Wappo tribe leader vows to fight ruling denying federal recognition
The leader of the Mishewal Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley on Wednesday vowed to appeal a court ruling denying their attempt to regain federal recognition - what opponents see as an initial step for building another Las Vegas-style casino in the North Bay.
Tribal Chairman Scott Gabaldon described the court ruling as a “minor setback” for the Wappos in their quest to be restored more than a half-century after the tribe’s Alexander Valley Rancheria was dissolved by the federal government and distributed to two families.
“It’s just another bump on the road to the end result of getting our sovereignty,” he said. “We are going to appeal this thing as far as we can go.”
Napa County officials and Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, hailed the court ruling, which they said will help keep casino-style gaming out of Napa County, some of the ancestral territory claimed by the Wappo along with parts of Sonoma and Lake counties.
In an opinion released Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila sided with arguments previously made by Napa and Sonoma counties, and advanced by the federal government, that the Wappos waited four decades too long to bring their lawsuit against the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. The statute of limitations is only six years.
Had the tribe been successful in its lawsuit, officials said it could have led to it placing land into federal trust, exempting such lands from local and state regulations and likely leading to a casino.
“More than 50 years after the Wappo Tribe was congressionally derecognized, an attempt to circumvent Congress and the U.S. Department of Interior by going through the courts rightfully failed,” Thompson said in a prepared statement. “The motivation behind this lawsuit was clear. By the group’s own admission, if the lawsuit was successful, they would have attempted to build a casino in Napa or Sonoma counties.”
Wappo Chairman Gabaldon strongly disputed Thompson’s statement Wednesday, saying “he’s a liar. My tribe has never come out and said anything about a casino.”
Gabaldon said he met with Thompson several years ago and they only talked about the size of the tribe, its ancestral territory and how long it had been fighting to be recognized.
“We never even talked about a casino,” he said.
But Thompson’s spokesman disagreed.
“He told the congressman in his office at one point he wants to build a casino,” Thompson’s aide Austin Vevurka said Wednesday.
Gabaldon said the tribe, which has a small office in downtown Santa Rosa, with the majority of its 341 members living in Sonoma County, has other priorities for seeking federal restoration, including gaining access to health benefits and grants for schooling and housing.
But he also acknowledged the tribe’s legal bill have been subsidized by Greg Akopian, who has been associated with at least one potential casino development and runs a trucking company in Los Angeles with his brother Grish. The Napa Valley Register previously reported that the brothers helped finance the company Global Investment Enterprise, identified in court records as a “would-be casino developer” that was involved in a 2008 dispute with a Death Valley Indian tribe over gaming.
Gabaldon said his tribe has a number of different options for economic development, including building a hotel. But he also acknowledged a casino “may be an option in the future. We don’t have a place to put anything yet. We don’t have money.”
Napa officials see this week’s court decision as something that will help protect agricultural lands in Napa Valley that the tribe might try to place into federal trust for its own use.
“It was a big victory for Napa County,” said Board of Supervisors Vice-Chairman Alfredo Pedroza. “The ruling was very important to ensure local land would continue to be protected and uphold the character of Napa County.”
He said vintners, environmental and business groups are part of a united front that values the protection of agricultural preserves for the next generation.
“For any entities or businesses to come into this county and build a casino or other economic developments because they are privileged and exempt from local regulations would, in essence, destroy years of efforts by county residents who have planned for and aggressively protected the agricultural preserve,” the board of supervisors said in a prepared statement.
At one point, both Sonoma and Napa counties were opponents to the lawsuit seeking tribal restoration, which was filed in 2009.
The Sonoma County Counsel’s office also argued that the tribe wanted to find a site in Sonoma County or Napa County to build a casino.
UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy: