responsibility [of] the United States is not predicated on the availability of appropriated funds. Further, the possession of a tribal land base is not the foundation for determining tribal status.” S.Rep. No. 103-266, at 6. The words of the statute and their legislative history demonstrate that Congress intended the Secretary to help establish a reservation land base in a specific geographic area by taking Pokagon-owned lands in trust and purchasing additional property if funds were available. S.Rep. No. 103-266, at 8-9 (letter noting that annual Bureau appropriations for land purchases for all tribes averaged only $1.1 million); H.Rep. No. 103-620, at 9-10 (same); cf. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. United States, 78 F.Supp.2d 699, 704-05 (W.D.Mich.1999) (<HOLDING>), remanded on other grounds, 9 Fed.Appx. 457,
holding that the amount of water rights appurtenant to the land is the amount that is being used thereon before and at the time of the sale recognizing general proposition that if land is artificially submerged for the statutory period necessary to change ownership of the land title to the submerged land is passed to the state in trust for the public holding that the secretarys mandate to acquire land in trust for another tribe was not unlimited as to duration and amount where the tribe had to supply funding and find willing sellers holding that a constructive trust had arisen on a third partys house due to her use of trust assets which had been diverted by the paca trustee to pay the mortgage and finding that the trust beneficiary plaintiffs are entitled to a lien on the property in the amount of the diverted funds holding that the oneida tribe could not unilaterally revive its ancient sovereignty over land through openmarket purchases from current titleholders even though the land had previously been reservation land