December 16, 2009

Representative Mary Bono Mack VIA US Mail and Facsimile

104 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Fax: (202) 225-2961

Re: Opposition to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Water Rights Settlement Act

Dear Representative Bono-Mack:

I submit this letter in opposition to HR 4285 (Bono-Mack) which would transfer water rights in Riverside and San
Diego Counties to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians.

I oppose HR 4285 for several reasons. First of all, I oppose HR 4285 based on the Pechanga Band’s actions to
deprive and deny individuals of their basic human and civil rights.

The actions taken by Pechanga Tribal Officials -denial of due process, failure to provide equal protection of the
laws, establishment of ex post facto laws, etc. - mirror those which led to the introduction and passage of the
Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 ("ICRA") which was intended to “… protect individual Indians from arbitrary
and unjust actions of tribal governments” and to secure for the individual American Indian the broad
constitutional rights afforded all other American citizens.

While the ICRA clearly spells out actions which tribal governments are prohibited from participating in,
Pechanga tribal officials have failed to comply with the ICRA and have routinely invoked “sovereign immunity”
to escape prosecution for their actions. Although the tribal officials claim immunity from suit, this does not
equate to innocence of action. No entity that participates in, supports, or otherwise partakes in human and/or civil
rights violations should benefit from the public trust.

In addition, HR 4285 does not benefit all the Indians who are associated with or have ties to the cultural and
sacred sites located on and within the land proposed to be transferred. The water rights for transfer are rights
associated with all Luiseno people, not just the Pechanga Band. Water rights should be guaranteed to all Indians
living on the Pechanga reservation, including those with allotments that the tribe has eliminated from the
membership rolls and those kept from membership by an unconstitutional moratorium.

Considering Pechanga tribal officials’ propensity to mislead and/or failure to comply with previous assertions to
protect and preserve resources and not build on lands targeted for acquisition, can we really trust them to protect
the water rights of those they recently disenfranchised?

Based on the Pechanga Band’s actions, especially those associated with the Great Oak Ranch trust acquisition,
termination of Native Americans, and the tribal councils blatant disregard for their own tribal constitution, I
oppose HR 4285.

Respectfully submitted,

Name
Address:
Phone Number