Governor Gavin Newsom of California has voiced his opposition to two tribal casino projects, raising significant concerns about the procedural and legal pathways being taken. The proposed developments—Shiloh Resort and Casino Project by the Koi Nation of Northern California in Sonoma County, and the Scotts Valley Casino and Tribal Housing Project by the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians in Solano County—are at the center of a heated debate. The Governor has taken the unusual step of writing to the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), asking for a reconsideration of how these projects are proceeding.
In his letter, Newsom outlined several key objections, focusing on what he sees as potential violations of both state and federal procedures regarding tribal land restoration and casino development. He argued that the DOI is sidestepping important procedural safeguards and expanding gaming to lands that fall far outside the historical homelands of these tribes, raising legal, cultural, and environmental concerns.
The Legal Landscape of Tribal Gaming in California
Before delving into the specifics of the Shiloh Resort and Casino Project and the Scotts Valley Casino, it’s important to understand the legal landscape governing tribal gaming in the United States, particularly in California. The primary federal law governing Indian gaming is the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) of 1988. This law allows federally recognized tribes to operate casinos on tribal land, but with specific conditions. One of the key provisions in IGRA is the “restored lands” exception, which allows tribes that have had their land taken away to restore it for gaming purposes.
California, home to some of the most lucrative tribal casinos in the country, has a long and complicated history with these developments. Tribes in the state have relied on gaming to achieve economic independence and fund essential services for their members. However, the process of establishing new casinos often involves complex negotiations between the tribes, state government, and the federal government, particularly when it comes to land that was historically not part of a tribe’s reservation.
This brings us to Governor Newsom’s concerns. He contends that the DOI is pushing forward with two projects that stretch the definition of “restored lands” and might set a troubling precedent for future developments.
Governor Newsom’s Objections
In his letter to the DOI, Governor Newsom expressed multiple layers of concerns surrounding the approval process for these casino projects. Newsom stated that both the Koi Nation’s Shiloh Resort and the Scotts Valley Casino projects are on land that does not meet the traditional criteria for tribal gaming under IGRA, particularly concerning the “restored lands” exception.
Legal and Procedural Safeguards
One of Newsom’s primary objections is that the DOI is bypassing established procedural pathways. The state typically plays a significant role in determining whether or not a proposed gaming project can proceed. According to the Governor’s office, these projects are proceeding without appropriate state involvement, undermining California’s ability to regulate tribal gaming within its borders. He also expressed concerns that the projects may set new precedents that could erode the state’s authority over gaming activities on non-traditional tribal lands.
Historical Homeland Concerns
Governor Newsom further emphasized that both the Koi Nation and Scotts Valley Band are proposing casinos on lands that fall far outside their historical homelands. This is particularly important, as federal guidelines tend to favor tribal casinos being built on or near historically significant lands. By expanding to areas in Sonoma and Solano counties, Newsom argues, the tribes are venturing into regions where they do not have strong historical ties, raising questions about the appropriateness of the land for these developments.
Environmental and Local Impact
Another major concern involves the environmental impact of the projects. Both proposed casino sites are located in regions that could see substantial changes to the local environment, traffic patterns, and community dynamics if these casinos are built. Newsom’s letter points to potential environmental consequences that have not been fully considered. Moreover, the Governor’s office highlighted that the projects have faced opposition from local communities and indigenous groups with deeper historical ties to the land.
Opposition from Other Tribal Groups
One of the most vocal opponents of the Shiloh Resort and the Scotts Valley Casino Project has been the Lytton Rancheria of California, whose chairperson, Andy Mejia, thanked Governor Newsom for voicing his concerns. Mejia’s opposition stems from what he sees as the DOI’s reckless advancement of these projects without sufficient safeguards.
The Lytton Rancheria, along with other tribes native to Sonoma and Solano counties, argue that the projects encroach on lands that are not traditionally associated with the Koi Nation or the Scotts Valley Band. According to Mejia, the potential consequences for the environment and surrounding communities could be disastrous, including increased traffic, strain on local infrastructure, and environmental degradation.
The opposing tribes are concerned not only about the specific projects but also about the precedent these developments could set for future casino projects on lands that fall outside of a tribe’s ancestral territory. This raises broader questions about tribal sovereignty, land restoration, and the balancing act between economic development and cultural preservation.
Shiloh Resort and Casino Project
The Koi Nation’s Shiloh Resort project is proposed for Sonoma County, a region known for its scenic landscapes and thriving wine industry. The Koi Nation, one of the smallest federally recognized tribes in California, sees the casino as an opportunity to establish economic independence. However, the project has faced opposition from local residents and neighboring tribes, who argue that the land is not historically tied to the Koi Nation.
The Koi Nation has countered these arguments by stating that their tribe was displaced from its original lands and that they have a right to restore their ancestral holdings, even if the location is not within their traditional territory. The proposed casino would include a hotel, event space, and a gaming floor, with promises of job creation and economic benefits for the region.
Scotts Valley Casino and Tribal Housing Project
The Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians has proposed a similar project in Solano County, which includes both a casino and tribal housing. The tribe, which has a long history in Northern California, views the development as an essential step toward providing housing for its members and securing financial stability through gaming revenue.
Much like the Shiloh Resort project, the Scotts Valley casino has drawn criticism for its location, which is outside of the tribe’s traditional homeland. The tribe has argued that the casino will bring jobs and economic growth to the area, but local opposition remains strong, particularly from other tribes and environmental advocates who fear the project’s impact on the region’s ecology.
Procedural and Legal Implications for Tribal Gaming
Governor Newsom’s objections to these projects touch on broader issues regarding tribal gaming laws and land restoration policies. The “restored lands” exception in IGRA was designed to allow tribes that had been displaced from their ancestral lands to restore those lands and use them for gaming purposes. However, as Newsom pointed out, there is concern that this exception is being stretched beyond its original intent.
If the DOI moves forward with approving these projects despite state opposition, it could set a new legal precedent, making it easier for tribes to establish casinos on lands outside their historical territories. This could lead to more conflicts between tribes, states, and local communities over land use and gaming rights.
Public Reaction and Broader Implications for California
The controversy surrounding these two casino projects has drawn significant public attention. Residents in both Sonoma and Solano counties have expressed concerns about the potential impact of large-scale casino developments on their communities. Issues such as increased traffic, strain on local infrastructure, and changes to the character of these regions have all been raised.
At the same time, California is facing growing demand for expanded gaming opportunities, with proponents arguing that casinos bring jobs, tourism, and economic development to underserved areas. However, this expansion raises difficult questions about balancing the needs of local communities, respecting tribal sovereignty, and protecting the environment.
The opposition from Governor Gavin Newsom to the Koi Nation’s Shiloh Resort and the Scotts Valley Band’s casino project highlights the complexities of tribal gaming in California. While these developments promise economic benefits for the tribes involved, they also raise significant concerns about land use, environmental impact, and the precedent they could set for future projects. As the DOI continues to review these proposals, the debate over tribal casinos in California is likely to intensify, with far-reaching implications for the state’s landscape of gaming, tribal sovereignty, and community development.