Honorable Committee Members,

My name is Jill Jensen, Thank you very much for the opportunity to convey to you our considerable concerns as they relate to the White River Amphitheater project being developed by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe in partnership with a California promoter, Bill Graham Presents.

The White River amphitheater, a project that would allow up to 23,000 people and up to 10,000 vehicles to trample upon the Enumclaw Plateau every weekend from April to October, is under construction upon fee-simple land in a rural, primarily agricultural area half way between the cities of Enumclaw and Auburn in King County. Despite many violations of land use, zoning, and regulatory laws, construction proceeds without adequate lawful jurisdictional oversight by King County, the State of Washington, or the government of the United States of America.

Citizens for Safety and Environment is a grass-roots community action group with over 8,500 constituents. We have been fighting this amphitheater project for nearly a year, without the benefit of adequate support and interdiction by any governmental entity. We axe demanding the proper and rightful enforcement of legal and environmental laws by au governmental entities responsible for protecting the rights of all citizens of the community, both on an off the Muckleshoot Indian Reservation.

The American Indian Equal Justice Act, S. 1691, is precisely the type of legislation needed to begin to properly address complex issues relating to business and commerce involving American Indian tribes. This Act is a fundamental building block for future legislation that will be necessary to define tribal legal and sovereignty issues and subsequently clarify relationships, such that both tribal governments and other political subdivisions of the United States may conduct our affairs with the proper dignity, integrity, and respect.

This proposed legislation begins to define a set of rules and guidelines that is necessary for more comprehensive business and governmental relationships. This will make all parties more comfortable in an area that has heretofore been too complex for most people to navigate. The ultimate result will be an elevation of tribal governments and enterprise to their proper standing within our economic and societal systems.

This project is a very large scale commercial operation involving a large facility upon which construction has already begun. The issue of immunity from lawsuit as relates to this project is choking almost all efforts to resolve many problems, if indeed solvable at all, before the project is allowed to continue construction. Nobody at any level or government has had the fortitude to take on this issue, primarily because of their fear of the sovereign immunity threat. This is totally unacceptable!

We all know that despite the best intentions of architects, design engineers, and construction comparu'es, perfect results are never guaranteed. Additionally, despite the best intentions of the operators and/or managers of such a large scale endeavor, security may be lax or overzealous, medical treatment may be insufficient or unt'unely, traffic mitigation attempts may not be sufficient therefore increasing potential for injury accidents, and many other potential impacts may endanger the public safety and/or property.

Consequently, the legal system properly has within it the "tort" system. A tort is, according to the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, a wrongful act, not involving a breach of contract or trust, which results in injury to another's person, property, reputation, or the like, and for which the injured party is entitled to compensation.

As a result of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Indian tribes have claimed they have a degree of sovereign immunity not unlike that of states, counties, and cities. Among the protections immunity offers, a very significant one is immunity from lawsuits that result from torts.

Immunity has practical purpose at times when self government, and other matters within any jurisdiction need protection from constant and/or frivolous interference with the governmental process. However, "blanket immunities" have been removed by all governmental entities except those which Indian tribes purport to have. Non-Indian governmental entities have waived immunity from lawsuit on all but the most absolutely necessary issues because of the lawful need for accountability of those who have power over others, whether from the business community or government.

The assumed immunity by Indian tribes may have validity for many internal issues but becomes a significant problem as tribes become more active in business activities that are patronized by non-Indians and Indians alike. This is of especial import when the business is one such as the amphitheater. The large outdoor concert industry is known to be at high risk as to injuries and all too often, deaths of patrons.

Indian tribes often waive immunity when entering into significant contracts with non-Indians. This allows both parties to the contract to have reasonable access to the same non-tribal court system wherein they may seek relief from damages which may have been caused by the other party to the contract. It is highly likely that Bill Graham Presents, the general contractor, financial lenders, as well as others who have contracts for the proposed amphitheater have sought and been granted a waiver of immunity by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.

If the bus-mess people that believe so strongly in the success of the amphitheater have waivers of immunity, it only seems to make sense that at a minimum, families of patrons, patrons, and neighbors of the project have the same access to the courts to seek relief should "injury" occur.

It is inexcusable that a facility that may contain up to 23,000 citizens of the region, both Indian and non-Indian alike may be built with out proper and sufficient oversight and without proper access to non-tribal courts for relief should injury to persons and/or property occur.

Citizens of the surrounding area have no recourse within the legal system to compel the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe to be in compliance with land use, zoning, and regulatory requirements normally associated with a project of this scale and impact. The issue of assumed tribal immunity from law suits is ever present, inhibiting the due process that is demanded of this business endeavor.

The issue is further complicated by the typical tactic of tribes to join suits against non-Indian partners and contractors an the basis that the tribe is a "necessary and indispensable" party since their economic well being is being attacked. The result is that the courts then dismiss the suits on the basis that tribes are assumed to be immune from law suit. CSE's current federal legal action against the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and the contractors has had volumes of material generated by the defendants in an attempt to have the case dismissed since the Tribe is "necessary and indispensable" but immune to lawsuit. The issue of immunity has become a panacea for the tribes whenever they seek to escape accountability. Senate Bill 1691 would eliminate this legal shell game, and 've citizens their Constitutionally guaranteed access to due process.

Ever since the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, non-Indians and non-members of the reservation tribes, even though they comprise nearly 50% of residents of reservations nationwide, are not granted the right to vote in tribal elections, or the right to participate in the making of tribal law and regulations, -including, but not limited to, land use and zoning.

Consequently, they must depend on the underlying jurisdiction as their representative agency of government, in which they put their full faith and trust that they will have the right to due process of law protected. All too often, cities, counties, and states can't protect non-tribal citizens' interests because of the ever-looming immunity problem.

The basic civil rights of these non-Indian and nonmember Indian residents of the Muckleshoot Indian Reservation living within unincorporated King County, must be guaranteed by the government of the United States of America.

In 1971, the State of Washington published a booklet entitled "Are You Listening Neighbor?" which was a report of the state's Indian Affairs Task Force. Many of the Indian tribes of Washington contributed. One of the outcomes was that many tribes of Washington State strongly requested that they be recognized as a "public agency" such as cities and counties for the purpose of inter-local agreements and other government-to-government issues. An amendment to Title 39-34.020 of the Revised Code of Washington codified this recognition. This recognition gave the tribes many rights and privileges to enable more self-sufficient and empowered government, but the state and King County have failed to recognize the associated obligations of this status, such as compliance with the state's Growth Management Act and compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act.

Indian reservations have an interesting governmental form, perhaps best described as a it city-state". A city because of their relationship to the state, counties, and other cities. A state because of their unique relationship to the federal government, not unlike that of states. There is little question that this status needs clearer definition such that all of us may have better jurisdictional relationships.

As recognized governmental entities, dependent upon the United-States, and subject to the Constitution and statutes of the United States, as acknowledged in treaties and the Muckleshoot Constitution, it is confounding that Indian tribal governments, which resemble both state and local governments, should think themselves uniquely exempt from the Environmental Laws of the United States and the State of Washington. Especially considering the treaty promises by the Indian tribes and bands to be friendly with citizens or in other words 7 their neighbors, yet relentlessly demanding full compliance by their neighbors.

Over the last thirty or so years the United States and the States have come to understand the sensitive and important relationship of their peoples to the land, nature, and one another. As a result of this critical understanding, our country has created the National Environmental Policy Act, (NEPA), and the State of Washington has adopted the State Environmental Policy Act, (SFPA), which in many instances is more restrictive than NEPA. These very significant laws have become our good neighbor laws. They define the importance of understanding and implementing statutes that always consider the actions of one entity as to its impacts on all other neighboring entities.

These environmental laws span Jurisdictions, and become the tools for conflict resolution, a it voice of reason" if you will in that virtually no one is exempt.

As relates to Indian Reservations, the Bureau of Indian Affairs demands that NEPA regulations be complied with when considering federal actions wherein a "fee to trust" land conveyance is applied for by a tribe. The BIA also recognizes the jurisdiction of states, counties, and cities over fee simple land regardless of ownership by an individual Indian or by a Tribe. BIA regulations specify that these jurisdictions be allowed to comment as to lost taxes, lost land use controls, and lost assessments, whenever considering fee to trust conveyances.

It is our hope that the Committee on Indian Affairs consider adding to S. 1691 the requirement that should no other jurisdiction assert compliance with NEPA or state level environmental laws, that the requirements of NEPA be the minimum mandates for projects being developed by Indian tribes. This should be the case whether on fee-simple lands or those defined as "Indian Country" (as specifically defined in the February 25, 1998 unanimous U.S. Supreme Court opinion 'Alaska vs. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government et. al.'). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency could be the lead NEPA agency for all such projects.

As one last footnote, many people are concerned that Indian tribes would be unduly impacted by the burden of potentially large compensatory legal claims. Many tribes are still economically disadvantaged and would be at significant financial risk. It is our firm belief that this should not hinder the application of due process. All too many victims of negligence, abuse, and illegal activity are often ruined financially when no one can be held accountable It would be appropriate for the federal government to subsidize or underwrite liability insurance for tribes with financial need.

Again, thank you for your consideration of our issue. We know that many other communities have similar problems and are as frustrated as the citizens of our community Please do all in your power to pass this critical piece of legislation.