January !3,201,4

Pacific Southwest Regional SolicitorOffice of the SolicitorU.S. Department of the lnterior2800 Cottage Way, Room E-t772Sacramento, CA 95825

Re: County of Santa Barbara et al., Appellants vs. Pacific Regional Director, Bureau of lndianAffairs, Appellee Docket Nos. lBlA L4-OOL,14-003, t4-O04,14-005, 14-006, t4-OO7, L4-0O9, L4-010, 14-018, L4-OL9, L4-O2O, L4-O22

Dear Pacific Southwest Regional Solicitor:

ln a December 19, 2013 letter (copy attached)from the lBlA to a member (Santa Ynez Rancho

Estates Mutual Water Company, lnc.) of the undersigned group the lBlA suggested that we"...may wish to contact counsel for the Regional Director...to discuss [the] concerns" which wereraised in the December 70,2Ot3letter (copy attached) to the lBlA. By this letter we arepursuing the lBlA's suggestion and, because time may of the essence, we request your promptresponse to these questions.

ln addition to our request of the lBlA to clarify conflicting Orders they issued on their decision,

the December 10, 2013 letter raised several questions about various "authorities":

We understand that a tribe may "withdraw" an open application to the BlA, but we are

unable to locate any reference to the ability of a tribe (or a citizen) to withdraw a formal

decision made by the United States government - which was the status of this issue. Does a

tribe have the authority to withdraw a formal decision of the BIA? lf so, please cite the legal

authority.

Does the lBlA have the authority to vacate discretionary decisions of the BIA? lf so, please cite

the legal authority. At the helpful suggestion of the lBlA, we did research this question on theirwebsite and became even more concerned by the following entry:

Limitations on the Scope of Review. Deportmental regulations limit the scope of the Eoord's review with

respect to discretionary decisions of BtA officials. Under 43 C.F.R. 4.330(b)(2), the Boord is precluded fromreviewing "motters decided by the Bureau of lndian Affairs through exercise of its discretionory authority" unless

requested to do so by the Secretory or the Assistant Secretory - lndion Affairs.

January 13,2014Page 2 of 3

Although the Boord does not review the exercise of discretion itself, it does review legol or procedurolissues which arise in connection with a discretionary decision. The Board does not substitute its judgment for BlA,s,but it may review whether proper consideration was given to all legal prerequisites to the exercise of discretion.

Even in the event that the lBlA does have some authority to vacate some decisions ofthe BlA, can it vacate decisions in circumstances like this instance in which the expressedgrounds are solely the "appearance" of solely process problems, or is the IBIA authority limitedto remanding it for re-processing and reconsideration? Can such action be taken by the lBlAwithout a hearing? Can it be taken with input from the tribe (documented) and no publicpresence or participation? lf your position is that the lBlA has such power, please cite the legalauthority.

Finally, we suggest that you may want to look into BIA behavior subsequent to the lBlAOrder vacating the decision - the same Regional Director whose decision was "withdrawn" bythe tribe and "vacated" by the lBlA continues to rely upon the subject Land Consolidation andAcquisition PIan as if it is still in effect. This has a material adverse effect on all interested

ies, and particularly adverse effects on those whose formal legal appeals were dismissed by

M. Simon, ChairmansANIq YNEZ VALLEY CONCERNED CtTtZENSPOB 244Santa Ynez, CA 93460

Santa Ynez Valley AlliancePOB 941

4

Robert B. Field, PresidSANTA YNEZ RANCHO ESTATESMUTUAL WATER COMPANY, INC.5475 Happy Canyon RoadSanta Ynez, CA 93460

Ii%Santa Ynez, CA 93460

,,.-) r).4.r/, ,.)

October \3,2Ot4Page 3 of 3

Sharon Currie, PresidentSANTA YNEZ VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS

1623 Mission Drive, #2Solvang, CA 93463

WEWATCH

POB 830

Solvang, CA 93464

cc:Doreen Farr, 3'd District SupervisorBoard of SupervisorsCounty of Santa Barbara1-05 E. Anapamu St.Santa Barbara, CA 93101

Senator Dianne Feinstein331 Hart Senate Office BuildingWashington, DC 20510

Congresswoman Lois Capps2231 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515

Mike Had

M EADOWLARK RANCHES ASSOCIATION

POB 695

United States Department of the InteriorOFFICE OF HEAI{INGS AND APPEALS

I*-TERIOR BOARD OF INDIAN APPEALSs0r NorlTH QUINCY STREET

SUITE 3OO

ARLINGTON,V A,22203

December L9,20L3

Frank G. Blundo, fr., Esq.Wells Fargo Building15760 Venttua Boulevard, Suite 700Encino, Calif,ornia 9L436

Re: County of Santa Barbara, et al. v. Pacif.c Regional Director,53 IBIA 57 (ZOL3)

De'ar Mr. Blundo:

This letter is in response to your letter, dated December 10,20L3, to the Board ofIndian Appeals (Board), regarding the Board's recenr decision in County of Saruta Barbara, etal. v. Pacifi.c Rcgiottal Director, involving nrunerolrs appeals, one of which you filed, on behalfof Santa Ynez Rancho Estates Mutu'al Water Companp Inc., from a decision by the pacificRegional Director, Bureau of Indian AIfairs. As you know, the Board concluded that thecase was moot and vacated the Regional DirectoCs decision that your client and otherappellants had challenged in the appe'als. Your lerter raises several quesdons concerning theBoard's decision and solicits 'ans\,vers from the Board. In addition) you suggest that there isa discrepancy berween the Board's decision in Santa Barbara, and the subsequent decisionin Grirum, et al. v. Pacr,f.c Regional Director,s8 IBIA 69 (2013), involving another challengeto the same BIA decision that had been vacated in Santa Barbara.

The Board's decisions are final for the Dep:rmment of the Interior, and, in theabsence of the Boirrd's issuance of an order in response to a timely request forreconsideration, see 43 C.F.R. S 4.315, the Board does not expurd on or further explaindecisions that it has issued. You may, however, find the Board's lvebsite helpful in ftutherunderstending the Boards authoriry practice, and precedenr relevant to the irr.r., that yourlise. The r,vebsite can be found at http://rwr.w.cloi.gov/oha/index.cfm, and includes somegeneral information regarding the Board as r,vell irs :r Searchable database of Board decisions.In acldition, to the extent that you :lre concerned that a controversy persists, apart from thedispute over the Regionil Directot's decision thirt rhe Board vacared, you may rvish to

contacr counsel for the Regional Director and counsel for the S'anta Ynez B'and of Churnash

Indians to discuss your concerns.

Sincerely,

/,@Steven K. LinscheidChief Administrative |udge

cc: Distribution List for Docket No. IBIA 14-00f & consol.

2

Distribution:IBIA Docket Nos. IBIA 14-001, etc.

Kevin E. Ready, Sr., Esq.

Sr. Depury Counry Counsel

For Appellant, County of Santa Barbara,

California (14-001)105 E. Anapamu Street, Suite 20ISanta Barbara, CA 93I0I

/ames E. Marino, Esq.

For Appellants, No More Slots (14-003) and

The Neighborhood Defense League ofCalifornia (14-004)

1026 Camino del RioSanta Barbara, CA 93110

A. Barry Cappello, Esq.

Wendy D. Welkom, Esq.

For Appellant, Nancy Crawford-Hall (14-005)Cappello &Noel LLP831 State SueetSanta Barbara, CA 9310I

G.B. ShepherdFor Appellant, Concerned Citizens of the

Santa Ynez Valley (14-006)P.O. Box244Santa Ynez,CL93460

Richard BuderFor Appellant, Meadowlark Ranches

Associacion (14-006)P.O. Box 606Santa Ynez, CA 93460

Sharon Currie, PresidentFor Appellant, Santa Ynez ValleyAssociation of Realtors (14-006)

1623 MissionDrive, #2Solvang, CA93463

Kenneth R. Williams, Esq.

For Appellants, Presenation of Los Olivosand Preservation of SanaYnez (14-007)

980 9th Street, l6th FloorSacramento, CA 95814

William R. Devine, Esq.

For Appellant, Save the Valley Plan (14-009)Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP1900 Main Street, Fifth FloorIrvine, CL926|4-732L

Cathie MclIenry, President

For Appeilant, W.E. Watch,Inc. (14-010)P.O. Box 830Solvang, CA93464

John H. Parke, Esq.

Charles D. Kimbell, Esq.

For Appellant, Mary Kiani, Trustee, KianiFamily Remainder Trust (14-019)

Allen & Kimbell, LLP317 East Carrillo StreetSanta Barbara, CA 93101

Gary Kvistad, Esq.

For Appellant, Santa Ynez River WaterConservation Disuict, ImprovementDistrict No. I (14-020)

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck

21 East Carrillo SreetSanta Barbara, CA 93101

Distribution: IBIA 14-001, etc. (cont'd-pgz)

Nancie G. Marzulla, Esq.

Roger G. Marzulla, Esq. Sara J. DrakeFor Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Depury Attorney General

Mission Indians State of California Departrnent of ]usticeMarzulla Law, LLC P.O. Box 9442551150 ConnecticutAvenueNW,Suite 1050 Sacramento,CA94244-2550Washington, DC 20036

Salud CarbajalBrenda L. Tomaras, Esq. Counry Board of SupervisorsFor Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Santa Barbara CounqvMission Indians 105 East Anapamu Sueet, 4th Floor

Tomaras & Ogas, LLP Santa Barbara, CA 93101I0755-F Scripps Poway Parkway, #281san Diego, cA 92131

Joginder DhilronSenior Advisor for Tribal Negotiations

Susan Petrovich, Esq. Office of.the GovernorFor Charles Grimm, Michael Sinclair, State Capitol, Suite 1173Lynn Sinclair, et al. Sacramento, CA 95814

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP2I East Carrillo Street peter Kaufman, Esq.santa Barbara' cA 9310r Depury Anorney Gineral

Office of the Artorney GeneralMark Oliver, President P.O. Box 85266-5299Santa Ynez ValleyAlliance San Diego, CA92L86-5266P.O. Box 941santa Ynez, cA 93460 District Director

Office of the Honorable Dianne FeinsteinOffice of the Governor of California 750 B Street, Suite 1030ATTN: Legal Alfairs Secretary San Diego, CA 92101State Capitol BuildingSacramento, CA 95814 Janet Wolf

Counry Board of Supenisors

california state clearinghouse santa Barbara counry

Office of Planning and Research 105 East Anapamu Street, 4th Floorp.O. Box 3044 Santa Barbara, CA 9310I

Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044

Distribution: IBIA 14_001, etc.

Doreen Farr

P*,y Board of SupervisorsSanta Barbara Co.r.nryI00 East LocustAvenue, Suite l0lLompoc, CA9J436 , -.-.sv -L

peter Adam

}*ry Board of SupervisorsSanta Barbrm Corory5ll E. Lakeside fart#ry, Suite I4Isanta Maria, ca qs+is_ii"ai" ^=

Steve Lavagninop*ry Board of Supervisors

lanta Barbara Cou"ry5II E. Lakeside n"rk*"y, Suite I4lSanta Maria, CA %4ils:i;;sv

art

Cfuef of police

!9mpoc police Departrnent

107 Civic C,enter plazaLompoc, CAg3436

Brad VidroCiryManagerCiry of Solvane1644 OakSu#tSolvang, CA%463

Honorable Holly Sierracrry of Buellton107 W. Highwav 246Buellton, CAgg427

Santa Barbara Ciry Hall735 Anacapa SrreetSanra Barbara, CA 93101

Ciry Hall, planning DepartmenrCiry of Santa Barblra

r --..^.s'L

630 Garden StreetSanta. Barbara, CA 93I0I

/oseph HollandSanta Barbara Counry Assessor105 E. Anapamu Sreer, #;0;Sanra Barbara, CA 93101

BonnieA. Onsanta Ynez e'-*'

Generai Manager

p.o. Box 662'***ity services Diitrict

Santa ynez,CAg3460

Bob FieldSanta ynez Rancho EsratesMurual Warer Cs^4?G^;;ftXfilTI..Janra Ynez, CA9,346A

_Ifonorable Lois CappsU.S_. House of Representatives

10-I r.r, Carillo b,r."t, iJ" aSanta Barbara, CA %\fi

/ena A. MacleanPerkins Coie, LLpTO0.Thirteenth Street, N.W\4/ashington, DC 20065 _SSOO

!o*ry Execudve Officer9:_*,y of Sanra Barbara105 E. Anapamu StreerJanta Barbara, CA 93101

Bill Brown, SheriffCo*ry of Santa Barbara4434 Calle RealSanta Barbara, CA 93Ii0

(conCd-pg 3)

Distribution: IBIA 14-00I, etc. (condd-pg 4)

Senator Barbara Boxer

112 Hart Senate Office BuildingWashington, DC 205I0

Roy Hanley, Esq.

Solvang City Attorney8930 Morro RoadAtascadero,CA93422

Cathy Christian, Esq.

Nielsen Merlsamer1415 L. Street, Suite 1200Sacramento, CA 95814

SuperintendentSouthern California Agency, BIAI45l Research Park DriveSuite 1000Riverside, CA925O7

Pacific Regional DirectorBureau of Indian Affairs2800 Cottage WaySacramento, CA 95825

Pacific Southwest Regional SolicitorOffice of the SolicitorU.S. Departrnent of the Interior2800 Cottage Way, Room E-L7I2Sacramento, CA 95825

of GounselJohn. L. SalterAlso Admittedin Michiganand Florida

Law Offices of

Flsnk G. Blundo, Jr.A Professlonal Corporatlon

Wells Fargo Building15760 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 700. Encino, Catifomia 91436

Phone (818) 986-9585 . Far (818) 789-6817E-Mail: fgbesq@blundolaw.com

Van Nuys Office14518 Enrvin Street

Suite 3Van Nuys, CA 91411

(818) 781-7007

December 10,2013

Via Registered MailRetu m Receipt Req uested

Hon. Steven K. LinscheidChief Administrative JudgeHon. Thomas A. BlaserAdministrative JudgeUnited States Department

of the lnteriorOffice of Hearings and AppealsInterior Board of lndian Appeals801 North Quincy Street, Suite 300Arlington, Virginia 22203

Re: County of Santa Barbara et al.. Appellants vs. Pacifig Regional Director.Bureau. of lndian Affairs. AopelleeDocket Nos. lBlA 14-001. 14-003. 14-004. 14-005. 14-006. 14-007. 14-009.14-010, 14-018, 14-019, 14-020. 14-022

Dear Honorable Judges:

I write to you as a director, officer and legal counselfor the Santa Ynez RanchoEstates MutualWater Company, lnc. a Mutual Benefit Corporation.

On September 28, 2013, on behalf of that corporation, I filed an appealto the lBlAof a June 17,2013 decision by the Pacific Regional Director of the Bureau of lndian Affairs(BlA) approving a Land Consolidation and Acquisition Plan ("Plan") submitted bythe SantaYnez Band of Chumash lndians ("Tribe"). The appeal, which involved significantinvestments of time and money, alleged numerous process problems, material historicalinaccuracies, and multiple substantive legal problems with that BIA action.

On Octobe r 24,2013, less than one month later, with no notice to the Appellantsand without holding a hearing, the lBlA abruptly dismissed all appeals due to mootness.That lBlA action has left us with several troubling questions. lt is respectfully requestedthat you provide answers to the following questions which have been begged by the aboveBIA and lBlA actions:

Hon. Steven K. LinscheidChief Administrative JudgeHon. Thomas A. BlaserAdministrative JudgeDecember 10, 2013Page 2

1. The order dated October 24,2013 twice stated the basis for your action asbeing met'the Tribe has withdrawn the Plan". However, the subject Planwas no Ionger an open application by the Tribe. lt had become a formaldecision of the Federal Government. Hence, the question is whether acitizen, or a Tribe, can withdraw a decision of the Federal Government and,if so, please cite the legal authority.

2. Does the lBlA have the authority to vacate decisions of the BIA? Under whatcircumstances? Please provide any relevant authority.

3. Does the lBlA have the authority to vacate a decision of the BIA when theonly expressed grounds are that "it appears" (your words) that there wereprocedural problems? Or, is the lBlA authority in such circumstances limitedto remanding the issue back to the BIA to have the process problems cured?Can this be done without a hearing? I have found no authority for thesepropositions.

4. The authority seems to indicate that the regional director of the BIA has theauthority to withdraw his or her decision, but I am unaware of any authoritythat allows the Tribe to do likewise. ls there such authority? Likewise, whenthe decision of the Regional Director has been appealed, does that decisionhave no force and effect while the appeal is pending? The cases that relateto Fee to Trust application seem to indicate that any appealfrom a Fee toTrust application prevents the approval of such an application from going intoeffect until the appeals are resolved. ls that the same rule for LandConsolidation and Acquisition Plans?

Finally, there is some discrepancy between the order sent to Appellants onOctober 24,2013, and a subsequent order dated October 30, 2013 on docket No. lBlA14-022. ln the first order of October 24, you stated that the sequence of events were asfollows:

First, the Tribe withdrew the "PIan"; second, the lBlA dismissed the appeals formootness, and finally, even though it was "unnecessary as a matter of laW' (your words)the lBlA vacated the BIA's decision to approve the "Plan".

Hon. Steven K. LinscheidChief Administrative JudgeHon. Thomas A. BlaserAdministrative JudgeDecember 10,2013Page 3

ln October 30, 2013 order, there is no mention of the Tribe withdrawing its Plan, butinstead it stated that first the BIA decision was vhcated, and secondly, that the appealswere dismissed. Can you please clarify those discrepancies?

As you must know from the large number of appeals you received on this BIAaction, there are a large number of parties in Santa Barbara County, including the countygovernment itself, who are both interested and educated on this issue. The content of thenumerous appeals clearly demonstrate a widely held belief that there were material andnumerous procedural and substantive problems with the BIA approval of the "Plan". Allobjective observers would agree that the issue had become a public relations and legalnightmare for the BIA and the Tribe, and that the ripples were beginning to spread far andwide. The orders issued by the lBlA on October 24, and October 30, although reflectinga withdrawal and vacatur of the Plan, raised additional issues that remain unanswered.

The prompt response to the questions raised in this lefterwillgo a long waytowardsresolving the anxiety and controversy which still persist.

Respectfully,

FRANK G. BLUNDO, JR.

G. BLUNDO, JR.for Santa Ynez Rancho Estates

FGB:Keb

cc: Hon. Lois CappsHon. Dianne Feirstd,nKevin E. Ready, Sr., Esq.Amber Holderness, Esq.Mr. Bob FieHKenneth R. Williams, Esq.

LAW OFFICES

Water Company, lnc.

Hon. Steven K. LinscheidChief Ad m inistrative J udgeHon. Thomas A. BlaserAdministrative JudgeDecember 10,2013Page 4

James E. Marino, Esq.William R. Devine, Esq.Susan Petrovich, Esq.