Congressman Ken Calvert

Congressman Duncan Hunter

2269 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-1986
Fax: (202) 225-2004
Dear Congressmen Calvert and Hunter,
I am writing you in regards to the recent Pechanga Water Rights Bill that was
introduced in the House (HR 5984) with your sponsorship.
We have concerns with HR 5984, having had our tribal citizenship terminated by the
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. Many of our family reside on an original Pechanga
allotment of land granted to us by President McKinley in 1895 to Paulina Hunter, our
lineal ancestor, a Temecula Indian.
We believe that no entity that participates in, supports, or otherwise partakes in human
and/or civil rights violations should benefit from the public trust. And this bill, as written
certainly gives Pechanga benefits that we seem to be excluded from.
In Pechanga Chairman Macarro's testimony before the Committee on Natural
Resources in June 2016 he states:
At the close of the 111th Congress, the Band chose to pull back from seeking
Congressional enactment of the bill in order to answer questions that tribal members and
allottees had raised during the legislative process. It was critical to the Band that its
membership and allottees be fully informed of the aspects and details of the legislation
and settlement agreement. Thus, over a period of several months the Band held a number
of tribal member meetings to more fully discuss and explain the Pechanga Water
Settlement and the benefits afforded under the legislation. The Band held a tribal
membership vote on March 24, 2013, in which tribal members voted overwhelmingly in
support of the Pechanga Water Settlement. The Band felt this was a necessary and
important step and as a result is now prepared to move forward to enact this legislation
as expeditiously as possible.
The above paragraph is misleading, equating allottee and tribal member. In fact, that was
the problem with the bill in 2013, as written by Macarro's lobbyist wife, Holly Cook
Macarro, it seemed that the bill would have had the effect of bringing the Hunter family
back in the tribe. At least, Senator Boxer's person at the time Joaquin Esquivel thought
so, when we met with him on Capitol Hill and even he had the decency to be
embarrassed. He actually told us, "I'll have to ask Holly what she meant." To be clear,
WE, the Hunter Family descendants were NEVER contacted by any tribal representative,
water department personnel, the BIA, or the Department of Interior. We are ALLOTTEES
to the reservation, are we to trust that the very leaders that stripped us of our rightful

places in the tribe, would be concerned over our rights, and ensure equitable distribution?
Over 170 of us have rights to water for the reservation. It's interesting to note that
Chairman Macarro does not live on the reservation and we all know the water is needed
for the casino water park expansion.
For the record.
ALLOTTEE- The term allottee means a person who holds a beneficial real property
interest in an Indian allotment that is-(A) located within the Reservation; and
(B) held in trust by the United States.
As you know, Pechanga terminated the membership of 25% of their tribe, in an act
outside the tribal constitution which has NO BEARING on our allotment; we are STILL
allottees of reservation land and should have all rights that come with it..
An allottee is one who received a reservation allotment from President McKinley and
whose land has been held in trust by the United States for the allottee and their lineal
descendents.
Please view Original Pechanga website at http://originalpechanga.com for information on
what Pechanga has done.
QUESTIONS:
1. Are you intending to exclude our family, as disenrolled Pechanga allottees, from any
say in our water rights? Or are you accepting the bill, written by Pechanga lobbyists at
face value?
2. Is it your intent in this bill to abrogate the Federal governments trust responsibility to
disenrolled Pechanga allottees?
(3) Allocations.--Allotted land of an allottee that is located within the exterior boundaries
of the Reservation shall be entitled to a just and equitable allocation of water for
irrigation purposes from the water resources described in the Pechanga Settlement
Agreement.
4. HOW MANY of the original allottee's descendants LIVE on the reservation?
QUESTIONS:
1, Although we have had grape vineyards on our allotted land for over a century, does
irrigation purposes include maintaining the water we have going into our homes for
drinking and personal use?
2. Would the Pechanga Tribal Council be able to cut water off from members of our
family living on our allotted land on the reservation, even though we have been on our
allotted property for over a century?

Regional Director of the BIA Amy Dutschke said in a letter to us that:

The Department of the Interior recognizes that allottees have water rights on allotted
lands and that the United States has a trust responsibility, independent of any
responsibility to the Pechanga Band, to protect those interests.
The Department is currently reviewing the proposed settlement legislation and its effect
on allottees within the Reservation.
Pechanga Chairman Mark Macarro and the tribal council have made NO ATTEMPT to
discuss OUR WATER RIGHTS and how they will protect us.
I. The Department of the Interior and Pechanga Bands Failure
to Notify Allottees of the Negotiations to Settle Water Rights
Prior to the commencement of negotiations on the water rights
settlement and the introduction of various acts to confirm and ratify
the settlement, I was never notified by the Department of the Interior
or Pechanga Tribal officials that my rights and interests were going to
be negotiated. To date, all the negotiations have occurred without my
participation or consent.
Temecula Indians and Temecula Indian Allottees have contacted the
Department of Interior representative in charge of the settlement
negotiations, but that individual has never allowed us a meeting to
discuss our concerns regarding the negotiations and settlement. Until
we can meet with the Department of the Interior and are included in
the settlement negotiations, I respectfully request that no further
action should be taken on HR 5984.
II. Pechanga Tribal Officials do not Represent the Interests of
all Temecula Indians or Temecula Indian Allottees
Despite claims to the contrary, Pechanga Tribal officials do not and
have never represented me or allotees in the water rights settlement
nor have they contacted me to ask for my consent to represent my
interests.
Pechanga Tribal officials and their representatives have acted without
our approval in their negotiations to settle the water rights claims
associated with our property rights and allotments in their efforts to
pursue Congressional action to approve and ratify the
settlement. Moreover, I and many other do not trust Pechanga tribal
officials to act in our best interest, as in the past Pechanga tribal
officials have acted to strip or deny me use of my property and other
basic rights.
Over the past twelve (12) plus years, Pechanga officials have
disenrolled over 400 previously recognized tribal

members. Additionally, hundreds more have been denied membership

in the tribe under an illegal moratorium enacted to limit the number of
people who benefit from the tribes economic development ventures.
Those who have been disenrolled and denied membership include
many allottees and others who would be adversely affected by the HR
5984as it provides that the Pechanga tribal officials who have stripped
or denied numerous people of rights set forth in tribal and federal law
shall be responsible for satisfying the very same allottees entitlement
to water.
Considering the Bands actions to strip us of our citizenship, in violation
of tribal and federal laws, I do not want Pechanga tribal officials
negotiating my water rights or representing my interests in front of
Congress in an attempt to ratify the water rights settlement.
III. Temecula Indian and Temecula Indian Allottees should be
Parties to the Settlement Negotiations and consulted
regarding pending Acts of Congress
HR 5984 and prior proposed Acts reference priority dates establishing
water rights associated with the setting aside of a reservation for the
use and benefit of the Temecula band or village of Indians, those water
rights must be protected and preserved regardless of any claims made
by Pechanga tribal officials. In accordance with decisions made by
Pechanga tribal officials and internal Pechanga tribal documents,
Temecula Indians and Pechanga Indians are not one in the same.
Therefore, the Pechanga Band and its officials, lobbyists, and
representatives do not and cannot represent the rights and property
interests of those who they claim are not members of the Pechanga
Band. Moreover, the United States Congress should not and cannot
allow the Pechanga Band and its officials, lobbyists, and
representatives to represent or strip us of our rights and property
interests.
There are hundreds of Temecula Indians and Temecula Indian Allottees
who will be affected by the Settlement and HR 5984 The Settlement
and HR 5984 should be negotiated and drafted with the full consent
and participation of the Temecula Indians and Temecula Indian
Allottees. Unfortunately, to date, this has not occurred.
The participation of the Temecula Indians and Temecula Indian
Allottees should be a requirement for approval, confirmation and
ratification of the Settlement. Their inclusion and participation should
also be required for approval of HR 5984

I respectfully request that the Subcommittee recommend that the

sponsors of HR HR 5984 meet with Temecula Indians and Temecula
Indian Allottees in order to discuss amendments that would address
their interests and protect their water rights BEFORE this bill moves
forward
IV. HR 5984 and other Acts which may settle associated water
rights, should be Amended to Reflect the Ownership Interests
and Water Rights Due Temecula Indians and Temecula Indian
Allottees
The Executive Orders setting aside a reservation for Temecula Indians,
as well as the allotments made to Temecula Indians in accordance with
the Act of January 12, 1891 (26 Stats 712) are utilized as key factors in
determining the water rights at issue. However, instead of Temecula
Indians and Temecula Indian Allottees benefitting, Pechanga tribal
officials have falsely laid claim to representing the interests of the
Temecula Indians, Temecula Indian allottees, and their heirs.
While it is true that the Pechanga Band is sometimes referenced as the
Temecula Band, as per prior decisions of Pechanga Band officials and
internal tribal documents, the Pechanga Band and Temecula Band are
distinct groups of Indians.
Temecula Indians, Temecula Indian Allottees, and their heirs should be
allowed to determine those who will represent their interests in the
settlement negotiations and the future development of the Act. I
respectfully request that the Subcommittee require that their
representatives participate in future settlement negotiations and
amendments to the Act as a pre-requisite for moving forward.
V. The Settlement Agreement should be known as the
Temecula and Pechanga Settlement Agreement; Acts to
Confirm and ratify the Settlement should also Include Temecula
in the name
As evidenced above, the water rights actually originate with the
establishment of a reservation for the Temecula band or village of
Indians by various Executive Orders and are further tied to the
allotments made to Temecula Indians on the reservation. Therefore, it
would be accurate to reflect this in the name of the HR 5984 and other
Acts.
This would also be consistent with determination made by Pechanga
tribal officials regarding citizenship in the Band that Pechanga and
Temecula Indians are distinct people and ownership in an allotment on

the reservation by a Temecula Indian does not meet the requirement

for citizenship.
As a distinct group with separate ownership interests in the water
rights, amending HR 5984 to include reference to the Temecula Band
and/or Indians is appropriate.
VI. The term Tribal Water Right should be Amended to Reflect
Benefit for Temecula Band and Temecula Indian Allottees
Furthermore, the authority to use, allocate, distribute and lease the
tribal Water Right should be subject to an agreement between the
Temecula Indians, Temecula Indian Allottees, and the Pechanga Band.
Once again, we must look at the fact that priority dates in the Act
which are used to establish and quantify the water rights specifically
reference actions taken by the United States government or branches
thereof on behalf of or to benefit the Temecula Band and/or Temecula
Indian Allottees- the Pechanga Band is not mentioned. The Pechanga
Bands interest in the water rights issue flows mainly from claims that
it solely represents the Temecula Indians and Temecula Indian allottees
in this issue. This is not true.
As stated above, determinations made by Pechanga tribal officials
recognize that Temecula and Pechanga people are distinct groups, and
where the settlement and Act address the water rights of both, each
should be recognized in the title and throughout the Act.
VII. Entitlement to Water Shall be Satisfied by the Department
of the Interior, the Temecula Band, or the Pechanga Band; and
Temecula Indians and/or Temecula Indian Allottees shall not be
Subject to the Pechanga Water Code or other Pechanga Band
laws
The Tribal Water Right should also be subject to conditions, permit
requirements, and other limitations established by the Temecula band,
Temecula Indian Allottees, and the Pechanga Band.
Since the groups are distinct, each should have their water rights
interests protected equally and none should be subjected to the codes
or laws of the other. At the very least, the water rights of the Temecula
band and Temecula Indian Allottees should not be subject to the terms
and conditions of a code enacted by the Pechanga Band under this act
or any other action that may infringe on their water rights, conditions
of use, entitlement, and distribution.

A separate water code governing such issues could be set in place by

the Department of the Interior after negotiations with the Temecula
Indians and Temecula Indian allottees.
In no case should Temecula Indians and/or Temecula Indian
Allottees, many who have already been the victims of
violations of Pechanga and federal law by Pechanga tribal
officials, be subject to a water code which may infringe on their
water rights.

Conclusion
It is my strong belief that it would be pre-mature and irresponsible to
approve HR 5984 in its current form as a large group of affected water
rights owners, namely Temecula Indians and Temecula Indian Allottees,
have been denied the right to participate in the settlement
negotiations.
All parties affected by the terms of the Settlement and HR 5984 should
have been previously notified and asked to participate in the
negotiation and drafting process. The failure to include Temecula
Indian and Temecula Indian allottees in the process has denied them
the right to advocate on their behalf and protect their property
interests.
And, whereas the settlement agreement is based on priority dates
establishing water rights associated with the setting aside of a
reservation for the use and benefit of the Temecula band or village of
Indians, those water rights must be protected and preserved
regardless of any claims made by Pechanga tribal officials and against
any alienation by the very same Pechanga Band.
Therefore, I must restate my opposition to HR 5984 and I urge the Subcommittee to recommend that the author and co-sponsors meet with
representatives of the Temecula Indians and Temecula Indian Allottees
to discuss the issues listed above. I also request that the Subcommittee recommend to the Department of the Interior that it
exercise its trust responsibility to all affected parties and meet with the
Temecula Indians and Temecula Indian Allottees to discuss the current
and future negotiations of the water rights settlement.
And, until such time as the HR 5984 is amended and Temecula Indians
and Temecula Indian Allottees can confirm that they have been allowed
to participate and/or be represented, with their consent, and the issues

presented above have been addressed by the Department of the

Interior and the sponsors of the Act, I urge your opposition to HR 5984
Rick Cuevas
Allotment #62
Temecula Indian Reservation
http://originalpechanga.com