The on-going, festering dispute between the Chumash tribe and its Santa Ynez Valley neighbors has made a cross-country journey.

Rock musician and Santa Ynez Valley resident David Crosby last week took his crusade against tribal gaming expansion to Washington, D.C., where he testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, at a hearing involving tribal leaders, private citizens and government officials to discuss the effects of tribal casinos on surrounding communities.

Crosby, among the valley/s most outspoken critics of tribal expansion fueled by gambling profits, objects to the tribe/s annexing more land, particularly acreage not contiguous to the reservation. Crosby said, "We are now in a situation where the laws intended to give Indians a break are doing unfair and unjust harm to communities all over the country."

That may be a mild overstatement of the situation, but Crosby/s point is well-taken. Chumash tribal officials, understandably, take exception to Crosby/s remarks. Tribal chairman Vincent Armenta responded last week by saying, "It/s typical of David Crosby and all the local tribal opponents to tell only one side of the story. The fact remains that the benefits of gaming and the contributions of our tribe have made a significant positive impact in the Valley."

And thus the Indian wars continue, Santa Ynez Valley-style, more than a century after the actual blood-letting ended.

In fact, both sides are right. The tribe has created a thriving business employing nearly 1,500 people and pumping millions into the local economy. Beyond that, casino profits also have allowed the tribe to make more than ,6.5 million in contributions to various community activities, schools and organizations in recent years.

And now there are plans for a cultural museum and retail shops on land annexed by the tribe, which in part sparked the latest eruption from valley opponents.

But, at the same time, tribal leaders continue to take an us-against-them attitude into just about every discussion of how the casino interacts with its neighbors, which only serves to ratchet up tensions between the tribe and local residents.

Chumash officials like to point out that, at one time, tribes owned vast territories, but were eventually shunted off and isolated on small parcels of land. When Congress passed the Allotment Act in 1887, about 90 million acres were taken away from tribes.

Putting land into tribal trust through annexation, as Armenta pointed out last week, "allows Native Americans, having had a sliver of their original reservation lands restored to them after they were seized by the federal government, to expand their property to a point where their reservation can sustain economic activity. The federal government understands its responsibility to tribal nations."

But what about the tribe/s responsibility to its neighbors and to the local community? The Chumash are no longer the Santa Ynez Valley/s economic underdogs. With a business that grosses more than ,200 million a year, they have the largest "store" with the most financial clout in the county/s midsection, and tribal leaders are becoming increasingly sophisticated in their approach to investing that capital.

It was believed some progress toward compromise had been made a couple of months ago, when the tribe forged an agreement with the county to abide by certain development rules. But details of that agreement have still not been made public. That was a promising start, but the Chumash and county officials now need to follow through. Getting the tribe to play by at least some of the same rules that govern the activities of their neighbors would be a good beginning.

It/s time for the tribe to parlay its economic strength and place of growing importance in the community into taking a greater role in deciding how and how much the valley grows. The Chumash and their neighbors are stakeholders in an important march into the future.

It/s a trip best taken together, as partners.

May 27, 2005