The fat new buffalo.

The tables have turned since Indian tribes discovered a lucrative new source of wealth-casino gambling. It has transformed some tribes into heavyweight economic players in their states and localities.

Tribal casino gaming has been called the Indians' new buffalo--a source of sustenance, the basis for a new, strong economy. Many Indian tribes have found the fast lane, embracing casinos as the ultimate form of economic development.

The advent of tribal casinos created a furor among state government officials. Governors, attorneys general and state legislators called on Congress to modify the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) to ensure that tribes would conform to state laws. Tribes resisted. Both tribes and states went to court over their positions with inconsistent results. The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule in any gaming case that would clarify the questions states and tribes are wrangling over. During the past two years, U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye, chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, has tried to find common ground for revision of IGRA. The final hurdle appears to be deciding who determines the scope of lawful tribal gaming.

States and Tribes Move On

In spite of sparring in the courts and in Congress, state and tribal negotiators have worked out details for gaming compacts by settling on some common understandings. IGRA requires states and tribes to negotiate compacts establishing the rules by which Class III gambling (casinos and parimutuels) on tribal lands will be conducted. In any state that allows gambling, a tribe may request negotiation for a gaming compact, and the state must respond. So far, only two states seem to be exempt from that requirement--Hawaii and Utah--because neither allows gambling in any form. To date, 19 states and 84 tribes have nearly 100 agreements about the conduct of Indian gambling. The compacts--which range in size from simple four-page agreements to documents four inches thick weighing three pounds--are necessary. Without them, tribes engaged in casino-style gambling are in violation of federal law.

But Indian gaming is no longer a simple jurisdictional policy issue--if it ever was--that pits states against tribes. Indian gaming has taken root amidst big-time money and politics, and the stakes are high. The political climate around tribal gaming is changing. The economic success of tribal casinos has affected state gambling policy and brought change to communities. On March 14, the California Legislature approved a joint resolution recognizing the sovereign status of California's Indian Nations. The resolution points out that tribal gaming has contributed more than $200 million in jobs, goods and services, and employment tax revenues to the state's economy. California is not the only state to recognize tribes' economic impact.

Bob Jauch, Wisconsin Senate minority leader, points out that, as gaming enriches Indian communities, they become equal economic players in the larger community. In doing so, they are setting examples of success, instead of failure, for their children.

"The greatest benefit of Indian gaming is the growth in tribes' economic strength and independence, which in turn strengthens the collective community," Senator Jauch says. Still, he is concerned about gambling as a way of life. Although he supports the idea of other tribal enterprises established with casino revenues as healthy economic development, he is not eager for further expansion of gambling in Wisconsin.

Tribal members who support gaming (and many who don't) suggest that state resistance to Indian casinos looks suspiciously like economic racism. Tribes may feel defensive about their gambling success because it seems that whenever they have had something valuable in the past (land, gold, buffalo, oil), someone has tried to take it away.

"Tribal governments realize that a casino is not an end in itself. It is a means to achieve what no state or federal economic development program has been able to achieve for Indian people in 200 years--the return of self-respect and economic self-sufficiency," says JoAnn Jones, tribal chair of the Wisconsin Winnebago Nation.

The economic, political and policy currents swirling around Indian casinos have exacerbated tensions between governors and legislatures. While governors continue to make deals with the tribes, legislators must try to accommodate pro- and anti-gaming constituents, the gaming industry, long-established businesses, rural communities--all of which have reasons to support or oppose tribal gaming. Some lawmakers are involved in the gaming industry themselves.

Connecticut Governor Lowell Weicker, who opposes expansion of legalized gaming, consented on behalf of the state to a Pequot tribal monopoly on video slots in exchange for 25 percent of the revenues, guaranteed to be at least $100 million in the first year of the agreement. Some Connecticut legislators, pleased with the revenue but unhappy with the governor's unilateral approach that shut out other gambling interests, plan to continue efforts to legalize gambling elsewhere in the state. Oklahoma passed a 1993 statute that requires review of any compact by the Indian Affairs Committee of the Legislature. And, following tussles over tribal gaming, Idaho voters in 1993 amended the state constitution to prohibit all casi-no-style gaming; Wisconsin adopted a similar measure in 1993.

Is Indian Gaming Driving the Spread of Casinos?

The notable success of some tribal casinos has spurred the expansion of nontribal gaming as competition increases for gambling dollars. Certainly the pressure for video slots at race tracks, truck stops, taverns and eateries is the result of their operators' hopes for a piece of the action, as well as a way to draw customers back.

The siting of tribal casinos also may create a "domino effect" as nearby jurisdictions begin to vie for the economic benefits offered by gaming. Writing about the voter dynamics of gambling approval, William R. Hamilton says in Campaigns and Elections that the "guaranteed proximity of a gaming enterprise can move voters to approve one for their own neighborhood." For example, Iowa's venture into riverboat gaming in 1991 was followed shortly by legalization in four more river states.

David S. Honeyman, a school finance expert at the University of Florida, suggests that gambling offers a revenue source not related to any particular constituency, removing the need to raise taxes. "New tax revenues paid largely by outsiders are appealing, especially when earmarked for law enforcement, improvement of education, and building sewers, bridges and roads."

And William Eadington, economics professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, asserts that gambling is more and more accepted as a mainstream recreational activity.

These conditions create fertile ground for the growth of additional gaming. The "boom" of gambling is louder than the voices that warn against it. Once state lotteries opened the door--essentially breaking down traditional moral resistance to gambling--Indian casinos took the lead in demonstrating how successful gambling could be in small communities. Communities, both Indian and others, that have seen the financial benefits of casino gambling appear to recognize that the heyday may be short-lived. However, no one is sure when the gambling market will reach saturation, so local communities often support the establishment of a tribal casino. Recently, small towns in Arizona and Colorado approached tribes with offers of land, hoping to gain a chance at the casino bonanza. The promises of jobs, spin-off businesses and capital construction are alluring.

Partners in Growth?

And the money keeps on rolling in. The most successful tribal casinos have had significant effects on their non-Indian neighbors. Job creation, increased tax revenues and entertainment potential, as well as gambling growth, compulsive gambling and crime, all have an impact on communities.

Jones of the Wisconsin Winnebagos believes that casinos have been good for Wisconsin. "Indian gaming creates jobs," she says. "Ho-Chunk (her tribe's casino) will have a payroll of more than $20 million this year. Nearly all of our employees are working full-time, and more than half of our gaming employees are not Indian."

A recent survey by the Winnebago personnel office showed that, before they were hired, 55 percent of Winnebago employees had been unemployed and 18 percent were on welfare. "We are proud of the fact that we have moved more than 350 people from the poverty of AFDC, hired more than 700 additional people who were unemployed, and every casino employee earns a minimum of $7 per hour," says George Garvin, tribal treasurer.

More than 7,500 people in Wisconsin are directly employed by Indian casinos, say the Winnebagos. James Murray, a community economic development specialist with the University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension, has pegged the 1992 total benefits of Indian gaming to Wisconsin state government at $52 million with $18 million coming from income taxes, $17 million from sales taxes and $14 million from gas taxes. He assigns savings of $2.2 million in welfare costs to the state. Murray also discusses the potential costs of lost lottery revenues, higher crime rates, highway modifications, gaming oversight and the problem of compulsive gambling, but does not assign dollar amounts to these costs. His report, "The Economic Impact of American Indian Gaming on the Government of the State of Wisconsin," offers information that is hard to find in other states.

The Oneida Tribe near Green Bay, Wis., estimated the economic impact of gambling on the surrounding community at $650 million in 1992, up from $7.2 million in 1976. Revenues to individual tribes are impossible to estimate unless a tribal government is willing to release information, but Foxwoods Casino in Ledyard, Conn., owned by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, is reported to be the most successful casino in the country, bar none. The Associated Press in News From Indian Country reports that the Pequots have donated more than $4 million to various organizations and charities in the past year including $2 million to the World Special Olympics Games slated for New Haven, Conn., in 1995. A newly formed committee of elderly tribal members will review requests for money and make recommendations to the tribal council.

The Foxwoods Casino has become the area's largest employer, with more than 6,000 workers (the tribe has about 250 members). The annual payroll may exceed $200 million in 1994. Businesses in surrounding communities say the casino has helped the county make it through the cutbacks in the defense industry, even though wages may be as much as 40 percent less than workers are used to. The tribe expects to continue expanding its operations to develop a family resort offering golf, swimming pools, theme park rides and a re-created Pequot village.

The Minnesota Indian Gaming Commission (MIGA) reports that tribal gaming resulted in more than 4,700 new jobs, that non-Indians benefited from 80 percent of those jobs, and that most jobs were in rural or suburban areas of the state where steady, year-round positions were in short supply. If the casino-related jobs were attributed to a single employer, says MIGA, tribal gaming would be one of the 20 largest employers in the state. The number of AFDC recipients in the four counties with tribal gaming facilities also decreased by 16 percent between 1987 and 1991 while the statewide number of recipients increased 15 percent for the same period. Six tribes in Minnesota reported 1991 gaming revenues of $143 million after payouts. When expenditures were subtracted, the tribes still had $54 million to be used for tribal operations and enterprises, direct human services, education, housing and infrastructure improvements--the same purposes that other governments use taxes for.

Michigan recently joined the ranks of states with something tangible to gain from tribal gaming. Tribes had operated casinos for a number of years in the state without significant challenge by federal authorities. Seven tribes recently agreed to contribute 8 percent of revenues derived from video gaming to the Michigan Strategic Fund with an additional 2 percent to local governments. Although tribes may choose any local governments to receive funds, the money is to be aimed at mitigating the effects of casino operations. The state and local funds depend upon the state's agreement not to allow video gaming in any place other than tribal casinos, a deal similar to the Connecticut Pequot arrangement.

This financial deal, though not written into the seven compacts approved in November 1993, was part of the settlement of a lawsuit related to the compacts. The compacts also contain a provision that all the state's tribes must agree to share revenues from an additional tribal casino proposed for a block of downtown Detroit. Developers have offered the land as a site for a tribal casino and indicated their willingness to operate it. But city leaders consistently have opposed the casino. Residents too have voted down casino gambling four times, even though thousands of people showed up in November to apply for casino positions that may never exist. The proposed site would have to be placed in trust for the tribe by the federal government before a casino could open. Placing off-reservation land into trust for gambling purposes is a long, complicated process that, among other things, requires concurrence from a state's governor as well as local community approval and approval by the Secretary of Interior. The governors of both Oregon and Iowa have refused to agree to such arrangements within the past three years.

What About the Problems?

The potential for casino development on lands that may be claimed by tribes in the future is a major concern, especially for local governments. No one knows exactly what kinds of claims Indian tribes may have on lands in a number of states. Reservations and other Indian lands already held in trust by the U.S. government are exempt from state and local property taxes. Additional lands, once held by tribes but sold or lost under various circumstances, also may be subject to new tribal claims, a possibility spurred by the lure of gaming.

In Connecticut, the tiny Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe has laid claim to part of Bridgeport, effectively holding current property owners hostage to a legal system that moves far too slowly in such matters. And the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe offered to pay its Connecticut neighbors $7 million for property surrounding its casino. The Oneidas in Wisconsin are buying back lands that once belonged to them. Even if tribes don't use their re-acquired land for gaming, placing the land into trust removes it from the local property tax base and affects revenues and services.

The negative effects of gaming on families is another concern. Problem gambling is on the rise in Minnesota, which hosts the nation's largest number of tribal casinos. Some researchers argue that the people who can least afford to gamble usually are the most affected. The poor spend a greater percentage of their income on gambling than the wealthy, giving gambling the same effect on incomes as regressive taxes--the poor are hit the hardest. To its credit, the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association has been quite proactive, along with the state, in working with the Minnesota Council on Compulsive Gambling, says Betty George, council director.

Since state laws are not enforceable on Indian lands, observers often perceive tribal gambling as being free of all regulation. A number of state officials worry that limited tribal resources and lack of industry experience will prevent close attention to regulation of tribal casinos, allowing organized crime to infiltrate the operations. At a May 1993 Senate hearing in Washington, D.C., millionaire Donald Trump (rival casino operator) charged that tribal gaming operations were riddled with crime. A Los Angeles Times series in 1991 told how mobsters had infiltrated one small California tribe's gaming operation. Tribal leaders respond that not only do they carefully regulate gaming activities, but they have even better reasons to do so than do states--the future of the tribe and its members depends on good management.

Still, states have had to gear up to meet new regulatory needs presented by the growth of gaming. Negotiators for New York Governor Mario Cuomo agreed on two tribal casinos, but included a requirement that the Legislature appropriate funds for oversight. Under most state-tribal gaming compacts, tribes acknowledge the costs to state and local governments of increased regulatory mechanisms, law enforcement and infrastructure by agreeing to reimburse costs related to Indian casinos. For instance, the compact between the Tulalip Tribe and Washington says the tribe will reimburse the state for all costs incurred in carrying out its responsibilities related to the compact. The compact also provides for a contribution to the county and city for law enforcement. In Louisiana, the Chitimacha Tribe agreed to help defray expenses of the local parish resulting from gaming through a percentage of gaming profits. Tribes also may make such contributions voluntarily.

What's the Game Plan?

As unreliable a state revenue source as gambling probably will prove to be (see State Legislatures, February 1994), it is, at least for now, so lucrative a business and so attractive as entertainment that it will continue as a powerful force in state-tribal relations. States and tribes with gambling compacts in place already have track records, and others are drawing upon those experiences. The "states vs. tribes" theme now sounds a little tired in the face of the economic realities that are realigning communities. Compacts developed within the current IGRA parameters reflect the circumstances peculiar to each state-tribal political and economic climate. In this sense, the states and tribes are partners rather than adversaries. The history and geography of a state, the traditions of state-tribal dealings there, and the number of tribes and their locations have influenced the course of gaming's success, and will continue to do so. The crafters of any amendments to IGRA need to recognize the legitimate policy concerns of both state and tribal governments while respecting the compacts and settlements that already are in place.

States Honor Native Americans 

At least 13 states have official days, weeks or months recognizing the contributions of Native Americans. Oklahoma celebrates its 32 Indian tribes with a special day, chosen by the tribes and proclaimed by the governor.

Arizona legislators and leaders of 21 tribes convened on the floor of the House Feb. 9 for the state's first Native American Day. The formal ceremonies included speeches, a luncheon sponsored by the Navajo Nation and a leaders' roundtable. The event was the idea of Representative Jack Jackson, a Navajo from Window Rock. A bill was introduced to make the affair an annual event.

The California Legislature recognized California's Native American tribes for the first time in state history March 14, and resolved to pursue a policy of shared economic and cultural development with the tribal governments of California. More than 100 Native Americans representing tribal governments from around the state participated in the Assembly session.

"Today's recognition of Native American tribal sovereignty exhibits the will of the Legislature to respect and honor the various cultures that make California a great state," said Assembly Speaker Willie Brown Jr.

Daniel Tucker, tribal chairman of the Sycuan Band of Mission Indians, accepted the resolution on behalf of California's Native American tribal governments and tribes.

"Your recognition today of tribal sovereignty begins a new day--a new era--for Californians and Indian tribal members. An era in which our leaders will work together on a government-to-government basis to find and develop economic and social solutions for our future," he said.

The event was organized by members of the California Legislative Black Caucus, the California Latino Legislative Caucus and the Asian Staff Caucus.

"I am excited about the Legislature's historic recognition of Native American tribal sovereignty. Today's action was long overdue," said Assemblywoman Barbara Lee, chair of the Legislative Black Caucus.

The session began with a Native American blessing--burning of sage--to cleanse and purify the spirits of all those participating.

After receiving the Assembly resolution, tribal leaders presented members of the organizing caucuses with authentic Native American "talking sticks." Native American lore says that whoever holds the stick must speak the truth.

Judy Zelio staffs NCSL's State, Local and Tribal Relations Committee.