- 12

after date of delivery of the notice unless the HPL Navajo signing this Agreement files an action within that 90-day period in the Hopi Tribal Courts contesting the termination. In such a case, the judge of the Hopi Tribal Court who heard the challenge would determine the date on which the termination, if upheld, would become effective.

The four ways in which this Agreement can be terminated are: (1) upon the HPL Navajo signing this Agreement no longer using the homesite as his principal residence for a continuous period of more than two years; (2) upon conviction, and, if it occurs, an appeal, of the HPL Navajo signing this Agreement in a court of competent jurisdiction for the violation of any crime referenced in 18 U.S.C. 1153 (or its counterpart in Hopi Ordinance No. 21) or section 3.3.13 of Hopi Ordinance No. 21 (child molesting); (3) upon three convictions, and, if they occur, appeals, within a fifteen-year period of the HPL Navajo signing this Agreement in a court of competent jurisdiction for the violation of any combination of the following sections of Kopi Ordinance No. 21: section 3.3.17 (cutting green timber), section 3.3.44 (impersonation of a public officer), section 3.3.46 (injuring fences), section 3.3.47 (injury to public property), section 3.3.52 (maintaining a public nuisance), section 3.3.54

13

(malicious mischief), section 3.3.56 (misbranding), section 3.3.63 (polluting streams), and section 3.3.73 (tampering with communications); section 108.C.1.a of Hopi Ordinance 43; or the Hopi Woodland and Wildlife Ordinances; or (4) upon the HPL Navajo signing this Agreement using the homesite or his/her farmland for a commercial business or mining activity. No termination shall occur under subparagraph (1) above unless all HPL Navajos who reside at the homesile give it up, but the Agreement shall be terminated with respect to the HPL. Navajo who no longer principally resides at the

homesite, and similarly under subparagraphs (2) and (3) a conviction or convictions against one HPL Navajo shall terminate only that resident's rights under this Agreement.

This Agreement will not be terminated for violation by the HPL Navajo signing this Agreement of Section 3.3.82 (wrecked, junked, or unserviceable vehicles) of Hopi Ordinance 21. To ensure that this section is complied with, the Nation agrees that, if the HPL Navajo signing this Agreement is convicted of a violation of this section, it will assist that person in removing, and if necessary guarantee the removal of, the offending property within thirty (30) days of entry of judgment on the conviction.

The HPL Navajo signing this Agreement will, upon sixty (60) days after termination of this Agreement immediately surrender the homesite to the Hopi Tribe and vacate the HPL. The HPL Navajo signing this Agreement is entitled to remove all of his/her property within those sixty (60) days. To the extent that it has not been removed prior to the expiration of those sixty days, the property will be deemed forfeited and abandoned. The HPL Navajo signing this Agreement may surrender this Agreement at any time by means of a written instrument verified before a notary public or before a judge of the Hopi Tribal Courts. Any person residing at the homesite who does not vacate the HPL within sixty days after termination of this Agreement is subject to eviction which will be effected by the United States and the Hopi Tribe.

5. Relocation Renefits Waived: By signing this Agreement, the HPL Navajo signing this Agreement agrees and acknowledges that, after three (3) years from the date of this Agreement, with the exception of Lemporary emergency relocation assistance (as set forth in 25 C.F.R. 5 700.175), any and all rights he/she would have to relocation benefits as more fully defined in 25 U.S.C. 640d are waived. If the HPL Navajo signing this Agreement decides to exercise his/her relocation benefits after signing this Agreement, he/she must vacate the homesite as soon as a relocation dwelling is made available or within three years from the date of the Agreement, whichever is sooner.

RE:

NAVAJO FAMILIES RESPONSE TO HOPI TRIBE'S SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
PROPOSAL

Dear Chairman Secakuku:

I am writing as the legal representative of the Navajo families living on the HPL. The purpose of this letter is to respond to your letters of September 6, 1995 and September 8, 1995 which contain the Hopi Tribe's offer to accommodate the religious concerns raised by my clients and discussed with your Hopi Tutsqua Team during several meetings this past summer. The Navajo Families Mediation Team has voted to accept the Hopi Tribe's proposed accommodation and to go forward at this time and begin the one year trial period. The Navajo families agree to do this with the understanding that the clarifications to the Accommodation Agreement in your letters and in this letter form the basis for the parties proceeding with this process.

It is the intention of the Navajo families that this letter be read in conjunction with the proposed Accommodation Agreement and your letters and that the clarifications contained in all three letters be binding during both the one year period that my clients will have to accept and sign the Accommodation Agreement and also with respect to any final agreement that is signed by the parties.

There are several specific clarifications which my clients ask that I communicate to you and the Hopi Tribe. These clarifications are based on the discussions and agreements that occurred during our meetings with your Tutsqua Team this past summer.

1.

It must be clear that this Agreement is made in good faith and in order to provide for the accommodation of traditional Navajo families living on the HPL. The Agreement is made because the parties do not want to continue to be in conflict. Rather, they wish for a relationship that is respectful and helpful. The Agreement offers an opportunity to bring peace to this troubled land for the benefit of both

'CERTIFIED BY THE STATE BAR OF ARIZONA AS A CRIMINAL LAW SPECIALIST

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Tribes. This Agreement has been made pursuant to the direction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in the Manybeads v. United States of America case, that the parties reach by negotiation and voluntary agreement a final settlement of certain issues relating to the 1974 Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act.

The agreement reflects the respect that members of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation have for each other and the acknowledgment by each of the sincerity of the traditional beliefs of the other, the importance of those beliefs in defining each Tribe's way of life, and the desire of both peoples to preserve their respective cultures and ways of life in the future. It is understood that the United States will specifically acknowledge the sincerity and importance of the religious beliefs of members of the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation and the significance of the Navajo and Hopi religions.

Children and descendants of the eligible adult Navajos are also eligible for the accommodation. In addition, final decisions regarding eligibility for the accommodation, homesites, farming and grazing will be made during the one year period and prior to the final acceptance and signing of the individual Accommodation Agreements by the Navajo families.

All existing structures which belong to eligible Navajo families and are related to residential, farming, grazing or Navajo ceremonial use shall remain permitted as part of the Accommodation Agreement.

The Agreement states that each Navajo family signing the Agreement will be “free to continue any use he/she is currently making of the homesite." Your letter of September 6, 1995 further states that "thus to the extent that HPL Navajos.are currently engaged in grazing, farming, weaving, jewelry making and the like, these uses are protected and are not subject to the prohibition of commercial business activities." We want to clarify that other traditional uses such as noncommercial child care or the provision of traditional medical services shall not be considered commercial uses as well.

The prohibition on keeping toxic or hazardous materials on the homesite would not include fuel and other materials which are used for general residential purposes and that are stored and used in a safe manner.

The Accommodation Agreement provides that my clients who accept and sign the Agreement would have the right to use up to ten acres of land for farming. The September 6, 1995 letter further provides that "the Agreement contemplates that orchards will be counted as part of the allowable farmland acreage." We want to clarify that all existing traditional Navajo farming including cultivated fruit trees and vines are included as part of the farmland acreage.

It is my clients' understanding that grazing shall be made available to each eligible families' homesite. With regard to the issue of substituting horses and cattle for sheep, we want to be clear that to the extent that Navajo families wish to use his/her allocated SUYL to graze animals other than sheep, that he/she may do so

2