Three Governments in One Landscape
Apache reservations lie inside states, but they are not simply part of the state’s administration. Tribal nations have a government-to-government relationship with the federal government, and the states have only limited power inside tribal territory unless federal law gives them more. In practice, this leaves three levels of government sharing the same land and people: the tribal nation, the state and the United States. Where their interests meet, they often use formal agreements.
This article gives a general picture of how that works for Apache nations in Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma. It does not describe the terms of any particular agreement, which are best read from official sources.
Why Agreements Are Needed
Tribal authority and state authority overlap in many practical matters: roads that cross reservation boundaries, police response, taxation of goods, school funding, water, health care and, for some nations, gaming. Disputes in these areas can end up in court, as discussed in the article on Apache sovereignty court cases. A negotiated agreement is often faster, more predictable and more respectful of each side’s position. The agreements are typically written so that neither side gives up its legal stance, such as a state’s claims about its taxation power or a tribe’s claim of sovereignty.
Gaming Compacts
The best-known tribal-state agreements concern gaming. Under the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, tribes may offer certain kinds of casino-style gaming only under a compact negotiated with the state, in addition to federal oversight. Some Apache nations in Arizona and New Mexico operate gaming facilities under such compacts, and Oklahoma tribes have compacts with the state as well. Compacts often address matters such as regulation, licensing, dispute resolution and, in some cases, revenue-sharing payments to the state.
Compacts have been contested at times. Tribes and states have sometimes disagreed about renewal terms, the exclusivity of gaming rights and the amount of payments, and some of these disagreements have gone to court or to the Interior Department. Because terms and legal positions change, readers should consult official sources for current status. Gaming is only one part of the economy of most Apache nations. The broader picture of Apache tribal business ventures includes timber, tourism, recreation and other enterprises.
Other Kinds of Agreements
Many agreements have nothing to do with gaming. Depending on the nation and state, they can include:
- Law enforcement. Cross-deputization or mutual aid agreements let tribal, county, state and federal officers respond across boundaries.
- Taxation. Agreements may coordinate how fuel, sales or other taxes apply, reducing the risk of double taxation.
- Child welfare. Tribes and state agencies work together on the placement of Native children, guided by the Indian Child Welfare Act.
- Health and social services. Coordination with state programs can affect the delivery of care, alongside federal health care obligations toward tribes.
- Education. Arrangements with school districts can address funding, transportation and curriculum.
- Natural resources and water. Water settlements often involve the state as a participant, along with the tribe, the federal government and local water users.
State Policies on Working With Tribes
Some states have adopted formal policies or laws for working with tribes. New Mexico, for example, has a state-tribal collaboration law that asks state agencies to engage with tribes and to designate contact people. Other states rely on executive orders, agency policies or liaison offices. These measures vary in strength, and they are not a substitute for the nations’ own legal rights, but they provide a regular channel for communication.
Differences Among the Three States
The relationship is not the same in each state, and caution is needed about generalizing. Arizona is home to Western Apache nations and the Yavapai-Apache Nation, whose lands and water are shaped by the state’s arid climate and by long-running water negotiations. New Mexico includes the Jicarilla Apache Nation and the Mescalero Apache Tribe, whose relationships involve state agencies as well as some enterprises that draw on tourism and recreation. In Oklahoma, the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma and the Fort Sill Apache Tribe operate in a state with a complicated history of tribal land and jurisdiction, much of which has been shaped by the Five Tribes and the treatment of former Indian Territory. In recent years, Oklahoma’s tribes and state government have at times disagreed over agreements and jurisdiction.
Autonomy Is Exercised, Not Granted
An important idea is that tribal autonomy is not simply a gift from a state. Apache nations treat self-government as an inherent right, and agreements with states are a way of exercising it, by choosing to cooperate on terms the nation accepts. A tribe can decline to enter an agreement, renegotiate it or turn to the courts. The ability to negotiate as an equal is itself an expression of sovereignty, which is why these arrangements are described as government-to-government.
Where to Find Current Information
Compacts, intergovernmental agreements and state policies are public documents, though they may be amended or replaced. The best sources are the Apache nations’ own websites and offices, the relevant state agencies for tribal relations and the Department of the Interior. This article is only a general guide and is not legal advice.