Interior Department’s ‘Land Buy Back’ program strips individual Indians of landownership rights

Bureau of Indian Affairs the biggest roadblock to individual Indian landowner rights

I recently read a press release from the Department of the Interior announcing the conclusion of the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations. According to the statement, it was a decade-long effort to consolidate and return land to Tribal ownership. The federal government was apparently wasting no time patting itself on the back for a job well done.  

I on the other hand view the program its misguided intent and laudable exploits by high-ranking bureaucrats as nothing more than clever ambiguous talk of the forked-tongued Indian agent meant to deceive the general public. What we see here is a dysfunctional governmental agency trying to displace blame while simultaneously pushing its own agenda and attempting to “fix” problems it created by itself and multiple past Congressional blunders.  My elders did not create the heirship fractionated ownership mess.  

According to the programs name, the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations, a casual reader might surmise, “What an excellent opportunity for American Indians to buy back lands that were lost through the General Allotment Act of 1887.” However, the title is misleading at best.  

In the press release, the Secretary for the Department of the Interior, Deb Haaland is quoted as stating “Assimilation policies not only attempted to break apart Indigenous families, devastate ecosystems and eliminate Native languages, they also worked to weaken land claims and Tribal land ownership. 

The checkerboard system of land ownership on many reservations historically left communities and landowners unable to make basic decisions about their homelands,” she said.  “The Land Buy-Back Program’s progress puts the power back in the hands of Tribal communities to determine how their lands are used – from conservation to economic development projects.” 

“Assimilation policies” what a nice white-washing of the term “genocide”.  

“Reducing fractionation and achieving Tribal majority ownership provides for more efficient trust management through simplified leasing processes that uphold Tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and the government-to-government relationship,” said Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Bryan Newland. 

“Land consolidation partnerships with Tribal Nations benefit both landowners and Tribes, including opportunities for increased agricultural operations, economic development, conservation, and cultural stewardship. The lessons learned from the Buy-Back-Program will help inform our ongoing efforts to reduce fractionation.” 

Those two statements, while great political sound bites, are seemingly made by individuals who probably don’t own a blade of grass on any one of the reservations which are affected. Nor do they seem even remotely cognizant to the many roadblocks Indian landowners face trying to enforce our rights on those parcels of trust property. The biggest roadblock of all is usually the Bureau of Indian Affairs. No specific examples are given to back up their boisterous claims.  

According to the article, the Interior Department created the Land Buy Back Program in 2012 to carry out the land consolidation aspects of the Cobell v. Salazar Settlement Agreement, with the aim of consolidating fractional trust or restricted land interests through voluntary sales with individual landowners and placing purchased interests into trust for Tribes. Therein lies the true intent of the program.  

It is not about returning lost lands and putting them into trust for Tribes; it is about dispossessing Individual Indians of their landownership rights and converting those rights to the collective ownership of the Tribal governments which were enacted by the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. 

I suppose the underlying federal concept would be that since a large majority of tribal governments rely almost solely upon federal funding to operate, the federal officials may assume that the sitting tribal councils may be easier to manipulate than would be several private-citizen individual Indians who have learned to survive on little or nothing. 

Covertly, this policy may create an opportunity for the federal government to divest itself of its trust responsibility and fiduciary duty owed to Indian Tribes and individual Indians through Treaty or other executed agreements.  

Furthermore, since individual allotments are already trust properties and its owners are usually tribal members of the reservation on which they own land, there is no “returning” of lands. The program is about more the “taking” of individual Indian lands and transferring title to a forum which may be deemed in theory, to be more manageable by the feds and will allow for easier access to leasing opportunities by outside individuals or entities, according to Newland’s statements. 

A true Land Buy-Back Program in my opinion, would focus on providing funding opportunities for Tribal governments and Individual Indians to acquire those lost lands which were declared “surplus” by the federal government, returned to the public domain and then opened to foreign immigrants for settlement under the homestead laws. Lands which were offered for the average hefty price of fifty cents an acre on most reservations; but only if you were a non-Indian.