Sutter or Sacred buttes? County supervisors say don’t rename the California mountain range
Sutter County Supervisors have come out against a proposal to change the name of what’s known as “the world’s smallest mountain range” from the Sutter Buttes to the Sacred Buttes.
Word of the name change prompted a public outcry this summer, with residents speaking for and against the suggestion. But this week, the tenor among county officials was clear.
“Everybody has a strong opinion and, for the most part, everybody is opposed to the name change,” said Supervisor Nick Micheli.
With a unanimous vote Tuesday, supervisors agreed to send a letter opposing the name change to the California Advisory Committee on Geographic Names, which is scheduled to meet Nov. 15 in Sacramento.
The state advisory committee serves as a subcommittee of the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, which oversees the names of geographic features throughout the country. The federal board would also receive the county’s letter opposing the name change.
The lengthy process of changing the name of a natural landmark — in this case, volcanic hills known locally as a mountain range — includes feedback from various stakeholders.
To weigh the Sutter Buttes proposal, the federal board has sought input from Sutter County supervisors, the state advisory committee, California Department of Parks and Recreation and all federally recognized tribes in the U.S. The federal board also takes public feedback.
Packaged with the letter will be roughly 1,500 signatures collected and turned into the county — as of Wednesday — from residents of the counties of Sutter, Yuba and other counties surrounding the buttes on petition sheets labeled “Keep the name Sutter Buttes.”
Sutter Buttes or Sacred Buttes?
The supervisors’ decision comes several months after the community at large learned about the proposal in late July, and even further removed from when the suggested change was first submitted in March by Rachel Rein, then a board member of the Sutter Buttes Regional Land Trust.
Rein, a Nevada County resident, was no longer a part of the board by the time the rest of her group and the public learned of the proposal in July. The group has taken a neutral position on the proposal, according to a statement on its website.
John Sutter, for whom everything from businesses to landmarks and schools in California have been named, built an early settlement where the city of Sacramento now stands near the confluence of the Sacramento and American rivers. Perhaps most famously, it was Sutter’s land east of current day Sacramento where gold was found in 1848, sparking the California Gold Rush.
However, the Swiss immigrant enslaved indigenous peoples, forcing local tribespeople to work for him and sometimes having them killed if they refused. Historical accounts tell of Sutter locking indigenous peoples in their sleeping quarters, forcing them to eat out of troughs and having them beaten and sometimes killed when they disobeyed.
“It feels especially harmful for a landmass that is sacred to multiple Native American tribes to retain the name of someone who is infamous for his horrific treatment of Native Americans,” the name change proposal reads.
Besides acknowledging Sutter’s colonizing past, the proposal calls for honoring the volcanic formation’s sacred and historical significance to Native American mythology.
Supervisors took a position that wasn’t in defense of Sutter, but rather focused on the preservation of the county’s history and place in state history.
“We’ve always said this from Day 1: We absolutely respect history,” said Mike Ziegenmeyer, whose district includes the Sutter Buttes.
“You can’t hide from history,” he added. “The good, the bad, the ugliness of it — history’s history. We learn from history. We’ve said that numerous times.”
Supervisor Karm Bains said he’s heard clear support from the community in favor of keeping the name and opposing the proposal.
Supervisor Mat Conant also supported keeping the name.
“I just think it’s important that people remember history. I’m not a history revisionist, I’m not a history rewriter,” Conant said. “I think that history speaks for itself and I think it’s important that people learn the good, the bad and the ugly, but to say to throw it all out is kind of ridiculous.”
The U.S. Board on Geographic Names also maintains the names of unincorporated communities throughout the country, which would include the town of Sutter. There are 21 features in California with Sutter’s name that are under the purview of the federal board, according to the proposal.
Another Northern California county is amid a debate over the town of Kelseyville, which the federal board has under consideration for a name change.
Voters in Lake County will cast ballots in favor or against changing the town name of Kelseyville to Konocti. The votes in that case would be used by Lake County supervisors to inform their recommendation to the federal names board.
This story was originally published October 31, 2024 at 11:51 AM.
