28 opportunities that would precede the taking into trust of a specific parcel, if the preconditions to Interior's commitments are met. Similarly, the Settlement Agreement does not provide for the immediate transfer of any jurisdiction over game and fish management. When and if lands are taken into trust for the Hopi Tribe, the specific issues relating to wildlife concerns on a particular land parcel can be addressed. As noted, the Settlement Agreement provides that any action by the Department of the Interior to take lands into trust for the Hopi Tribe will be subject to all existing applicable laws and regulations, including the National Environmental Policy Act and 25 C.F.R. Part 151, as amended by 60 Fed. Reg. 32,874 (June 23, 1995) (which sets forth a public comment procedure for the taking of lands into trust for tribes). Thus, once the preconditions are met for taking land into trust i.e., after the 75 percent threshold is achieved and if the Hopi Tribe acquires a rural parcel of land and, in turn, requests the Department of the Interior to take the parcel into trust - - For then, Interior will be able to consider the actual impacts (if any) to localities. example, hunters or wildlife managers might be concerned about elk or antelope populations in the region or a school board might be concerned about a diminution in the property tax base. Their concerns could be considered as part of the public comment process that would occur prior to the taking of any particular parcel into trust. 29 In addition to incorporating the information gathered from the meetings in 1993, and from subsequent conversations throughout the last three years of negotiations, the United States made an effort to further ensure our understanding of the public's concerns after we had developed with the Hopi Tribe a restructuring of the Settlement. In November or December 1995, prior to concluding our agreement with the Hopi Tribe, we discussed the general outlines of the proposed Settlement with representatives from the State assigned to deal with this issue, in order to gain their perspective in the hopes of ensuring that the restructured Settlement could enjoy the State's and public's In those discussions, and in discussions we have had with the State, County and City officials in December 1995 and early this year, after signing of the Settlement Agreement, comments have been generally favorable. There has been no strong opposition and many have commended our efforts and appreciated the restructuring embraced by the recent agreement. support. F. Conclusion The Settlement does not provide any of the parties all of what they would like. Like many important settlements, it represents a compromise for each of the parties, not a perfect solution for anyone. Its achievements, however, are momentous. In our judgment, this is the best deal that can be achieved. central goal of the negotiations was to reach a consensual resolution to the dispute over use of the Hopi Partitioned Lands - one that both preserves Hopi jurisdiction and allows Navajo The 30 families to remain at their homesites. The 75 year term of the Accommodation is not for as long a term as the Navajo families would like, and it is for longer than many members of the Hopi Tribe would have preferred. After devoting more than 11,000 hours during the last four and a half years to understanding both the broad scale and the detailed issues involved in resolution of this problem, the Justice Department is satisfied that this is a settlement that accomplishes what must be achieved to obtain a meaningful resolution of the conflict over use of the Hopi Partitioned Lands. By providing an alternative allowing Navajo residents to remain under Hopi jurisdiction, it removes the two most dire specters that of the involuntary relocation of hundreds of Navajo residents of the Hopi Partitioned Lands and that of a forced reduction of the Hopi Tribe's ancestral and already diminished reservation lands. We encourage this Committee, and the Congress as a whole, to promote the passage of a technical amendment to 25 U.S.C. 415. Such an amendment is necessary to give effect to this consensual resolution, so that this summer Navajo residents can begin to repair their homes, pursuant to the terms of the Accommodation Agreement. As is true in many difficult negotiations, it is important to maintain momentum and progress. This is such an instance. now have a Settlement that is extremely time sensitive. Navajo families have until the end of 1996 to enter into an Accommodation Agreement; they will need several months to We accomplish this. 31 Various persons or parties may have issues they would like Congress to take up at this time relating to the recent Settlement. In our judgment, it is important for Congress to act swiftly on this modest legislative proposal to grant the Hopi Tribe 75-year leasing authority so that this historic agreement will not be jeopardized. This negotiation process imposed an enormous time burden on all the parties and required untiring patience and perseverance. We are deeply appreciative of the hospitality extended by members of both Tribes during the many, many visits we have made to the Hopi Tribe's governmental seat in Kykotsmovi, to the Navajo Nation's governmental seat in Window Rock and to the homes of residents of the Hopi Partitioned Lands. We hope these agreements will foster a brighter and more peaceful future for the people of northern Arizona. Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of Justice. Thank you for your letter received by the Department of Justice on April 22, 1996, and the opportunity to provide additional information to you and Senator Kyl regarding the HopiUnited States Settlement Agreement. Responses to the questions posed by you and Senator Kyl are listed below. Question 1. How did the Department of Justice value the claims of the Hopi Tribe against the Federal Government? What specific factors were used? Does the $50.2 million reflect a reasonable estimate of the Federal Government's liability in these cases? Response: The settlement of $50.2 million is a reasonable settlement The first lawsuit, Hopi Tribe v. United States, No. 651-89L The regulations concerning trespass penalties provide for a penalty of $1 per day for each animal for each day of trespass, together with the reasonable value of the forage |