25 C.F.R. § 161.3

What is the purpose of this part?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The purpose of this part is to describe the goals and objectives of grazing management on the Navajo Partitioned Lands:

(a) To respect and recognize the importance that livestock and land have in sustaining Navajo tradition and culture.

(b) Provide resources to rehabilitate range resources in the preservation of forage, soil, and water on the Navajo Partitioned Lands;

(d) Protect, conserve, utilize, and maintain the highest productive potential on the Navajo Partitioned Lands through the application of sound conservation practices and techniques. These practices and techniques will be applied to planning, development, inventorying, classification, and management of agricultural resources;

(e) Increase production and expand the diversity and availability of agricultural products for subsistence, income, and employment of Indians, through the development of agricultural resources on the Navajo Partitioned Lands;

(f) Manage agricultural resources consistent with integrated resource management plans in order to protect and maintain other values such as wildlife, fisheries, cultural resources, recreation and to regulate water runoff and minimize soil erosion;

(g) Enable the Navajo Nation to maximize the potential benefits available to its members from their lands by providing technical assistance, training, and education in conservation practices, management and economics of agribusiness, sources and use of credit and marketing of agricultural products, and other applicable subject areas;

(h) Develop the Navajo Partitioned Lands to promote self-sustaining communities; and

(i) Assist the Navajo Nation with permitting the Navajo Partitioned Lands, consistent with prudent management and conservation practices, and community goals as expressed in the tribal management plans and appropriate tribal ordinances.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1960–1988 · leading case: Fed. Power Comm'n v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99 (1960).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fed. Power Comm'n v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99 (1960). · cites it 2× “The age and scope of this doctrine of guardianship and fairness to the Indians is well illustrated in a statement made by President Washington, December 29, 1790, responding to an address by the chief and councilors of the Seneca Nation: "I am not uninformed, that the Six…”

Coast Indian Cmty. v. United States, 213 Ct. Cl. 129 (Ct. Cl. 1977). “Section 465 provided that the title to land acquired under it "* * * shall be taken in the name of the United States in trust for the Indian tribe or individual Indian for which the land is acquired * * Section 479 of the same title, originally section 19 of the 1934 Act,…”

Tetlin Native Corp. v. State, 759 P.2d 528 (Alaska 1988). · cites it 2× “1-6 [(1979)] giving BIA jurisdiction over rights-of-way on `Indian [lands]' and of 25 C.F.R. § 161.3 [(1979)] do not apply in this case.”

S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Watt, 700 F.2d 550 (9th Cir. 1983). · cites it 3× “Secretary to establish, by regulation, grant preconditions, including one of tribal consent. The Secretary has exercised that authority and promulgated a regulation providing that “[n]o right-of-way shall be granted over and across any tribal land .”

Swift Transp., Inc. v. John, 546 F. Supp. 1185 (D. Ariz. 1982). “§ 324 ; 25 C.F.R. § 161.3 . Plaintiffs assert without contradiction that consent was obtained in this case.”

Nebraska Pub. Power Dist. v. 100.95 Acres of Land, 540 F. Supp. 592 (D. Neb. 1982). “See 25 C.F.R. § 161.3 (a) (1981) (requiring written consent of the tribe as a precondition to grant of a right-of-way).”

Hunger v. Andrus, 476 F. Supp. 357 (D.S.D. 1979). · cites it 2× “A consent to the taking was signed by plaintiff Hunger in May, 1974, and apparently the Superintendent of the Rosebud Agency consented on behalf of Allan Larvie pursuant to 25 C.F.R. § 161.3 (c). The State of South Dakota later, in August, 1975, paid the Rosebud Sioux Tribe…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.