Sacred Spaces, Sovereign Lands
Within the intricate web of environmental conservation and land management in California, a nuanced narrative unfolds at the intersection of Indigenous rights, State Park jurisdiction, and the enduring legacies of white privilege and colonialism. Historical, structural, and economic forces have displaced, erased, and disenfranchised Indigenous communities from their homelands and waters. They have resisted these colonial forces since time immemorial and continue today. In trying to preserve access to sacred areas, many tribes have established partnerships with local and state government bodies, including California State Parks – formal and informal depending on tribal needs and resources and geographic realities. This exploration requires a critical examination of how historical injustices, ongoing colonization, and structures of privilege shape access to and management of sacred lands and waters. Clear cases of environmental inequality emerge in which some groups are denied access to land that should rightfully be theirs and experience disproportionate harm from policies, laws, and regulations that don’t consider their spatiality – the relationship between social space and society and the influence of racism on the shaping of places. Approaching this issue through an environmental justice framework requires not only considering distributional justice (the equitable distribution of environmental hazards and benefits), but procedural justice (the reorganization of decision-making powers) as well as justice as recognition (addressing the social and cultural dynamics that devalue certain groups in society). Due to the ongoing processes of colonization, white privilege, and struggles for sovereignty, partnerships between Indigenous communities and California State Parks represent both a beacon of collaboration and an exemplar of environmental inequality with varying levels of access, rights, and autonomy afforded to Indigenous peoples.
Case Presentation
Indigenous people have lived on the land we call California since time immemorial. The Gabrieleño-Tongva did not name themselves, but rather, got their name during Spanish colonization and enslavement of the tribe (Gabrielino/Tongva Nation of the Greater Los Angeles Basin). The Tongva tribe’s historical territory includes over 4,000 square miles, which they call Tovangar, but is today the Los Angeles Basin area (Gabrielino/Tongva Nation of the Greater Los Angeles Basin). Their ancestral territory’s northern border was the Santa Susana Mountains with the other borders marked by, “Aliso Creek to the South, the San Bernardino Mountains to the East, and the Pacific Ocean to the West, including the four channel islands of Santa Catalina, San Clemente, Santa Barbara, and San Nicolas” (Gabrielino/Tongva Nation of the Greater Los Angeles Basin). Despite a long history of trade relations beginning in the eleventh century, whites and Indigenous peoples had conflicting views of land and spirituality, with whites seeing Indigenous worship as "pagan rituals to be purged" (Dorceta 2016). This justified the establishment of missions to "Christianize" Indigenous people, often through violence (Dorceta2016).
A map that shows the historical territory of the Tongva tribe. Source: Native-lands.ca
In 1771, the Spanish enslaved the Tongva to build the Mission San Gabriel Arcángel. Their culture faced near decimation three times: “in the wake of Spanish rule, the Gold Rush, and Anglo colonization” (Gabrielino/Tongva Nation of the Greater Los Angeles Basin).
The Acjachemen are a nearby tribe; “Their nation’s territory, which consisted of many villages, spanned from Long Beach to Oceanside, as far east as Lake Elsinore, and westward to Catalina and San Clemente Islands.” (The Acjachemen Nation). Both the Tongva and the Acjachemen are deeply connected to their ancestral homelands. Opposing Euro-American conceptualizations of nature, they see themselves as part of the environment and, most notably, as stewards of the environment with a responsibility, not simply a right to it. Much of their connection to the land and water comes from their ancestors, who subsisted off the land in a balanced manner, “their supermarket or pantry laid in the ocean, meadows, and hillsides of their land” (The Acjachemen Nation) Estimates vary on the Tongva and Acjachemen population before contact with the Spanish. Today, there are about equal numbers of Tongva and Acjachemen: around 3,000 tribal members each (Ocde.us).
Image is of the historical territory of the Acjachemen tribe. Source: Native-lands.ca
The lack of federal recognition of the Tongva and Acjachemen peoples stands as a poignant reminder of the ongoing struggles for acknowledgment and sovereignty faced by Indigenous communities in the United States. In 1994, the Tongva people were recognized formally as the people of the greater LA Basin and the state of California but this still does not rise to the level of federal recognition. Federal recognition for Indigenous tribes is a legal acknowledgment by the United States government of a tribe's sovereignty and status as a distinct political entity, which grants certain rights benefits and privileges, including the ability to govern themselves, manage their lands, and access resources and services provided by the federal government. The Tongva remain federally unrecognized, despite ongoing desire to be recognized (Gabrielino/Tongva Nation of the Greater Los Angeles Basin). Though they are unrecognized, they have been included in the last three censuses under the name “Gabrielino” (Gabrielino/Tongva Nation of the Greater Los Angeles Basin). Likewise, the Juaneño band of Acjachemen were most recently denied federal recognition in 2011 (Brazil, 2021). Federal recognition is the primary goal of many of the Indigenous people here, but it is an intensive, timeconsuming process that these tribes often don’t have the resources to pursue (Brazil, 2021). Consequences of not being federally recognized include less legitimacy in making claims to artifacts discovered at sacred sites, loss of the right to federal grants, and loss of land allotments for members to live on and use for ceremonies, among other things (Brazil, 2021).
The Acjachemen tribe has three bands while the Tongva is made up of small villages, rather than bands. Both tribes have a tribal council with a chairman who holds the ultimate authority over the tribe. Individuals may act as tribal liaisons for their tribes; they are in communication with their elders to understand what the tribe needs in order to relay this to the relevant parties (C. Beladres, Personal Communication, Feb 11, 2024). Tongva tribal members are required to “provide approved documentation to verify their Gabrieleno lineage.” (Gabrielino/Tongva Nation of the Greater Los Angeles Basin). Gabrieleno lineage is verified by “their Certificate Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),” (Gabrielino/Tongva Nation of the Greater Los Angeles Basin).
The Yurok People, a North Coast tribe whose historical territories revolve around the Klamath river, espouse that “[o]ur world began long before non-Indian exploration and settlement occurred in our area” (Our history). The federally recognized Yurok tribe is the largest tribe in California, with over 5,000 enrolled members and over 200 employees (Our history). Their size and federal recognition offer them resources that smaller and/or non-federally recognized tribes wouldn’t have access to in order to assert their sovereignty (Our history). The Yurok historical territory comprised 56,000 acres4 along the Klamath river, yet in 1995 only 5,000 acres were under tribal control and agency, the rest was mostly in non-indian hands (Huntingser & McCaffery 1995). The Klamath river is their lifeline and speaks to their relationship to the land and water. The majority of their food supply comes from the river, including ney-puy (salmon), kaa-ka (sturgeon), kwor-ror (candlefish), woo-mehl (acorns), puuek (deer), mey-weehl (elk), ley-chehl (berries), and wey-yok-seep (teas) (Our history). This ability to sustain health and wellness hinged on these foods; they were also used in religious ceremonies, and as such, the Yurok people were careful to avoid overharvesting to “ensure sustainability of our food supply for future generations.” (Our history). This philosophy is connected to their creation story: “Yurok people believe they were placed on the Klamath River to care for it. The Tribe’s creation story tells that the river was made to support the Yurok People and as long as they do not take more resources than they need from the river, it would always provide for their livelihood.“ (Yurok tribe 2020)
Image is a map of the historical territory of the Yurok tribe.
Indigenous people may be particularly vulnerable to ecological harms because they are so closely connected to their environment and depend so directly on it for subsistence (Gedicks 2005). However, “Native Americans and whites had differing views of the land, and this led to many conflicts and the disenfranchisement of indigenous peoples.” (Dorceta 2016). Where Indigenous people saw themselves as stewards of the land, Euro-American settlers saw themselves as “masters with dominion over it” (Dorceta 2016) and “saw the land as a commercial product best suited for private ownership and exploitation” (Dorceta 2016) and soon “These differences formed the philosophical basis of the Euro-American seizure of Indian lands” (Dorceta 2016).
California tribes have shared experiences of colonialism hallmarked by displacement, disenfranchisement, and disengagement. Oppression of Indigenous people came in various forms: bans on native religions and languages, forced assimilation of Indigenous children in boarding schools, tribal lands seized as war bounties, treaty making and breaking, control of land, water, and mineral resources, turning Indigenous people into low-wage laborers, the formal weakening of tribal and individual political power, and containment and extermination (Cantzler & Huynh 2015, Dorceta 2016). The Tongva and Acjachemen were nearly wiped out, like many other Indigenous people in the United States, by “diseases, murder, and destruction of the environment” (NATIVE AMERICAN PEOPLE of Orange County). This legacy has resulted in the destruction of most of the Acjachemen ancient villages and sites, an attempt at erasing them from history altogether (NATIVE AMERICAN PEOPLE of Orange County). In 1852, the first governor of California, Burnett, put out a bounty on Native people, incentivizing and codifying their murder(Gabrielino/Tongva Nation of the Greater Los Angeles Basin). The Yurok tribe experienced similar colonial violence, but also witnessed the destruction of the Klamath river over the last century which was likewise an act of exceptional violence for this tribe (Reed, 2020). Put simply: “Violence against the land is violence against Indigenous peoples – because we are the land, and the land is us.” (Reed, 2020) Attempts to destroy the salmon and other animals and natural resources the tribe relies on are attempts to destroy the Yurok people (Reed, 2020).
California State Parks are situated at the intersection of profound beauty and painful legacies that are still felt today. The era of land preservation for public use began when California established the first State Park, Yosemite, in 1864 (it later became a National Park), when Congress and President Lincoln granted the land to the State. (The History of California State Parks, 2013). The implications of land grants meant further displacement of Indigenous people given that “the notion of sovereignty is nebulous when it comes to the appropriation of Indian land for conversion to parks and forests.... [And] tribal wishes are usually ignored whendecisions are made about designating federal and state parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and so on” (Dorceta 2016).
Crystal Cove State Park, which will be one of two Parks examined in this paper, occupies the historical territories of Tongva and Acjachemen. In the 1830s the Mexican government set out on a quest to secularize their missions, and in doing so granted former mission lands to individuals (Crystal Cove State Park). In 1837, the land that would become Crystal Cove State Park was granted to Jose Andres Sepulveda, and transferred to James Irvine in 1864 (Crystal Cove State Park). By 1938, friends of the Irvine family had built 47 cottages at Crystal Cove which remain a picturesque staple of Crystal Cove State Park.
The second State Park to be examined is Sue-Meg State Park, previously named Patrick’s Point State Park. In 1851, Patrick Beegan laid a preemptive claim on the highpoint of the peninsula in the westernmost part of Sue-Meg State Park (California State Parks). He only resided in the area three months but the time was devastating to the Yurok people – “he led a militia to a Native American village where numerous Indigenous people were massacred” (California State Parks). Despite this, people began calling the area Patrick’s point and in 1930 when the State of California purchased the land and brought it into the Parks system as “Patrick’s Point” (California State Parks), the Yurok never stopped calling it by their ancestral name, “Sue-Meg”. In 2021 “the Yurok Tribe formally requested that the California State Park and Recreation Commission change the name of Patrick’s Point State Park to Sue-Meg State Park” (California State Parks). The request was granted and the park is now named Sue-Meg State Park.
California State Parks units were often established with the explicit intention of resource conservation, however, this proved to be a more complicated issue than simply fencing something off for “protection”(The History of California State Parks, 2013). Natural resource management and protection is critical given that “More than forty of the state’s 700 native wildlife species and 2,100 of its 6,300 native plant species can be found nowhere else.” (The History of California State Parks, 2013). Indigenous people are essential to maintaining this diverse wildlife, despite comprising only 4-5% of the population globally, “[T]hey maintain 80 percent of the planet’s biodiversity in, or adjacent to, 85 percent of the world’s protected areas” (Robbins 2018). Yet there remains a deep-seated mistrust of Indigenous people to steward their own land, especially when it is on State Park land, which is rooted in hegemonic narratives, or narratives that affirm Anglo-European superiority (Cantzler & Huynh 2015). The nuances of natural resource management reflect social arrangements and power dynamics, highlighting how human values, policies, and cultural practices shape environmental stewardship, rather than solely natural realities, such that “Natural resource management shapes an environment in accordance with the norms and expectations of the manager. A landscape is manipulated biologically to produce certain goods and services , creating, in the process, what might be termed a normative landscape. The ecological changes resulting from a shift in management regimes constitute the imprint of a change in social relations; one group’s normative landscape is supplanted by that of an ascendant group.” (Huntsinger & McCaffrey 1995).
Varying tribal needs and resources as well as varying levels of readiness within the California State Parks System and varied geographic landscapes result in the Tongva and Acjachemen people still working to get land acknowledgements and basic access while the Yurok have established co-management agreements with Parks.
Analysis & Discussion
Environmental (In)Justice
The relationships between Indigenous tribes and California State Parks are deeply intertwined with issues of environmental inequality, revealing stark disparities in access, resource allocation, and cultural preservation. In order to fully grasp the dimensions of this inequality, we must look at environmental (in)justice in a tripartite model framework with distributive justice, procedural justice, and justice as recognition (Cantzler & Huynh 2015). Distributive justice refers to the distribution of environmental hazards and/or benefits; this is the most central concern for environmental justice activists, though “it is not sufficient in and of itself to achieve meaningful and lasting equity” (Cantzler & Hyunh 2015). Instead, “Procedural justice is also required: ‘Redistributing outcomes will not achieve environmental justice unless it is accompanied and, indeed, preceded by a procedural redistribution of power in decision-making’” (Cantzler & Hyunh 2015). Finally, justice as recognition is necessary to “[address] the cultural dynamics through which certain groups have been devalued by the state and civil society,” as well as to “[validate] Native American cultural prerogatives” and discrimination against Indigenous people (Cantzler & Hyunh 2015). In recognizing that “the three elements of justice provide a multidimensional framework that incorporates political, institutional, and cultural factors,” we are able to analyze the intricate dynamics within the California State Parks system and its relationships with tribes (Cantzler & Huynh 2015).
To explore the concepts of distributive justice, procedural justice, and justice as recognition in the context of the Tongva, Acjachemen, and Yurok tribes, it is crucial to examine how these principles apply to their struggles for land, rights, and cultural preservation. Distributive justice for the Yurok tribe is slightly more advanced than for the Tongva and Acjachemen. Yurok tribal members have access to specific North Coast state parks, including Sue-Meg, at any time with their Tribal Identification Card (Crystal Cove State Park and Crystal Cove Conservancy Tribal Engagement Goals). Currently the only similar program at Crystal Cove State Park allows their non-profit partner, Crystal Cove Conservancy to print parking passes for groups who have previously coordinated with them, but there is no way for individuals to have their parking fees waived (Crystal Cove State Park and Crystal Cove Conservancy Tribal Engagement Goals). Additionally, in the North Coast parks, Yurok tribe members are permitted to collect plant materials and minerals for traditional purposes from the parks without a permit (Crystal Cove State Park and Crystal Cove Conservancy Tribal Engagement Goals). While collecting traditional materials is technically permitted at Crystal Cove State Park as well, the permit system is difficult to access. In interviews, Conservancy employees, Parks employees, and Tribal partners all said that this system was never used (K, Wheeler, Personal Communication, Feb 2, 2024; J, Fayer Personal Communication, Nov 20, 2023); though Tribal partners expressed a desire to collect traditional materials – a missed opportunity for distributive justice for the Tongva and Acjachemen tribal communities (C, Belardes Personal Communication, Feb 11, 2024).
When it comes to procedural justice, we might first look to the Yurok tribe’s co-management agreements. In 2022, the Yurok Tribe and California State Parks signed a Global Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which granted collecting rights as well as rights to “participate in tribal activities such as religious, spiritual, ceremonial, recreation, and research” (The Yurok Tribe, 2022). Additionally, the MOU aims to utilize and integrate Yurok Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) into natural resource management in the parks (The Yurok Tribe, 2022). The Yurok Tribe also saw other procedural justice victories in the MOU that established co-management of O’Rew, a culturally significant portion of the North Coast Parks, by the Tribe, California State Parks, and National Parks (The Yurok Tribe, 2024). Previously, O’Rew was the site of a sawmill that spilled oils and chemicals that “ravaged the land and the river” that the Yurok had been repairing long before the MOU was in place (Stutson, 2024). For the Tongva and Acjachemen, because there is no formal MOU in place at Crystal Cove State Park, procedural justice has largely come through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Crystal Cove State Park and Crystal Cove Conservancy Tribal Engagement Goals). CEQA triggers a government-to-goverment consultation between State Parks and tribes when a proposed park project may impact cultural resources of tribes. State Parks works through the Native American Heritage Commission process to formally reach out to representatives identified by the state with project information to see if they have concerns or would like toparticipate (J, Fayer, Personal Communication, Nov 30, 2023). A 30-day response window further exacerbates organization and capacity issues within tribes to accommodate all requests (J, Fayer, Personal Communication, Nov 30, 2023). Often, concerns come down to a difference in how to view the landscape and deciding where site boundaries are; State Parks’ archaeologists are trained to set up site boundaries based on where they find physical archaeological evidence and artifacts, but this may not tell the whole story to the Indigenous people (J, Fayer, Personal Communication, Nov 30, 2023). Full procedural justice for the Tongva and Acjachemen at Crystal Cove State Park would include a signed, formal MOU that provides the tribal members with full, unfettered access to Crystal Cove State Park and other state parks, giving them the ability to be included in decision making, collect traditional materials, gather formally and informally, and avoid parking and use fees.
Justice as recognition is a top concern for the South Coast tribes as they are activelyseeking the implementation of land acknowledgements in parks in their homelands which largely don’t exist. Land acknowledgements address issues inherent in justice as recognition as they affirm Tribal connections to their homelands and waters as well as subsequent rights to them. They can also be a tool to combat anti-Indigenous discrimination by broadening awareness. California State Parks leadership is working to implement land acknowledgements in all California State Parks which don’t have them through a phased roll out (J. Fayer, Personal Communication, Nov 30, 2023) ., Crystal Cove State Park is not in the early phase of the rollout, but the goal is for all to be included eventually (J. Fayer, Personal Communication, Nov 30, 2023). As demonstrated by the MOU agreements with the Yurok, substantive justice as recognition has to include work toward land return, where land currently owned by the State, including State Parks, is returned to Indigenous ownership.
White Privilege
The policies governing California State Parks have perpetuated white privilege, creating barriers for Indigenous communities to access and steward the lands that are rightfully theirs, while benefiting others. Normative conceptions of racism are narrow, often hinging on individual malicious intent, restricting claims and erasing structural harm (Pulido 2000). Contrasting this, white privilege is a framework that refers “to the privileges and benefits that accrue to white people by virtue of their whiteness” and “to the hegemonic structures, practices, and ideologies that reproduce whites’ privileged status” (Pulido 2000). It is a highly spatial form of racism, being “partially contingent upon a particular set of spatial arrangements.” (Pulido 2000). Spatiality refers to “the relationship between social space and society” (Pulido 2000). As an idea, “White privilege, together with overt and institutionalized racism, reveals how racism shapes places” (Pulido 2000). Furthermore, in the context of access rights, white privilege shapes who is deemed worthy of access and what the processes of gaining access look like; regarding land use, white privilege largely dictates land use, with a few exceptions in the case of co-management agreements and the like; and in terms of resource allocation, white privilege sheds light on how privileges and benefits accrue through resource allocation over generations of California State Parks’ history to advantage whites over Indigenous groups. This is not to say that white folks are always intending to harm non-white people people, but “Because [people with privilege] accrue social and economic benefits by maintaining the status quo, they inevitably do” (Pulido 2000). Furthermore, “White privilege thrives in highly racialized societies that espouse racial equality, but in which whites will not tolerate either being inconvenienced in order to achieve racial equality...or denied the full benefits of their whiteness” (Pulido 2000).
Because of these and many other dynamics of white privilege at play in the State Parks system, extensive trust-building with tribal partners is required, and some organizations are trying to leverage their white privilege for the benefit of Indigenous communities. For example, being a white-led organization has allowed Crystal Cove Conservancy to be more trusted by the white, wealthy community which it’s surrounded by in Orange County; the surrounding community is willing to put their trust in Crystal Cove Covervacy because they think they will protect the space for white people in a way that protects white privilege, and Crystal Cove Conservancy is trying to leverage this to get donors or other resources directed towards Indigenous partners (K. Wheeler, Personal Communication, Feb 2, 2024). However, this presents concerns that they will end up inadvertently upholding white privilege in trying to leverage it in favor of Indigenous people.
Decolonization
Indigenous communities across California have embarked on powerful movements of resistance and decolonization, reclaiming their rights to the lands they have long inhabited. Understanding the legacies of settler colonialism alive today is important for understanding the landscape for Indigenous peoples in the United States, especially given “while colonialism has an end point, settler colonialism is characterized by its permanence” (Dorceta 2016). The characteristics “inherent in American settler colonialism is the desire to replicate Anglo-American societies in the wilderness, conquer and corral indigenous peoples, stimulate swift economic growth through mineral extraction and processing, and create political apparatuses based on racial exclusion” (Dorceta 2016). Additionally, the cultural dynamics of racial domination involved invalidation of Indigenous cultures and “the construction of hegemonic narratives that validate Anglo-European supremacy,” (Cantzler & Huynh 2015). As such, decolonization efforts, if they are to be resilient and robust, must work to validate and revitalize Indigenous cultural prerogatives and deconstruct hegemonic narratives.
One such hegemonic narrative states that, “In the culture of the colonizer, there is no room for the idea that native peoples are capable of managing their own natural resources” (Gedicks 2005). This is a deep-seated mistrust of Indigenous people to steward their own land. This narrative is recognized in the Crystal Cove State Park and Crystal Cove Conservancy Tribal Engagement Goals Document, while also taking action to deconstruct it, where they state: “Tribal members have expressed that the state does not trust them to steward their own lands because they don’t have experience doing the work. Involving them in restoration and other natural resource work at Crystal Cove may help them build capacity to take on a leadership role here and in other places in their homelands.”
Indigenous peoples have a deep understanding of and connection to their natural environment. State parks can benefit from their TEK, which promotes sustainable land management practices that protect biodiversity and ecosystems. To meaningfully engage with decolonization involves valuing and incorporating TEK and land management practices. This integration can lead to more sustainable and effective stewardship of natural resources, benefiting both the environment and park users. Decolonization efforts often focus on returning control of ancestral lands to Indigenous peoples. This can include legal recognition of land rights, co-management agreements, or full transfer of park management to Indigenous tribes, thus affirming their sovereignty and self-determination. Of course, this is not to understate the task at hand, as “It requires undoing centuries of systemic oppression and the embedded legal, political, and cultural mechanisms that enabled it” (Cantzler & Huynh 2015).
Looking Forward: Collaborative Initiatives
Indigenous-led initiatives, collaborative efforts, and co-management agreements pave the way for more inclusive and equitable State Parks policies. These are not simply hypothetical but are happening. The Yurok Tribe’s procedural justice victories laid the foundation for ongoing collaborative initiatives in the form of co-management agreements. In these agreements, they are the lead and State Parks are offering them assistance as needed, thus affirming their sovereignty and self-determination (Stutson, 2024). Additionally, the Yurok tribe has worked with federal, state, and local agencies, as well as non-profit organizations, to manage and protect natural resources within their ancestral territory. For example, they have a Condor restoration program with the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in order to restore the sacred birds (Yurok Condor Restoration Program). The partnership between Crystal Cove Conservancy and Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples represents a significant (though imperfect) step towards fostering cultural preservation, environmental stewardship, and community empowerment for the Tongva and Acjachemen peoples. Through this collaboration, the Conservancy and the Institute work together to integrate Indigenous knowledge, values, and perspectives into the management and interpretation of Crystal Cove State Park (C. Beladres, Personal Communication, Feb 11, 2024). By actively engaging with local Indigenous communities, the partnership aims to ensure that the park's cultural and natural resources are protected, respected, and celebrated. One of the key benefits of this partnership is the revitalization of Indigenous cultural practices and traditions within the park (C. Beladres, Personal Communication, Feb 11 2024). Another important aspect of the partnership is the promotion of education and awareness about Indigenous history, culture, and contemporary issues (C. Beladres, Personal Communication, Feb 11, 2024). Overall, the partnership between Crystal Cove Conservancy and Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples serves as a model for collaborative and inclusive approaches to park management and cultural preservation. By working together in a spirit of mutual respect and cooperation, the partners are able to create meaningful and lasting benefits for the Tongva and Acjachemen communities, as well as for the park's visitors and the environment as a whole.
Meaning
Finally, it is important not to forget the tangible, human impact this work has on theIndigenous people and communities that experience California State Parks. At Crystal Cove, a coastal park, some of the cottages have been restored and opened as public overnight rentals. Crystal Cove Conservancy operates the cottages and is able to open some up for Indigenous stays of a few nights at a time.. In an interview, an employee of Crystal Cove Conservancy relayed an experience of the first Indigenous person to stay in a cottage through this program, who stayed at Cottage #22: “she woke up the Saturday morning after her first night there, and she was just overwhelmed. She looked out at Pimu, which is Catalina, and she felt like she was probably the first of her people in 500 years to have the opportunity to see the sun rise over Catalina and see the sun set over Catalina in the same day. All of the work she intended to do went out the window, and she said she just spent the time with her ancestors. And that means a lot.” (K. Wheeler, Personal Communication, Feb 2, 2024) This underscores the deep sense of belonging and continuity that comes from experiencing the natural world as their ancestors did and why it is so important that we create truly equitable 16 access not just by preserving these sacred spaces for future generations but by prioritizing Indigenous access. State Park lands hold great meaning for Indigenous peoples, serving as essential links to their ancestral lands, cultural heritage, and spiritual practices. For many Indigenous communities, these parks are not recreational spaces but sacred sites imbued with historical and cultural significance.
Conclusion
The narrative that emerges at the intersection of Indigenous rights, State Park jurisdiction, and the enduring echoes of white privilege and colonialism is one of profound complexity and injustice. As historical, structural, and economic forces continue to displace and disenfranchise Indigenous communities from their ancestral lands and waters, the resilience and resistance of these communities remain unwavering. Throughout centuries of struggle, many tribes have sought to regain and preserve access to their sacred areas through partnerships with local and state government bodies, notably California State Parks. Yet, the nature of these partnerships varies greatly depending on tribal resources and needs, geographic realities, and the readiness of those entrusted with public lands to work toward equitable access, shared management, and land return. Through the lens of environmental justice, it becomes evident that the denial of access and disproportionate harm experienced by certain groups are clear examples of environmental inequality. Such inequality requires not only the equitable distribution of environmental hazards and benefits but also the restructuring of decision-making powers and the recognition of the social and cultural dynamics that devalue and erase marginalized groups. As partnerships between Indigenous communities, California State Parks, and non-profit organizations navigate the complexities of sovereignty, white privilege, and environmental stewardship, they simultaneously embody both the promise of collaboration and the reality of environmental inequality – where access, rights, and autonomy for Indigenous peoples remain contingent upon ongoing struggles for recognition and justice.
Works Cited
The Acjachemen Nation. (n.d.). https://www.missionsjc.com/wp-content/uploads/SA_AcjachemenNation.pdf
Brazil, B. (2021, September 22). New tribal leader will help the first people of O.C. in their decades-long battle to gain
federal recognition. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/entertainment/story/2021-
California State Parks. (2013). The History of California State Parks. Retrieved from
http://parks.ca.gov/pages/712/files/11%20csp-150yearsfinal%20brochure.pdf.
Crystal Cove Conservancy. (n.d.). Crystal Cove State Park and Crystal Cove Conservancy Tribal Engagement Goals.
Newport Beach.
Gabrielino/Tongva Nation of the Greater Los Angeles Basin. State of California Native American Heritage Commission.
(n.d.). https://nahc.ca.gov/cp/tribal-atlas-pages/gabrielino-tongva-nation/
Gedicks, A. (2005). Resource Wars Against Native Peoples. In The Quest for Environmental Justice: Human Rights and
the Politics of Pollution (pp. 168–187). essay, Sierra Club Books.
HUNTSINGER, L., & MCCAFFREY, S. (n.d.). A Forest for the Trees: Forest Management and the Yurok Environment,
1850 to 1994. American Indian Research Journal, 155–192. 20 https://doi.org/https://escholarship.org/content/qt7qn456xf/qt7qn456xf_noSplash_570e67f32ea87529f82926f133aeb339.pdf?t=rzjji3
Miller Cantzler, J., & Huynh, M. (2015). Native American Environmental Justice As Decolonization. SAGE Publishers, 1–
21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764215607578
NATIVE AMERICAN PEOPLE of Orange County. Background information for inside the outdoors programs. (n.d.).
https://ocde.us/ito/Documents/NativeAmericanBackground.pdf
Our history. Yurok Tribe. (n.d.-a). https://www.yuroktribe.org/our-history
Pulido, L. (2000). Rethinking Environmental Racism: White Privilege and Urban Development in Southern
California. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90(1), 12–40.
Reed, K. (2020). We Are a Part of the Land and the Land is a Part of Us. Department of Sociology, Humboldt State
University, 42(42), 27–49.
Stutson, A. (2024, March 30). The yurok tribe regains Redwood Park land to create their own historical park. NPR.
Taylor, Dorceta E.. "1. KEY CONCEPTS INFORMING EARLY CONSERVATION THOUGHT". The Rise of the
American Conservation Movement: Power, Privilege, and Environmental Protection, New York, USA: Duke
University Press, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1515/9780822373971-003
The Renaming of Patrick’s Point State Park to Sue-meg State Park. California State Parks.
(n.d.).https://www.parks.ca.gov/?
page_id=30927#:~:text=In%201851%2C%20Irish%20homesteader%20Patrick,east%20of%20present%2Dday%20Orick .
Yurok Tribe. (2022, September 28). Yurok tribe and California state parks sign historic memorandum of understanding.
Yurok Tribe https://www.yuroktribe.org/post/yurok-tribe-and-california-state-parks-sign-historic-memorandum-
Yurok Tribe. (2024, March 19). Save the Redwoods League, the yurok tribe, and Park Partners Sign Historic Agreement
to return Tribal Land. Yurok Tribe. https://www.yuroktribe.org/post/save-the-redwoods-league-the-yurok-tribe-
and-park-partners-sign-historic-agreement-to-return-triba
Yurok tribe. Congress.gov . (2020, January 14)
https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110359/witnesses/HHRG-116-II13-Wstate-MyersF-20200114.pdf
Interviews
C. Beladres, Personal Communication, Feb 11, 2024
J. Fayer, Personal Communication, Nov 30, 2023
K. Wheeler, Personal Communication, Feb 2, 2024