Copyright © 2006 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. 36 ELR 10786 10-2006 ELRNEWS&ANALYSIS Gayanashogowa and Guardianship: Expanding and Clarifying the Federal-Tribal Trust Relationship by Kavitha Janardhan Editors’Summary: The Onondaga Nation of New Yorkis currently involved in a lawsuit seeking to nullify a series of treaties executed by the state of New York and thereby assert title to over 3,100 square miles of land in Central New York State. The goal of the suit is to enforce an environmental restoration of culturally and historically significant aboriginal lands. In order to bring a claim against the state, the Nation must first compel the federal government to act on its behalf. By emphasizing distinctive features of Iroquois self- government, Kavitha Janardhan suggests ways to expand the federal govern- ment’s trust responsibility to protect cultural interests in land against state in- trusion. To do so, she explores the complex tension between Euro-American conceptions of governance and the Native American, particularly Iroquois, law of Gayanashogowa, or the Great Law of Peace. I. Introduction tionally, the Onondaga call for the federal government to file an identical suit against the state of New York, a duty In March of 2005, the Onondaga Nation, a member of the that comports with the government’s trust obligation.8 Six Nations Iroquois or Haudenosaunee Confederacy, filed Though the lawsuit is, in many respects, similar to other a complaint in a federal district court seeking legal recogni- Native American land claims,9 the Onondaga’s pursuit of tion of its title to 3,100 square miles of land in the state of justice does not seek immediate monetary relief or gaming New York.1 Like other Native American land claims before rights.10 Instead, the Nation raises concerns about environ- it, the Onondaga suit asserts that a series of treaties convey- mental damage imposed on its ancestral land by current oc- ing land to the state of New York were unlawfully executed cupants.11 In doing so, the Onondaga contest the use of and are therefore void.2 In order to redress over 200 years of Western norms in evaluating the extent of harm it seeks to spiritual, cultural, and emotional harm, the Onondaga re- quest a declaratory judgment stating that its members are the ment following the Revolutionary War, in return for promises of rightful owners of the lands at issue, which roughly center Francis Paul Prucha, American Indian 3 peace and protection. on the city of Syracuse. The Nation alleges that all treaties Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly 45-48 (Univ. of held by the state are in violation of the federal Indian Trade Cal. Press 1994). and Intercourse Act,4 the U.S. Constitution,5 the Treaty of 7. Complaint, supra note 1, at 13; Prucha, supra note 6, at 94-96. This 6 7 Article will not discuss the Treaty of Canandaigua nor the Treaty of Fort Stanwix, and the Treaty of Canandaigua. Addi- Fort Stanwix (above). Under Federal Power Commission v. Tusca- rora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99 (1960), the U.S. Supreme Court Kavitha Janardhan is a third-year student at Boston College Law School. held that: (1) both treaties only applied to reservation lands; and She will graduate in May 2007. This Article was written under the supervi- (2) the Treaty of Canandaigua only applied to federal relations with the Seneca Indians, the tribe who signed the treaty. Similarly, the Su- sion of Prof. Jonathan Witten. preme Court in Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, New 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint at 1-2, 14, Onondaga Nation v. New York (No. York, 414 U.S. 661 (1974), found that the case did not rest on treaty 05-CV-314) (N.D.N.Y., filed Mar. 11, 2005) [hereinafter Com- rights but rather the validity of land transfers to the state of New plaint]; Indian Law Resource Center, Onondaga Nation Land Claim York. Prucha, supra note 6, at 392-95. 2005, http://www.indianlaw.org/onondaga.html (last visited July 8. Complaint, supra note 1, at 4 (the United States has previously inter- 10, 2006). vened or filed suits against the state of New York on behalf of the Ca- 2. Indian Law Resource Center, supra note 1. yuga, Mohawk, Oneida, and Seneca Nations). 3. Id. 9. The legal arguments made by the Onondaga mirror those made by the Oneida Nation in County of Oneida v. Oneida Nation, 470 U.S. 4. 25 U.S.C. §177. 226 (1985). See infra notes 186-95 and accompanying text. 5. U.S. Const. art. I, §8, cl. 3. 10. Kirk Semple, Tribe Lays Claim to 3,100 Square Miles of New N.Y. Times 6. The Treaty of Fort Stanwix was signed in October of 1784. Charac- York State, , Mar. 12, 2005, available at http://www. terized as an inauspicious beginning to federal/tribal relations, the indianlaw.org/Onondaga_NYTimes_20050312.pdf. Treaty granted land cessions and six prisoners to the U.S. govern- 11. See Complaint, supra note 1, at 1-3. Copyright © 2006 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. 10-2006 NEWS & ANALYSIS 36 ELR 10787 redress.12 Members of the Onondaga Nation claim that the II. The Onondaga Land Claim environmental degradation caused by private parties has disrupted their cultural and spiritual connection to their na- A. The Parties tive land, thereby interfering with their system of govern- ment.13 As such, this lawsuit calls for a recognition of and 1. The Onondaga Nation respect for Native American conceptions of property and governance—traditions that have been disregarded in favor The Onondaga Nation is an officially recognized Native of Western theoretical and common-law constructions.14 American tribe residing within a 7,300-acre reservation The Onondaga brings its claim as a plea for justice, seek- south of Nedrow, New York.18 The Nation brings its land ing a declaration that its relationship with its native land claim under the authority of the Onondaga Council of “goes far beyond federal and state legal conceptions of own- Chiefs, discussed below as the Nation’s governing body.19 ership, possession, or other legal rights.”15 On one hand, this The Nation is a member of the Haudenosaunee (People of assertion suggests a necessary shift in our inquiry into Na- the Longhouse) Confederacy, known in English as the “Six tive American land claims: it asks us to examine, from an in- Nations Iroquois Confederacy.”20 The Confederacy is an al- digenous perspective, the true intentions of tribes regarding liance of six individual nations—the Cayuga, Mohawk, early federal land transactions.16 More importantly, the On- Oneida, Onondaga, Seneca, and Tuscarora—who are uni- ondaga suit serves as an opportunity to rethink what consti- fied under a common traditional law called Gayanasho- tutes “justice” for Native American tribes seeking retribu- gowa or the Great Law of Peace.21 Within this indigenous tion for environmental harm to culturally significant lands.17 system of government, the Onondaga have maintained a sta- This Article contends that, after over 200 years of dis- tus as the fire keeper, the spiritual center for the Haudeno- possession, “justice” may be achieved by first recognizing saunee, for several centuries.22 Therefore, the Onondaga Native American conceptions of property and then incor- brings suit on its own behalf and on behalf of the Haudeno- porating indigenous beliefs into the existing trust relation- saunee Confederacy.23 ship between the federal government and Native American tribes. As a historical/legal study, this Article explores the 2. Corporate Defendants complex tension between two systems of property in North America—the Native American, namely Iroquois, concep- Honeywell International, Inc. Honeywell International, tion of Gayanashogowa and the American legal framework Inc. (Honeywell), a New Jersey corporation, owned indus- for property ownership—and the effect of this tension on trial property along the southwest shore of Onondaga Lake federal-tribal relations. In doing so, this Article will high- from the 1880s until the 1980s.24 According to the Onon- light the role of the federal government in promoting a daga complaint, Honeywell and its predecessor companies cross-cultural approach to Native American relations—a contributed to the environmental degradation of the area by trust relationship that protects the realities and needs of dumping mercury and other chemical contaminants into the its beneficiaries. lake.25 Sources indicate that most of the lake’s pollution can In order to provide context for examining these issues, be specifically attributed to the actions of Allied Chemical Part II of this Article discusses elements of the Onondaga Corporation, which closed in 1986 and merged with Honey- claim in detail: the significant parties involved; the cultural well in 1999.26 As such, Honeywell has been held legally re- significance of the land at issue; and the legal arguments set sponsible for almost all cleanup costs in the area and is the forth by the Onondaga regarding each individual treaty exe- main corporate defendant in this action.27 cuted by the state of New York. Part III compares the West- ern “labor” justification for settlement—a background prin- Clark Concrete Company, Inc. and Valley Realty Devel- ciple of property law set forth by John Locke—with the Iro- opment Company. Clark Concrete Company (Clark) and its quois conception of sovereignty and land use, codified in affiliate, Valley Realty Development Company, are Syra- Gayanashogowa or the Great Law of Peace. Part IV exam- cuse-based corporations occupying large portions of the ines the existing trust relationship between the federal gov- land at issue.28 Clark operates the Tully gravel mine, which ernment and Native American tribes, developed through the Onondaga allege has both degraded the headwaters of both statutes and common law.