Assemblyman refining casino bill

<p>Assemblyman Jared Huff-man has been meeting with key stake holders regarding legislation that he crafted that would require either local voter approval of state casinos or an intergovernmental agreement between the tribe and the immediate area involved to offset environmental impacts.</p><p>The legislation, if passed, would affect the decision by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, part of the Department of the Interior, to take land in Rohnert Park planned for a casino into federal trust for the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. </p><p>“I’ve been meeting with stake holders to refine the legislation a bit,” he said. “It’s a fairly simple proposition, requiring that off-reservation, urban casinos would need to have the support of communities and local governments that they will be impacting.”</p><p>Tribal leaders have been among the people he has spoken with.</p><p>“I want to approach this in a broad manner, and don’t want the tribal leaders we meet with to necessarily be on one side of the issue or the other,” he said. “We’ve already had some very productive meetings.”</p><p>Some tribal leaders support gambling on established reservations, but not at other sites, Huffman said. </p><p>“We will be continuing to meet to find common ground,” he said.</p><p>Huffman says that the text of the law should be completed soon, but that the Legislature might not vote on it until the end of the year.</p><p>A draft of the bill, AB 1741, states that “land that was taken into trust by the United States on behalf of an Indian tribe on or after Jan. 1, 2008, and on which gaming was not being lawfully conducted on the date of ratification, shall not be effective unless one or both of the following occur: 1) the voters of the county or counties in which the land is located have approved the compact; or 2) one or more intergovernmental agreements have been executed by the tribe and certain cities, counties or cities and counties, as specified.”</p><p>Huffman explained why only one of the actions is required.</p><p>“It’s difficult to mandate an advisory vote, because some counties might not need or want one,” he said. “But I want to make it clear that advisory votes will be meaningful if people want them to be. If they don’t, intergovernmental agreements should then be up for consideration because of the need to deal with the impacts of these casino projects.”</p><p>These impacts include in-creases in traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, groundwater degradation and crime.</p><p>Some critics have questioned whether the legislation could be enacted, since federal law requires the state to negotiate “in good faith” with a tribe that is eligible for large-scale gambling.</p><p>“Any legislation that would prevent land from going into federal trust forever presents an enormous challenge, and will face an expensive and uphill battle in federal courts,” said Jeff Brax, deputy county counsel of Sonoma County. “But a successful challenge could require the federal government to redo its decision in a better, more transparent way.”</p><p>“I fully expect that my legislation, and anything else that the state tries, will be challenged in the courts, but I believe that it will hold up,” Huffman said. “The definition of ‘good faith’ should begin with addressing the impacts of these projects and the support of the communities where they are proposed.”</p><p>Other critics of the legislation have asserted that it would not prohibit the opening of casinos with gambling that doesn’t require state approval, such as electronic bingo machines.</p><p>“This type of gambling is allowed with or without the bill,” Huffman said.</p><p>He is encouraged by recent efforts throughout the nation to prevent the opening of casinos in urban areas.</p><p>“People all over the country are waking up to the problem,” he said. “But we need time to let laws catch up to reality.”</p><p>(Contact Dan Johnson at dan.johnson@arguscourier.com)</p>