List of opponents of massive Koi Nation casino in northern California keeps growing
The final days of former US President Joe Biden’s administration were all but uneventful, especially for tribal gaming.
Several pending tribal land-into-trust applications were approved in short order, including some for off-reservation projects. These approvals have historically been all but impossible to obtain, but that precedent was seemingly abandoned by the Department of the Interior (DOI) and outgoing secretary Deb Haaland.
Perhaps the most controversial approval was granted to the Koi Nation of Northern California. The tribe has plans to build a $600 million development with a 400-room hotel and a casino with more than 500,000 square feet of gaming space and 2,750 slots on a parcel near Windsor, in Sonoma County. If built, it would become one of the largest tribal casinos in California and in the US.
Originally proposed in 2021, the Koi project sought a “restored land” exception from the DOI. This meant that the tribe believed its historical connection to the land justified approval, even though it was outside its existing reservation. Such requests are common for smaller tribes like the Koi who may have been displaced over time or were considered landless.
According to Voice of America, the tribe was first recognised in 1916 under a different name and was granted a parcel of land in Lake County. Much of that land was deemed unusable, however, and most of the tribe relocated to Sonoma County shortly after. In the decades afterward the tribe was forgotten through clerical errors but was restored by a DOI ruling in 2000.
Ultimately, Haaland and the DOI sided with the Koi and approved the trust application on 13 January. That ruling has since kicked off an increasingly large amount of pushback, including from the state itself.
No friends among tribes
Perhaps the biggest and most outspoken opponents of the Koi project are other gaming tribes. The most powerful among them is the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR), operator of Graton Resort and Casino. Graton is the largest casino in the Bay Area and is in close proximity to the Koi site. It embarked on a $1 billion expansion in 2023.
FIGR filed suit against Haaland and the DOI last November before the approval was even granted and then again after the fact in February. The tribe has argued since 2021 that the Koi site infringes on its ancestral lands and circumvents rigorous tribal land-into-trust requirements.
“Their claims of historic connection are flawed and, if accepted by the Department of Interior (DOI), would set a dangerous precedent for all California Indians – in fact, for all Indian Nations – not only creating the reality of a casino on every street corner but, no doubt as a result, also creating a major challenge to what currently constitutes our sovereignty as federally recognised Indian nations,” FIGR Chairman Greg Sarris said in a statement published last July.
In addition to FIGR, three other nearby California tribes – the Dry Creek Rancheria, Cloverdale Rancheria and Lytton Rancheria – filed a separate suit against the DOI in February.
“This approval is nothing short of a political manoeuver that disregards the rights of Sonoma County’s historic tribes,” Lytton Rancheria Chairperson Andy Mejia said in a statement. “It undermines tribal self-determination, disrespects the cultural heritage of our people and sets a dangerous precedent that would allow any tribe to claim land far outside its ancestral territory to open a casino.”
Non-tribal opposition also rising
In a somewhat rare occurrence, the state of California and other local officials are joining the mix. Governor Gavin Newsom’s office filed suit against the DOI in May and, like tribes, Newsom and his team took issue with the restored lands exception. As with FIGR, Newsom had called on DOI to reject the proposal last year before it was even official.
“The record on which Interior relied in its decision is insufficient to show that the acquisition of the Shiloh Site constitutes a ‘restoration’ of the Koi Nation’s tribal lands. Interior’s decision is therefore contrary to law and otherwise arbitrary and capricious,” the suit alleges, per Courthouse News Service.
On the local level, two officials have filed briefs in support of the FIGR suit, according to the Press Democrat. They are Lynda Hopkins, on behalf of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, and Windsor Town Manager Jon Davis. Both bodies had previously passed resolutions opposing the bid.
“The project is in an area of the County that does not allow commercial development and that has been subject to devastating wildfires,” Hopkins wrote.
In response, the Koi Nation has filed briefs of its own in attempts to intervene in the case, in which the tribe argues that the ruling was “not a close call”.
Another approval already rescinded
FIGR and other opponents are hopeful that the DOI will rescind the Koi approval just as it has done with another controversial Biden-era approval in California.
In January, the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians also received last-minute approval for an off-reservation casino proposal in Vallejo before it was retracted for further review in late March by current DOI Secretary Doug Burgum. That case features several of the same arguments related to land rights, environmental review processes and federal-state relations.
Scotts Valley subsequently filed suit over the retraction, but a DC federal court has already denied any intervenors from joining the case. The DOI has yet to issue an update on the approval.
FIGR, for its part, has shifted its political spending, with some alleging it could be an attempt to curry favour in the Koi case. Typically a huge donor to Democratic causes, FIGR has pivoted this year and donated millions to Republican groups, per an analysis from the Press Democrat. Republicans currently hold control of the US Senate and House of Representatives and Burgum is also from that party.
“We give to causes we believe in regardless of political affiliation,” Sarris told the outlet. “As the original residents of this land, we stand for environmental stewardship, social justice for all and sovereignty rights for tribes.”