In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

620 American Indian Law Deskbook, Fourth Edition States and tribes share adjacent lands, resources, and citizens, while jurisdictional rules are often not clearly established under federal law. This situation has historically created conflict and uncertainty, often leading to expensive and lengthy litigation. Meanwhile, as tribes acquire land and engage in economic development initiatives, the potential for these jurisdictional tensions may increase. Often the litigation mode has not proven the best means to resolve the core uncertainties and distrust between states and tribes. Rather than spend resources and goodwill in litigation, it can be more fruitful to attempt to find a cooperative way to solve the underlying problem. In light of the shared state and tribal concerns, as well as a lack of definitive federal guidelines, there exists significant potential for cooperation between tribal and state governments in addressing these shared concerns. Often the problems faced by states and tribes are transboundary in nature in areas such as air and water pollution, treatment of hazardous wastes, and resource conservation. Law enforcement activities in Indian country can benefit from cross-deputization agreements empowering law enforcement personnel of one government to enforce laws in the other’s jurisdiction. Cooperation in the area of social service delivery, in a manner respecting tribal culture and differences , may directly benefit the tribes, while indirectly benefitting the states by laying the predicate for cooperation in other areas. The federal government has announced a policy of cooperation and negotiated agreement concerning quantification of reserved Indian water rights. Some federal acts, such  See 1990 Annual Report to the Western Governors’ Association: A New Era for State-Tribal Relations 14 (Jul. 1990) (concluding that in rural areas of western states, many of the same or similar problems face states and tribes).  55 Fed. Reg. 9223 (Mar. 12, 1990). Tribal reactions to these guidelines, however, have generally been unfavorable. Eileen Shimuzu, Indian Water Rights: An Examination of the Current Status of the Department of Interior’s Guidelines and Opposition to Them, 38 Fed. B. News & J. 88 (1991). Chapter 14 State-Tribal Cooperative Agreements 620 621 State-Tribal Cooperative Agreements as the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and Indian Child Welfare Act, include provisions authorizing or requiring states and tribes to enter into cooperative agreements for the promotion of the spe­cific legislation’s purpose. This chapter first looks at the recent trend toward statewide mechanisms for state-tribal government-to-government relations. Next, the chapter considers the authority of state and tribal governments to enter into cooperative agreements . Next, subject areas appropriate for cooperative state-tribal agreements are explored. This exploration, however, is not meant to be exhaustive. Some very general negotiation considerations are set forth, but one must keep in mind that each negotiation contains its own fact-specific considerations. Part V of the chapter analyzes a comprehensive state-tribal cooperative agreement to reveal the kinds of obstacles that may be encountered during negotiations and the creative solutions found to overcome those obstacles. Finally, the chapter closes with a section surveying a representative sample of state-tribal cooperative agreements that have been negotiated. Generally, state-tribal agreements are entered for a specified term and are terminable at the will of either government. Consequently, the agreements discussed in this part may no longer be in operation but are included merely as being representative. Readers are encouraged to contact the state or tribe involved in a particular negotiation for more information. I. CONDUCT OF GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT RELATIONS Particularly in recent years, there has been an increasing trend for states to develop mechanisms for establishing communication and cooperation with tribes. The following are some examples. In the last several years the State of Oregon has adopted a structure for government-to-government relations with the federally recognized tribes in Oregon, first through a 1996 governor’s executive order and then through  Pub. L. No. 100-497, 102 Stat. 2467 (1988) (codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2721 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1166, 1167, 1168); see generally Michael W. Ridgeway, Comment, The Potawatomi/Oklahoma Gaming Compact of 1992: Have Two Sovereigns Achieved a Meeting of the Minds?, 18 Am. Indian L. Rev. 515 (1993).  Pub. L. No. 95-608, 92 Stat. 3069 (1978) (codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901–1963); see generally June M. Mickens, Tribal and State Intergovernmental Child Support Agreements: The Process Behind the Contract, 9 Am. J. Fam. Law 11 (1995).  See generally Chapter 12 (discussing Indian Gaming Regulatory Act) and Chapter 13 (discussing Indian Child Welfare Act).  See...

Share