Economic Contributionsof Indian Tribes to theEconomy of Washington State

Veronica E. TillerRobert A. Chase

Port Gamble S’KlallamTribe in Kingston, WA.honors its culture withtotem pole near communitybldg. Tribe’s enterprisesinclude: aquaculture(salmon & shellfishoperations), a grocerystore, gas station, theSalish Business Park, aconstruction company,Raven mobile home park,property management,leasing and financingservices.

COVER DESIGN BYMARY M. VELARDE

by

Veronica E. Tiller, Ph.D.Tiller Research, Inc.

Albuquerque, NM

and

Robert A. ChaseChase Economics

Tacoma, Washington

Economic Contributionsof Indian Tribes

to theEconomy of Washington State

AcknowledgementsOffice of the Governor:

Governor Gary LockeFred Stephens, Deputy Chief of StaffKelly Wicker, Executive Assistant

The Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs:Debora Juarez, Executive DirectorJennifer L. Scott, Assistant DirectorRebecca Nichols, Project/Training ManagerTara D. Blair, Policy Analyst

Economic Contribution Study Planning Group:Robert Baker, Employment Security DepartmentRoberta Basch, Puyallup TribeColleen Cawston, Colville Confederated TribesFrances Charles, Elwha Klallam TribeNatalie Charley, Quinault NationMary Beth Clark, Colville Confederated TribesClayton Finkbonner, Lummi NationEsther Fox, Squaxin Island TribeDennis Fusco, Employment Security DepartmentJohn Halliday, Muckleshoot TribePreston Harrison, Yakama NationRick Horejsi, Hoh TribeWalter Jackson, Quileute TribeKathryn Lopez, Puyallup TribeJohn McCoy, The Tulalip TribesPamela Norris, Shoalwater Bay TribeCynthia Iyall Peabody, Nisqually TribeJohn Robben, Jamestown S’KlallamJohn Sirois, Colville Confederated TribesWilliam Smith, Port Gamble S’KlallamDeborah Stoehr, Squaxin Island TribeElizabeth Tail, Puyallup InternationalElouise Tom, Nooksack TribeLane Warbus, Nooksack TribeAnna Ward, Yakama NationDonna Wilkie, Makah TribeLeah Zapata, Nooksack Tribe

The Economic Study Plan Subcommittee:Robert Whitener, Jr., ChairmanAndrea Alexander, Lower Elwha TribeNatalie Charley, Quinault Nation

Myrna Figg, Quinault NationRaynette Finkbonner, Lummi NationPreston Harrison, Yakama NationPamela Norris, Shoalwater Bay TribeLawrence Spotted Bird, Yakama NationMark Ufkes, Affiliated Tribes of NorthwestIndiansAnna Ward, Yakama Nation

Washington State Employment Security Department:Carver Gayton, CommissionerDennis Fusco, Chief EconomistRobert Baker, Senior Economic AnalystJeffrey Jaksich, Economic AnalystJohn Young, Contract Specialist III

Washington State Office of Printing:George Morton, Public PrinterSteve Pfeiffer, Prepress Manager

Washington State Office of Financial Management:Dick Thompson, DirectorMaureen Morris, Deputy DirectorMonica Jenkins, Budget AssistantKim Hoang, Budget Assistant

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries:Gary Moore, DirectorSteve Valandra, Information Officer

A special acknowledgement to the Squaxin Island Tribeand The Tulalip Tribes for their fiscal and technicalsupport for this study:Squaxin Island Tribe:

David Whitener, Sr., ChairpersonRobert Whitener, Jr., Executive DirectorBarend Van Zanten, Director, Island EnterprisesAllen Fricke, Accountant, Island Enterprises

The Tulalip Tribes:Stanley G. Jones, Sr., ChairpersonJohn McCoy, Executive Director, GovernmentalAffairsLinda Henry, Secretary, Governmental Affairs

A special thank you to the tribal leaders and dedicated staffpersons of the23 participating tribes and Indian organizations who provided technicalsupport and invaluable expertise for the Economic Contributions of IndianTribes to the Economy of Washington State.

1

Executive Summary

In the fall of 1997, Washington GovernorGary Locke and tribal leadership issued acall for facts to shed light on therelationships between the state and the 27federally recognized Indian tribes within itsborders. The ensuing dialogue, conductedthrough the Governor’s Office of IndianAffairs, resulted in the formation of sixworking subcommittees composed of tribalrepresentatives to investigate severaleconomic areas. The Economic Study Groupdeveloped this report on the tribes’contribution to the state’s economy. It isbelieved to be the first report of its kind inthe country, with tribes and a statecooperatively developing a common factualframework. From this foundation, the tribesand the state can better address the manyeconomic issues of importance facing IndianCountry in Washington State.

The authors of this report based theirconclusions primarily on official data fromthe 23 participating tribes and the state.These sources included the state’s Office ofFinancial Management-Forecasting Division,and the Employment Security Department.Equally important were the tribes’ ownofficial books and records, including taxreturns and reports filed with the InternalRevenue Service and with the state. Neverbefore has such detailed information beenreleased by the tribes. It is presented here inaggregate form to protect tribal privacy. Theauthors also drew upon supplementalinformation for all 27 tribes from federalagencies such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs,the Indian Health Service, the U.S.Department of Education, and the U.S.Bureau of the Census.

Because many tribes were reluctant to shareconfidential and proprietary informationwith the state, they and the state agreedupon a third-party contractor to review tribal

data and to present it only in aggregate form.Tiller Research, Inc., fulfilled this role, withassistance from Chase Economics. Thecontractors signed strict confidentialityagreements with the tribes and with the stateconcerning the use of data for this report.

These findings are significant both in theirscope and their implications. This reportdispels the common misperception thatWashington’s Indian reservations are aneconomic “drag” on the state. Far from it.Consider the following:

Washington has 27 federallyrecognized Indian tribes with acombined population of about 91,000.

Washington tribes contribute $1 billionannually to the state’s overall economy.

Tribal enterprises in 1997 spent $865.8million for supplies, equipment andservices.

In 1997, the tribal governments paid anestimated $51.3 million in federalemployment/payroll-related taxes.

The tribes paid an estimated $5.3million in state employment/payroll-related taxes in 1997.

Tribal enterprises currently employ14,375 Washington citizens full time,including non-tribal employees.

More than half of these jobs are in theservices sector.

Average annual wages for tribalemployment amounted to $18,800. Thisis about 40 percent lower than thestatewide average of $32,400.

Finally, readers should note that this reportreflects the conclusions of the authors. Itshould not be construed as representing theofficial position of the State of Washingtonor of any federally recognized Indian tribelocated within the state’s borders.

32

Table 1. Land Area of Tribal Reservationsin Washington State

Puget Sound Region Tribe County Area (Acres)

Lummi Nation Whatcom 21,000 Muckleshoot Tribe King 3,850 Nisqually Tribe Thurston 4,800 Nooksack Tribe Whatcom 2,500 Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe Kitsap 1,301 Puyallup Tribe Pierce 18,061 Samish Nation Skagit 00 Sauk-Suiattle Tribe Skagit/Snohomish 96 Stillaguamish Tribe Snohomish 40 Suquamish Tribe Kitsap 7,486 Swinomish Tribe Skagit 7,169 The Tulalip Tribes Snohomish 11,500 Upper Skagit Tribe Skagit 99 Puget Sound Total 77,902 Washington State Total 3,258,656

Western Washington Region Tribe County Area (Acres)

Chehalis Confederated Tribes Grays Harbor/Thurston 4,215 Hoh Tribe Jefferson 443 Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe Clallam 12 Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Clallam 443 Makah Tribe Clallam 27,950 Quileute Tribe Clallam 700 Quinault Nation Grays Harbor/Jefferson 208,150 Shoalwater Bay Tribe Pacific 335 Skokomish Tribe Mason 5,000 Squaxin Island Tribe Mason 1,979 Western Washington Total 249,227

Eastern Washington Region Tribe County Area (Acres)

Colville Confederated Tribes Okanogan/Ferry 1,400,000 Kalispel Tribe Pend Oreille 4,629 Spokane Tribe Stevens 154,898 Yakama Nation Yakima/Klickitat 1,372,000 Eastern Washington Total 2,931,527

Sources: U.S. Dept of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; Tiller’s Guide to IndianCountry:Economic Profiles of Am. Ind. Reservations

Indian Tribes and ReservationsIndian reservations and trust lands arescattered throughout Washington State, rangingin size from a few acres, such as JamestownS’Klallam and Sauk Suiattle, to well over amillion acres with the Confederated Tribes ofthe Colville Reservation and the ConfederatedBands of the Yakama Nation. In total, tribal

reservations and trust lands account for 3.24million acres in Washington State (Table 1).For purposes of discussion in this report, the27 federally recognized Indian tribes in theState of Washington are grouped into threegeographic regions: Western Washington,Puget Sound, and Eastern Washington. Indiantribes are located in 21 of the 39 WashingtonCounties.

Washington State Dept. of EcologyOffice of Intergovernmental Relations

54

IntroductionBackground of StudyFinding specific informationabout the economiccontribution of Washington’s27 federally recognized Indiantribes to the state’s economyhas been frustratingly difficultfor years. As state-level policymakers and tribal leadersregularly interact on a varietyof social and economic issues,this lack of data has hamperedsound decision making. Inresponse to this situation,Washington State GovernorGary Locke and tribal leadersundertook an initiative in 1997to determine the role played bytribal entities and reservationlands in the economy ofWashington. Consequently,the Governor’s Office of IndianAffairs began collaboratingwith tribal representatives toprovide a clearer picture of thereservation economies in thestate and to illuminate therelationship of thosereservations to the larger stateeconomy. Two overall goalsframed the discussion. Thefirst was to begin a dialoguebetween tribal leadership andthe state on a government-to-government basis to addresseconomic vitality in IndianCountry to develop solutionsto economic problems. The

second goal was to provide thestate with a greater under-standing about the obstaclesand unique challenges tribesface in developing theirlimited resources to promoteeconomic well being.

After a series of initialmeetings, the state and tribesjointly adopted the TribalEconomic Vitality Initiative(TEVI). It identified six issues:(1) Economic Study Plan, (2)Financing, (3) Gaming, (4)Taxation, (5) TribalEmployment RightsOrganization, and (6) Tourismas areas of critical importanceto the Indian tribes. Theparticipants also establishedsix subcommittees, one foreach issue.

With the Governor’s support,the Governor’s Office ofIndian Affairs recognized theneed for taking meaningfulaction to maintain the trustand confidence of the tribalgovernments. In response, theEconomic Study PlanningGroup recognized the criticalimportance of providing thetribes with an accurate portraitof their collective economiccontributions to the state’seconomy. This informationwould reverse thelongstanding misconceptionthat Indian tribes contributedvery little—in terms ofemployment, earnings, and tax

revenues—to the state’seconomy. The tribes hadalways contended otherwise.Unfortunately, for years theycould only point to piecemealanecdotal evidence with littledocumentation of theireconomic impact.

To dispel this false image andclarify once and for all theireconomic role in WashingtonState, the tribes embraced thisresearch project, even though itmeant sharing informationlong held in the strictestconfidence within therespective tribes. Theyrecognized that this reportwould finally give them theaccurate statistical data theyneeded to substantiate theirclaims.

Since the effort to develop thisreport began, a national trendhas emerged among Indiantribes recognizing the need todetermine their economicimpacts on state, regional, andnational economies usingproven methods and studies.By working cooperatively onthis study, Washington tribesand the Governor’s Office havebroken new ground in thisarea, taking the lead on anissue of national importance.The results will benefit allcitizens of Washington State.

The Grand Coulee Dam and Lake Roosevelt was started in the 1930’s by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Lake Roosevelt contains 9million acre-feet of water and streches over 150 miles. Thousands of acres of the Colville Reservation lands were flooded including sacredburial grounds, salmon spawning areas, and agricultural lands.

HistoricalConsiderations

Though peripheral to thescope of this study, a historicalperspective on governmentpolicy toward Indian tribesshould frame anyconsideration of their impacton the State of Washington’s

many treaty and executiveorder reservations. As a result,the present-day Indianreservations in Washingtonare often a vastly differentterritory than the tractsoriginally “reserved” by thetreaty-making tribesthroughout the state.

In the late Nineteenth andmuch of the early TwentiethCentury, only triballandowners were subjected tounilateral and forced takingsof lands. The federalgovernment deemed thoselands to be surplus to thetribes’ needs. Through theDawes Act of 1887, whichopened up large portions ofthe tribes’ reservations tohomesteading and ownershipby non-Indians without tribalconsent, the federalgovernment simply took theprime productive land ofmany reservations out ofIndian ownership altogether.

This same policy fosteredfractionated land ownership,diluting the value of triballands as successivegenerations inherited Indian“allotments” of their ownland. The details of ownershipoften became too complex tosort out. Even today, primeagricultural land in theYakima Valley sometimes liesfallow or is farmed in trespass

The Grand Coulee Dam and its facilities have a combined generating capacity of 6480 megawatts of hydroelectric power. This makesGrand Goulee Dam the largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States and the 3rd largest facility of its kind in the world.(V. Tiller)

economy. In particular, all thestate’s tribes made enormous,though involuntary, initialcapital contributions throughthe land cessions of theNineteenth Century. (SeeAppendix I) Furthermore,more than a century of failedand now thoroughlyrepudiated federal Indianpolicies has dramaticallychanged the landscape of

because the local Indianagency cannot maintainownership and leasingrecords. In other cases, theycannot locate a sufficientnumber of the Indian ownersto execute a valid lease.

Despite the Congressionalrepudiation of the allotmentpolicy in the 1930’s,government policy continuedto inhibit the tribes’contribution to the stateeconomy. Federal reclamationprojects diverted preciouswater to neighboring, non-tribal lands. In other cases, themassive hydroelectric powerfacilities constructed duringthe Great Depressioninundated hundreds ofthousands of acres ofreservation lands and off-reservation treaty fishing sites.Finally, during the post-waryears, the federal policy of“relocation” transplantedmany Indian families virtuallyby force from their reservationhomelands to the state’s innercities. Meanwhile, three majorindustries—fishing, forestry,and agriculture—helped driveWashington’s economy byeconomic activity generated bythose lands the tribes haveretained for their own use—that is, the present-day Indianreservations in the State ofWashington.

Yakima Indian hop pickers in the Yakima Valley-1910 (Yakama Nation Cult.Heritage CenterMuseum)

6

Although these historicalfactors have directly shapedthe present economic status ofIndian reservations inWashington, this report makesno attempt to quantify orassign monetary value to thesehuge and often-overlookedcontributions of land andresources to the state’seconomic engine. Nor doesthis report analyze the costs oreffects of these failed policies.Instead, it provides a snapshotof the economic role Indianreservations play at the end ofthe Twentieth Century. Thetimeframe is significant. Ingreat measure, the efforts oftribal leaders within the lasttwenty years have driven theeconomic indicators thatcharacterize Washington’sIndian reservations today.Thus, the following pagesfocus on assessing theeconomic and fiscalcontribution of Indian tribes toWashington State’s economy.

Approach of Analysis

To assess the economic andfiscal contribution of Indiantribes to the State ofWashington, researchersasked such questions as, howimportant is Indian Country tothe state’s economy? What arethe extent and level ofeconomic activities engaged inby Washington Indian tribes?How diversified is the Indiancountry economy comparedwith Washington State?

Researchers collected theinformation for assessing theeconomic and fiscalcontribution of the tribes froma number of tribal andgovernmental sources. Thegovernmental sourcespertained to all 27 tribescollectively; they includedseveral Washington Stateagencies (e.g., EmploymentSecurity Department,Department of Revenue,Department of Fish andWildlife, Department of

Natural Resources) andvarious federal agencies.

Researchers gathered, from 23of the 27 participatingWashington tribes, (seeAppendix II) informationabout revenues andexpenditures of tribalgovernments and enterprisesowned and managed by tribes,employment and wages, andtaxes paid for the most recentcalendar year of 1997. Notethat this analysis consideredonly that economic activityconducted by the tribesthemselves. It excludedbusinesses owned andoperated by Indian tribalmembers. Most of the tribal-owned enterprises operate onreservation land, with a fewexceptions, particularly somecommercial and casinoestablishments. Furthermore,tribal governments andenterprises do not employexclusively NativeAmericans—a significantshare of tribal employment isnon-Indian.

AnnualPercent Change

Race/Ethnic 1990 1994 1997 2005 2015 2025 1990-97 2005-25White 4,225,313 4,517,668 4,679,094 5,115,347 5,569,727 5,940,106 1.5% 0.8%Black 146,350 168,519 183,306 190,484 217,453 243,912 3.6% 1.4%Indian 76,478 85,956 90,857 103,125 120,320 136,720 2.7% 1.6%Asian 203,981 273,553 313,564 410,372 544,480 688,859 7.7% 3.4%Hispanic 214,570 288,703 339,978 438,415 606,181 798,104 8.3% 4.1%Total 4,866,692 5,334,399 5,606,799 6,257,743 7,058,161 7,807,701 2.2% 1.2%

Sources: Washington State, Office of Financial Management, Forecasting Division.; U.S. Department ofCommerce, Bureau of the Census.

Table 2

Population by Race and Hispanic Origin in Washington State, Actual and Projected

7

Indian Tribes inWashington State

DemographicsIn 1997, Washington Stateranked fifth among all statesin American Indianpopulation. The number ofAmerican Indians inWashington is growing at afaster rate than the nationalIndian population. (Table 3).Within Washington State, overhalf of the American Indianslive in the urbanized PugetSound region (Tables 4 and 5).However, as a percentage oftotal regional population,American Indians arerelatively more concentrated inthe Eastern and WesternWashington regions, whichare predominantly rural. ThusFerry, Okanogan, Yakima, andStevens counties of EasternWashington have the greatestshare of American Indians asa percentage of the overallpopulation. More than 5percent of these counties’combined total 1998population is AmericanIndian. In contrast, King

County has the mostAmerican Indian residents inthe state (18,000), yet theyrepresent just 1.1 percent ofthe overall county population.

The American Indianpopulation in WashingtonState has been growingrapidly. According to the 1997state estimates, the AmericanIndian population increasedto 90,857 people, 16% morethan the 1990 populationcensus. Some of this increase

can be attributed to morepeople identifying themselvesas Indians on the census;nevertheless, naturalpopulation increase accountsfor much of the growth. Basedon this rapid rate of growth,the Census Bureau estimatesthat the American Indianpopulation residing inWashington State will reach136,720 people representing1.6 percent of the total statepopulation by the year 2025(Table 2).

Table 3. Leading States in American Indian Population, 1990 and 1997

Percent Share of State RankChange 1997 Total of American Indian

State 1990 1997 Population Indian ShareCalifornia 285,270 306,690 7.5% 1.0% 16Oklahoma 257,794 260,029 0.9% 7.8% 4Arizona 214,433 255,463 19.1% 5.6% 6New Mexico 137,625 158,036 14.8% 9.1% 2Washington 87,259 100,309 15.0% 1.8% 9Alaska 86,252 97,098 12.6% 15.9% 1North Carolina 80,825 95,398 18.0% 1.3% 14Texas 72,343 93,343 29.0% 0.5% 25New York 66,337 74,483 12.3% 0.4% 28Michigan 57,654 59,678 3.5% 0.6% 21United States, Total 3,944,974 4,421,401 12.4% 0.9% NA

Note: Ranking based on number of American Indians in 1997.Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau ofthe Census.

Yakama Dancers (Yakama Indian Nation-Economic Development Office)

8

Table 4. Resident Indian Population on Washington State Reservations for 1995 and TribalEnrollment figures for 1997-1998

BIA TribalReservation Total/1995 Enrollment/1997-98

Western Washington RegionChehalis Confederated Tribes 871 525Hoh Tribe * 97 147Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe 641 230Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe 1,149 750Makah Tribe 1,753 2,300Quileute Tribe 785 706Quinault Nation 2,975 2,217Shoalwater Bay Tribe 743 150Skokomish Tribe 1,333 820Squaxin Island Tribe 515 643Western Washington Total 10,862 8,488

Puget Sound RegionLummi Nation 4,648 3,519Muckleshoot Tribe 3,521 1,170Nisqually Tribe 2,905 500Nooksack Tribe 820 1,341Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe 753 837Puyallup Tribe 14,282 2,219Samish Nation * NA NASauk-Suiattle Tribe 120 237Stillaguamish Tribe 1,476 176Suquamish Tribe 1,032 665Swinomish Tribe 959 753The Tulalip Tribes 4,549 2,934Upper Skagit Tribe * 610 504Puget Sound Total 35,675 14,855

Eastern Washington RegionColville Confederated Tribes 4,929 8,404Kalispel Tribe 170 258Spokane Tribe * 1,416 2,153Yakama Nation 15,968 8,870Eastern Washington Total 22,483 19,685Washington State Total 69,020 43,028

Source: USDI, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1995. Resident pop. figures usually include non-tribalmembers and tribal enrollments include all tribal members irrespective of their legal residence.Many tribal enrolled members live off the reservations and out of the state. Tribal enrollmentfigures are based on 1997-98 data from individual Indian tribes and the Indian Health Service,except for tribes marked with an asterik (non-participating tribes); those figures are from theBIA, 1995.

9

Puyallup Children (Courtesy of Puyallup Tribal News Department, Tacoma, WA. Photo by Patrick Henry)

Table 5American Indian Population in Washington State

Share ofPercent Total 1997

Region 1990 1992 1994 1997 Change PopulationEastern Washington 23,667 24,947 26,254 27,440 15.9% 2.2%Western Washington 11,694 13,030 13,793 15,117 29.3% 2.1%Puget Sound 41,117 44,051 45,909 48,300 17.5% 1.3%Washington State, Total 76,478 82,028 85,956 90,857 18.8% 1.6%

Sources: Washington State Office of Financial Management, Forecasting Division Notes: Ranking based onnumber of American Indians in 1997. U.S. Bureau of Census includes American Indians, non-Hispanic andHispanic in their definition.” Other state population tables include only American Indian, non-Hispanic.

10

could be further from thetruth today, as this reportdemonstrates. In fact, tribes’collective annual contributionof nearly $1 billion to theWashington economysuggests a radical new imagefor the economic vitality ofIndians tribes.

Although Indian tribes areconsidered sovereign nations,they are intricately connectedto the Washington Stateeconomy. Indian tribes inWashington engage in variouscommercial, industrial, andnatural resource activities thatcreate jobs and personalincome for Indians and non-Indians alike throughout thestate.

These economically diversetribal-owned enterprises fallinto the following categories:• traditional natural

resource production;• construction;• wholesale and retail

trade;• finance, insurance, & real

estate;• services;• gaming; and• government.

Each is discussed in detail onthe following pages.

Natural Resources

Historically, natural resourceshave been a mainstay of thestate’s economy. Agricultureproduction and foodprocessing, logging andprocessing forest products,and fishing and processing offish and shellfish have beenamong the state’s leadingindustries. In 1997, thesenatural resource-relatedindustries altogether employed243,000 workers with totallabor earnings of $6.2 billion.Combined, these industriesaccount for a 7 percent share oftotal employment inWashington State.

EconomicActivities

Historically, the nation hasviewed Indian reservations asa burden on the nationaltreasury and on the economiesof the states where they arelocated. This view overlooksthe enormous “capital contri-butions” these tribes made tostate economies through theland cessions of the lastcentury. Such a perceptionalso reflects the outdated beliefthat reservations are “pocketsof poverty” and a blight on theeconomic landscape. Whilethat picture might have beenaccurate through much of theTwentieth Century, nothing

A logging boom operation-Makah Indian Reservation (NW Indian Fisheries Commission)

A modern-day Timberjack feller-buncheron the Yakama Reservation (BIA-PAO)

Log Trucking on Colville Reservation (BIA-Bud Miller)

11

Among Washington Indiantribes, of course, fishing andhunting and gathering ofnatural resources have beencentral activities forthousands of years. Theyremain important to tribes forsubsistence, as well aseconomic and ceremonialpurposes. The tribes havetraded fish and shellfish withthe non-Indian populationsince the first white settlersarrived in the region 150years ago.

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Share ofState Total

$0.0

$10.0

$20.0

$30.0

$40.0

$50.0

$60.0

$70.0

$80.0

$90.0

Millionsof dollars

Figure 1. Value and Share of Timber Harvest from Tribal Lands in Washington State, 1980-97.

Note: Tribal timber harvests are reported under the category of Bur. of Indian Affairs. Source: Washington St. Dept of Natural Resources.

The Colville Mill at Omak (BIA-PAO)

The importance of fishingcontinues. Over the last fewdecades, U.S. federal courtdecisions have settled state-tribal disputes over the rightsto the steelhead and salmonharvested in Washingtonwaters (e.g., major rivers,Puget Sound and ocean watersimmediately off the coast).Consequently, the tribes havefederally assured treaty rights,older than the state itself, toapproximately half of theannual salmon harvest. Thetribes won similar allotments

for other species, includingPacific whiting, sablefish,rockfish, albacore, halibut, andsea urchin. A recent courtruling has resulted in a similarallocation of shellfish forIndian tribes in Washington.

Today, fish and shellfishharvested by Washington’sIndian tribes are in greatdemand, in both domestic andforeign markets. Logsharvested from tribal landshave become an importanteconomic cornerstone for anumber of Washington Indiantribes. Timber harvest andsalmon fishing by tribes, forinstance, have been valued at$71.2 million and $6.8 million,respectively for 1997 (Figures1 and 2). These activitiesprovide employment andearnings for a significantnumber of Indians inWashington.

Although fish and timber areamong the tribes’ mostvaluable resources foreconomic development, tribalgovernments have maderelatively few ventures into

12

millions of dollars

$0.0

$10.0

$20.0

$30.0

$40.0

$50.0

$60.0

$70.0

$80.0

$90.0

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Indian

Non-Indian

Figure 2. Value of Salmon Harvest by Indian & Non-Indian Commercial Enterprises in Washington 1980-1995.

Source: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Digging razor clams on the Quinault Indian Reservation (Quinault Nation, Community Relations Office)

13

value-added processing oftimber and fish. Most of thelogs and fish harvested byIndians are marketedunprocessed to outside buyers,including foreign customers.Moreover, tribal-ownedlogging and fishing

enterprises export asignificant share of their rawlogs and fresh and frozen fishto customers outside the stateand nation.

The lack of investment invalue-added, resource-based

Left: Mussel Rafts-Squaxin IslandTribe (NW Indian Fisheries Comm.)Bottom Left: Shellfish Gatherer at

Lummi. (NW Indian FisheriesCommission) Below Right: Tribal

Fisherman tending his salmon net.(NW Indian Fisheries Commission)

industries highlights many ofthe significant barriers toeconomic development inIndian Country. Severalprerequisites to developmentand the long-termsustainability of economicactivities must be set in place.

14

They include:

• policies that clearlydelineate the roles andresponsibilities of thepublic and private sectors;

• access to capital financingon appropriate terms andconditions;

• adequate social andphysical infrastructure tosupport activities; and

• a legal system that bothfacilitates investment andprotects the interests of allparties engaged infinancial or commercialtransactions.

The Washington fishingindustry is diverse in bothuser groups and range ofspecies. User groups, forinstance, include bothcommercial fishermen andsport/recreational anglers.Commercial groups are furtherdivided into tribal and non-treaty groups. Each of thesegroups is allocated allowable

millions of dollars

$0.0

$10.0

$20.0

$30.0

$40.0

$50.0

$60.0

$70.0

$80.0

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Tribal

Non-Indian

Figure 3. Value of Shellfish Harvest by Indian & Non-Indian Commercial Enterprises in Washington, 1980-1997

Source: Individual Tribes.

catch limits for each speciesby fishery managementcouncils (e.g., Pacific FisheryManagement Council,Northwest Indian FisheriesCommission, WashingtonDepartment of Fish &Wildlife).

With all of the federallyrecognized Indian tribes livingon either major rivers orcoastal waters of Washington,fisheries remain criticallyimportant to tribal economies.Tribes are major playerswithin the State of Washingtonfishing industry, where totalcommercial landings werevalued at $139.6␣ million in1997. They are also heavilyinvolved in fisheriesmanagement. As sovereigngovernments, each triberegulates and coordinates itsown fisheries managementprogram surrounding sixspecies of salmon, halibut,shellfish, and other marinespecies. Tribal fisheriesmanagement includes harvest

management, enhancement,habitat protection, andenforcement. For instance,many Puget Sound and coastaltribes have enhancementprograms; in 1997, tribalhatcheries released more than39 million salmon, benefitingIndian and non-Indian,commercial and sportfishermen in the state.

Besides salmon, importantIndian fisheries includehalibut, sablefish, dungenesscrabs, sea cucumbers, urchins,shrimp, clams, geoduck,mussels, and oysters.Unfortunately, an alarmingdecline in many ofWashington’s fish stocks,particularly salmon, has hurtsome tribal economies. Tocompensate for this loss, anumber of tribes have turnedto harvesting shellfish as amajor economic resource(Figure 3). In recent years, thevalue of tribal shellfish harvesthas outpaced that of salmon.

15

Construction of Quinault Nation’snew tribal government complex at

Taholah. (V. Tiller)

ConstructionResidential and non-residential constructionactivity in Indian Country isdirectly related to increasedpopulation and neweconomic activity. By andlarge, most tribes do not haveresidential constructionenterprises; the few tribal-owned constructionenterprises are primarilyengaged in residentialconstruction and repairfunded by the U.S.Department of Housing andUrban Development.Unfortunately, information isunavailable on the numberand value of housing startscompleted on Washingtontribal lands.

Wholesale and retailtradeWholesale and retail tradesectors comprise two of thenation’s largest industries—one of every five employedpeople works in these trade

Kamilche Trading Post site which includes Little Creek Casino near Hwy 101 & Hwy 8 will bethe anchor site for Squaxin Island Tribe’s future commercial development (Squaxin Is. Tribe )

16

industries. Demographic andeconomic factors, includingpopulation growth,household formation, andconsumer spending driveretail trade sales.

Washington tribes own anumber of retail tradeenterprises, but they lack thebroad array of retail offeringsfound in many comparablenon-Indian communities.Tribal-owned enterprises likesmoke shops, service stations,and trading posts primarilysell convenience goods totribal members and non-Indians. Most retail sales and

Quileute Store at La Push (V. Tiller)

The 34,000 sq.ft. Muckleshoot Mall in Auburn consists of a smoke shop, liquor store, and video store. Future plans include a gasstation and restaurant. (Mucklehoot Indian Tribe)

Products by Quinault Seafood (QuinaultNation, Community Relations Dept)

Left: Tulalip Marina Store and Cafe inMarysville, Washington

(Communications Dept. Tulalip Tribes,Lita Sheldon).

services in Washington areconducted off reservations atnon-Indian establishments,including border towns thatlargely owe their livelihoods toIndian patronage.

Finance, insurance,and real estateThe nation’s financial servicesgroup includes banks andsavings and loans (depositoryinstitutions); credit agencies,mortgage bankers and brokers(nondepository institutions);security and commodity

17

brokers; insurance carriers,agents, and brokers; realestate developers and agents;and holding and otherinvestment offices. InWashington, most tribal-owned finance, insurance,and real estate enterprisesprovide housing assistanceand administer housingprograms funded by the U.S.Department of Housing andUrban Development.

GamingIn 1988, the U.S. Congresspassed the Indian GamingRegulatory Act (IGRA) which,in effect, authorized casinogaming on Indian reservationsand provided a regulatoryframework and oversight bodyfor the industry in the form ofthe National Indian GamingCommission (NIGC). Inaddition, the act was intendedto promote a viable economicbase for tribal governmentprograms and operations, aswell as tribal economicdevelopment, self-sufficiency,and strong tribal governments.Indian gaming was dividedinto three classes for purposesof licensing and regulation:Class I covers charitable andsocial gaming for nominalprizes; Class II includes bingo,punch-boards, and pull-tabs;and Class III facilities includecasinos, high-stakes bingo,slot machines, and all othercommercial forms of gambling.As of 1998, twelve of the 27federally recognized tribes inWashington operate gamingfacilities on and offreservation. The off reservationsites are on Indian trust lands.

In a relatively few years,gaming has changed theeconomic landscape for someof these Indian tribes. Since1988, this reservation-basedindustry has experienced

explosive growth. AcrossIndian country inWashington, gaming hasbecome the leading employer.A number of tribal-ownedcasinos have, in fact, becomethe largest employers withintheir respective communities.

ServicesThe extensive services sectoris very heterogeneous. Mostservice industries areclassified into two groups:producer services andconsumer services. Producerservices are generallyprovided to other service andmanufacturing firms, as

opposed to consumer services(e.g., personal services, autorepair), which typically serveconsumers directly.Additionally, these producerservices are generally drivenby external demand—that is,so-called “export sales.”

The Casino at Jamestown S’Klallam Reservation (Jamestown S’Klallam Public Relations Dept.)

The Skokomish Health Center in Shelton

18

In Washington’s IndianCountry, tribal-ownedenterprises are largelyengaged in providingconsumer services such ashotels and lodging, healthclinics, schools, socialservices, and amusement andrecreation. The latter category,notably gaming activities likebingo halls and casinos, hasbeen the principal growthengine for many Indian tribes.

GovernmentTribal governments aresignificant economic factorswithin Indian country. Inaddition to carrying out theirrespective governmentaladministrative functions,tribes own and manageenterprises across the widespectrum of economic activity.

Employment &Wages

EmploymentIn 1997, tribal-ownedenterprises employed 14,375workers with labor earnings of$270 million. In addition,quasi-government and privateorganizations whose principalclientele are Washington

Indian tribes employ another360 people with laborearnings of $9 million.Combined, tribal and relatedemployment represents aboutone-half of one percent ofWashington’s 1997employment of 2.5 millionwage and salaried workers.

Most of the workers in tribal-owned enterprises are full-time employees (Figure 4).Although comparativeinformation is unavailable atthe state level, this share offull-time versus part-timeworkers is consistent withnational workforce statistics.Figure 4 also illustrates that asignificant share of tribal-owned enterprise employeesare non-Indian. In aggregate,approximately 4 out of every10 workers employed bytribal-owned enterprises arenon-Indian. Although thepercentages vary considerablyfrom one tribe to another, thehighest share of non-Indiansis employed within the casinoand other gaming sector. Incontrast, tribal governmentemploys the highest share oftribal members and otherIndians.

The new government administrativecomplex at Quinault (V. Tiller)

Source: Individual Tribes

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Full-time Part-time Tribal Other tribes Non-Indian

Figure 4. Shares of Full-time & Part-time Employment and Shares of Indian &Non-Indian Employment at Tribal-owned Enterprises, Washington State, 1997

Quinault Fish Processing (Quinault Nation)

19

Employment in tribal-ownedenterprises is concentrated intotal services (52 percent),which is dominated by casinoand other gaming, and healthservices (Figure 5). Othersectors where tribes’ economicactivity is concentrated aregovernment (29 percent oftotal employment) andnatural resources (8 percent).Compared with the state,tribal employment is lessconcentrated inmanufacturing (6 percent);retail and wholesale trade (2percent); construction (0.3percent); transportation,communications, and utilities(1 percent); and other services(8 percent).

With respect to employmentin specific regions, over half ofthe tribes’ total is concentratedin the urbanized Puget Soundarea (Figure 6). The share offull-time compared with part-time employees variesbetween regions as does theshares of tribal members,other Indians, and non-Indianemployees (Figure 7).

Industry concentrations oftribal-owned enterpriseemployment vary by region(Figure 8). Not surprising, the

more populous Puget Soundhas greater employmentconcentrations of casino andother gaming, tribalgovernment, health services,retail trade, and constructionworkers. Employment innatural resource-orientedsectors (both production andprocessing) is moreconcentrated in the Easternand Western Washingtonregions.

WagesIn 1997, labor earnings oftribal-owned enterprise

workers totaled $270million. Average 1997 wagesper worker amounted to$18,800, approximately 40percent lower than thestatewide average of$32,400. Funding sources forthese wages come primarilyfrom tribal governmentrevenues, followed byfederal governmentallocations, and a smallportion from stategovernment grants.

For those employed bytribal-owned enterprises,average wages vary by bothsector and region (Table 6).In general, tribal-ownedenterprise workers earn lessthan their counterpartstatewide workers. Thereare, of course, exceptions,particularly in gaming.

This total payroll of $270million supports an annualcontribution of $5.4 millionto the state unemploymentinsurance fund. In addition,these wages and salariesgenerate some $51 million infederal income and socialsecurity taxes. Besides thesalaries and wages paid bythe tribes themselves, thefederal Bureau of Indian

Source: Individual Tribes

Figure 6. 1997 Employment of Indian Tribal-owned Enterprises by Region in Washington

Western Washington

19%

Puget Sound

52%

Eastern Washington

29%

Notes: Other services include all service industries except health services, casinos & gaming; FIRE is finance, insurance & real estate; TCU istransportation, communication and utilities. Sources: WA State Employment Security Dept., U.S. Bur. of Econ. Analysis, Individual Tribes.

Figure 5. Share of Total 1997 Employment by Major Sector, Washington Tribes and Washington State

Casino & gaming

Fishing

Government

Forestry

Manufacturing

TCUWholesale

trade

Retail trade

FIRE

Healthservices

Otherservices

Construction& mining

Ag/Farm

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

Tribal Share

State Share

20

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%

Ag/Farm

Forestry

Fishing

Construct & Mining

Mfg

TCU

Wholesale trade

Retail trade

FIRE

Other services

Health services

Casino & gaming

Government

Eastern Washington

Puget Sound

Western Washington

Figure 7. Shares of Full-time & Part-time Employment and Shares of Indian & Non-IndianEmployment at Tribal-owned Enterprises, Washington State Region, 1997

Source: Individual Tribes.

Table 6. Average Wages by Sector and Region for Tribal-Owned Enterprises-1997.

Tribal-owned EnterprisesWestern Puget Eastern State-wide

Sector Washington Sound Washington Tribal-owned Statewide

Total $20,317 $20,445 $14,815 $18,783 $31,073Agriculture & farming NA NA $17,215 $17,215 $16,058Forestry $4,197 $9,531 $24,300 $16,107 $20,091Fishing $12,284 $8,129 $23,748 $13,007 $50,759Construction $24,650 $32,776 NA $31,124 $33,513Manufacturing NA NA NA $6,031 $41,128Transport, com. & utilities $18,310 $17,495 $20,704 $18,810 $39,499Retail trade $13,210 $13,761 $11,357 $13,043 $17,588Finance, insurance & real estate $26,279 $29,634 $18,326 $21,665 $37,884Other services $12,574 $17,244 $15,991 $16,420 $31,623Health services $65,368 $37,098 $17,941 $31,016 $32,378Casino & other gaming $19,185 $20,896 $20,438 $20,558 $15,858Government $29,217 $19,699 $12,300 $19,214 $30,674

Notes: Statewide refers to average wages per wage & salary worker in Washington State; NA refers to not available.

Sources: Washington State Employment Security Department, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Individual Tribes.

21

Affairs and the Indian HealthService spend some $140million annually in the Stateof Washington as a directresult of the presence of thesefederally recognized Indiantribes. These two agenciesemploy another 100 workersin the state. Related quasi-government agencies (e.g.,South Puget Sound Inter-tribal Housing Authority,Northwest Indian FisheriesCommission) employ another360 workers with wages of $9million.

Business Incomeand ExpendituresTribal-owned enterprises alsocontribute to the growth ofincome and jobs within thestatewide economy because oftheir substantial expendituresfor supplies, materials,utilities, goods and services. In1997, business income for alltribal enterprises inWashington amounted to anestimated $1.003 billion(Figure 10). Although asignificant share of total tribal-owned enterprise revenuescome from gaming operations,a majority of revenues comefrom non-gaming operations(e.g., natural resources, tribalgovernment, other services)(Figure 11).

Tribal-owned enterprisesspent an estimated $865.8million statewide for supplies,equipment and services. Giventhat most reservationeconomies areunderdeveloped (e.g., notoffering the full complement ofnecessary goods and servicesin support of operating a tribalenterprise), a considerableportion of these expendituresare made off the reservation.Hence, these expendituressupport additional in-stateactivity (in the form of addedemployment and income) and,in particular, surroundingnon-Indian communities.

While the authors of thisreport have not performed adetailed multiplier analysis,the total contribution of tribal-owned enterprises of theoverall state economy issignificantly greater than thesum of their expenditures forwages, goods, and services.Multiplier effects essentiallymeasure the full economicimpact of tribal-ownedenterprises on the local andstate economy by assessinghow much of each dollar spentat the tribal-owned enterpriseis re-spent in the surroundingeconomy. For instance, theeconomic impact of anenterprise on the state is muchgreater if it purchases capital

Source: Individual Tribes

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Full-time Part-time Tribal Oth. Indian Non-Indian

Western Washington

Puget Sound

Eastern Washington

Figure 8. Regional Shares of Tribal-owned Enterprise Employment by Major Sector-1997.

Sources: Washington State EmploymentSecurity Department, Individual Tribes.

Figure 9. Funding Sources for LaborEarnings of Tribal-owned Enterprise

Workers, 1997

Bureau ofIndianAffairs15%

TribalPrograms

34%

Other42%

Indian HealthService

9%

Source: Individual Tribes.

Figure 10. Gross Revenues &Expenditures of Tribal-owned

Enterprises in Washington, 1997

Millions of dollars

$750.0

$800.0

$850.0

$900.0

$950.0

$1,000.0

$1,050.0

Revenues Expenditures

Gaming

44%

Non-gaming56%

Figure 11. Total Revenues of Tribal-ownedEnterprises in Washington, 1997

Source: Individual Tribes.

22

Table 7. Federal Government-Tribal Government Transactions in Washington State for 1997

DOI/BIA HHS/IHS DOE/OIE TotalTotal Expenditures $118,561,000 $30,100,000 $11,730,000 $160,391,000 Salary & wages $39,759,000 $22,990,000 NA $62,749,000 Other payments $78,802,000 $7,110,000 NA $85,912,000

goods (e.g., constructionmaterials, computers),supplies, and services from in-state vendors, than if itimports materials from outsidethe state. Therefore, multipliereffects take the dollarscounted as revenues of tribal-owned enterprises andmeasure how muchadditional in-state economicactivity (in the form of sales,employment, and wages andsalaries) is generated by theseexpenditures.

In sum, tribal-ownedenterprises are the source ofsubstantial employment andincome opportunities for bothIndian and non-Indianresidents of Washington State.

FederalGovernment-TribalGovernmentTransactions

Nearly all federal governmentdepartments in WashingtonState have specific programs,activities, or staff functionsestablished to deal withIndian tribal governments.Five departments spend largeportions of their budgets ontransactions with Indiantribes. These are theDepartment of the Interior(Bureau of Indian Affairs), theDepartment of Housing andUrban Development (Office of

Indian Programs), theDepartment of Health andHuman Services (IndianHealth Service), theDepartment of Labor, and theDepartment of Education(Office of Indian Education).Total statewide expendituresby each department areshown in Table 7.Expenditures by eachdepartment are shown forpersonnel directly related toIndian tribal governmenttransactions.

Fiscal Contribution ofIndian TribalGovernments inWashington

As owners of economicenterprises and employers,tribal governments payfederal, state and local taxes.Estimated Federalemployment/payroll-relatedtaxes (social security, medical;unemployment) paid by tribalgovernments in 1997 were$51.3 million. In addition,state employment/payroll-related taxes paid by tribes in1997 were estimated at $5.3million.

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. Federal Expenditures by State for Fiscal Year 1997; Individual Tribes

Lower Elwha Community Bldg. (Emily Tiller)

23

Level ofdiversification ofIndian countryeconomy

Until recently, the emergenceof viable self-sustainingreservation economies hasbeen only a remote possibility.Dependent upon naturalresources, most tribaleconomies had stabilized withsignificant levels ofunemployment, limitedinvestment, and shortages oftribal government revenues.The recent explosion in Indiangaming has been a boon forIndian country in creatingfamily-wage jobs, increasingnon-natural resourceeconomic activity, andgenerating revenues both onand off the reservation.

Given the requirements of theIndian Gaming RegulatoryAct, all revenues from tribalgaming operations are to beused solely for governmentalor charitable purposes.Similar to state governmentsand the use of funds from

Quinault Museum (Quinault Nation)

Makah teen-agers competing in canoe races at annual Makah Days. (V. Tiller)

A Salmon Bake (NW Indian FisheriesCommission)

state lotteries, profits fromIndian tribal gamingoperations are being spentlocally to build houses,schools, roads and sewer andwater systems; to underwritethe costs of health care andeducation for their people;and to further develop astrong, diverse economic baseon tribal lands. The Tulalipand Muckleshoot Tribes, forinstance, are using gamingrevenues to fund long-termeconomic developmentprojects that will furtherenhance their economichealth, and that will, in turn,generate sustainable jobs andrevenues within the state.

In Washington State, aselsewhere, casino gamingenterprises have resulted in anumber of tribes—forinstance, the Colville,Muckleshoot, Quinault,Spokane, Tulalip, and YakamaTribes—becoming the leadingemployers in their respectiveareas. In fact, many gamingenterprises have become animportant source ofemployment for non-Indiansresiding in surroundingcommunities. In other words,these tribal enterprises havebeen major contributors to thealleviation of severeunemployment, both on andoff reservation. Withsubstantial numbers ofIndians becoming employed inthese enterprises, there hasbeen a net reduction onreliance on governmentally-provided services. Inparticular, tribal-ownedgaming enterprises havesuccessfully reduced theireconomic reliance on non-tribal governments for socialassistance.

24

Washington TribalEconomies inPerspective—TheGaming Sector

In recent years a new mythhas arisen to replace in manyquarters the old myth thatIndian tribes and theirreservations are simplyeconomic black holes thatvacuum scarce public re-sources into their orbit, andnever change. The new mythis that gaming has trans-formed all Indian tribes intoimmensely wealthy baroniessomehow outside the reach oflaw, immune to the basic lawsof economics, and no longerentitled to either federalprograms that are available toall American citizens, or evento those programs servingfederally recognized Indiansbecause of their status asIndians. This new myth is as

fundamentally misplaced asthe old shibboleths.

In the State of Washington, 19of the 27 tribes have gamingcompacts with the state. Ofthose 19, twelve operatecasinos. It is true that theseIndian tribes in Washingtonhave turned , like governmentseverywhere throughout theworld, to gaming as a sourceof revenue for badly neededprograms to serve their people.It is also true that gaming hasfueled an economic boom forsome tribes, primarily thosefortunate enought to be locatedclose to major metropolitanareas and transportationcorridors. Today, gaminggenerates some 46% of alltribal revenues in the State,and provides employment formore than one-half of the morethan 14,000 tribal employeesin the state.

It is emphatically not true,however, that all the tribes inthe state have shared in thisrelatively new form of

prosperity. Eight of thesetribes have no gamingenterprise at all, and at leastone tribal gaming operationhas resulted in significantlosses to the sponsoring tribe.It is becoming increasinglyclear that Indian gamingoperations are, in fact, subjectto certain immutable prin-ciples of economics. Theseenterprises have notflourished where there issimply not a sufficient marketfor the services offered, andthere is a limit to the level ofgaming that the state’s citizensand visitors can sustain bytheir participation. Federallegislation and recentdecisions by the electorate alsomake it clear that Indiangaming is by no means beyondthe reach of the politicalprocesses of the federal andstate governments.

Finally, it is also becomingclear that, while Indiangaming has been a significantcatalyst in the long-deferred

Puyallup Tribe’s Emerald Queen Casino near the Port of Tacoma (Puyallup International Inc.)

25

The Yakama Legends Casino ( Yakama Nation, Photo by Chris J. Roberts)

development of some reserva-tion economies and infra-structure, this activitycertainly does not insulatetribes from the need forcontinuing governmentalasistance programs — anymore than state lotterieseliminate the need forcontinued federal assistance tothe states for education, roadconstruction, etc.

At this point in the history ofthis quite new tribal enter-prise, it appears that gaminghas provided some fortunatetribes with opportunities neverbefore available to addresslong-standing needs of theircommunities, and to provideemployment for far more oftheir neighbors than for theirown members. This pheno-menon appears to be vindica-ting the old wisdom that arising tide, indeed, lifts allboats.

It is worth repeating thatbefore Indian gaming, theeconomic profile across

Left photos: Tulalip Senior CitizenCenters; Several examples of tribesbuilding an infrastructure with gamingrevenues. (Communications Dept.TulalipTribes, Lita Sheldon)

Washington’s Indian Countrywas summarized by a set ofwell-known statistics: reser-vations had the highestunemployment rates, highestpoverty rates, lowest percapita income, and so on.

Indian tribal governmentshave sought to develop their

tribal economies. Yet they stillface a lack of access to capital,markets, skilled labor forces,and management capabilities,to name but a few of thebarriers. While this report isnot intended to provide adetailed analysis of the impactof gaming on Washington’sIndian economies, the datashow it has made a positivecontribution. Standing againstthis gaming-supported growthtrend is the daunting amountof “catch-up” Indian tribesface. They must overcomehigh unemployment rates,lack of infrastructure, poorhousing, and low levels ofeducational attainment incomparison to nationalaverages. So, while the pictureshows progress, the tribescontinue to lag behind the restof Washington’s citizens.

26

Summary and ConclusionsThis report represents a successful first-time effort to describe the nature of economic activityon the 27 federally recognized Indian reservations in the State of Washington and toquantify their contribution to the overall state economy. Far from depicting a monolithicIndian Country economy, the information in this study underscores differences amongtribal enterprises in the three defined regions of the state and between the rural and urbanareas.

Whether the measurement is in direct employment of both Indians and non-Indians, wages,expenditures, or state and federal tax payments, tribal enterprises clearly have made theirmark on Washington’s economy. Despite the ascending economic value of gaming, tribalenterprises are a diverse group, with interests spanning several industries and marketsectors and with varying impact on the communities around them.

Although gaming contributes less than half the gross revenues earned by Washington’stribal enterprises, nonetheless, it has made a tremendous impact on both the tribes and thestate at large. With $440 million in annual revenues, gaming is by far the largest singleindustry in Washington’s Indian Country. Yet, gaming alone has not—perhaps cannot—solve every economic ill on the state’s reservations. In fact, this report emphasizes theneed to continue diversifying tribal businesses, to eliminate the wage discrepancybetween Indians and non-Indians, and to eliminate the barriers that inhibit economicdevelopment on the reservations. As the population trends indicate, the number of Indiansin Washington is climbing steadily, a fact that guarantees the issues related to Indianeconomic development will continue to have statewide impact.

The authors of this report hope it will help frame future discussion about Indian economiesamong the tribes and between them and the state at large. These conversations might centeron topics such as how to develop new enterprises for the value-added processing of timberand fish, for example, or how to bring new, more diversified economic activities to theremote, rural reservations in Washington. Only with reliable information and clearlyestablished benchmarks can the tribes develop valid economic forecasts, analyses of trends,and projections of workforce needs. Future studies such as this will help ensure the tribeshave the data they need to compete in the state’s—and the nation’s, and the world’s—information-driven economy.

This is an historic report beyond the specific usefulness of its findings. For the first time inthe nation’s history, Indian tribes and a state have cooperated using primary fiscal data todetermine the economic contributions made by tribal governments and their enterprises.Tribes can now abandon anecdotal and piecemeal information in favor of valid figures insupport of their long-held assertions of economic importance to the state. This report shoulddemonstrate to the tribes the value of tracking their economies, measuring how theireconomies contribute to the overall health of the state, and conducting studies annually tocontinuously affirm their economic contribution. For the state, this study can be consideredan educational blueprint for a cooperative working partnership with Washington’s Indiantribes, and should serve as an empirical basis for refuting the “myths” that havehistorically affected the relationship between the State of Washington and the Indian tribeswithin its borders.

27

Appendix I - List of Historic and Current ReservationAcreages of Washington Indian TribesTribal Lands and Reservations in WashingtonAbbreviated

Tribal Name Size of Tribal Land Treaty or Reservation Instrument

Chehalis 4,215 acres Executive Order, 1886Colville 1.4 million acres Executive Order, 1872Elwha Klallam 443 acres Indian Reorganization Act, 1934Hoh 443 acres Executive Order, 1893; based on Treaty of Quinault, 1855Jamestown Klallam 210 acres Trust land, purchased 1874Kalispel 4,600 acres Executive Order, 1914Lummi 13,500 acres Executive Order, 1855Makah 44 square miles Makah Treaty, 1855; after 1974 includes administration of

Ozette Reservation (one acre)Moses Columbia Terminated Executive Order, 1879; terminated 1886Muckleshoot 3,600 acres Executive Order, 1874, based on Treaty of Point Elliot, 1855Nisqually 5,000 acres Executive Order, 1857Nooksack 2,062 acres Federally recognized, 1973Port Gamble Klallam 1,301 acres Federal land trust, 1935Puyallup 18,061.5 acres Treaty of Medicine Creek, 1855Quileute one square mile Execuitve Order, 1889Quinault 196,645 acres Executive Order, 1873, based on Quinault Treaty, 1855Samish 00 acres Treaty of Point-No-Point, 1855Sauk-Suiattle 23 acres Purchase, 1982Shoalwater Bay one sq. mile + tidelands Executive Order, 1886Skokomish 4,987 acres Treaty of Point-No-Point, 1855Spokane 155,000 acres Executive Order, 1881Squaxin Island 2,175 acres Treaty of Medicine Creek, 1854Stillaquamish 60 acres Actual acreage of “reserved” status is pendingSuquamish 7,800 acres Treaty of Point Elliott, 1855; enlarged by Executive Order,

1864Swinomish 10 square miles Treaty of Point Elliott, 1855Tulalip 22,000 acres Treaty of Point Elliott, 1855Upper Skagit 130 acres Executive Order, 1974Yakama 1.4 million acres Yakama Treaty, 1855

28

Appendix II - Federally Recognized Tribes of WashingtonChehalis Confederated TribesHonorable David Youckton, Chr.Chehalis Business CouncilPO Box 536Oakville, WA 98568(360) 273-5911 FAX 273-5914

Colville Confederated TribesHonorable Joe Pakootas, ChairColville Business CouncilPO Box 150Nespelem, WA 99155(509) 634-4711 FAX 634-4116

*Hoh TribeHonorable Rick Horejsi, ChairHoh Tribal Business Committee2464 Lower Hoh RoadForks, WA 98331(360) 374-6582 FAX 374-6549

Jamestown S’Klallam TribeHonorable W. Ron Allen, ChairJamestown S’Klallam IndianTribe1033 Old Blyn HighwaySequim, WA 98382(360) 683-1109 FAX 681-4643

Kalispel TribeHonorable Glen Nenema, ChairKalispel Business CommitteePO Box 39Usk, WA 99180(509) 445-1147 FAX 445-1705

Lower Elwha Klallam TribeHonorable Russ Hepfer, ChairElwha Klallam Business Council2851 Lower Elwha RoadPort Angeles, WA 98363(360) 452-8471 FAX 452-3428

Lummi NationHonorable Henry Cagey, ChairLummi Business Council2616 Kwina RoadBellingham, WA 98226-9298(360) 384-1489 FAX 380-1850

Makah TribeHonorable Ben Johnson, Jr.,ChairMakah Tribal CouncilPO Box 115Neah Bay, WA 98357(360) 645-2201 FAX 645-2788

Muckleshoot TribeHonorable John Daniels, Jr.,ChairMuckleshoot Tribal Council39015 172nd Avenue SEAuburn, WA 98092(253) 939-3311 FAX 939-5311

Nisqually TribeHonorable Stephanie Scott, ChairNisqually Indian Tribe4820 She-Nah-Num Drive SEOlympia, WA 98513(360) 456-5221 FAX 407-0125

Nooksack TribeHonorable Art George, ChairNooksack Indian Tribal CouncilPO Box 157Deming, WA 98244(360) 592-5176 FAX 592-5721

Port Gamble S’Klallam TribeHonorable Gerald Jones, ChairPort Gamble Business Committee31912 Little Boston Road NEKingston, WA 98346(360) 297-2646 FAX 297-7097

Puyallup TribeHonorable Lawrence W.LaPointe, ChairPuyallup Tribal Council2002 East 28th StreetTacoma, WA 98404(253) 573-7800 FAX 573-7929

Quileute TribeHonorable Christian Penn, Jr.,Acting ChairQuileute Tribal CouncilPO Box 279La Push, WA 98350(360) 374-6163 FAX 374-6311

Quinault NationHon. Pearl Capoeman-Baller,ChairQuinault Business CommitteePO Box 189Taholah, WA 98587(360) 276-8211 FAX 276-4191

* Samish NationHonorable Kenneth Hansen,ChairSamish Tribe of IndiansPO Box 217Anacortes, WA 98221(360) 293-6404 FAX 299-0790

Sauk-Suiattle TribeHonorable Jason L. Joseph,ChairSauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe5318 Chief Brown LaneDarrington, WA 98241(360) 436-0131 FAX 436-1511

29

Shoalwater Bay Tribal CouncilHonorable Herb Whitish, ChairPO Box 130Tokeland, WA 98590(360) 267-6766 FAX 267-6778

Skokomish TribeHonorable Gordon James, ChairSkokomish Tribal CouncilN. 80 Tribal Center RoadShelton, WA 98584(360) 426-4232 FAX 877-5943

* Spokane TribeHonorable Bruce Wynne, ChairSpokane Tribal Business CouncilPO Box 100Wellpinit, WA 99040(509) 258-4581 FAX 258-9243

Squaxin Island TribeHonorable David Whitener, Sr.,ChairSquaxin Island Tribal CouncilSE 70 Squaxin LaneShelton, WA 98584(360) 426-9781 FAX 426-6577

Stillaguamish TribeHonorable Priscilla Shipley, ChairStillaguamish Board of Directors3439 Stoluckquamish LaneArlington, WA 98223(360) 652-7362 FAX 435-7689

Suquamish TribeHonorable Bennie J. Armstrong,ChairSuquamish Tribal CouncilPO Box 498Suquamish, WA 98392(360) 598-3311 FAX 598-6295

Appendix II - Federally RecognizedTribes of Washington, Continued.

Swinomish TribeHonorable Brian Cladoosby,ChairSwinomish Indian SenatePO Box 817LaConner, WA 98257(360) 466-3163 FAX 466-5309

Tulalip TribesHonorable Stan Jones, Sr., ChairTulalip Board of Directors6700 Totem Beach RoadMarysville, WA 98270-9694(360) 651-4000 FAX 651-4032

* Upper Skagit TribeHonorable Floyd Williams, ChairUpper Skagit Tribal Council25944 Community PlazaSedro Woolley, WA 98284(360) 856-5501 FAX 856-3175

Yakama NationHonorable William Yallup, Sr.,ChairYakama Tribal CouncilPO Box 151Toppenish, WA 98948(509) 865-5121 FAX 865-5528

Revised: 12/98 Governor’s Office ofIndian Affairs PH: (360) 753-2411FAX: (360) 586-3653

* Tribes not participating in this study

30

Appendix III-Sources/References

Bangsund, Dean A. and F. Larry Leistritz. Casinosin the Upper Midwest: A Discussion of theImpacts. Agricultural Economics Report No. 378.Fargo,ND: North Dakota State University, Depart-ment of Agricultural Economics, July, 1997.

Cornell, Stephen, Joseph Kalt, Matthew Krepps,and Jonathan Taylor. American Indian GamingPolicy and Its Socio-Economic Effects. A Reportto the National Gambling Impact Study Commis-sion. Cambridge, MA: The Economics ResourceGroup, Inc., July 31, 1998.

Grand Coulee Dam Columbia Basin Project website. (http://users.owt.cubbard/gcdam/).

National Indian Gaming Association. WashingtonDC. NIGA Internet web site (http://www.indiangaming.org).

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Olympia,WA. NWIFC Internet web site. (http://www.nwifc.wa.gov).

Tiller, Veronica E. Velarde. Tiller’s Guide to IndianCountry: Economic Profiles of American IndianReservations. Albuquerque, NM: BowArrowPublishing Co., 1996.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of theCensus, Governments Division. ConsolidatedFederal Funds Report, Fiscal Year 1997. Washing-ton D. C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureauof the Census, October, 1998 (internet version).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of theCensus, Population Division. Annual Time Series ofState Population Estimates by Race and His-panic Origin. (Internet version—http//www.census.gov). September 1998.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of theCensus, Population Division. Population Projec-tions for States by Sex, Race and Hispanic

Origin, 1995-2025. (Internet version—http//www.census.gov). September 1998.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,Indian Health Service. IHS Internet web site (http://www.ihs.gov).

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-ment, Northwest Indian Housing Association.NWIHA Internet web site (http://www.nwiha.org).

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of IndianAffairs. BIA Internet web site. (http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html)

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. Fisher-ies Statistical Report, various years.Olympia,Washington.

Veronica E. Tiller, Ph. D.(Jicarilla Apache) is Presidentand Director of Tiller Research,Inc. (TRI) and BowArrowPublishing Co. TRI specializesin contemporary research onAmerican Indians. Ms. Tiller isthe editor and publisher ofTiller’s Guide to IndianCountry: Economic Profiles ofAmerican Indian Reservations.

Tiller Research, Inc.6727 Academy Rd. NE, Ste. CAlbuquerque, NM 87109

(505) 797-9800Fax: (505) 797-9888E-Mail:tillerresearch@info.comWebsite: tillerresearch.com

Robert Chase is principal ofChase Economics, aneconomics consulting firm,specializing in regionaleconomics research andanalysis. Mr. Chase is authorand co-author of two books,several journal articles andover a hundred reports inregional economics.

Chase Economics223 Tacoma Avenue SouthTacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-4530Fax: (253) 593-4602E-Mail: chasecon.seanet.com