Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Dawes Act
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===Fractionation=== {{more references needed section|date=March 2015}} For over one hundred thirty years, the consequences of federal Indian allotments have developed into the problem of ''fractionation''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=History of Indian Land Consolidation {{!}} Indian Affairs |url=https://www.bia.gov/guide/history-indian-land-consolidation |access-date=2024-05-27 |website=www.bia.gov |language=en}}</ref> As original allottees die, their heirs receive equal, undivided interests in the allottees' lands. In successive generations, smaller undivided interests descend to the next generation. Fractionated interests in individual Native American allotted land continue to expand exponentially with each new generation.<ref>{{Cite web |title=What is Fractionation? {{!}} Indian Affairs |url=https://www.bia.gov/bia/ots/dtlc/fractionation |access-date=2024-05-27 |website=www.bia.gov |language=en}}</ref><ref name=S1721/>{{rp|7}} In 2004, [[Ross Swimmer]], Special Trustee for American Indians at the [[U.S. Department of the Interior]], stated that there were "approximately four million owner interests in the {{convert|10000000|acre|km2}} of individually owned trust lands, a situation the magnitude of which makes management of trust assets extremely difficult and costly."<ref name=S1721/>{{rp|7}} "These four million interests could expand to eleven million interests by the year 2030 unless an aggressive approach to fractionation is taken."<ref name=":0" /> "There are now single pieces of property with ownership interests that are less than 0.0000001% or 1/9 millionth of the whole interest, which has an estimated value of 0.004 cent."<ref name=S1721/>{{rp|7}} The economic consequences of fractionation are severe. Some recent appraisal studies{{specify|date=June 2011}} suggest that when the number of owners of a tract of land reaches between ten and twenty, the value of that tract drops to zero. In addition, the fractionation of land and the resultant ballooning number of trust accounts quickly produced an administrative nightmare. Over the past 40 years, the area of trust land has grown by approximately {{convert|80000|acre|km2}} per year. Approximately 357 million dollars{{citation needed|date=January 2011}} is collected annually from all sources of trust asset management, including coal sales, timber harvesting, oil and gas leases and other rights-of-way and lease activity. No single fiduciary institution has ever managed as many trust accounts as the Department of the Interior has managed over the last century.{{citation needed|date=January 2011}} Interior is involved in "the management of 100,000 leases for individual [Native Americans] and tribes on trust land that encompasses approximately {{convert|56000000|acre|km2}}. Leasing, use permits, sale revenues, and interest of approximately $226 million per year are collected for approximately 230,000 individual Indian money [(IIM)] accounts, and about $530 million per year are collected for approximately 1,400 tribal accounts. In addition, the trust currently manages approximately $2.8 billion in tribal funds and $400 million in individual Native American funds."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=Testimony of Wayne Nordwall...S. 550, The "American Probate Reform Act of 2003 |url=https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/dup/assets/as-ia/ocla/S.%20550%20testimony%20Final%2005-07-2003.pdf |access-date=May 27, 2024 |website=BIA}}</ref> "Under current regulations, probates need to be conducted for every account with trust assets, even those with balances between one cent and one dollar. While the average cost for a probate process exceeds $3,000, even a streamlined, expedited process...costing as little as $500 would require almost $10,000,000 to probate the $5,700 in these accounts."<ref name=S1721/>{{rp|8}} "Unlike most private trusts, the federal government bears the entire cost of administering the Indian trust. As a result, the usual incentives found in the commercial sector for reducing the number of small or inactive accounts do not apply to the Indian trust. Similarly, the United States has not adopted many of the tools that States and local government entities have for ensuring that unclaimed or abandoned property is returned to productive use within the local community."<ref name=S1721/>{{rp|8}} Fractionation is not a new issue. In the 1920s, the [[Brookings Institution]] conducted a major study of the conditions of the Native Americans and included data on the impacts of fractionation. This report, which became known as the [[Meriam Report]], was issued in 1928. Its conclusions and recommendations formed the basis for land reform provisions that were included in what would become the IRA. "The original versions of the IRA included two key titles; one dealing with probate and the other with land consolidation." Because of opposition to many of these provisions in Indian Country, often by the major European-American ranchers and industry who leased land and other private interests, most were removed while Congress was considering the bill. The final version of the IRA included only a few basic land reforms and probate measures. Although Congress enabled major reforms in the structure of tribes through the IRA and stopped the allotment process, it did not meaningfully address fractionation as had been envisioned by [[John Collier (reformer)|John Collier]], then Commissioner of Indian Affairs, or the Brookings Institution.<ref name=S1721/>{{rp|8}} "In 1922, the [[General Accounting Office]] (GAO) conducted an audit of 12 reservations to determine the severity of fractionation on those reservations. The GAO found that on the 12 reservations for which it compiled data, there were approximately 80,000 discrete owners but, because of fractionation, there were over a million ownership records associated with those owners. The GAO also found that if the land were physically divided by the fractional interests, many of these interests would represent less than one square foot of ground. In early 2002, the Department of the Interior attempted to replicate the audit methodology used by the GAO and to update the GAO report data to assess the continued growth of fractionation." It found that it increased by more than 40% between 1992 and 2002.<ref name=S1721/>{{rp|8}} "As an example of continuing fractionation, consider a real tract identified in 1987 in ''[[Hodel v. Irving]]'', 481 U.S. 704 (1987): {{blockquote|Tract 1305 is {{convert|40|acre|m2}} and produces $1,080 in income annually. It is valued at $8,000. It has 439 owners, one-third of whom receive less than $.05 in annual rent and two-thirds of whom receive less than $1. The largest interest holder receives $82.85 annually. The common denominator used to compute fractional interests in the property is 3,394,923,840,000. The smallest heir receives $.01 every 177 years. If the tract were sold (assuming the 439 owners could agree) for its estimated $8,000 value, he would be entitled to $.000418. The administrative costs of handling this tract are estimated by the [[Bureau of Indian Affairs]] at $17,560 annually.}} Today, this tract produces $2,000 in income annually and is valued at $22,000. It now has 505 owners but the common denominator used to compute fractional interests has grown to 220,670,049,600,000. If the tract were sold (assuming the 505 owners could agree) for its estimated $22,000 value, the smallest heir would now be entitled to $.00001824." The administrative costs of handling this tract in 2003 are estimated by the BIA at $42,800."<ref name=":0" /> Fractionation has become significantly worse. As noted above, in some cases the land is so highly fractionated that it can never be made productive. With such small ownership interests, "it is nearly impossible to obtain the level of consent necessary to lease the land." "In addition, to manage highly fractionated parcels of land, the government spends more money probating estates, maintaining title records, leasing the land, and attempting to manage and distribute tiny amounts of income to individual owners than is received in income from the land. In many cases, the costs associated with managing these lands can be significantly more than the value of the underlying asset."<ref name="S1721">{{Cite book |last=Resources |first=United States Congress House Committee on |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3dwyMvfho2gC |title=S. 1721, a Bill to Amend the Indian Land Consolidation Act to Improve Provisions Relating to Probate of Trust and Restricted Land: Legislative Hearing Before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Eighth Congress, Second Session, Wednesday, June 23, 2004 |date=2004 |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office |isbn=978-0-16-074225-5 |language=en}}</ref>{{rp|9}}<ref name=":0" />
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)