Gambling compacts score federal approval

U.S. Interior Secretary Gale Norton on Friday approved the first five Indian gambling agreements negotiated by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, boosting his approach to compacts that has drawn mixed tribal reviews. Federal approval was the last hurdle for the compacts, which provide the state more than $1 billion, that now can take effect as soon as they are published in the Federal Register. An interior spokesman couldn’t say exactly when that would occur, but it’s expected to be soon. This final step for compacts signed by Schwarz-enegger and tribal leaders in a ceremony in June comes a day after the governor announced that he is signing a second round of five new compacts. They, too, will require Norton’s approval if they pass the Legislature. The first and second set of compacts contain different financial provisions but similar non-economic features aimed at protecting patrons, the environment, labor and nearby communities. "These agreements signal the beginning of a new partnership between the state, local communities and sovereign tribal governments," Schwarzenegger said Friday of the compacts approved by Norton. Norton said: "This new financial partnership is a win-win for the people of California and these tribes." The five tribes, two from Northern California and three from Southern California, issued a joint statement praising the new compacts as the result of a team effort that respected all participants’ sovereignty. "We are proud to have been in a position to help California through its budget difficulties," the joint statement added, "and we are grateful for the opportunities that these compacts present both to our tribes and to the people of the state." The five signing tribes include the Pala Band of Mission Indians, the Pauma Band of Mission Indians and the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay, all of San Diego County. The two north state tribes are the Rumsey Band of Wintun Indians of Yolo County and the United Auburn Indian Community of Placer County. Richard Milanovich, chairman of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of Palm Springs, said he wasn’t surprised that Norton approved the compacts since they were negotiated by tribes exercising their sovereign powers to benefit their members. His tribe is one of about 50 operating under the original state-tribal compacts negotiated in 1999. "The first five compacts do contain provisions that I think are ludicrous," Milanovich said, "but they (tribal leaders) did what they thought was in their best interest and that is their given right as sovereign governments on behalf of their people." He criticized non-economic provisions on collective bargaining and establishing legally enforceable requirements for tribes to work with communities to offset the impact of casinos. "I don’t care for some of the features in there about unions and the working out with the local governments," Milanovich said, describing them as "just another way to get in the pocketbooks of the tribes." "We work quite closely with our local governments," he continued. "We go to them on a courtesy basis to let them know what we are doing." The first five compacts allow tribes to operate as many slot machines as they want. In return tribes must pay the state enough to secure a $1 billion bond that would be used for transportation, $500,000 annually for small and non-gambling tribes and an increasing fee for more than 2,000 slot machines topping out at $25,000 annually for each one above 4,500. Under the 1999 compacts, gambling tribes don’t pay anything to the state but do pay more than $100 million a year into two funds primarily for the small and non-gambling tries and to help offset the impact of casinos on communities. Tribes are limited to 2,000 slot machines each. Federal law prohibits states from taxing tribes, and Norton noted that only a few of the more than 200 tribal-state compacts approved nationally have authorized tribal payments to states for more than the cost of regulation. But the interior secretary noted that the department has a longstanding policy of authorizing revenue-sharing payments to states in exchange for substantial economic benefit. She said the exclusive geographic region that each tribe gets for its casino operation meets the department’s standard. "It is our determination that the revenue-sharing provisions… are lawful under (federal law) because the value of the exclusive gaming rights conferred on the tribes is significant and thus cannot be characterized as a prohibited tax" under federal law, Norton said.