May an indian tribe close a public county road

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:53 am

Is it within the borders of the reservation? Be aware that there is also a legal definition for "Indian Country" which may encompass lands beyond the reservation.

The tribe is the sovereign within the borders of the reservation, but not necessarily across all of the "indian country" associated with the tribe.

I don't have a really good understanding of how tribe sovereignty affects the placement or continued existence of roads, but I'm sure it would have some effect.

RAM · Post by **RAM** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 2:16 pm

Many Indian lands are held in trust by the federal Government. Due to the nature of the ownership, no roads can be offered for dedication, no easements can be created, therefore the right to pass is controled by either the Tribe or Uncle sam. Many state hwys thru national forests are allowed by special use permits and do not have the same public rights as other public roads.

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:03 pm

I think you hit on it Russ. It's the trust nature of the land title that will determine by what authority the roads may exist on trust lands.

On the reservations, the BIA would probably be the place to look. Off reservation, but otherwise in "indian country", the underlying political division would have that authority.

Any input form a CFedS?

Jim Frame · Post by **Jim Frame** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 8:55 pm

"The tribe is the sovereign within the borders of the reservation"

I often see the word "sovereign" used in connection with tribal lands in the U.S., but it seems to me that it's a misnomer. Since the tribes don't have unlimited authority over those lands, they're not really sovereign; sovereignty is absolute, so "limited sovereignty" is a contradiction in terms.

I wonder if the politicians who drew up the original treaties thought that using the word "sovereign" would make the treaty terms easier for the tribes to swallow.

.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 5:20 pm

Might be similar to railroads, some xings are still posted "High and Mighty RR reserves the right to close this crossing at any time". And I have seen these on major hwys, not fwys as they go over or under.

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:55 am

I've been following the case in the Riverside newspaper. The guy, whose last name is Fields (the road was named after his family) owns land that is surrounded on three sides by the Reservation but his only access is through the reservation gate, which is on the County Road. He wants to develop, but is being blocked by the access issue and the County isn't fighting the battle with the tribe to move the gate off of the County Road. It's an intersting case.

RAM · Post by **RAM** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 7:12 am

I would guess the County does not have juristiction over non-County lands. The developer needs to work it out with the authority having juristiction, "THe Tribe". He is stuck or find another access.

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:36 am

The gate is located on the County Road and is not located in the Reservation. The gate is blocking the public from the County Road. Mr. Fields has permission, but must show ID to go through the gate.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:54 am

pls7809 wrote:The gate is located on the County Road and is not located in the Reservation. The gate is blocking the public from the County Road. Mr. Fields has permission, but must show ID to go through the gate.

So the public should be able to remove the gate.