MIDDLE KLAMATH
The 1864 "Yreka Treaty" negotiated by Elijah Stelle with the Klamath, Modoc, Shasta, Hamburg and Scott Valley tribes was declared invalid -
In 1906 , land was purchased by the U.S. government for use as "rancherias" by some of the Indian population who were assigned to reside on the "rancherias."; Quartz Valley
Establishment Shasta and Upper Klamath Indian Reservation (Quartz Valley) Oct. 18 1938; By virtue of authority contained in Section 7 of the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. L., 984), the lands described below, acquired by purchase under the provisions of Section 5 of that Act, for the use and benefit of such Shasta and Upper Klamath Indians eligible to participate in the benefits of the Act of June 18, 1934, supra, as shall be designated by the Secretary of the Interior, are hereby proclaimed to be an Indian reservation: Constitution/Bylaws; Corporate Charter
August 18, 1958 the California Rancheria Act, PL 85-671 [H. R. 2824] 72 Stat. 619:: Solicitor's memo 8/1/1960
Public Law 588 | Chapter 733 August 13, 1954 | [S. 2746] 68 Stat. 724 Termination of the Karok Tribe
VOLUME 21—1956 Termination of Federal Supervision over the property of the Western Oregon Tribes (Karok) and Bands of Indians of Oregon, and the Individual Members Thereof
VOLUME 32—1967 January 13, 1967 Quartz Valley Rancheria, CA.Notice of Termination of Federal Supervision Over Property and Individual Members Thereof
The Karuk began efforts in 1978 to receive Federal recognition. In November 1978, the Bureau of Indian Affairs Central Office (BIA) staff conducted a field trip to Northern California. The BIA determined that the aboriginal subentities of the tribe consisted of three communities located in Happy Camp, Orleans, and Siskiyou (Yreka). See 13 IBIA 76, 78; 1985 WL 69127 (I.B.I.A.). The Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, in a memorandum entitled “Revitalization of the Government-to-Government Relationship Between the Karok (sic) Tribe of California and the Federal Government,” notified the local offices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs on January 15, 1979, that: Based on the findings collected . . ., the continued existence of the Karoks as a federally recognized tribe of Indians has been substantiated. In light of this finding, I am directing that the government-to-government relationship, with attendant Bureau services within available resources, be re-established.
Tillie Hardwick vs. United States (restoration of reservation status 1983); The original Quartz Valley Reservation was near the current one, but was terminated in the 1960s. The Quartz Valley Indian reservation was restored in 1983. The total area today is about 174 acres, with the tribe still in the process of reacquiring land for the reservation.
Although the Quartz Valley Indian Community and the Karuk tribe are federally recognized, the Shasta Tribe has not yet been federally recognized
Fishing Rights
Karuk Tribe does not have a federally-recognized or protected fishing right on the Klamath River. This conclusion was confirmed by the Associate Solicitor for Indian Affairs in a 1994 memorandum. The Associate Solicitor concluded that there was "no evidence that the Karuk's fishery is conducted pursuant to federally reserved Indian fishing rights." Memorandum from Michael J. Anderson to Bill Shake, Fish and Wildlife Service, March 7, 1994. The Associate Solicitor's review found no treaties, federal statutes or executive orders that would form the basis for a claim that the Karuk Tribe's fishery is based on federally-reserved rights, nor was any evidence found of an "historic reservation or trust lands set aside for fishery purposes." Land purchased and put into trust at Ishi Pishi does not qualify as establishment of reserved fishing rights.
Testimony of Karuk Tribal witness Leaf Hillman before the House Committee on Resources concerning H.R. 2875 to amend the Klamath River Basin Fisher Resources Restoration Act May 4, 2000; Statement of Michael J. Anderson Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Dept. of Interior; Testimony of Susan Masten, Chairperson Yurok Tribe
Land Claims
Super et al. v. Work, Secretary of the Interior, et al..
No. 4110 Court of Appeals of District of Columbia 55 App. D.C 149; J F.2d 90; 1925 U.S.
App. LEXlS 3721 Submitted December 5, 1924 January 5, 1925, Decided
Karuk lands (Indian Gaming Commission memo)
Karuk v. United States (complaint filed 1990) -Claimed rights in Square and Extension (Similar complaint filed by Ammon group and Yurok Tribe - all Yurok members also in Ammon (plaintiff groups overlap); Karuk Tribe v. United States (Court of Federal Claims 1993) - 28 Fed. Cl. 694; Karuk Tribe v. United States (Court of Federal Claims 1998) 41 Fed. Cl. 468 Plaintiff tribes and individuals had no vested property rights; [Karuk Tribe of California v. Carol McConnell Ammon, et. al.andYurok Indian Tribe, v U.S. and Hoopa Valley Tribe; (2) The Federal Circuit held that because the original reservation was created by an executive order and not by a treaty or other Act of Congress, only a permissive right of occupancy was created and not a permanent right of occupancy. In order to convey a permanent right in the land of the reservation, the court reasoned there must be a definitive action of Congress authorizing or intending that right to exist. While the court admitted that there is no specific way of proving the intent of Congress, they concluded that the plaintiffs had not proven intent in this case.
In response, the plaintiffs argued that the Act of April 8, 1864 (Hoopa,) which authorized the creation of the reservation, was intended to create a permanent peace between the Indians of northern California and the white settlers. The court agreed that this was the intent of Congress when it passed the Act of 1864, but claimed Congress achieved that goal "by giving the President broad discretion [to create the reservation], rather than conferring upon the California Indians vested property rights."
In further support of its conclusion, the Federal Circuit claimed that not only did the Act of 1864 confer only a discretionary power upon the President, but that the United States also retained title to the land under the Act.
The court concluded that while the United States government may grant rights in the land of a reservation, in accordance with acts like the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1927, the United States will always retain title to the reservation. It is on the basis of this retention of title that the court concluded there is no legal obligation on the part of the government to pay Indians for any action that could otherwise be deemed a taking under the Fifth Amendment. In short, without title or a clear intent by Congress, Indians residing on a reservation created by an executive order retain no right to the land on which they reside. Rights appurtenant to the reservation do not vest in Inidnas residing there.]
Karuk Tribe v. United States (Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit 2000) 209 F.3d 1366; Cert. petitions denied 523 U.S. 941 (2002) [Karuk v. U.S. Fifth Amendment taking of property interests. ; U.S. Fed Circuit Court of Appeals 99-5002,-5003,-5006]