San Carlos Apache - Nde
San Carlos Apache Reservation - One People Nde Nation


  Official Website of the Apache Nation Chamber of Commerce


Apache Nde Nation Sovereignty

ANCC - Apache Nation Chamber of Commerce

Apache Nation Charter 2.0

Apache Nation Charter 1






Reflections from Indigenous Intellectual Property Rights, Legal Obstacles and Innovative Solutions, edited by Mary Riley, AltaMira Press, 2004


A Sovereign Analysis of Native Bits, Data, Information and Knowledge

All sovereignty is rooted in Mother earth for all indigenous humans and non-humans.


Native title to land cannot be alienated. U.S. law now accepts that certain cultural objects cannot be alienated from their caretakers and their places of origin. The confiscation and appropriation of cultural property is part of colonization. Purloining or compromising an indigenous Native freedom to practice Native religions and its exclusive use rights to specific artifacts, images and locations is an act of denunciation of or withdrawal from a treaty with another nation.


The appropriation of the indigenous icons including the identification, description, the interpretation of the content of images: the subjects depicted, the particular compositions and details used to do such and other elements which are distinct from artistic style. Indigenous Native art appropriated and used in state and national symbols signifies assimilation of the Native art as a symbol of loss for the Native.


To legally protect indigenous objects and motifs at points of market intersection necessitates treating the objects and motifs like private property. If not protected as private property, free-floating images, songs, stories, a number of Native objects can be appropriated when they are released into the market, where they can be mistaken for being in the public domain.


Commercialism replaces indigenism, becoming today’s form of colonialism


·         How do Tribes reclaim Native objects and motifs taken into the public domain?


Representation becomes a critical issue in asserting a collective identity such as the indigenous Native culture. , especially in the case of “use rights” – collectively the information and knowledge of the Nation’s human and non-human people, including the next generations. There are sometimes conflicts with the use rights of objects entrusted to medicine people. Serving the interests of tribal governments sometime overlook and overrule the actual communities. Do the Cheyenne speak for the Northern Cheyenne or the Southern Cheyenne, or both? Do the Lakota speak also for the Dakota and Nakota, and are there intercultural and linguistic variations to be separately and equally addressed? Who speaks for the others’ next generations? Is that agreement on data information and knowledge recorded only for the indigenous, or are records published to the non-indigenous, becoming no longer private to the Native tribe(s), lost to the Native tribe(s) to anyone, elsewhere, everywhere? Is a moral hazard involved or imminent?


Will the traditional processes protecting cultural sovereignty be used, or something deployed with the consequences discounting benefit for the seven generations? All sovereignty is rooted in Mother earth shared for all indigenous humans and non-humans.


Case law can create guides testing the utility of intellectual property rights and cultural property laws. Indigenous cultural rules governing production and “ownership” of indigenous cultural objects often do not follow legal principles. In local community contexts, indigenous knowledge bears upon cultural property claims by conferring collectively recognized forms of “precedents” and “evidence” – enabling a form of “cultural copyright” as a collective right. What does that mean?


In cultural property cases, customary practices govern rules for production, display, and (re)-distribution. In distinguishing information from knowledge, indigenous knowledge cannot be extracted as an isolate, like a gene cell. Information and knowledge is embedded within shifting conditions of cultural systems that include rights vested through kinship and upheld by community sanction.


While the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (“NAGPR”) states that oral histories and cultural codes of meaning can be used to determine cultural claims to objects, the fact is that ethno-historical, archaeological, and legal records are privileged in documenting museum collections, and in some cases, American Indian spokespeople report that Native testimony has been expunged from the historical record. In short, it’s about whose story gets told, and who has the right to tell it.


Secrecy and Sovereignty

The issue of secrecy is related to silence as a way to control the flow of cultural knowledge. The process of returning an asset, an item of symbolic value or a person - voluntarily or forcibly - to its owner or their place of origin, community or citizenship, is a way to ensure indigenous knowledge does not become a matter of public record.


Some customary practices are silenced in the erasure of women’s knowledge from museum and legal records – even where women serve as keepers of rights to indigenous designs and redistributors of cultural objects.


Native women stand as spokespeople. Repatriated objects are frequently family objects, associated with family histories, clans, and places of origin, where people and objects converge to create a context for cultural meanings and uses.


·         How are the women involved in the decision process of releasing sovereign information and knowledge in its cultural forms and community land base?


Sovereignty, as both a political and philosophical dimension of cultural rights, is tied to claims of Native title, whether that title is to land, cultural property, or art forms. In the early days, this was a “(bad) beans blankets and some bullets for hunting” treaty clause, “as long as the grass grows.”

·         How is trade managed by community decision between all parties to the Agreement?

·         How is good trade made for the communities involved?


Native title to cultural and intellectual property and their expressions such as art forms are inseparable aspects of sovereignty. Based on Native title integrated with the cultural integrity and unique information and knowledge of the indigenous Community, the cultural rights argument sounds less like “special rights” and more like “human rights” and self-determination.


Native title to land cannot be alienated and remains central to the issue of validating sovereignty. The same can be said, and U.S. law now accepts (as in NAGPRA) that certain cultural objects cannot be alienated from their caretakers and their places of origin.


Reflections from The Rights of Indians and Tribes, Oxford University Press 2012, Stephen L. Pevar


The Apache are sovereign. They have rights unless and until they give away their rights. Regardless, there are rights and under certain conditions those rights the Apache cannot relinquish. A treaty does not list all the (Sovereign Indian and US citizen) rights, and no treaty was ever intended to do so.


“Federal Indian law has as its most important legal principle the recognition of Indian tribes as sovereign nations. Most everyone is familiar with Indian treaties in American history. Treaties are made between sovereign governments, so what is an Indian tribe? A sovereign government! Some people think that Indian treaties are ancient history, but no – treaties are the supreme law of the land according to the U.S. Constitution unless they have been changed by acts of Congress.”

John Echohawk

Executive Director of the Native American Rights Fund

Boulder, Colorado



·         The (US) Supreme Court has observed that “unless and ‘until Congress acts, the tribes retain’ their historic sovereign authority.”


·         As the Supreme Court declared in 2016, “beginning with Chief Justice Marshall and continuing for nearly two centuries, this Court has held firm and fast to the view that Congress’s power over Indian affairs does nothing to gainsay the profound importance of the tribes’ pre-existing sovereignty.[1]


·         “‘As separate sovereigns pre-existing the Constitution, tribes have historically been regarded as unconstrained by those constitutional provisions framed specifically as limitations on federal or state authority.’”[2].


·         Indian tribes are “domestic dependent nations’ that exercise ‘inherent sovereign authority’”[3]


·         … statutes, treaties, and administrative decisions must be examined to determine whether tribal sovereignty “has been altered, divested, or diminished”[4]


Tribal Sovereignty and Self-Determination by Government Branch


Congress passed a law granting citizenship to all Indians born in the United States. An Indian can be both a citizen of the United States and a member of an Indian tribe and have all the benefits and obligations that arise out of that dual status.



“We must affirm the rights of the first Americans to remain Indians while exercising their rights as Americans. We must affirm their rights to freedom of choice and self-determination.”

President Lyndon Johnson



Congress prohibited the states from acquiring any additional authority over Indian reservations under P.L. 280 without the consent of the affected tribe.

·         Congress has since restored to federal status nearly all the tribes terminated during the termination era.



“This, then, must be the goal of any new national policy toward the Indian people: to strengthen the Indian sense of autonomy without threatening this sense of community.”

President Richard Nixon



Indian Child Welfare Act gives Indian tribes and Indian families substantial protections against the removal of Indian families from their homes by state agencies and state courts.



Indian Tribal Government Tax Status Act authorizes Indian tribes many of the same tax advantages enjoyed by the states, such as the ability to issue tax-exempt bonds to finance government programs.



“This administration intends to restore tribal governments to their rightful place amount governments of this nation and to enable tribal governments, along with State and local governments, to resume control over their own affairs.”

President Ronald Reagan



Indian Gaming Regulatory Act confirmed Indian tribe authority to engage in gaming to raise revenue and promote economic development.



Congress amended the Indian Arts and Crafts Act prohibiting goods labeled as “Indian” unless they were made by Indians. The law also permits Indians to recover damages against those who violate the law.



President Bill Clinton issued an executive order requiring all federal agencies to conduct business with Indians on a “government to government” basis, respectful of tribal sovereignty.



President Bill Clinton issued an executive order reaffirming “the right of Indian tribes to “self-government,” while also requiring federal agencies to work to protect “tribal trust resources, Indian tribal treaty and other rights.”



  • President Barack Obama issued an executive order requiring federal agencies to engage in meaningful consultation with tribal governments prior to taking any action that may impact the tribes’ interests.
  • President Obama signed the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognizing the inherent and fundamental rights of native peoples throughout the world.



“Native Americans must be full partners in our nation’s economy, thrive in safe communities, and have equal access to quality education and health care.”

David J. Hayes

Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior


US Supreme Court

Since the 1970s, Indian interests have lost more than 80 percent of the cases decided by the Court, a worse success rate than convicted criminals have fared on the merits of their cases. Over the last 20 years, the Supreme court has led a massive assault on tribal sovereignty. Since 1968 the Court decided numerous cases involving the rights of Indians and tribes, and it ruled against Indian interests in the vast majority of the cases.


Principles of Interpretation

…“ambiguous statutes are to be construed in favor of the Indians”[5];


… the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act of 2005

seeks to increase tribal authority to manage their energy resources.[6]

 Beginning in the 1980s, most federal pollution control acts, including the Clean

Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Air Act, have authorized

tribes to be treated as states in regulating pollution within their territories.[7]

Meaningful self-governance remains a challenge. Recent statutes designed to

increase self-governance over tribal resources, for example, include significant

requirements not imposed on states or private landowners, [8] while judicial

limitations on tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians limit territorial authority.[9]


The principles of Indian title are the following:

(1)  the federal government acquired ownership of all the land within the United States by discovery and conquest and the Indians lost all rights of ownership

(2)  Indians retain a perpetual right to remain on their aboriginal territory until such time as Congress decides to take this land for another purpose

(3)  Indian title is a possessory and not an ownership interest - Indians have a right to possess their ancestral land but not to own the land unless Congress gives them ownership rights

(4)  Indian title may not be sold by the Indians without authorization from the federal government, or lost or removed except by an express act of Congress.


Doctrine of Trust Responsibility

The Supreme Court confirmed in 2011 there exists “a general trust relationship between the United States and the Indian people.” The federal government “has charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust, .... to the fulfillment of which the national honor has been committed.”


Most of the land mass of the United States was obtained by the federal government through treaties in which the United States obtained land and peaceful relations in exchange for giving the Indians a set of promises. As a result of these treaties, the federal government acquired a legal duty as well as a moral obligation, to keep its part of the bargain, now that Indians have kept theirs.


This principle that the federal government has a duty to fulfill its promises is known as the doctrine of trust responsibility. This doctrine has been a cornerstone of federal Indian law for nearly 200 years.



A trust is created whenever one party places something of value under the control of a second party for the benefit of a third-party. The person or entity who holds the trust property is called the trustee, while the person for whom the trust is created is called the beneficiary.


At a minimum, the trustee is obligated to remain loyal to the beneficiary; to act in the beneficiary’s best interests; to act with all the skill, care, diligence, and expertise at his or her disposal; and to preserve, protect, and maintain the trust property.


An earlier 1977 Senate report expressed this obligation as follows:

The purpose behind the trust doctrine is and always has been to ensure the survival and welfare of Indian tribes and people. This includes an obligation to provide those services required to protect and enhance Indian lands, resources, and self-government, and also includes those economic and social programs which are necessary to raise the standard of living and social well-being of the Indian people to a level comparable to the non-Indian society.


A broad application of the trust doctrine transcends specific treaty promises and imposes a duty to promote tribal sovereignty and economic self-sufficiency.


Statues can and frequently do create trust responsibilities


  • Statutes are the vehicles by which congress creates the programs and services necessary to fulfill its treaty promises. Congress ended treaty making with Indian tribes in 1871. Once that happened, the primary means by which Congress could satisfy its treaty commitments was by enacting laws that created programs or services for Indians and tribes. The Supreme Court noted that Congress may fulfill its treaty obligations and its responsibilities to the Indian tribes by enacting legislation dedicated to their circumstances and needs. Statutes should be viewed as extensions of the treaties.


  • Congress has passed laws that place Indian property in the hands of federal agencies, and which require the agencies to manage that property in a certain fashion. Whenever Congress removes the tribe’s ability to manage its own resources and confers that power on a federal agency, courts must infer Congress intended to impose on that agency traditional fiduciary duties unless Congress has unequivocally expressed an intent to the contrary. In short, it is now clear, as one federal court recently stated that the trust relationship arises out of statutes.


With respect to Congress the trust responsibility is a moral and ethical rather than a legally enforceable duty. In fact if Congress decides to terminate an Indian program or even terminate an Indian tribe, a federal court has no authority to prevent it. Indians this must rely on the good faith of Congress to keep the promises that Congress made more than a century ago in exchange for Indian land and peaceful relations.


However Indians and tribes can compel federal officials to perform the duties that Congress has delegated to them. Although Congress has the authority to modify a trust relationship, administrative agencies do not. Federal officials must faithfully execute their trust duties, and courts must carefully scrutinize their actions. Federal agency responsible for implementing this nation’s Indian programs have an overriding duty to deal fairly with Indians, and their actions must be judged by the stricter standards that apply to a fiduciary.


The doctrine of trust responsibility demonstrates Indians are not receiving “free“ services. Rather, the services were prepaid. Tribes relinquished their homelands and agreed to move peacefully to much smaller territories in exchange for these services.


When a treaty promises as most treaties do that the federal government will protect tribal land, this guarantee prevents federal officials from selling or otherwise disposing of that land except in limited situations; from diverting water away from that land, thereby rendering it less available habitable, and from denying Indians the ability to access or use their land. Similarly, when federal statute places Indian property such as oil, gas, minerals, or timber under the strict control and management of federal officials as some statutes do, the federal government thereby acquires fiduciary duties to manage those trust resources wisely in the best interest of the Indian beneficiaries.


The federal government is entitled the fashion an Indian program and it’s trust relationship with Indian tribes however it wishes and the government has often structured the trust relationship to pursue its own policy goals. In other words the trust relationship has been altered and administered as an instrument of federal policy. Indians must rely on the integrity and honor of the United States to administer programs in the best interest of the Indians.


The Mitchell Doctrine

When a law confers on the government pervasive and comprehensive control over a tribal resource, a fiduciary duty is created with respect to the management of that resource, and the government can be held liable in damages for mismanagement. In this situation a money mandating remedy may be inferred even if the law does not create an express right to damages.


Once a tribe acquires primary responsibility over a trust resource then the tribe becomes responsible for any mistakes made in managing it. Along with greater control comes great responsibility.


Duty of Consultation

Federal officials may no longer make decisions that directly impact tribal interest without properly consulting with Indian tribes. President Bill Clinton April 29, 1994 issued a presidential memorandum reaffirming the government to government relationship between United States and Indian tribes which states each executive department and agency shall consult, to the greatest extent practical, and to the extent permitted by law, with tribal governments prior to taking actions that affect federally recognized tribal governments.


In 2009 President Barack Obama issued a presidential memorandum mandating that within 90 days of its issuance, each federal agency implement a written government to government consultation policy with Indian tribes. Consultation is about communication, respect, and partnership. Through meaningful consultation, a federal agency can respect tribal sovereignty, honor the trust relationship, learn and appreciate tribal values, avoid misguided errors and false presumptions, and make informed decisions on what is the best course of action.


The process of consultation is just as important as the substance of consultation. As part of the consultation process, an agency should

  • inform the tribe of all relevant facts, and do so as early in the decision making process as possible;
  • give the tribe sufficient time to consider the situation, and provide the tribe with technical assistance and additional data if the tribe request;
  • maintain a dialogue with the tribe, address the tribe’s concerns in a timely manner, keep the tribe informed of developments, and be open to looking at things from the tribes perspective;
  • document the consultation process by notifying the tribe in writing of developments and potential plans, and request written comments from the tribe;
  • accept the tribe’s recommendations unless compelling reasons require otherwise;
  • send a written and detailed explanation of the reasons for that decision when the tribe’s recommendation is not accepted.


Several courts have invalidated decisions by federal agencies that have been made without adequate consultation with the affected tribe.


The trust responsibility extends to off-reservation activities that affect reservation Indians.


Activities by federal agencies undertaken off the reservation that would diminish on-reservation water supplies or pollute reservation air or water have been held to violate the trust doctrine. In a recent case however a federal court held that the Trust Doctrine did not extend to off-preservation activities regulated by the federal agency on privately owned land unless the treaty or statute especially require the agency to protect tribal interests.


The trust relationship may only be terminated by an express act of Congress; termination will not be implied. Even the tribe may not terminate the relationship.


Federal officials have often ignored or improperly executed their trust obligations, mismanaged tribal trust resources, and inhibited tribes from becoming self-governing. Congress has broken nearly all of its Indian treaties, terminated Indian tribes, and failed to adequately supervise the management of trust duties by federal agencies. Congress has a trust responsibility to enhance the social and economic well-being of Indian people, and yet Indians are the most disadvantaged and impoverished group in our society.

Tribes can become dependent on federal help, making it less likely they will become self-sufficient.



A treaty including one between the United States and an Indian tribe is essentially a contract between two sovereign nations. (US Supreme Court.)



The Supreme Court noted Indian tribes were regarded by the nations of Europe and by the United States as distinct, independent political communities, retaining their original natural rights, and ranked among those powers capable of making treaties.


The Constitution declares that a federal treaty, just like a federal statute, is the supreme law of the land.

Treaties are superior to state constitutions and state laws. If a state law conflicts with the provisions of a treaty, the treaty prevails.


The treaty may not deprive a citizen of a right guaranteed by the Constitution; the Constitution is always superior to any law or treaty. The United States has signed scores of treaties with foreign countries, covering such subjects as trade, fishing on the high seas, international travel, rules of war, and the use of nuclear energy.


Nearly four hundred treaties have been signed between Indian tribes and the United States. Congress passed a law in 1871 that ended treaty making with Indian tribes. Until 1871 treaties were the accepted method by which the United States conducted its formal relations with the Indians.


While individual treaties varied from one tribe to another nearly all of them expressly recognize the sovereignty of the tribes and many contained express assurances that the federal government would “protect the tribes.” Most treaties also guaranteed the tribe such things as food, clothing, medical care, education and other services. In exchange for peace and land the United States promised to create a federally protected reservation for the tribe to respect the tribe sovereignty and to provide for the well-being of tribal members.

The main purpose of an Indian treaty was to take land from the tribe.

Although certain promises were given by the federal government in exchange, no effort was made in any of these treaties to list the many rights that these sovereign tribal governments retained.


Reserve Rights Doctrine

The Supreme Court explained there an Indian treaty therefore should be viewed not as a grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant of rights from them. These treaties were intended to list the rights the tribes were relinquishing, not those they were retaining. The tribes have many rights in addition to those listed in treaties. In fact, any right that a sovereign nation would normally possess that is not expressly extinguished by a treaty or by a subsequent federal statute is presumptively reserved by the tribe. This is the fundamental principle of Indian law known as the reserve rights doctrine.


The tribe retains the right to fish on its reservation even if that right is not conferred in its treaty; the treaties silence on the subject means this inherent right has not been lost.


When a treaty recognizes the tribe’s right to engage in an activity the tribe has historically engaged in, such as hunting or fishing, the treaty is not viewed as a source of those rights. Rather the treaty merely recognizes rights that the tribe has always possessed.


Since 1871 Congress prohibited the federal government from entering into additional treaties with Indian tribes.

  • Until then, Indian tribes had been viewed by the federal government as sovereign nations whose consent was required before the federal government could take any action affecting them, such as removing tribal land.
  • Since then, Congress has regulated Indian affairs through legislation.


Now, Congress can do anything it wanted me too merely by passing a law regardless of a tribe’s opposition. In fact, treaties in which Congress had promised a tribe to never take tribal land without the tribe’s consent could now be broken by the passage of a statute. In this way, Congress could frequently confiscate land that had been promised to tribes in peace treaties.


Section 71 states “no obligation of any treaty … shall be hereby invalidated or impaired.” The passage of section 71 did not affect any existing Indian treaty. But that does not mean that every Indian treaty is still valid today.


The Supreme Court holds it is entirely in the discretion of Congress whether to honor or abrogate an Indian treaty. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the principle that Congress has the power to abrogate Indians treaty rights.


To Indians, a treaty creates a solemn bond between the participants, and violating a treaty is unpardonable. Treaties are sacred covenants. The tribes that relinquish their lands in treaties fully expect of the United States to honor its oath.


The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that Congress may not deprive anyone “of private property … without just compensation.” The Supreme Court has held Indian treaty rights are a form of private property protected by the Just Compensation Clause. Therefore when Congress abrogates an Indian treaty it must adequately compensate the tribe for the value of any rights or property that is lost. However money often provides a little actual compensation to people who have lost their homes and sacred lands.


Canons of Treaty Construction

The Supreme Court developed three rules governing the interpretation of Indian treaties. The rules are called the canons of treaty construction.

  1. Ambiguities and treaties must be resolved in favor of the Indians.
  2. Treaties must be interpreted as the Indians would have understood them at the time the treaty was signed.
  3. Treaties must be construed liberally in favor of the Indians.


The Supreme Court (1999) … “interprets Indian treaties to give effect to the terms as the Indians themselves would have understood them,” interpreting them “liberally in favor of the Indians.”


Disadvantages in the Treaty Making Process

  • Indian treaties were always written in English.
    • The Indians could not be certain what they were signing.
    • Tribes were dependent on government interpreters to explain the street is to them.
  • Most treaties were signed under the threat of force and therefore were inherently unfair.
  • Treaties create a trust relationship between the tribe and the United States, a relationship that requires the federal government to enhance, not injure tribal interests.
    • It should be presumed that the treaty was intended to provide the tribe with what it needed to prosper.


The Treaty is Larger Than Its Writing

Indians should receive the benefit of the doubt when questions arise regarding how a treaty should be interpreted.


The Supreme Court explained in the 1989 case interpreting several Indian treaties:

Accordingly, it is the intention of the parties, and not solely that of the superior side, that must control any attempt to interpret the treaties. When Indians are involved, the court has long given special meaning to this rule. It has held that the United States, as the party with presumptively superior negotiating skills and superior knowledge of the language in which the treaty is recorded, has a responsibility to avoid taking advantage of the other side. The treaty must therefore be construed, not according to the technical meaning of its words to learned lawyers, but in the sense in which they would naturally be understood by the Indians.


·         The Supreme Court has stated statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians, with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit.

·         A violation of an Indian treaty is a violation of federal law.

·         A state may not take actions inconsistent with an Indian treaty.

·         Treaty rights may be raised as a defense to a state or federal criminal prosecution.

o   If the treaty protects the activity for which the defendant is being prosecuted, the charges must be dismissed.


Indian treaties belong not just Indians; they belong to everyone in the United States. The citizens of this country have a legal moral and ethical duty to enforce these treaties. Indians paid dearly for the treaty rights. The United States must keep its end of the bargain.


Treaties are not ancient documents that no longer need to be enforced. This is the same with the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution which are also ancient documents.


The mere passage of time has not eroded and cannot erode the rights guaranteed by solemn treaties that both sides pledged on their honor to uphold. The extent to which the United States honors its treaty commitments to Indian tribes reflects the extent to which our society is committed to the rule of law and justice. The integrity of our country depends on it.

[1] Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. 1863, 1873 (2016)

[2] United States v. Bryant, 136 S. Ct. 1954, 1962 (2016); (Quoting Santa Clara

 Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 56 (1978))

[3] Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831)

[4] Nat’l Farmers Union Ins. Cos. V. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845, 855-56


[5] Gila River Indian Cmty. V. United States, 729 F.3d 1139, 1148 (9th Cir.


[6] 1 25 U.S.C §§ 3501-3506

[7] See, e.g., 33 U.S.C. § 1377(e) (Clean Water Act); 42 U.S.C. §300j-11(b)(1)

(Safe Drinking Water Act); 42 U.S.C. § 760(d)(2) (Clean Air Act); see also Ch.

10, § 10.03 (federal pollution control regulations).

[8] For example, both recent amendments to increase tribal authority to lease

tribal land and the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act require tribes to conduct environmental impact review and public hearings to take advantage of the new authority. See 25 U.S.C. § 415(h)(3)(b); 25 U.S.C. § 3504(e)(2)(C).

[9] See Ch. 4. § 4.02[3]




TRADEMARK NOTICE. Apache Nation Chamber of Commerce, ANCC, The ANCC, Apache Nde Nation Chamber of Commerce, Apache Chamber, Apache Chamber of Commerce, Apache Nation, and or the Chiricahua Apache Nde and "Building Business Environments" are trademarks of ANCC all rights reserved. All other company and product names may be trademarks of their respective owners. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice. Copyright © 2000 Apache Nation Chamber of Commerce.

ANCC shall have the right to modify, add or remove terms of this agreement or the site at any time. Changes to the site shall be effective immediately. Continued use of the site shall constitute acceptance of such terms and conditions.

External Links 
We may include links to other sites. Please be aware that ANCC is not responsible for the privacy policies and content of those sites. We encourage our users to read the privacy policies of each and every web site that collects personal information. This privacy policy refers only to the information collected by the ANCC web site.

Public Forums 
This site may make chat rooms, forums, message boards, and/or news groups available to its users. Please remember that any information that is disclosed in these areas becomes public information and you should exercise caution when deciding to disclose your personal information.

This site gives users the following options for removing their information from our database to not receive future communications or to no longer receive our service.

1.       You can send an e-mail to ancc

This site gives users the following options for changing and modifying information previously provided.

1.       You can send an e-mail to ancc 

    If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, or your       dealings with this website, please contact us by email here: ancc  

ANCC - Chiricahua Apache Nde Nation


Sovereignty 1.0

Business Center

Business Listings

Nation Contact

Logo of the San Carlos Apache Recreation & Wildlife Department.


© Copyright Apache Nde Nation All Rights Reserved