Sacaton, AZ 85247 residency in a hamlet called Maricopa Colony, located in the most Phone: (520) 562-6000 western part of the reservation. The two groups agreed that each would Fax: (520) 562-6010 follow their own traditions and have a single council govern its affairs. Website: www.gilariver.org For these reasons, the term “Gila River Indian Community” was coined. Congressional District: 1 The 373,365-acre reservation, which lies south of Phoenix, Tempe, Legislative Districts: 8, 27 and Chandler, was formally established by Constitution in 1939. Tribal administrative offices and departments are located in Sacaton, Arizona. Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community

Federally Brief Description: Recognized: 1879 Consisting of 53,000 acres, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Acreage: 53,000 acres Community is located 15 miles northeast of Phoenix. It is adjacent Population: 9,500 to Scottsdale, Tempe, Fountain Hills, and Mesa, Arizona. Created by Peoples: Pima, Maricopa Executive Order on June 14, 1879, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Contact: Community has dedicated its resources to finding its way through the maze of urban pressures. Out of respect for their land, the Salt Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community maintains 19,000 of its acres Community as natural preserve. The secondary land use is agriculture, which 10005 East Osborn Road supports a variety of crops including cotton, melons, potatoes, brown Scottsdale, AZ 85256 onions, and carrots. Phone: (480) 362-7400 Fax: (480) 362-7593 The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community is home to 9,500 en- Website: http://www.srpmic- rolled members who represent two Indian tribes: the O’odham (“Akimel nsn.gov/ Au-authm”-River People) and Maricopa (“Xalychidom Pipaash”-People who live toward the water). Historically, the O’odham are descendants Congressional District: 6 of the Hohokam (Hoo-hoogam), people who farmed the Salt River Valley Legislative District: 26 and created an elaborate canal irrigation system, centuries ago. In contrast, the Maricopa originally lived along the lower Gila and Colorado Rivers and migrated toward Pima villages in 1825. Tohono O’odham Nation

Federally Brief Description: Recognized: 1874, Gila Bend: The Tohono O’odham, formerly known as the “Papago Tribe,” reside 1886 primarily in the Sonoran Desert of southern Arizona and northwest 44 Acreage: 2,854,881 acres Mexico. Tohono O’odham means “People of the Desert.” The people Population: 31,171 rejected the name “Papago” (“tepary-bean eater”), which they were Peoples: Tohono O’odham first labeled by conquistadores who had heard them called this by tribes unfriendly to the Tohono O’odham. Contact: The Tohono O’odham Nation is comparable in size to the state of Tohono O’odham Nation Connecticut. Its four non-contiguous segments total more than 2.8 PO Box 837 million acres at an elevation of 2,674 feet. Of the four land bases, Sells, AZ 85634 the largest contains more than 2.7 million acres. Boundaries be- Phone: (520) 383-2028 gin south of Casa Grande and encompass parts of Pinal and Pima Fax: (520) 383-3379 Counties before continuing south into Mexico. The largest community, Website: www.tonation-nsn.gov Sells, functions as the Nation’s capital. San Xavier is the second Congressional District: 3 largest land base, and contains 71,095 acres just south of the City Legislative District: 4 of Tucson. The smaller parcels include the 10,409-acre San Lucy District, located near the city of Gila Bend, and the 20-acre Florence Village, which is located near the city of Florence.

The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

45 46 The report on education and the teaching of Native languages in the classroom describes the challenges that parents, grandparents, and tribal communities must overcome to educate their young people. Educational opportunities vary dramatically among Tribes, depending upon the location and resources available. This report describes how introducing Native languages is helping to make education more relevant for our young people to thrive in two distinct worlds, the native and non-native world.

We tell this story because our cultural teachings place significant value in being stewards of traditions and resources for future generations of our people. education and native languages The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

Leveraging Native Language and Culture for a Native Language and Cultural Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) 47 component into the curriculum. students and is well supported Future Success For Tribal Nations, Native by research on effective schools By Mario Molina, M.Ed Language and Culture are for language minority students inherently linked. The opportunity that demonstrates how strong Tribal education systems in Arizona are as diverse to build strong Native Language bilingual programs can foster as the communities they serve and present a programs has been enhanced by improved academic achievement the implementation of the Native (August & Hakuta, 1998; Baker, wide range of educational models. Depending on American Language Certification 2006; McCarty, 2009; Thomas & location, Tribal Nations and Communities may Policy (R7-2-614J) by the Arizona Collier, 2002). Department of Education. be served by public, federal (Bureau of Indian The recently implemented Sustaining Native Language Education), private, parochial, and charter schools. teaching certificate allows and Culture Generally, tribal communities in remote areas of traditional Native language Tribal Nations are reclaiming teachers to be state certified their own heritage and language the state have few educational options, while those language teachers once their as a critical component in the located near or in metropolitan areas have multiple respective tribe has determined educational development of their that they are proficient in the tribal members. Tribal commu- opportunities. However, every Tribal Nation and specific Native language. This nities also recognize that to Community has an interest in incorporating their policy creates collaboration produce life-long learners, AI/ between Tribal Nations and the AN students must be able to respective language and culture into their school’s state of Arizona and responds identify and understand their own curriculum in a way that perpetuates the language directly to the cultural needs and self-identity. For previous genera- and traditional knowledge well into the future. preferences of Tribal Nations and tions of AI/AN, the early federal Communities. This enhancement boarding school system forced to Native language teaching is the use of the English language While these schools differ successful in their own eyes and not new but timely when the as a method of assimilation to widely in their level of academic the eyes of their tribal community established education system the dominant American culture. opportunity and educational and culture. of math, science and language However, Spencer (1999) points approach, it is important to point arts are becoming more out, cultural themes involved in out that each system shares the Incorporating Native Language rigorous through the expected phenomenological processes same values and expectations and Culture implementation of Common Core during childhood and adoles- – which are to produce life-long In conjunction with the standards. cence that fundamentally influ- learners that pursue their own academic curriculum, tribal Incorporating Native language ences behavior and attributional individual educational goals communities express the need and culture into curriculum inferences about oneself and with their own desire to become for their schools to incorporate provides relevancy to American others. In other words, traditional 48 The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

cultural influences at an early age speakers do not take their place. Currently, indigenous languages are diminishing at 49 helps to establish a balance of Tribal Nations and Communities alarming rates as older generations of traditional oneself and how they relate to are searching for methods people around them. and theoretical frameworks to “ speakers pass on and English becomes the primary Incorporating Native language reverse the language shift from language – since new traditional speakers do not into the classroom to improve English to Indigenous Languages. take their place. academic success coincides Research in AI/AN communities well with efforts of tribal Nations has demonstrated how use of to revitalize and promote an endangered language as the Academic Rigor and vision of Native languages as a the continued use of Native core language of instruction can Expectations relevant component of education languages across generations. benefit both children who come In the summer of 2012, when for tribal communities to reality. Currently, indigenous languages to school speaking that language, the Arizona State Board of Educa- To understand this fundamental are diminishing at alarming as well as children who come to tion enacted the Native American starting point, Tribal communi- rates as older generations of school speaking mostly English. Language Teaching Certificate, ties have instituted programs traditional speakers pass on and (Castagno & Brayboy, 2009; state educational policies shifted to educate and prepare their English becomes the primary Demmert, 2001; McCarty, 2009) as well. This effort is a positive own members to teach in their language – since new traditional step for all tribal communities schools. Tribal communities within the state of Arizona as have come to understand that it enhances the opportunity for teachers, doctors, engineers and Native language and culture to be other professionals can be devel- Average Education Attainment taught side-by-side with the same oped or found within the member- Reservation with any land in Arizona rigor and expectations as the ship of their own communities. US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (2006 to 2010) academic curricula required in Educational equality and equity is 3.50% schools today. This rule affords important to Tribal Nations and schools and their administrators Communities and is critical in Less than HS Diploma/GED the ability to recognize the Native exercising tribal sovereignty in a HS Diploma/GED languages as a true subject of very practical way. Some College knowledge and learning. In the 29.50% past, Native languages were not College and Career 31% Bachelors Degree or Higher given such privileges and were Readiness – Nation Building less important in terms of aca- Today, a larger number of col- demic relevance. lege educated tribal members are The search for teaching meth- returning to their communities to 36% ods and frameworks has ignited teach and help pass on canonical a desire to develop a process of knowledge within their respective learning that will help bring the fields. Some scholars refer to this 50 movement as a nation building construct systems. This concept knowledge incrementally is Career and Technical Education approach (Brayboy, Fann, Cast- is very much in line with local compatible with traditional AI/ (CTE) schools and traditional agno & Solyom, 2012) in which control and invokes the sage AN methods of learning. Tribal schools of learning to serve the tribal nations seek to build local words of Simone Weil (1987) who communities utilize their own overall needs of their respective capacity to address their myriad noted, “To be rooted is perhaps traditional understandings to communities and governments. educational needs and desires. the most important and least define what is referred to as These methods of teaching Building from this model, tribal recognized need of the human “college and career ready”. have been culturally embedded in nations have reached out to soul” (p. 41). With this belief, these tribal communities for gen- local colleges and universities to tribes have set out to re-estab- Multiple Pathways erations and it is this recognition create higher education curricula lish the norms of the education Native peoples understand that that encourages the movement that will assist tribes to pre- standards, and influence those offering a variety of options for of change for tribal communities pare tribal members to take on standards with their own culture higher education is important. in a way that is relevant and high-level positions within their and language, which will allow Traditionally and historically, authentic to these communities. own tribal governments, enter- their members to learn both the tribal communities have func- The confidence to know that prises, and businesses. In some outside world and tribal world. tioned through village systems. tribal members can contribute cases, tribal members can attend Each tribal nation is unique and Clans and communities had, and as change agents within their classes on the reservation and to establish a standard Native some still have, certain tasks communities is impressive. In within their own tribal communi- curriculum would be impossible. and responsibilities designated essence, tribes can now see ties. Rather than having tribal However, what can be achieved to those particular families and themselves as true leaders and members go away to college, is the development of the human villages, which required unique educators of their own commu- the colleges are now coming to mind and self-identity through an skills and knowledge. This nities. With the early western tribal communities. Again, tribal appreciation and understanding concept of distributed skills for influence, this role was abdicat- nations seek to create their own of one’s Native language and the best interest of the tribe and ed to an education system that teaching cadre that can teach culture. A common term in villages serves as a foundation didn’t value traditional concepts the required curriculum with an public and private educational for producing different education- and teaching. The idea of self-re- intimate understanding of the trib- institutions is the concept of al options for anyone to pursue. liance has gained momentum al community and their cultural scaffolding. This building of More importantly, multiple path- and serves as the beginnings ways to educational success do of forming self-identity and the not assume that everyone must self-esteem not just for students follow one track of educational but for entire communities. In essence, tribes can now see themselves as true pursuit. Arizona’s tribal commu- leaders and educators of their own communities. nities are vast and include vari- Thriving in Two Worlds With the early western influence, this role was abdi- ations of this traditional village Lastly, the true common “ model. It is this deeply rooted denominator throughout Indian cated to an education system that didn’t value tradi- traditional concept that fosters Country is the resiliency that Trib- tional concepts and teaching. tribal communities to establish al Nations and Communities have The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

found and rely upon within their 51 own construct systems. Some would say, “a tool or a skill that has been developed”, but others would claim this to be a common trait among the strong Indigenous communities that have relied on their resiliency through many ad- versities over centuries. Resilien- cy is an English based term that describes a traditional concept of thinking that helps to promote the self-efficacy that all tribal members can be successful in any path they choose in their life. In turn, Native students that learn academics with a greater appre- ciation of their Native language and culture will lead to a stronger life-long learners that possess both the outside world knowledge along with their tribal knowledge August, D. & Hakuta, K. (1998). Castagno, A.E. & Brayboy, B. McK. J. Spencer, M.B. (1999). Social and and can thrive in both worlds. n Educating language-minority children. (2008). Culturally responsive cultural influences on school Washington, DC: National Academy schooling for Indigenous youth: A adjustment: The application of an Press. review of the literature. Review of identity-focused cultural ecological Mario Molina is the Director of the Gila Educational Research 78(4), 941- perspective. Educ. Psychol. 34: 43- River Tribal Education Department where Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of 993. 57. he pursues positive change in the areas bilingual education and bilingualism. of academics, Akimel O’otham/Pee Posh Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Demmert, W. (2001). Improving Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (2002). A schools’ academic performance national study of school culture and language, higher education, Brayboy, B. McK. J., Fann, A., Castagno, among Native American students: effectiveness for language minority and many other endeavors by working A.E. and Solyom, J.A. (2012). A review of the research literature. students’ long-term academic with local, state and national level of Postsecondary Education for Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: governments on behalf of his community. American Indian and Alaska Natives: on Rural Education and Small Center for Research, Education, Mario is a member of the Gila River Indian Higher Education for Nation Building Schools. Diversity and Excellence. Community and a doctoral student at and Self-Determination. San Arizona State University. Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McCarty, T.L. (2009). The impact of high-stakes accountability policies on Bronfrenbrenner, U. Two World of Native American learners: Evidence Childhood. New York: Russell Sage from research. Teaching Education, Foundation, 1970. 20(1), 7-29. Southern Paiute Tribes The Southern Paiute traditionally lived in the Colorado River basin and Mojave Desert in northern Arizona and southeastern California including Owens Valley, southern Nevada and southern Utah. The Southern Paiute has multiple sub-groups, bands, or tribes, including the Chemehuevi Tribe.

52

Kaibab-Paiute Tribe

Federally Brief Description: Recognized: 1934 The Kaibab-Paiute Tribe is a member of the bands of the Paiute peo- Acreage: 120,413 acres ple who have lived on the lands north and west of the Grand Canyon. Population: 240 Traditionally hunters and gatherers, the Kaibab-Paiute moved around Peoples: Paiute in small groups as the seasons changed. In 1863, Mormons settled Contact: near the Kaibab-Paiute disrupting their traditional ways of life. Kaibab-Paiute Tribe The tribal lands of the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe were established in 1934. HC 65 Box 2 Most of the businesses on the Kaibab Paiute Indian Reservation are Fredonia, AZ 86022 owned and operated by the tribe, and include a visitor’s center at Phone: (928) 643-7245 Pipe Spring National Monument, convience store/gas station, which Fax: (928) 643-7260 the tribe operates, along with an RV park and campground. The tribe Website: http://www.kaibab is also involved in agriculture, and owns an 1,300 tree fruit orchard. paiute-nsn.gov Because of its location in scenic northern Arizona, the Kaibab Paiute Congressional District: 1 economy centers largely around tourism and the livestock industry. Legislative District: 7 The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013 San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe

Federally Recognized: 1990 Acreage: 0 Population: 300 53 Peoples: Paiute Contact: San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe POB 1989 Tuba City, Arizona, 86045 Phone: (928) 283-1066 Fax: (928) 674-9714 Congressional District: 1 Legislative District: 7

Brief Description: The San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe is a small newly recognized tribe of approximately 300 members. The San Juan Southern Paiutes have lived for the last several hundred years in territories east of the Grand Canyon, bounded by the San Juan and Colorado Rivers, with the Navajo and Hopi Tribes as their neighbors. They share a common heritage with the Southern Paiutes of northern Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and California. They retain and maintain their native language, which is distinctly separate from their neighbors. Many San Juan Southern Paiute tribal members reside in several distinct communities located on the Navajo Nation, primarily in northern Arizona and southeastern Utah. The largest of these communities are located at Willow Springs, near Tuba City, and at Navajo Mountain on the Arizona and Utah border. 54 This report on the natural resources describes the role tribes play both in stewardship of the land, air and water and in active energy production and conservation. Land that still remains with tribes contains vast stores of minerals, timber, natural vegetation, and wildlife. Others are prime for renewable energy opportunities and many tribes control significant water rights.

We tell this story because we are taught that the decisions we make today will have long term implications and affect the world around us. The traditional concept of seven-generation decision- making supports long-term sustainability and protection of our mother earth. sustainability The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

Tribes in Arizona and Sustainability: a tribe with no current land base lands of a number of tribes within 55 (the San Juan Southern Paiute), Arizona extend beyond the state Natural Resources, Energy, as well as the Zuni Pueblo, which and in the case of the Tohono and Environmental Management has its main village and tribal O’odham Nation, beyond the administration in New Mexico, but international boundary line with By Dr. Patricia Mariella has land within the boundaries of Mexico. The Pascua Yaqui Tribe’s There are twenty-two (22) federally recognized Arizona that is primarily used for homeland is within what is now traditional religious purposes. Mexico. Because of historical tribal governments within the boundaries of Tribal governments are found in persecution in their homeland, the state of Arizona. These Tribal Nations have every region of the state except many Yaqui families moved north the southeastern corner where and now live on reservation land jurisdiction over approximately 28% of the land the Chiricahua Apache once lived as well as other historical Yaqui within Arizona. Tribal resources also include in what is now Cochise County, communities within Arizona. significant amounts of surface and ground water named for one of the tribe’s historic leaders. A number of Background that are critical to economic well being in arid the tribes in Arizona are among The varied geology and ecosys- Arizona. Tribal lands also contain major sources the most remote in the United tems within what is now the state States. The Havasupai occupy of Arizona provided the basis for of fossil fuels, as well as renewable sources of a western canyon of the Grand the diverse traditional economies energy. Because many tribal lands are not highly Canyon with no road access to of Native people. Today, tribal developed, they often contain natural ecosystems their village; it is the only commu- land continues to support mod- nity in the U.S. where mail is still ern tribal economies and also with large game, fish, and recreation values, as delivered by mule. Villages and offers the potential for continued well as forests with substantial stands of timber. housing on Navajo, Hopi, Tohono sustainable development and O’odham, San Carlos Apache and growth. The lands have long been White Mountain Apache reserva- coveted for resources including This report provides a broad size, natural resources and cul- tions are miles from even mid- uranium, coal, copper, timber, overview of the extensive natural tural traditions. Tribal lands are sized cities. and water. and energy resources of Tribal distributed throughout the state, On the other end of the contin- Prior to Europeans coming to Nations within Arizona. It also with some near or adjacent to uum, there are tribes that share the territory, tribal people inhab- summarizes the environmental urban areas and others in remote boundaries with the densely ited and made use of virtually resources management programs locations. These lands vary great- populated Phoenix metropolitan all of the land in the state. It is and regulatory work being con- ly in size. Most of the Navajo Na- area (Salt River Pima-Maricopa In- important to acknowledge that ducted by tribes within the state. tion, which has the largest tribal dian Community, Gila River Indian Arizona State University campus- The Tribal Nations within Arizo- land base in the United States, is Community, and Fort McDowell es are on the ancestral lands of na vary in land base, population primarily in Arizona; there is also Yavapai Nation). In addition, the the Akimel Au-Authm (Pima) and 56 McDowell Yavapai Nation, Yavapai deeply connected to ancestral Prescott, and Yavapai Apache Na- homelands. tions demonstrates the dramatic American Indian peoples have loss of land when the federal longstanding knowledge of the government determined reserva- land on which they lived and tion boundaries and land beyond from which they subsisted. As is those boundaries made available true of most indigenous peoples to non-Indian settlers. According throughout the world, American to the federal Indian Land Claims Indian cultural identity is closely Commission, the Yavapai tradi- associated with specific eco- tionally lived on close to one-fifth systems and landmarks of their of what is today central and homelands. Native perspective of western Arizona. Today, Yavapai land possession is unlike that of lands are only relatively small, non-Natives. Concepts of owner- non-contiguous parcels of their ship versus stewardship brings original homelands. forth an attitude and treatment of For tribes, the loss of land land in a conservationist rather and the water associated with than exploitative approach Reservations in Arizona it increasingly made traditional Almost all Native peoples within land-based economies difficult. Arizona were farmers who supple- This loss also undermined tribal mented their agricultural econo- social and political structures mies with hunted and gathered Piipaash (Maricopa) peoples. Sumner) in New Mexico, and the that were consistent with these foods, such as mesquite beans Tribes were forced to give up forced march of the Yavapai from traditional ways of life. The loss and agave, along with a wide large tracts of land when reser- Camp Verde to San Carlos, both of land also jeopardized cultural range of seeds, berries, nuts and vations were established primar- Navajo and Yavapai were able to and religious practices, which are fruits. Native people also used ily in Territorial Arizona by the return to their homelands and United States government after their reservations today lie within the Civil War. their traditional territories. Most tribes in Arizona, unlike Early explorers and settlers The varied geology and ecosystems within what is tribes in much of the eastern part coming to North America saw now the state of Arizona provided the basis for the of the United States, have reser- the land and the natural and diverse traditional economies of Native people. vation land that is located within biological resources associated “ their traditional homelands. De- with it as the tribal resources of Today, tribal land continues to support modern tribal spite the Navajo Long Walk in the the greatest commercial value. economies and also offers the potential for continued 1860’s to Bosque Redondo (Fort The history of the tribes like Fort sustainable development and growth. The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

Sustainability, from a tribal perspective, goes beyond 57 maintaining the environment. Tribes also seek to “ sustain their cultures that are intimately connected to the health of their lands and the well-being of their communities.

plants for medicinal purposes, It stands to reason that tribal basket-weaving and clothing. sustainability must look well into Many of these natural resources the future. For example, one are critical for Native artisans tribal government has developed and healers and are seriously a 100-year Strategic Plan. Many threatened by a loss of habitat. speak of the concept of planning ahead seven generations into the Sustainability is a Core Value future. of Tribal Nations While sustainability is increas- Wildlife, Forests and Timber ingly becoming part of contem- Because Indian Country lands porary American vernacular and located within the Arizona bound- a global consideration, it has al- aries are not densely populated, ways been a core value for tribes. significant areas of tribal lands Tribal Nations are intrinsically tied are naturally functioning ecosys- to the land and have been in this tems that support wildlife, includ- place for millennia. Therefore, ing fish and large game such as Tribal Nations have both practical elk and moose. Many tribes make and cultural reasons to protect the conscious decision to keep their homelands and natural re- certain lands undeveloped to sup- sources for future generations. port natural ecosystems. Tribal Sustainability, from a tribal per- Nations manage their game and spective, goes beyond maintain- fish effectively by issuing sus- ing the environment. Tribes also tainable numbers of hunting and seek to sustain their cultures fishing permits. These natural that are intimately connected to areas encompass mountain and the health of their lands and the desert vistas, waterfalls, canyons well-being of their communities. and other unique and beautiful 58 Many tribes make the conscious decision to keep refer to as Hohokam, Sinagua that are critical to economies and certain lands undeveloped to support natural eco- and Anasazi (among others diets of people throughout the groups) all farmed. A number of world today. Native peoples likely systems. Tribal Nations manage their game and fish “ tribes, especially those along the domesticated tepary beans, as effectively by issuing sustainable numbers of hunting Salt, Gila and Colorado rivers, well as varieties of cotton and and fishing permits. practiced labor-intensive, irrigated maize. It was Native farmers who agriculture. Some depended on supplied food to the early Span- canal diversion of surface water ish as well as American settlers features that often have cultural (e.g., Navajo and Hopi). Tribes and they laid out a sophisticated and military forts in the Phoenix and religious significance to tribal also have rights to groundwater canal system and dug the canals area and along the Colorado people but are also sought-after beneath their lands and a number by hand. The ancient canal sys- River. by hikers, campers, tourists, and of Tribes have specific rights to tems are often the foundation of By the late 1800s and 1900s, developers. groundwater identified in their the modern canal systems used the once- thriving agricultural Tribal lands also support water settlements. today. With an assured supply economies were devastated by significant timber resources. The legal basis for tribal water of food, these Tribes were able non-Indian farmers diverting more The largest, contiguous stand rights is well established in to support comparatively dense water upstream. The significant of Ponderosa Pine in the United federal law, both through statute populations. and increasing reduction of flow States is found on the San Carlos and court decisions. When tribes In northeastern Arizona, Native to tribal lands downstream made Apache and White Mountain ceded large tracts of land to the people grew crops without large it increasingly difficult to contin- Apache reservations. The Navajo United States government, they riparian systems, using dry-farm- ue farming. As the diversions Nation also has a large amount retained sovereign authorities ing techniques that traditional increased, the loss of water of timber resources. Tribes are on the lands that were ultimately farmers at Hopi and Navajo still threatened the survival of Native highly skilled at forest manage- established through the reserva- practice. The key food crops farmers who depended on the ment as was demonstrated by tion system. This legal construct grown traditionally by American rivers to grow their crops. the varying impacts of the large is the basis for the doctrine of Indians in the Southwest, pri- Upstream diversions and, in Rodeo-Chedeski wildfire on and reserved rights, established in marily corn, beans and squash, many cases, the complete loss off the White Mountain Apache 1908 by the Supreme Court in provided a balanced and nutrition- of flow in the river systems, reservation. Winters v. United States. The al diet; particularly when supple- were supported by the federal famous Winters Doctrine recog- mented with protein from meat government’s program to Water Rights and Agriculture nizes and confirms tribal rights to obtained by hunting as well as construct numerous dams on the Tribes have quantified rights water associated with their lands. domesticated animals, such as Colorado, Salt, Gila and Verde thus far to close to a third of the Tribes were Arizona’s first turkeys. American Indian innova- rivers during the first half of the surface water within the state, farmers, having developed an in- tion and experimentation through- 20th century to provide water with potential claims to more as tensive agricultural tradition that out North, Central and South for farms and growing towns several large tribes do not yet goes back millennia. The pre-his- America led to domestication of a and cities. The single biggest have settled or quantified rights toric peoples whom archeologists wide range of crops and animals environmental degradation in the The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

59 60 Gila River and Salt River tribal conduct commercial farming communities was losing their operations on approximately free-flowing rivers. Not only were 500,000 acres within Indian thriving traditional tribal life ways Country in Arizona. compromised, the lack of water flow in riverbeds doomed the Land Allotments associated riparian ecosystems. After the Civil War, the United For over a century, tribal States adopted a policy with governments have devoted the stated goal of assimilating precious resources in legal American Indians through small- and political efforts to quantify scale farming. This era is defined and affirm their water rights. by the General Allotment Act of However, even after these rights 1887 (also known as the Dawes are quantified, Tribes often must Act). During the allotment era, reconstruct irrigation systems the federal government began and other infrastructure to make dividing tribal lands, starting in use of the water. And oftentimes, the Midwest and Northern Plains, restrictions are placed on how into relatively small, individual tribes can sell their water. This parcels (generally 20 acres or is why tribes make a distinction less) that were assigned or between water rights and ‘wet allotted to individual Indian heads water’, or water that can actually of household. After a transition be used. As an example, the period, often 25 years, individual Pima-Maricopa Irrigation Project American Indians privately owned is being completed within the Gila the allotted land. Privately owned River Indian Community to deliver land no longer had federal water to farming operations trust status and could be sold, throughout the Community. This mortgaged and taxed, unlike system of canals and culverts reservation land which cannot be will enable the Community and sold by tribes or by individuals. its farmers to regain farming Only Congress can authorize the acreage and increase agricultural purchase or sale of reservation production. Today, tribal farm land, all of which is owned and enterprises, individual American held in trust by the federal Indian farmers, and non-Indian government. farmers, who lease tribal land, Tribal lands that were not al- Indigenous Maize The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

61

lotted were termed ‘excess’ and sold by the federal government to non-Indian homesteaders. As a result, American Indians lost almost two-thirds of their remaining land. Tribal lands were reduced from approximately 138 million to only 48 million acres. In 1928, the famous Merriam Re- port detailed the loss of land and associated devastation of tribal communities and, in response; Congress halted the process of allotment in 1934 by passing the Indian Reorganization Act. In Arizona, the federal gov- ernment began the process of status but the policy left a legacy within Arizona are inherited over nomic use of the land. Federal allotment on several reservations of complicated land tenure. There many generations, ownership regulations require permission of towards the end of the allotment are six tribes in Arizona that have has become fractionated, with most (and in some cases all) of era, dividing lands where, for the a combined total of approximately common examples of 100 tribal the tribal landowners for the land most part, tribes had a history 172,100 acres in allotted land landowners of a single acre. This to be leased or used for a home- of practicing irrigated agricul- status. fractionated ownership system site or commercial development. ture. These allotments did not Since the leasing rights of makes it difficult for descendants This requirement creates a heavy pass out of trust and into private allotted land on reservations of original allottees to make eco- administrative burden for housing Navajo Generating Station

62 Tribal governments are critical players in energy pro- on houses, government build- The mines and electrical gen- duction and distribution in Arizona since essentially ings and facilities. There are erating stations (though owned all of the mineral-based sources of energy within the also tribal lands in the northern by non-Indian utility companies) “ portion of the state with poten- produce jobs for Native people, state are found on tribal lands, as well as two large, tial to generate wind energy. and lease revenue to the Navajo coal-fired generating stations. The Navajo Nation is planning a Nation and Hopi Tribe. However, utility-scale wind energy project these large generating stations (Big Boquillas). are a substantial source of and economic development proj- gion, home of the Hopi and Na- Traditionally, Indian people greenhouse gases and a source ects as well as individuals trying vajo, has one of the largest coal developed ways that were en- of pollutants that may affect to create a land base for person- deposits in the United States, ergy efficient and well adapted health and visibility. The signifi- al or commercial use. with approximately 21 billion to the geography and climate. cant levels of revenue as well as tons of coal and a long-term Even today, households on tribal employment are major factors Energy value as high as $100 billion. lands use the least electricity of affecting tribal government de- Tribal governments are critical However, more than 18,000 any population group within the cisions. Individuals and groups players in energy production and Navajo households do not have state. Many American Indians, within the Navajo and Hopi distribution in Arizona since es- electricity. Nationwide, 14% of particularly elderly, desire to reservations influence these sentially all of the mineral-based American Indian households continue traditional lifestyles decisions as well as non-trib- sources of energy within the on reservations lack electricity that provide a substantial level al organizations that seek to state are found on tribal lands, compared to less than 1.5% of of self-sufficiency, but most accelerate the pace of transition as well as two large, coal-fired non-Indian households. This tribal people of all ages would by tribal governments to other generating stations. Further- disconnect occurs largely be- like the benefits of electrifi- sources of revenue. more, as a result of historical cause infrastructure is lacking. cation. Given that American Tribal governments today are rights-of-way and leases, numer- Transmission lines, substations Indians living on reservations attempting to manage the costs ous natural gas pipelines, trans- and, household wiring is not are the poorest group of people and benefits of mining and coal- missions lines for electricity and yet available to households on in the United States (2010 US based energy production while hydroelectric dams are located remote areas of reservations. Census), the cost of delivering moving toward a future in which on tribal lands. Because of their locations and electricity to these communities tribes have increased ownership The Navajo Generating Sta- land use patterns, many tribes is a serious concern. and control and management tion, the second largest power also have substantial potential plant in Arizona, and the Four for renewable energy genera- Corners Generating Station tion (wind, solar, and biomass). The Black Mesa region, home of the Hopi and Navajo, (which is located in New Mexico) Particularly in southern Arizona, are both located on the Navajo tribal nations have made use of has one of the largest coal deposits in the United Nation and burn coal mined on the high levels of solar radiation States, with approximately 21 billion tons of coal and tribal land. The Black Mesa re- “ to install photovoltaic panels a long-term value as high as $100 billion. The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

63 64 Tribal Nations are developing innovative, on-site much of their land in a natural nificent mountains, rivers, and renewable energy projects, as well as utility-scale state rather than develop it in- canyons in the West are found solar, wind, and biofuel projects, that have the tensively. Since natural resourc- on tribal land. Many of these “ es often have religious, cultural areas also provide recreational potential to provide best practices both within and practical value, protection is opportunities, tourism revenues, Arizona and throughout the US. a high priority of Native commu- and the need for environmental nities. Native plants are used by protection. basket-weavers and other artists In order to protect the envi- of energy production on their are systematically working to- and craftspeople for healing ronment, Tribes in Arizona have own lands. In this respect, their ward ownership in power gener- and food, particularly for special developed capacity to protect approach is similar to interests ation on their lands and increas- events and ceremonies. For ex- air and water quality and pre- sometimes expressed by Arizo- ing their expertise and capacity ample, tribal people gather wood vent soil contamination. The US nans concerned about exporting in energy development, financing for heating, cooking, and for Environmental Protection Agency energy to other states, while and project management. In ad- ceremonial fires; hunting game (EPA), particularly Region 9, leaving Arizona to deal with the dition, tribes are also turning to is cultural tradition as well as a which works with tribes locat- costs. Tribal governments and traditional materials and designs basic food source for families. ed within Arizona, has made their members want to ensure to obtain energy efficiencies in Tribes are stewards of lands substantial effort to provide that, at a minimum, the benefits their homes, public buildings with great natural and scenic program resources to every tribe. out weight the costs of energy and infrastructure. Additionally, beauty. Some of the most mag- In several instances, Tribes have generation on their lands. While Tribal Nations are developing they continue use revenues from innovative, on-site renewable coal mining and coal-fired power energy projects, as well as utili- generation, tribes are also ty-scale solar, wind, and biofuel planning a range of renewable projects, that have the potential energy projects and are work- to provide best practices both ing through the challenges of within Arizona and throughout accessing federal renewable en- the US. ergy tax credits through financial partnerships with third parties. Tribal Environmental Learning how to leverage assets Management and Regulation while maintaining conservation As previously stated, Tribes strategies will allow the contin- within Arizona have a wide-range ued practice of preserving re- of environmental and natural sources for future generations. resources, many of which are To make use of increasing op- largely undisturbed because portunities, tribal governments Tribes have preferred to leave The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

led the way nationally in environ- replanted indigenous trees. ture for environmental regulation Air Act to major industrial sourc- 65 mental management. The White Mountain Apache left a ‘tribal gap’ since there es of air pollution on reserva- The Gila River Indian Community Tribe, San Carlos Apache Tribe were no specific statutory or tions, but many of the federal is the first tribe in the U.S. to and the Hualapai Tribe each regulatory authorities for tribal air quality rules lack specific develop a comprehensive air have effective game and fish governments to receive funding permit requirements; the federal quality regulatory program under management programs. Tribes or delegated authorities from laws and regulations envision the Clean Air Act. The Navajo with substantial agricultural EPA. While the federal EPA had that the states will develop the Nation is the only tribe in the U.S. production, including Salt River authorities to regulate the envi- specific requirements within the to implement the public water Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, ronment in Indian Country, it did overall federal parameters. Many supply program under the Safe Gila River Indian Community, Ak- not have the staff to implement major source air quality permits Drinking Water Act. Several tribes Chin Indian Community, Cocopah, day-to-day regulatory programs. in Indian Country were issued within Arizona have developed and Quechan, have long-standing In addition, most federal envi- without substantive requirements water quality standards under pesticide regulatory programs. ronmental laws and regulations (referred to as ‘hollow permits’). the Clean Water Act and many Unlike states, which derive envision that states will develop With increasing awareness of Tribes have met the national their authorities from the federal specific statutes, regulations, the tribal gap, Congress included requirements for closing open government, Tribal Nations have and permit requirements to im- language in the re-authorizations dumps under the Resource inherent authorities to regulate plement the federal laws. of the major federal environmen- Conservation and Recovery Act. under tribal law. Many tribes in As a result, some industrial tal laws in the 1980’s that specif- Tribes in Arizona are conducting Arizona have taken the initiative facilities in Indian Country were ically acknowledged tribal regula- substantial remediation and responsibility to manage largely unregulated. For exam- tory authorities and established projects of groundwater and and protect their land, water, ple, the U.S. has authority to a process for Tribes to receive soil, contaminated by industrial and air. Generally, in the ab- issue permits under the Clean delegated authority as well as activities and agricultural sence of tribal regulation, the pesticides used in the past. federal government has regula- Cocopah and other tribes tory authority in Indian Country. Some of the most magnificent mountains, rivers, and located along the Colorado River However, when originally enact- canyons in the West are found on tribal land. Many of have taken national leadership in ed by Congress, federal environ- assessing the impacts of climate mental laws provided for states “ these areas also provide recreational opportunities, change and developing adaptive to assume regulatory respon- tourism revenues, and the need for environmental strategies. The Salt River Pima sibility after meeting certain protection. In order to protect the environment, Tribes Maricopa Indian Community has conditions and standards devel- in Arizona have developed capacity to protect air established wetlands preserve, oped by the EPA. These author- and water quality and prevent soil contamination. In while the Colorado River Indian ities are often accompanied by Tribes, Ak-Chin, Hopi and others funding from the EPA to assist in several instances, Tribes have led the way nationally have removed invasive plants implementing the programs. in environmental management. in riparian ecosystems and This initial federal-state struc- 66 With significant support by the Inter Tribal Council of to be eligible. Consequently, Tribal Nations and regulatory Arizona, Tribes provided national leadership in the Tribes that develop regulatory agencies in surrounding jurisdic- re-authorizations of the Clean Water Act, Safe Drink- programs under federal laws tions are increasingly working “ (rather or in addition to using in- cooperatively. Often, individuals ing Water Act and Clean Air Act and were critical to herent tribal authorities) may be who dump trash on tribal lands successful enactment by Congress of tribal eligibility better able to serve their goals also are dumping in rural areas provisions in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. for long-term sustainability of of counties and municipalities resources and economic viabil- and it can be helpful for law ity because: 1) They have clear enforcement and regulators to program funding. This became a more complex issue. The ac- regulatory authority over mem- share information. The Arizona known as ‘treatment as a state’ tivities of non-Indians on lands bers and non-members – partic- Department of Environmental (also referred to as ‘tribal eligibil- within a reservation require ularly important for Tribes that Quality (ADEQ) was the first ity’) for the purposes of assuming consideration of the impact of have industrial facilities owned state environmental agency to federal environmental regulatory the activity on the tribe or if the by non-Indians on their lands; develop a formal tribal policy in authority. The amendments speci- nonmember has agreed to tribal and, 2) They have more control 1992. That policy specifically fied that tribes must demonstrate jurisdiction (such as through in determining the regulatory recognizes tribal jurisdiction in the administrative and program- signing a lease). The Montana requirements. environmental management and matic capacity to conduct federal test, established in the Supreme acknowledges that it is mutually regulatory programs to be eligible Court case of 1981 is used Pollution Does Not Recognize beneficial for each jurisdiction for program delegation (some- to determine tribal regulatory Political Boundaries: to be as effective as possible times referred to as ‘primacy’). jurisdiction over non-Indians or Cooperation Among protect the environment within With significant support by the non-trust lands located within Regulatory Agencies its own jurisdiction. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, the exterior boundaries of a res- Many tribes, particularly those Recognition of tribal jurisdic- Tribes provided national leader- ervation. A number of lawsuits adjacent to urban areas, deal tion opened the door to substan- ship in the re-authorizations of over the past three decades, with substantial illegal dumping tial cooperation so that, today, the Clean Water Act, Safe Drink- some of which were decided in on their lands and have devel- Arizona is known nationally for a ing Water Act and Clean Air Act the U.S. Supreme Court, further oped legal tools, including solid generally positive and effective and were critical to successful defined (and generally further waste laws, to prohibit dumping. relationship among Tribal, state, enactment by Congress of tribal limited) inherent tribal regulatory Many tribes make use of law and local environmental regu- eligibility provisions in the 1980’s authority over non-Indians within enforcement rangers who police latory programs. The US EPA and early 1990’s. reservations. However, in the the uninhabited areas of reser- Region 9 has also supported Tribal regulatory authority, in tribal amendments to the federal vations, as well as regulatory and fostered these productive general, extends to activities of environmental laws, particular- and legal staff to investigate relationships. American Indians conducted on ly the Clean Air Act, Congress and fine illegal dumpers. An example of a highly suc- tribal lands. Regulating activities delegated federal authorities Because pollution does not cessful partnership is the Joint of non-Indians on tribal lands is to Tribes that are determined recognize political boundaries, Air Toxics Assessment Project. The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

The Salt River Pima-Maricopa NEPA review, such as en- Dr. Mariella is the Director of the 2 National Park Service, “Indian Land 67 Indian Community initiated the vironmental assessments or American Indian Policy Institute and Ar eas Judicially Established 1978,” oversees the projects conducted by the National Park Service. http:// effort, funded in part by the more intensive environmental ASU American Indian Policy Institute. www.nps.gov/history/nagpra/ U.S. EPA, to assess the sourc- impact statements, add to the She came to ASU after eleven years as DOCUMENTS/ClaimsMAP.htm es, distribution and risks from administrative requirements Executive Director of the Department (accessed June 28, 2007). air toxics in the greater Phoenix for development of land within of Environmental Quality of the Gila 3 The mission system in California River Indian Community, which received metropolitan airshed. The proj- Indian Country. However, NEPA mission also extensively exploited numerous regional and national awards Native labor. ect also developed health risk also provides an opportunity under her leadership. Prior to joining reduction programs. The core for Tribes and tribal citizens to Gila River, Dr. Mariella worked for four 4 These include (but are not limited to): maize (corn), beans, squashes, project partners included the learn about developments and years at the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality where she was potatoes, tomatoes, chili peppers, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian participate in the environmental the director of the Arizona Comparative chocolate, tobacco, quinine, Community, Gila River Indian review process. In the past two Environmental Risk Project. cotton, sunflowers, sweet potatoes, Community, and the Arizona decades, tribal governments avocados, cranberries, peanuts, vanilla, turkeys, llamas, alpacas and Department of Environmental have increasingly taken on the Throughout the 1980s she worked at the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, where guinea pigs. Quality. responsibility for conducting en- she was the Research Director, focusing 5 The substantial challenges posed by vironmental assessments under on natural resources and environmental fractionated land inheritance National Environmental Policy NEPA, which has helped reduce management. She did her doctoral work resulted in the 1982 Indian Land Act (NEPA) in Indian Country the administrative burden and with the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Consolidation Act in which tribes working on the water settlement and in Arizona provided for greater tribal control are given first right of refusal to buy the successful effort to prevent the fractionated as well as privately held The National Environmental of the process. construction of the Orme Dam. land within reservation boundaries. Policy Act (NEPA), signed into 6 US 2000 Census law by President Nixon in 1970, Leadership into the Future References and Additional Readings 7 Glaser, Leah S. 2010 “An Absolute requires federal agencies to Tribal Nations located within 1 the federal government owns an Paragon of Paradoxes” In Indians assess the potential impact of Arizona continue to provide additional 45%, and the state owns and Energy, Sherry Smith and Brian federal actions on the environ- leadership in preserving, 14%, and privately held land is Frehner, eds., School for Advanced ment and to provide for public protecting, and managing their approximately 13%. Research Press, Santa Fe. comment. NEPA is overseen by natural and environmental the Council on Environmental resources. Using planning, Quality in the Executive Office energy efficiency, renewable Because pollution does not recognize political bound- of the U. S. President. NEPA energy, as well as environmental aries, Tribal Nations and regulatory agencies in sur- is often triggered by land de- regulation, Tribes will continue rounding jurisdictions are increasingly working coop- velopment in Indian Country to be sustainable stewards of “ since federal agencies are often the land, water and air, providing eratively. Often, individuals who dump trash on tribal involved in approving leases or a model for Arizona, the Nation, lands also are dumping in rural areas of counties and because federal funds are being and the world. n municipalities and it is helpful for law enforcement spent on a project. and regulators to share information. 68 The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

8 US Department of Energy “Energy for Indian lands. Shortly after the 69 Consumption and Renewable Energy passage of P.L. 280, the Arizona Development on Indian Lands” 2000 legislature made a 280 claim over water and air quality, but did not 9 NGS employs over 500 people and take the follow-up steps required over 85% of whom are American to actually assert jurisdiction. In Indians. According to Congressional 1986, the passage of the Arizona Hearings in May 2011, the revenue Environmental Quality Act formally from the coals mines and leases for removed the unenforceable statutory the generating stations provide close language asserting jurisdiction to 30% of the Navajo Nation’s tribal over water quality. In 2003, the budget and close to 88% of the Hopi Arizona legislature passed an Tribe’s operating budget that comes amendment that specifically removed from non-governmental sources. the unenforceable 280 language 10 In the 1950’s during a period in which concerning air quality. the federal government attempted 11 Montana v. United States 450 U.S. to end its trust relationship with 544 (1981). a number of tribal governments nationwide, Congress passed Public Law 83-280. Generally referred to as Public Law 280, it authorized states to assume jurisdiction over tribal lands under certain conditions. However, the impact was limited by the fact that only a few states took on jurisdictional responsibilities River Tribes These tribes are not all linguistically related, but have contemporary and/ or ancestral ties to the Colorado River, including the Colorado River Indian Tribes, whose membership includes Mohave, Chemehuevi, Hopi, and Navajo. The Maricopa Tribe has ancestral ties to the Colorado River area but maintain an alliance with the Akimel O’odham (River people) established 70 hundreds of years ago and co-exist in the Gila River and Salt River Valleys.

Fort Mojave Indian Tribe

Federally Brief Description: Recognized: 1910 Spirit Mountain is the earthly origin of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe Acreage: 32,970 acres whose tribal lands spans land in Arizona, California, and Nevada. The 22,820 in AZ, reservation is home to 1,120 people. Living along the banks of the 3,862 in NV, and 6,298 in CA Colorado River, the Mojave Indians are the “Pipa Aha Macav” – The People by the River. Population: 1,120 Peoples: Yuman Prosperous farmers, when the Spaniards encountered them, the Mojave people had established villages. They also had developed Contact: trade routes that stretched to the Pacific Ocean. Fort Mojave Indian Tribe 500 Merriman Avenue One hundred years later, as the American frontier was opened, the Needles, CA 92363 Pipa Aha Macav resisted the military wagon trains and American Phone: (760) 629-4591 migrants who crossed the Colorado River on the California Trail. Fax: (760) 629-5767 They defended their rugged homeland, the Basin and Range Website: http://mojaveindian southern deserts. The intruders responded by establishing Fort tribe.com Mojave as a military outpost in 1859, locating it on the east bank of the Colorado River. Congressional District: 4 Legislative District: 5 The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013 Cocopah Indian Tribe

Federally Brief Description: Recognized: 1917 The Cocopah Indian Tribe is located in low-lying desert approximately Acreage: 6,524 acres 13 miles south of Yuma and bounded by the Colorado River. Just Population: 1074 five miles north of San Luis, it is situated 180 miles east of San 71 Peoples: Cocopah Diego and 180 miles west of Phoenix. The Cocopah Indian Tribe Contact: is divided into three parcels. The Tribe’s members reside in East Cocopah, West Cocopah, or North Cocopah. Cocopah Indian Tribe 14515 S. Veterans Drive The first Europeans to visit the Cocopah Indian Tribe in the sixteenth Somerton, AZ 85350 century received gifts of garden foods. The Cocopah, a generous Phone: (928) 627-2102 people, had trouble adjusting to the ways of the Spaniards, Anglos, Fax: (928) 627-3173 and Mexicans, who took over their homeland. As river people, the Website: http://www.coco Cocopah traveled the waterways on tule rafts, poling them down to pah.com/ the mouth of the Colorado River to collect wild wheat. The Cocopah walked known trails to the north into what is now California, east Congressional District: 3 along the Gila River, or into the Sierra de Juarez. After spring Legislative District: 4 planting, some Cocopah families would travel to the high country to visit their Pai Pai or Kumeyaay friends and relatives, sometimes not returning until harvest time. Later, they traveled by horseback, and today, many adult Cocopah travel this course by automobile. Colorado River Indian Tribes

Federally Brief Description: Recognized: 1865 The tribal lands of the Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT) are Acreage: 268,964, located in western Arizona near Parker, Arizona, 189 miles from 225,995 in AZ Phoenix, Arizona. The tribal lands of CRIT span the Colorado and 42,969 in CA River and include land in Arizona (La Paz County) and California Population: 7,466 (San Bernardino). Peoples: Mohave, Chemehuevi, The Colorado River Indian Tribes was established on March 3, Navajo, Hopi 1865, for the “Indians of said river and its tributaries.” Contact: The indigenous people were the agricultural Mohave and the Colorado River Indian Tribes Chemehuevi people. In 1945, a portion of the lands of the 26600 Mohave Road CRIT was reserved for colonization by Indians of other tribes, Parker, AZ 85344 specifically the Hopis and Navajos. Phone: (928) 669-9211 The CRIT economy is centered on agriculture, recreation, as well as Fax: (928) 669-1391 government and light industry. The fertile river bottom lands and Website: http://www.crit-nsn.gov available water allows the production of agricultural and produce, Congressional District: 4 such as cotton, alfalfa, wheat, feed grains, lettuce, and melons. Legislative District: 5 Quechan Tribe

Federally Brief Description: Recognized: 1884 The Quechan (pronounced Kwuh-tsan) Tribe is located along both Acreage: 43,958 acres sides of the Colorado River near Yuma, Arizona. The reservation 72 Population: 3,037 borders the states of Arizona, California, Baja California, and Mexico. Peoples: Quechan Encompassing 45,000 acres, the reservation is bisected on the south by Interstate 8 (I-8). Contact: The Yuma, who today prefer to be called the Quechan, have long been Quechan Tribe known as fighters. For centuries, they battled the O’odham, Apache, PO Box 1899 and other tribes for control of the fertile flood plains of the Colorado Yuma, AZ 85366 River, which is the boundary between California and Arizona. Phone: (760) 572-0213 Fax: (760) 572-2102 Congressional District: 3, 4 Legislative District: 4, 13 The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

73 74 This report presents an overview of the current economic opportunities of tribes in Arizona. Long before contact with European explorers, tribal people in the southwest developed thriving economies – farming, hunting, fishing, trading, and raiding.

In modern times, specifically since the development of Indian gaming, tribes in Arizona have expanded their economies by leveraging gaming as the economic engine. The purpose for revitalizing these economies remains unchanged, to use revenues to improve the lives of tribal members and support necessary and much needed government functions.

We tell this story because we are taught that it is important to provide for the well being of others and not only for oneself. Sharing has always been foundational with tribes and a necessary component in the redistribution of wealth. economic development The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

Tribal Economic Development in Arizona regions, providing jobs in a new benefits, inclusive of an estimat- 75 industry at the casinos and its ed $7 million in state personal By Carl Artman, Esq. related facilities, such as the income taxes. Instate interest, Arizona tribes have contributed to a robust era hotels and restaurants. In the rents, royalties, dividends, and state of Arizona, tribal gaming profits added an additional $220 of economic development on their reservations comprises nearly 2,000,000 million. Arizona state and local and their economies will continue to expand feet of gambling space, 2,500 governments collected $63 through the foreseeable future. This conclusion hotel rooms, and nearly 80 million in sales and excise taxes. restaurants. According to a The direct, indirect and induced is based not only on strong past performance, recent report by the Arizona impacts are estimated to be but on the strength of the tribal governments Indian Gaming Association, if associated with over 22,000 jobs that are the impetus of the reservation-based the tribes were considered a statewide.3 combined single employer in the In 2011, Arizona tribal gaming economic growth. state of Arizona, which they are revenues were approximately not, their combined employment $1.7 billion, ranking it as one of Arizona tribes have expand- through the provision of improved would rank them as the third the top industries in the state. ed the control over their land, reservation infrastructure and ex- largest employer in Arizona.2 Tribes have used these revenues resources, and infrastructure pansion into non-gaming related Communities located near to invest in their community’s over much of the last century. businesses ventures built on the tribal gaming operations share in physical infrastructure, provide They expanded their economies unique geographic, geological, or the economic benefits of Indian social services for their mem- by engaging in a wide range of cultural aspects of the particular gaming. The tribes rely on both bers, and create a diversified and economic activities ranging from tribe. This report will offer an tribal members and non-tribal sustainable tribal economy. Tribes tourism, gaming, energy, agri- overview of key growth areas for employees to fulfill employment have diversified their gaming reve- culture, and manufacturing. The tribal economic development, and requirements for these industries. nues into tourism, entertainment, twenty-two Arizona tribes have will then consider the features The local tribal casinos also rely construction, natural resource become economic forces in their of tribal government that laid the upon local firms to provide every development, and agriculture. regions, the state, and across foundation for the strong perfor- day services ranging from house- the nation. mance in those industries. keeping services to restaurant Natural Resources Arizona tribal economies con- supplies to transportation. Development tinue their expansion, providing Gaming The combined direct, indirect, The following are only a few dividends for the tribal members Indian gaming is thriving in and induced impact of annually examples of the tribal natural and the surrounding communi- Arizona. The Indian Gaming recurring casino purchasing and resource economy in Arizona. ties. Indian gaming has provided Regulatory Act restricts hiring reached nearly $1 billion Natural resource exploration and the firm economic foundation for tribal casinos to only Indian of gross state product in 2011. development includes coal, oil many of the Arizona tribes, but lands.1 Tribal casinos are Of that, $705 million accrued to and gas, sand and gravel, water, most are growing their economies an economic engine in their Arizonans as wages, salaries, and wind, and sun. Nearly every Salt River Fields at Talking Stick

76 tribe in Arizona participates in commercial-scale projects or local States. To provide a sustainable economy will benefit from an natural resource development at development, Arizona tribes will economy for its tribal members expansion of its traditional energy some level. In the past, tribes contribute to the expansion of the Navajo Nation has actively resources, such as oil and gas. In were often passive participants, renewable energy in Arizona. developed the natural resources 1993, the Navajo Nation created leasing their lands under federally Tribes are developing local within its reservation, though the Navajo Nation Oil and Gas imposed terms and conditions to and regional projects throughout until recently it has been through Company (“NNOGC”) as a tribal companies that did not share the Arizona’s Indian country. The Salt passive measures, such as the corporation for the purpose of tribe’s goals or cultural values. River Pima and Maricopa Indian leasing of land for oil, gas or coal engaging in oil and gas produc- This has changed, as tribes Community Housing Division is development. The Navajo Nation tion as an integrated, for-profit demand control over their land, building a 70 kilowatt solar project has consistently been at the fore- business entity. The goal of the resources, and the revenues to provide energy for its Lonely front of large-scale tribal energy Nation was to partake in the value derived from those resources. Cactus Subdivision. The Hopi Tribe development, and it continues to accruing from oil and gas produc- Arizona’s abundance of sun- is developing both wind and solar do so as it expands its portfolio tion on its own trust lands. Today shine and windy plains has power projects to provide energy of energy development to include the NNOGC operates wells, owns yielded vast potential for the for its Moenkopi Day School and renewable energy. working interests in oil fields, development of renewable energy Hopi Day School. The San Carlos The Navajo Nation, through its owns and operates an oil pipeline, in the state. Yuma County hosts Apache Tribe and the Pascua statutorily created Navajo Tribal and owns and operates Chevron the Agua Caliente Solar Project, Yaqui Tribe are engaged in com- Utility Authority, is building 48 gas stations in Arizona. Through the largest photovoltaic plant in prehensive feasibility studies for wind turbines for the Big Boquil- NNOGC, the Navajo Nation has a the world. Wind turbines are being the development of solar energy las Wind Project, located near role in the up-stream, mid-stream, constructed throughout northern generation facilities on tribal lands Seligman, Arizona. The project and down-stream phases of oil Arizona to take advantage of that will provide energy for a range will have an estimated capacity of and gas production on its lands. the wind classifications that the of services within the respective 85 megawatts for the first phase, National Renewable Energy Lab communities. and 200 megawatts for the sec- Tribal Economic Development rates as outstanding for energy The Navajo Nation has the ond phase of development. The in the Community development.4 Either through largest reservation in the United first phase will be completed by Tribes are investing in economic December 2013 and it will be a development projects in their Navajo Nation’s first tribally owned local communities. For example, In 2011, Arizona tribal gaming revenues were utility scale wind project. The the Salt River Pima and Maricopa approximately $1.7 billion, ranking it as one of Navajo Nation, in conjunction with Indian Community is developing the top industries in the state. Tribes have used partners, seeks to build a wind the Odysea in the Desert, a 35- “ farm near Gray Mountain, near acre, $170 million entertainment these revenues to invest in their community’s Cameron Arizona. The proposed complex east of Scottsdale. It physical infrastructure, provide social services wind farm would generate about will feature a butterfly Pavilion, an for their members, and create a diversified and 500 megawatts. aquarium, and other attractions. sustainable tribal economy. The Navajo Nation’s energy The project will complement the The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

77 78 existing entertainment venues resort just south of the city of addition to the construction jobs. foundation and impetus for on the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Maricopa. This 162,000 square- tribal economic development. Indian Community’s reservation foot complex will be the largest A Stable Future Based on Effective governing institutions that includes the Talking Stick entertainment center in Arizona, Stable Governance are stable, separate from day Resort and Casino, two golf featuring a 12-screen movie The outlook for future economic to day business and program courses, and the Salt River Fields theater, 24 Lane bowling alley, development by Arizona tribes management. They provide spring training baseball complex. an arcade, laser tag, restaurants is very good, and this is due, in objective adjudicatory bodies, Similarly, Ak-Chin Indian Com- and an outdoor amphitheater. The part, to the tribal governments efficient and responsive munity is constructing an en- Ak-Chin development will provide that represent Arizona tribes. bureaucracies or administrative tertainment complex next to its 200 jobs in the community, in The tribal government is the bodies, and are culturally unique

UltraStar Multi-tainment Center at Ak Chin Circle The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

The outlook for future economic development by geology, history, tribal culture, U.S. Department of the Interior and also 79 or all of the above. Tribes have as the Department’s Associate Solicitor Arizona tribes is very good, and this is due, in part, to for Indian Affairs and chief counsel for accomplished this while battling the tribal governments that represent Arizona tribes. his tribe, the Oneida Tribe of Indians of “ against decades of standardiza- Wisconsin. Effective governing institutions are stable, separate tion promulgated by the federal government. Over the last forty Mr. Artman received a Bachelor of Arts from day to day business and program management. degree from Columbia College, a Masters years, the era of tribal self-deter- in Business Administration from the to the tribe. Tribes, investors, Arizona tribal governments mination has altered the stature University of Wisconsin-Madison, a Juris and entrepreneurs need rules actively seek economic growth of the tribal governments with its Doctorate from the Washington University peers, its members, and outside – St. Louis, MO, and an LLM in Natural that permit them to achieve their opportunities through the cre- Resources and Environmental Law from legitimate business goals at the ation of separate economic devel- stakeholders; it has altered also the University of Denver. least expense while minimizing opment entities and corporations. the interaction between the tribes 1 25 U.S.C. 2710. the risk. The tribal legal system For example, the Gila River Indian and the federal government, should establish rules that permit Community has created a wide often leading to a relationship 2 Arizona Indian Gaming Association, The better characterized as a partner- Impact of Tribal Government Gaming business owners and lenders swath of entities that seek out in Arizona, 16 (2013). to make decisions quickly; to business and investment in the ship, not paternalism. 3 Arizona Indian Gaming Association, The calculate their risks and act reservation in industries rang- Conclusion Impact of Tribal Government Gaming accordingly; to allow them to ing from telecommunications to in Arizona (Executive Summary), 4 protect their interests through commercial leasing to tourism. The economies of the twenty- (2013). governmental processes; and to The Salt River Pima and Maricopa two Arizona tribes will continue 4 National Renewable Energy Laboratory carry out their business in a fair Indian Community created similar to expand, contributing to an 50-meter Arizona Wind Resource and honest manner. enterprises that actively seek improved standard of living for Map. This resource map shows their members and an improved estimates of wind power density at Arizona’s tribes have developed investment on the reservation in 50 meters above the ground and stable governments, open polit- the areas of tourism and com- economy in the state. The Arizona depicts the resource that could be ical and regulatory processes, mercial development. The White tribes will continue to be vibrant used for community-scale wind devel- and transparent and predictable Mountain Apache Tribe, Yavapai forces in the state’s business opment using wind turbines at 50 to community. And as they have 60 meter hub heights. http://www. processes by which to enforce Apache Nation, Hopi Tribe and windpoweringamerica.gov/maps_tem- the transaction and finance laws Colorado River Indian Tribe have done in the past, the Arizona plate. tribes will continue to work and regulations within the reser- similar economic development 5 Hearing before the Subcommittee on vation. Most Arizona tribes have entities and corporations to seek amongst themselves and with Indian and Alaska Native Affairs on adopted commercial codes and and attract economic develop- their neighbors to bolster the The Native Energy Act (H.R. 3973), developed jurisprudence around ment opportunities. sustainability of the region. n 112th Congress (2012), Testimony of Wilson Groen, President and CEO of those codes that parallel that of Each tribe has found its suc- Navajo Nation Oil and Gas Explora- Carl J. Artman is an attorney and adjunct the states. A stable and transpar- cess by building upon that which tion and Production. professor at Arizona State University ent government instills confi- makes it unique, such as its College of Law. He served as the tenth dence in investors and partners. geographic location, underlying Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs at the Hopi, Navajo, These four tribes do not neatly fit into a linguistic or regional grouping within Pascua Yaqui and the boundaries of what is now the state of Arizona. For example, the Pueblo Pueblo of Zuni of Zuni is strongly affiliated with the Pueblo tribes of New Mexico. Like other Arizona tribes, the Pasqua Yaqui Tribe has ancestral roots in northern Mexico. Both the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation inhabit adjacent territories, 80 but have distinctly different languages and culture.

Hopi Tribe

Federally Brief Description: Recognized: 1882 The Hopi’s continual occupancy of northern Arizona area since 500 Acreage: 1,542,213 acres A.D., gives the Hopi people the longest authenticated history of Population: 12,008 occupation of a single area by any Tribe in the United States. The Peoples: Hopi, Tewa Hopi call their ancestors, the “Hisatsinom,” or People of Long Ago, Contact: although the public and archaeologists refer to them as Anasazi. By 700 A.D., the Hopi were cultivating corn, beans and cotton and Hopi Tribe settling down to a more sedentary life in small settlements of two PO Box 123 to five pit houses. At about 700 A.D., the first substantial presence Kykotsmovi, AZ 86039 in the Hopi mesa area was established on Antelope Mesa, east Phone: (928) 734-2441 of present-day Keams Canyon. By the 1500’s, Hopi culture was Fax: (928) 734-2435 highly developed with an elaborate ceremonial cycle, complex social Website: http://www.navajo- organization, and advanced agricultural system. nsn.gov In 1882, President Chester Arthur established 2.5 million acres of Congressional District: 1 land for the Hopi Tribe. The Hopi Tribal Council was formed in 1936. Legislative District: 7 The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013 Navajo Nation

Federally Brief Description: Recognized: 1868 The Navajo Nation extends into the states of Utah, Arizona, and New Acreage: 17,686,465 acres total Mexico, covering over 27,000 square miles and is larger than 10 of 11,601,856 in Arizona the 50 states in the United States. 81 Population: 275,000 For more than three centuries, Navajos, or “Dine’”, were primarily Peoples: Dine’ a pastoral people who relied on their herds of sheep, cattle, and Contact: horses for their subsistence. After 1848, prospectors and settlers Navajo Nation, PO Box 9000 began to intrude on “Dine Bikeyah” or Navajo land. In 1863, after Window Rock, AZ 86515 a campaign of destruction by the U.S. Army, the Navajo people were deported to Bosque Redondo (Fort Sumner) in New Mexico. Phone: (928) 871-6352 In 1868, they won the right to return to their beloved Dine Bikeyah. Fax: (928) 871-4025 9,000 Navajo people took the “Long Walk” to Bosque Redondo Website: http://www.navajo-nsn.gov while only 4,000 returned home. Congressional District: 1 Legislative District: 7

Pascua Yaqui Tribe

Federally Brief Description: Recognized: 1978 The Pascua Yaqui people are among the original inhabitants Acreage: 1828 acres indigenous to the Sonoran Desert Region extending from present Population: 18,161 day State of Sonora, Mexico in the south, to Central Arizona in the Peoples: Yaqui north. There are currently 7 Yaqui communities in Arizona. They Contact: are New Pascua, Old Pascua, Barrio Libre, Marana, Guadalupe, Pascua Yaqui Tribe Coolidge and Scottsdale. Today the Pascua Yaqui tribal lands are 7474 South Camino de Oeste located on 1828 acres in southwestern Arizona, approximately 15 Tucson, AZ 85757 miles southwest of Tucson. The reservation was formally estab- Phone: (520) 833-5000 lished in 1964 by Congress. Fax: (520) 833-5014 In 1978, the Tribe succeeded in attaining the same status as Website: http://www.pascua other federally recognized Tribes. An additional 690 acres of land yaqui-nsn.gov/ was acquired in 1982, and in 1988, the first constitution was Congressional District: 3 approved. Legislative District: 3 Pueblo of Zuni

Federally Brief Description: Recognized: 1877 The ancient homelands of the Zuni people are along the middle Acreage: 463,287 acres reaches of the Zuni River where their cultural ancestors lived for 82 Population: 18,692 centuries. Near the settlements and villages left by the ancient Peoples: Zuni (Ashiwi) people, the Zuni people built compact villages of multi-storied houses. Contact: These were the towns seen by Coronado and his men and called them the “Seven Cities” in the land of Cibola. The mythical Seven Cities of Pueblo of Zuni Cibola (Spanish word for “buffalo”) lured Coronado to the southwest PO Box 339 in 1540, in a treasure quest. Zuni, New Mexico 87327 Phone: (505) 782-7021 For the last three hundred years, most of the Zuni people had lived in Fax: (505) 782-7202 a single village, the Pueblo of Zuni in New Mexico. The Pueblo of Zuni Website: http://www.ashiwi.org/ has sacred ceremonial land in Arizona. Congressional District: 1 Legislative District: 7 The State of Indian Country Arizona | 2013

83 credits and acknowledgments

84 The State of Indian Country Arizona, Office of Public Affairs Other Community Support Volume I is the result of the work Angela Creedon The 22 Tribal Nations in Arizona and commitment of many people and organizations. We thank everyone Kenja Hassan Wayne Taylor that has dedicated time, energy, and Jacob Moore Shane Anton resources to making this project a Virgil Renzulli Sandy Ferniza reality. In particular, we acknowledge Charlene T. Vasquez Kelly Washington the following: Graphics, Layout & Artwork Jeff Kulaga, City of Tempe Arizona Public Service GMH Design – Gary Hill Photos & Graphics Don Brandt Randy Kemp Anthony “Thosh” Collins Victor Flores State of Indian Country Arizona Annette Alvarez Linda Benally Advisory Committee Arizona Office of Tourism Salt River Project Dr. Eddie Brown ASU American Indian Policy Institute David Rousseau John Lewis American Indian Health Management & Policy Mark Bonsall Ivan Makil Bernard Siquieros Robert Roessel Dr. Patricia Mariella Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Dr. John Molina Community Dr. John Tippeconnic, Jr. Angela Willeford Dr. Fonda Walters Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Copy Editors John Lewis Catherine Aragon Alberta Tippeconnic Bryan Brayboy (In Memoriam) Pam Hait Martha Hunter ASU Office of Special Advisor to the President on American Contributing Writers Indian Initiatives Carl Artman, Esq. Diane Humetewa, Esq. Dr. Eddie Brown Norm DeWeaver State of Indian Country Arizona Diane Humetewa, Esq. Student Interns Dr. Patricia Mariella Ruben Guerrero, Jr. Dr. John Molina Mario Molina Mario Molina Views and opinions expressed in the State of Indian Country Arizona, Volume I Office of the President Jacob Moore are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Arizona State University, Arizona Board of Regents, Arizona Public Service, Salt Michael Crow Walter Murillo River Project, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, or other organizations Delia Saenz Dr. James Riding In or corporations supporting the State of Indian Country Arizona Report.

86