If neither of the two alternatives presented above are possible, we will probably refuse Hopi jurisdiction. In that case we would become refugees. The Accommodation Agreement says we can relocate to the New Lands. We know all about the New Lands from our relatives who relocated there and have been coming back. There is just as much poverty and pain for the people there as there is here, and even more regulation of human life and traditional religion, than there would be under the Lease. Still, we must have a place to go. We know that when Kit Carson made war on the Dine', many of the Big Mountain people went to the Gray Mountain area, and others went into the Grand Canyon. They stayed there for some time, so we still have ties to that area. There is land available in that area. We are asking that, if no other alternative can be found, these lands be acquired so those who cannot live under the Accommodation Agreement/Lease can just go there and live in freedom. We do not want relocation, or subdivisions or any off the other things the Relocation Commission puts onto the people who relocate. We just want a place we can be free. 4. If the Accommodation Agreement can be Made to Work, we Must have Redevelopment Our lives and communities have been shattered by the “land dispute". Many of us want to improve our lives. We need money to rebuild our housing, to drill wells and put up windmills, to bring in electricity and running water to those communities that want them. We want to rebuild our community structures, such as the Survival Camp, the Survival School, and the Mosquito Springs Community Hogan. We want help for reseeding and restoring land areas that have been overgrazed in the past or taken over by Russian Thistle. Even little things like school bus shelters and community playgrounds are needed. If the AIP and Lease are adopted as written, we foresee more litigation. We feel there should be a joint Navajo-Hopi dispute resolution board where disputes about land use, religious issues, and other civil matters could be taken for settlement, instead of court. If the Board could not reach a decision, then the matter could be submitted to binding arbitration. This Proposal was developed in public meetings of the Dine' families of Big Mountain, Mosquito Springs - Teasyatoh, Cactus Valley - Red Willow, Tonalea and Howell Mesa held at Big Mountain on March 20 and 22, 1996. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 90-15003 JENNY MANYBEADS, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al. Defendants-Appellees. REPORT TO THE HONORABLE HARRY R. MCCUE REGARDING THE DINÉ (NAVAJO) FAMILIES' RELIGIOUS December 21, 1993 SUBMITTED BY: Lee Brooke Phillips, Attorney for the Manybeads Big Mountain Legal Office 308 N. Agassiz P.O. Box 1509 Flagstaff, AZ 86002 Katherine W. Hazard, Attorney Member of the United States Mediation Team U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 23795 (L'Enfant Station) Washington D.C. 20026 INTRODUCTION AND PREFATORY STATEMENT BY COUNSEL At a negotiation session in Phoenix on September 16, 1993, the Diné families expressed concern that Diné religious issues were not adequately addressed by the Hopis' proposed draft lease. Judge McCue asked us, the lawyer for the Diné families (Lee Phillips) and a member of the federal mediation team (Katherine Hazard), to meet with the families to see if their religious and other concerns with the Hopi proposed lease could be reduced to writing and suggestions made for how those concerns could be accommodated by means not involving a land exchange. During October and the first two weeks of November meetings were held by Mr. Phillips in the Hopi Partitioned Lands (HPL) communities to discuss with the families what had happened in the mediation since the August 5, 1993, meeting at Rocky Ridge and to ask whether they would like to continue participating in mediation and work, as Judge McCue had requested, to identify their religious and other concerns with greater specificity. Meetings were held at the communities of Teestoh, Mosquito Springs, Coalmine Mesa, Sand Springs, Big Mountain and Cactus Valley. One of the concerns frequently raised at these meetings was that the families had not been more directly involved in the mediation process. The Diné families live scattered throughout a large area of land accessible only by dirt roads. Travel is time consuming and difficult. To cross the affected area is approximately a five (5) hour drive. Few people have telephones and, except in the Teestoh area to the south east, there is not a governmental or community organization structure in existence for the Diné residents of various areas on the HPL. Thus, communication to hold meetings and exchange information is difficult under any circumstances. Throughout the mediation there has not been any representational mechanism for the families on the HPL. On November 22, 1993, several residents from each of the communities met in Flagstaff with us to discuss whether representatives might be selected from the different communities so that there could be a mediation team to participate in future meetings and negotiations. It was unanimously determined that the residents would return to their communities and representatives would be chosen from the communities and reconvene in Flagstaff on December 7, 1993. This was a landmark step that will greatly facilitate mediation. Aware of the December 31, 1993, deadline for a showing of progress required by the Ninth Circuit, the representatives planned a 2-day meeting for December 13-14 to identify in writing their religious concerns and begin drafting suggestions for an accommodation of those concerns. A day long drafting session occurred on December 16, 1993, involving a smaller group chosen to complete the report. The following religious concerns and suggested solutions were expressed by the Diné families in the various meetings which occurred between the families and the Hopi Trice during the summer of 1993, in community-wide meetings which occurred throughout the fall of 1993, and during three (3) days of meetings with approximately thirty (30) representatives from the various Diné communities on the HPL. The United States participated, at Judge McCue's request, in order to aid in facilitating the formulation of a report/proposal that articulates the families' concerns with the terms of the Hopi lease proposal not to endorse the substance of any concern or proposal. With this introduction to the process requested by the mediator, what follows is a report by Mr. Phillips and the Diné families' of the families' religious concerns and suggested solutions and recommendations regarding an accommodation. Respectfully submitted, Lee Brooke Phillips Katherine W. Hazard |