logo
California's largest ‘land-back' deal returns 47,000 acres to tribe

California's largest ‘land-back' deal returns 47,000 acres to tribe

Blue Creek once stood as a hub in the Indigenous world. And it will again.
Spilling from the Siskiyou Mountains in California's far north, the tributary of the Klamath River inhabits a hardy landscape of elk and bear, redwood forest and even-to-this-day plentiful salmon. The Yurok people historically lived, gathered and worshiped there.
Last week, in what appears to be the largest 'land back' deal in state history, the Yurok Tribe completed acquisition of 47,000 acres around the Blue Creek watershed, finalizing the return of this vast ancestral stretch to Native American oversight. The property was conveyed in phases by Portland-based Western Rivers Conservancy.
The final transfer last week, about 15,000 acres, follows a two-decade push by the tribe and the conservation group to secure protection of the cherished land in the lower Klamath Basin. The campaign raised $56 million, from a variety of public and private sources, to purchase properties previously owned and heavily logged by the Green Diamond Resource Company.
'To have this land back, it's a beautiful day and a beautiful milestone in the lives of the Yurok people,' Joseph L. James, chairman of the Yurok Tribe, told the Chronicle. 'This is a place of beauty. It's a place of well-being. It's a place of balance. It's who we are.'
The Yurok is California's largest tribe. It counts more than 5,000 members who reside largely on or near the Yurok reservation, which is based in the community of Klamath (Del Norte County) near Redwood National and State Parks. The tribe operates a small casino, restaurant and hotel.
At one time, the Yurok people lived in villages across much of northwestern California. Unlike most Native Americans who were ousted by European settlers, the Yurok have always remained on a portion of their historical lands. With the 47,000-acre acquisition, which abuts their reservation and includes miles and miles of waterfront along both Blue Creek and the Klamath River, the tribe's holdings in modern times have doubled.
'The drainage is not just important to the natural resource, but it's a place of high prayer for us,' James said.
The tribal chairman, who grew up in a small community along the Klamath River just a 20-minute boat ride from Blue Creek, said he and other tribal members would float to the creek's sometimes turquoise waters to seek spiritual clarity and give thanks.
'I like to say, 'There's no such thing as a bad day traveling on the river,'' he said. 'It opens you up in a good way.'
The Yurok Tribe is already managing most of the recently acquired property as a 'community forest.' There, it does sustainable logging and forest restoration. After a century of industrial timber harvests on the land, tribal members are trying to create a healthier environment by removing old logging roads and nursing back redwoods, mixed conifer forests and native grasslands.

Most of the roughly 15,000 acres that was acquired last week will be managed as a protected 'salmon sanctuary.' Located at the lower reaches of Blue Creek, the area is a key cold-water refuge for anadromous fish starting their journeys up the Klamath River. The creek is about 16 miles upriver from the Pacific.
With last year's completion of a major dam-removal project on the Klamath River, nearly 200 miles upstream, Blue Creek has taken on heightened significance. Migrating salmon and steelhead will benefit from any extra rest and nourishment they might get at the creek to sustain them for the potentially longer trek to the newly un-dammed river habitat.
'Dam removal is inspiring and great and exceptionally important,' said Nelson Mathews, president of Western Rivers Conservancy. 'To get up past the dams, the fish need cold water. That's why this (protection of Blue Creek) is critical.'
Western Rivers Conservancy, alongside the Yurok Tribe, began discussing a potential land deal with Green Diamond Resource Company in the 2000s. Between 2009 and 2017, the organization bought pieces of the company's property, all of which were ultimately transferred to the tribe.
In addition to direct funding from the state and private donors, Western Rivers Conservancy raised money from carbon credits, in which companies pay to offset their pollution, and the federal New Markets Tax Credit program, in which corporations get tax breaks for making community investments.
'Our core mission is conservation: It's protecting the rivers and streams,' Matthews said. 'Tribes have been a natural partner for us. … The Yurok Tribe has the resources and the deep cultural connections that sustained this land for millennia, and now they can continue to do so.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Government moves to drop Sheetz discrimination case as Trump targets key civil rights tool
Government moves to drop Sheetz discrimination case as Trump targets key civil rights tool

San Francisco Chronicle​

timean hour ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Government moves to drop Sheetz discrimination case as Trump targets key civil rights tool

Federal authorities are moving to drop a racial discrimination lawsuit against the Sheetz convenience store chain, part of a broader effort by President Donald Trump's administration to halt the use of a key tool for enforcing the country's civil rights laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces workplace anti-discrimination laws, confirmed it has begun notifying potential claimants of its intention to drop the Sheetz lawsuit, citing Trump's executive order directing federal agencies to deprioritize the use of 'disparate impact liability' in civil rights enforcement. Disparate impact liability holds that policies that are neutral on their face can violate civil rights laws if they impose artificial barriers that disadvantage different demographic groups. The concept has been used to root out practices that close off minorities, women, people with disabilities, older adults or other groups from certain jobs, or keep them from accessing credit or equal pay. Trump's executive order is part of his campaign to upend civil rights enforcement through firings and other steps that have consolidated his power over quasi-independent agencies like the EEOC, redirecting them to implement his priorities, including stamping out diversity and inclusion practices and eroding the rights of transgender people. In the Sheetz case, filed in April 2024 under the Biden administration, the EEOC had claimed that the company's policy of refusing to hire anyone who failed its criminal background checks discriminated against Black, Native American and multiracial job applicants. The lawsuit could survive even if the EEOC drops it: The law firm Outten & Golden, which represents workers in employment disputes, and the Public Interest Law Center, filed a motion Thursday to intervene and pursue its own class action lawsuit on behalf of one of the potential claimants. What is disparate impact? The Supreme Court recognized the concept of disparate impact in a landmark 1971 case, which held that a North Carolina power plant discriminated against Black employees by requiring high school diplomas and an intelligence test for certain higher paying roles, even though the requirements were irrelevant to the jobs. In 1991, bipartisan majorities in Congress voted to codify disparate impact in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The concept holds that it is illegal to impose barriers to employment if such practices have a discriminatory effect and have no relevance to the requirements of the job. What does Trump's executive order say? The April 23 order declared that it is "the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.' The order argued that disparate impact has become a 'key tool' of a 'pernicious movement' that threatens meritocracy in favor of 'racial balancing' in the workforce. Craig Leen, a former top official at the Labor Department under the first Trump administration, said while the executive order take a more aggressive approach, it reflects longstanding conservative concerns that disparate impact liability encourages the assumption that any racial imbalance in the workforce is a result of discrimination. Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights, said the order reverses 'a trend of bad law and bad policy in prior administrations.' She said the Trump administration would rightfully 'focus on individual discrimination cases," which she said are "more factually sound, less susceptible to manipulation, and more closely hews to the original intent' of civil rights law. What is happening with the Sheetz case? The EEOC filed the original Sheetz lawsuit after an eight-year investigation that arose from complaints filed by two job applicants. Both Republican EEOC commissioners at the time voted against bringing the lawsuit, while the three Democrats voted in favor. In an email to The Associated Press, an EEOC spokesperson confirmed the agency has began notifying potential claimants that it would file a motion to dismiss the case but declined to comment further. One of the potential claimants, Kenni Miller, filed a motion to intervene Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. U.S. workers can pursue federal discrimination lawsuits on their own if the EEOC declines to take up their complaints but often don't because of the resources required. Miller, a Black man, was hired as a shift supervisor at a Sheetz in Altoona, Pennsylvania, in 2020. After working there for a month, Miller was told he failed the background check because of a felony drug conviction and was let go, according to the motion. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Sheetz' policy of denying jobs who anyone who failed a background check resulted in 14.5% Black job applicants being denied employment, compared to 8% of white applicants. For Native American applicants, the rate was 13%, and for multiracial applicants, it was 13.5%. In court filings, Sheetz denied the allegations. Attorneys for the company, which is being represented by the law firm Littler, declined to comment further. The EEOC has not said how many potential claimants have been identified. Christopher McNerney, an Outten & Golden attorney who is representing Miller, said the number is likely in the thousands. Sheetz has more than 20,000 employees and operate at least 700 brand-store locations in Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, according to court documents. What other cases have leveraged disparate impact liability? The Sheetz case echoes a 2018 lawsuit against Target claiming that the retailer's hiring process, which automatically rejected people with criminal backgrounds, disproportionately kept Black and Hispanic applicants from getting entry level jobs. Target agreed to pay more than $3.7 million to settle the lawsuit, and revised its policy so fewer applicants with criminal records would be disqualified. In 2020, Walmart agreed to pay $20 million and discontinue a pre-employment strength test that the EEOC had claimed in a lawsuit unfairly excluded women from jobs at grocery distribution centers. And in one of the biggest sex discrimination cases in recent years, Sterling Jewelers, the parent company of Jared and Kay Jewelers, agreed in 2022 to pay $175 million to settle a long-fought lawsuit alleging that some 68,000 women had been subjected for years to unfair pay and promotion practices. What's the potential fallout of scrapping disparate impact? The Justice Department, EEOC and other federal agencies have moved quickly to quash the use of disparate impact liability. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, for example, has moved to dismiss several Biden-era lawsuits against police departments in Kentucky and Minnesota, saying the cases claimed patterns of unconstitutional policing practices 'by wrongly equating statistical disparities with intentional discrimination.' In a May memo to employers, EEOC Acting Chief Andrea Lucas said the agency would deprioritize disparate impact cases, meaning that worker complaints such as the original two that triggered the Sheetz lawsuit are unlikely to be investigated. She also warned companies against using demographic data, which large companies are required gather and submit annually to the EEOC, to justify policies that favor any employees based on race or sex, something Lucas has long argued many well-intentioned DEI policies do in violation of Title VII. Jenny Yang, a former EEOC chair now with Outten & Golden, said the pullback on federal enforcement of disparate impact risks dissuading companies from proactively examining hiring and other practices to ensure they do not discriminate. At the same time, Yang and nine other former Democratic EEOC commissioners and counsels have released a letter to employers emphasizing that the Trump's order does not change the law, and to expect private practices to redouble efforts to bring disparate impact claims. "Employers should not expect that they will have a free pass on disparate impact liability simply because the President has instructed federal agencies not to pursue enforcement of the law," wrote the former EEOC officials. ________

Government moves to drop Sheetz discrimination case as Trump targets key civil rights tool
Government moves to drop Sheetz discrimination case as Trump targets key civil rights tool

The Hill

timean hour ago

  • The Hill

Government moves to drop Sheetz discrimination case as Trump targets key civil rights tool

Federal authorities are moving to drop a racial discrimination lawsuit against the Sheetz convenience store chain, part of a broader effort by President Donald Trump's administration to halt the use of a key tool for enforcing the country's civil rights laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces workplace anti-discrimination laws, confirmed it has begun notifying potential claimants of its intention to drop the Sheetz lawsuit, citing Trump's executive order directing federal agencies to deprioritize the use of 'disparate impact liability' in civil rights enforcement. Disparate impact liability holds that policies that are neutral on their face can violate civil rights laws if they impose artificial barriers that disadvantage different demographic groups. The concept has been used to root out practices that close off minorities, women, people with disabilities, older adults or other groups from certain jobs, or keep them from accessing credit or equal pay. Trump's executive order is part of his campaign to upend civil rights enforcement through firings and other steps that have consolidated his power over quasi-independent agencies like the EEOC, redirecting them to implement his priorities, including stamping out diversity and inclusion practices and eroding the rights of transgender people. In the Sheetz case, filed in April 2024 under the Biden administration, the EEOC had claimed that the company's policy of refusing to hire anyone who failed its criminal background checks discriminated against Black, Native American and multiracial job applicants. The lawsuit could survive even if the EEOC drops it: The law firm Outten & Golden, which represents workers in employment disputes, and the Public Interest Law Center, filed a motion Thursday to intervene and pursue its own class action lawsuit on behalf of one of the potential claimants. The Supreme Court recognized the concept of disparate impact in a landmark 1971 case, which held that a North Carolina power plant discriminated against Black employees by requiring high school diplomas and an intelligence test for certain higher paying roles, even though the requirements were irrelevant to the jobs. In 1991, bipartisan majorities in Congress voted to codify disparate impact in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The concept holds that it is illegal to impose barriers to employment if such practices have a discriminatory effect and have no relevance to the requirements of the job. The April 23 order declared that it is 'the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.' The order argued that disparate impact has become a 'key tool' of a 'pernicious movement' that threatens meritocracy in favor of 'racial balancing' in the workforce. Craig Leen, a former top official at the Labor Department under the first Trump administration, said while the executive order take a more aggressive approach, it reflects longstanding conservative concerns that disparate impact liability encourages the assumption that any racial imbalance in the workforce is a result of discrimination. Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights, said the order reverses 'a trend of bad law and bad policy in prior administrations.' She said the Trump administration would rightfully 'focus on individual discrimination cases,' which she said are 'more factually sound, less susceptible to manipulation, and more closely hews to the original intent' of civil rights law. The EEOC filed the original Sheetz lawsuit after an eight-year investigation that arose from complaints filed by two job applicants. Both Republican EEOC commissioners at the time voted against bringing the lawsuit, while the three Democrats voted in favor. In an email to The Associated Press, an EEOC spokesperson confirmed the agency has began notifying potential claimants that it would file a motion to dismiss the case but declined to comment further. One of the potential claimants, Kenni Miller, filed a motion to intervene Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. U.S. workers can pursue federal discrimination lawsuits on their own if the EEOC declines to take up their complaints but often don't because of the resources required. Miller, a Black man, was hired as a shift supervisor at a Sheetz in Altoona, Pennsylvania, in 2020. After working there for a month, Miller was told he failed the background check because of a felony drug conviction and was let go, according to the motion. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Sheetz' policy of denying jobs who anyone who failed a background check resulted in 14.5% Black job applicants being denied employment, compared to 8% of white applicants. For Native American applicants, the rate was 13%, and for multiracial applicants, it was 13.5%. In court filings, Sheetz denied the allegations. Attorneys for the company, which is being represented by the law firm Littler, declined to comment further. The EEOC has not said how many potential claimants have been identified. Christopher McNerney, an Outten & Golden attorney who is representing Miller, said the number is likely in the thousands. Sheetz has more than 20,000 employees and operate at least 700 brand-store locations in Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, according to court documents. The Sheetz case echoes a 2018 lawsuit against Target claiming that the retailer's hiring process, which automatically rejected people with criminal backgrounds, disproportionately kept Black and Hispanic applicants from getting entry level jobs. Target agreed to pay more than $3.7 million to settle the lawsuit, and revised its policy so fewer applicants with criminal records would be disqualified. In 2020, Walmart agreed to pay $20 million and discontinue a pre-employment strength test that the EEOC had claimed in a lawsuit unfairly excluded women from jobs at grocery distribution centers. And in one of the biggest sex discrimination cases in recent years, Sterling Jewelers, the parent company of Jared and Kay Jewelers, agreed in 2022 to pay $175 million to settle a long-fought lawsuit alleging that some 68,000 women had been subjected for years to unfair pay and promotion practices. The Justice Department, EEOC and other federal agencies have moved quickly to quash the use of disparate impact liability. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, for example, has moved to dismiss several Biden-era lawsuits against police departments in Kentucky and Minnesota, saying the cases claimed patterns of unconstitutional policing practices 'by wrongly equating statistical disparities with intentional discrimination.' In a May memo to employers, EEOC Acting Chief Andrea Lucas said the agency would deprioritize disparate impact cases, meaning that worker complaints such as the original two that triggered the Sheetz lawsuit are unlikely to be investigated. She also warned companies against using demographic data, which large companies are required gather and submit annually to the EEOC, to justify policies that favor any employees based on race or sex, something Lucas has long argued many well-intentioned DEI policies do in violation of Title VII. Jenny Yang, a former EEOC chair now with Outten & Golden, said the pullback on federal enforcement of disparate impact risks dissuading companies from proactively examining hiring and other practices to ensure they do not discriminate. At the same time, Yang and nine other former Democratic EEOC commissioners and counsels have released a letter to employers emphasizing that the Trump's order does not change the law, and to expect private practices to redouble efforts to bring disparate impact claims. 'Employers should not expect that they will have a free pass on disparate impact liability simply because the President has instructed federal agencies not to pursue enforcement of the law,' wrote the former EEOC officials. ________ The Associated Press' women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at

Are Children Losing the Ability to Read?
Are Children Losing the Ability to Read?

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Are Children Losing the Ability to Read?

Parents are increasingly disinterested in reading to their kids — and it's majorly hurting the young ones' literacy skills down the line. In interviews with The Guardian, childhood literacy experts expressed concerns about shrinking rates of at-home reading, which occurs as the prevalence of so-called "screen time," or time using tablets or smartphones, balloons ever higher. Spencer Russell, a Texas-based former elementary school teacher turned literacy coach and influencer, told the website that gen Z-aged parents, or those born after 1997, particularly seem to have difficulty reading to their kids — perhaps because they were raised on such screens themselves. "I don't think we can divorce the role of technology influencing gen Z parents and their kids with the decline in reading out loud," he explained. "Screen time is replacing one-on-one, quality interactions between parent and child." "We see children who can sit still and focus for hours on YouTube or Miss Rachel," he continued, "but when you sit them down with a book, they move, wiggle, or scream and run away." It's well known that too much screen time can harm a child's cognitive development, and that effect may well be compounded by dropping rates in at-home reading. A recent HarperCollins survey, which found less than half of parents surveyed said that reading to their kids was "fun," may help explain that downward trend. The impacts of replacing reading with screen time has long-term educational impacts, too. "Books are a really rich source of learning new words, and if kids don't have that experience reading at home, they're likely to come to school knowing less vocabulary," Dawna Duff, a speech language pathology associate professor at SUNY Binghamton University in New York State, told the Guardian. According to a 2019 study, parents who read one single picture book per day with their kids provide them access to a whopping 78,000 new words per year. In the five years before those children enter school, that number jumps to a whopping 1.4 million words. Parents who don't read to their kids are, in essence, taking all those words away — and with jarring studies suggesting up to two-thirds of American 4th graders lack the skills to read fluently, it seems highly unlikely that the two are unrelated. A specialist in vocabulary education, Duff told the Guardian that learning words early "makes a big difference in how successful you're going to be throughout school" — and emphasized that parents needn't be perfectionists when trying to teach their kids new words when reading at home. "You shouldn't feel like you need to read every word on the page," she said, "or even any words on the page." Ultimately, any type of reading at home appears to be more helpful than not, and tailoring reading time to kids' specific interest is, per Duff, the best way to go about it. "We know one of the most helpful ways to read books is by having a conversation with children about what they're interested in," she continued. "Follow their lead." Add all this to the disastrous situation in classrooms, where fed-up teachers are confronting a deluge of AI slop from students who can barely read, and you have all the makings of an educational and intellectual crisis. More on reading: Business Insider Did Something So Stupid With AI That We're Reeling

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store