Until lately, I have always been sympathetic to Native American causes.
                  Some Indian tribes and their lawyers put out the political belief that the tribal
                  governments are "sovereign nations," when they are at most "sovereign
                  states," like the state of California. For example, the ownership of Indian
                  land is usually recorded with the county or city assessor as "United States of
                  America," held in trust for the tribe. Furthermore, tribal governments and
                  their projects are subject to most federal laws and regulations.

                  Even though Indian tribes are usually exempt from most state laws and
                  regulations, some tribes do themselves a disservice by not voluntarily
                  complying with state environmental laws and regulations and local general
                  plans and zoning ordinances. The general voting public is reacting negatively
                  toward those Indian casinos and housing subdivisions that do not voluntarily
                  comply with planning and environmental procedures. Indian casino and
                  housing projects may bring significant adverse environmental impacts from
                  traffic, noise, water, wastewater and pollution.

                  And as Dan Walters discusses, some questions arise as the tribes earn
                  millions from gambling proceeds and spend millions on political influence.
                  Are they also exempt from political spending laws? How far does
                  "sovereignty" go when you live in the same country?

                  BOB WHITNEY

                  Willits