It appears that members of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors are finally waking up to the realities of dealing with the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians.

Board members voted Tuesday to oppose the tribe/s request to the federal government to annex 5.81 acres near the Chumash Casino, in large part because tribal officials have not revealed what plans they have for the land, and because putting the land in tribal trust removes it from the county/s tax rolls and from the county/s regulatory requirements.

That last part may become more important because of news last week that monitoring by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board has revealed the presence of the fuel additive MTBE, which apparently has seeped into the ground at the proposed annexation site. MTBE can quickly contaminate wells and is a potential carcinogen.

Is the tribe equipped to deal with a water contamination issue? That/s just one of the questions that needs to be answered before federal officials even consider the tribe/s request for annexation.

And how would the county cope with the loss of taxes from the land, should it be annexed by the tribe? County officials estimate there would be nearly ,700,000 in lost tax revenues over the next 10 years if the land is not developed, and about ,5.5 million lost over the same period if the tribe annexes the land and puts commercial buildings there.

Tribal officials have argued that taking land off the county tax rolls is not necessarily a bad thing, because the tribe has contributed several million dollars to local agencies and institutions. The problem here is that, with the land off the county/s tax rolls, tribal officials decide who should get money. That/s a questionable proposition given that, unlike the Board of Supervisors, the tribe/s leadership is not accountable to citizens of the valley.

Another bothersome issue is that, through annexation of more and more land, the tribe/s activities are actually being at least partially subsidized by the county/s taxpayers, because of tax revenues lost. The demand for services increases significantly in communities around the casino, yet the tribe pays no taxes to help fund those services.

County and tribal officials say they will continue to negotiate an agreement that could address some of these issues and answer some of these questions. But this is a "government-to-government" relationship that is one-sided, when you consider the tribal government represents about 150 members, while the county government represents the interests of hundreds of thousands of taxpayers.

Aug. 11, 2005