The rocky road to building a casino resort and adjacent tribal housing in Solano County for the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians has not gotten any smoother.
After eight years struggling to get the project off the ground, opposition continues to grow over the tribe’s plans to build a $700 million gaming complex near Vallejo.
On top of the longtime disapproval from Solano County officials, the project is now being criticized by three neighboring tribes and the California governor.
County criticizes public comment process
Opposition began soon after the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians announced its intentions to build a casino in Solano County in 2016. Along with the casino, the project included a hotel, restaurant, movie theater, and other entertainment venues, plus tribal offices and housing.
Local and state officials immediately opposed the tribe’s plans, claiming the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) kept them in the dark. Not much has changed on that score.
When the BIA asked for public comment on the project’s environmental assessment on July 8, Solano County officials criticized the process. They argued that 30 days was not enough time for parties to comment. So, the BIA extended it by 15 days, ending on Aug. 22.
Solano County Board of Supervisors Chair Mitch Mashburn sent a letter to the BIA’s Pacific Regional Office on July 16. In it, he accused the BIA of giving the tribe preferential treatment.
“As chair of the Solano County Board of Supervisors, I am outraged by the obvious irregularities involving the structure, length and time of the Public Comment Period for the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians Environmental Assessment. … (We) are deeply troubled by what appears to be your agency showing favoritism to one recognized tribe over another.”
Three tribes, Newsom join the opposition
A trio of tribes in nearby counties have also come forward to oppose the project.
- Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation
- Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation
- Lytton Rancheria of California
The Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation claims the Scotts Valley tribe has no ancestral ties to the local area. It also said the BIA process to approve the casino was not transparent. The tribe called the project “an attempt at a secret land grab” that will benefit “wealthy Las Vegas casino investors to build a mega casino on our tribal lands and desecrate our cultural resources.”
The Yocha Dehe Wintun tribe has donated millions of dollars to Solano County over the years for social services and recreation projects, according to the Daily Republic. The tribe’s chairman said the casino project “misuses the regulations’ intended purpose and sets a troubling precedent nationwide,” The Reporter reported.
The Lytton Rancheria of California tribe issued a statement from Chairperson Andy Mejia. He praised California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s recent request that the US Department of the Interior halt the project over environmental concerns.
“We thank Gov. Gavin Newsom for voicing his concerns about the Shiloh Resort and Casino Project and the Scotts Valley Casino and Tribal Housing Project. Unfortunately, these two projects are being recklessly advanced in an unprecedented way without important safeguards – which could have disastrous consequences for the local environment and surrounding communities. Both of these projects are opposed by the native peoples actually indigenous to these sites and supported by tribes from outside Solano and Sonoma counties.”
Lytton Rancheria owns San Pablo Lytton Casino in nearby Contra Costa County. The tribe’s statement also claims that Newsom’s letter “strengthens the widespread concerns of tribal governments, elected officials, and local communities.”
What’s next?
It is unclear if the mounting opposition to the Scotts Vally Casino project will have an effect and halt construction. The BIA has not said when it will respond to the public comments. The public can view the BIA environmental assessment online at scottsvalleycasinoea.com.
According to Solano County, the BIA “will decide whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to further analyze the effects of the proposed development or proceed on the basis of lesser environmental analysis.”
If the project goes forward, the BIA will also have to adhere to the federal National Environmental Policy Act.
