In 2003-04 I had the privilege of employment with Chilkoot Indian Association to research and advance the landless issue. I am sympathetic to the movement to rectify an identified “oversight,” but it still seems important to acknowledge what I learned.

Public Law 92-203 was passed in December 1971 to settle Alaska Natives’ land claims. Sec. 11 (b)(1 ) lists 205 Alaskan villages that were subject to the act. There were more than five Native communities overlooked by the act in Southeast — Juneau, Sitka and Wrangell were also missing from the list of qualified Native groups. Why?

Sec. 11 (b)(2) reads “a village shall not be eligible for land benefits…if the Secretary determines that (B) the village is of a modern and urban character, and the majority of the residents are non-Native.”

It was my understanding that the Secretary of the Interior defined “urban” as a community with water & sewer infrastructure. The omitted communities could also be described as having a minority Alaska Native population. It was my further understanding that the communities of Juneau, Sitka and Wrangell exercised enough financial and political clout to quickly gain inclusion in the settlement after ANCSA was passed.

The remaining five communities have struggled for recognition against many ideological and political barriers. Public Law 92-203 seemed designed around the concept that Alaska Natives gave up their heritage if they collectively were a minority population and enjoyed running water out of a faucet. I appreciate the argument that this is not so.

Debra Schnabel