1

.ck you for your letter cor.cerning Public Law 93-)..
bill, H.R. 4281, amending that law.

Your letter
ses six points of consideration you wish addressed with
.espect to H.R. 4281.

Poirt 1. Your first point suggests that the bill places certain liabilities of the United states into the lap of the Navajo Tribe by asking them to pass a resolution and accept responsibility for resolving the process of relocation.

The Navajo-Hopi land dispute and P.L. 93-531 are extremely complicated matters. The Hopi Tribe has a legal, constitutionally-protected right to the lands partitioned to them by P.L. 93-531, deriving both from a prior Federal court decision and from the law itself. H.R. 4281 proposes to take 360,000 acres of that land from the Hopi without their consent for the benefit of the Navajo Tribe and of the Navajo families facing relocation. In return for this, the bill would return the Navajo lands to the Hopi. 215,000 acres of this land were given to the Navajo by the United States for relocation purposes.

In additior., the bill requires the Navajo Tribe to pay to the Hopi Tribe $300,000,000. This amount is to be paid over an undetermined number of years and is derived from three sources: (1) The Navajo must pay 12-1/2 per year of the revenue they receive from an existing coal lease on the Navajo Reservation; (2) The Navajo must pay 50% per year of their one-half share of the revenues derived from an existing joint Navajo-Hopi coal lease on the former Joint Use Area lands; and (3) the Navajo must agree to pay 25% per year of any revenue they receive from their mineral interest in the so-called Paragon Ranch lands which they received

voice

the land where they reside. Is there a way we can include their
in this process and by doing so take steps toward insuring a true
resolution to this situation?

The families who have voluntarily complied with the law by moving from
the Joint Use Area and have waited up to nine years for benefits, seen to
be overlooked by this legislation. Can we protect the interest and
rights of a people who are suffering merely by complying with a law?

In some areas, such as Howell Mesa where Navajo people would rema in,
under the Udall/McCain legislation, it is unclear as to the Hopi
intention with regards to mining development. If the Hopi do engage in
mining then we are faced with questions such as air quality, availa-
bility of water for human and livestock use, rights of way, etc. Can we
insure that the quality of life is addressed in provisions of H.R. 4281?
Faced with the tremendous debt of the Navajo Nation under this proposed
legislation, we must question the ability of the Nava jo to maintain and
expand benefits and service programs for their people. Do we know the
overall effect a debt like this will have on the Navajo Nation's
resources?

5.

6. By setting up a trust fund for relocatee rehabilitation from royalties of

the Paragon Ranch project, would we not in fact shift the burden for providing services mandated by the 1974 Act from the United States to the Navajo? What would happen to the people awaiting services if the Paragon

Ranch project was delayed or abandoned? I await your thoughts regarding the questions pose. By addressing these problems, we will then be in a positon to launch into a comprehensive solution that will give peace and dignity to the Indian people and conscience to Congress.

I appreciate your interest and commitment.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Ronald Deltums
Member of Congress

RVD/CCS

Thark you for your letter cor.cerning Public Law 93-531 ard my bill, H.R. 4281, amending that law. Your letter raises six points of consideratior. you wish addressed with respect to H.R. 4281.

Poirt 1 Your first point suggests that the bill places certain liabilities of the United States into the lap of the Navajo Tribe by asking them to pass a resolution and accept responsibility for resolving the process of relocatior..

The Navajo-Hopi land dispute and P.L. 93-531 are extremely complicated matters. The Hopi Tribe has a legal, constitutiorally-protected right to the lands partitioned to them by P.L. 93-531, deriving both from a prior Federal court decision and from the law itself. H.R. 4281 proposes to take 360,000 acres of that land from the Hopi without their consent for the benefit of the Navajo Tribe and of the Navajo families facing relocation. In return for this, the bill would return the Navajo lands to the Hopi. 215,000 acres of this land were given to the Navajo by the United States for relocation purposes.

In additior., the bill requires the Navajo Tribe to pay to the Hopi Tribe $300,000,000. This amount is to be paid over an undetermined number of years and is derived from three sources: (1) The Navajo must pay 12-1/2$ per year of the revenue they receive from an existing coal lease on the Navajo Reservation; (2) The Navajo must pay 50% per year of their one-half share of the revenues derived from an existing joint Navajo-Hopi coal lease on the former Joint Use Area lands; and (3) the Navajo must agree to pay 25% per year of any revenue they receive from their mineral' interest in the so-called Paragor. Ranch lands which they received

from the United States for relocation purposes. These payments are compersatior to the Hopi for the provisions of the bill which extinguish monetary damage claims of the Hopi against the Navajo Tribe.

Ary liability that the United States has for the experses of relocations that have or may occur, even if H.R. 4281 was eracted into law, will remain.

Point 2. Your secord point suggests that H.R. 4281 does not provide a voice for the residents of the former Joint Use Area in decisions regarding their welfare.

The Navajo Tribal Council is the natioral legislature of the tribe ard is a represeritative government like our own. 109 Chapters cor.stitute the Navajo units of local government, analogous to our states, and each selects at least one person to the tribal council. Decisior-making within the chapters is ar.alogous to the town hall meetings of New Englard, i.e. all of the adult members are entitled to debate and vote.

Fourteen of the 109 chapters have considered H.R. 4281. These are the chapters which are impacted by relocatior. and the provisiors of H.R. 4281. Eleven, including all which have families subject to relocation, have overwhelmingly voted to support H.R. 4281. The three that voted against, i.e. Black Mesa, Forest Lake, ard Chinle, do not include families subject to relocatior.. AS you can see, the families subject to relocation have already had a direct, familiar forum within which to express their position on the legislatior..

As your point 2 implies, the bill requires the Navajo Tribe to accept or reject the terms of the bill. Even though the affected families, through their chapters, have already evinced their support for the legislation, they would have another opportunity, both through chapter meetings and through their representative on the tribal council, to be represented.

while the immediate benefits of the terms of the bill flow to the Navajo families facing relocation, the obligations the Navajo Tribe must assume and accept are national obligations affecting all Navajo. Therefore, it is appropriate that those decisions be made by the national legislature.

Point 3. Your point three raises the rights of Navajo families who have already relocated and are still awaiting their relocation benefits. Your concern for these families is justified and is one which I share. These families are entitled to these benefits ard H.R. 4281 does not detract

from that right. All that is lacking is the will of the Administration and the Congress to appropiate the funds to which they are entitled. I would appreciate your help in securing those appropiations.

Point 4. Your point 4 raises the issue of Hopi intertions to lease lands for mineral development. There is, apparently, a widespread misunderstanding about the role that miheral development has played in the whole Navajo-Hopi lard dispute.

Statements have been made that there is no real dispute between these two tribes. It is asserted that the dispute was concocted by the United States and unnamed energy companies to get at the coal deposits on the Joint Use Area. Presumably, the enactment of P.L. 93-531 was orchestrated by officials of the United States and these energy companies to facilitate mineral development. There is simply no truth to these allegations.

The 1962 Federal court decision, which determined the relative rights of the two tribes in the 1882 Hopi reservation, established the so-called Joint Use Area and held that the two tribes had a joint, equal, and undivided interest in both the surface and subsurface of the area. Under the law, any lease of the mineral interests of the JUA would have to be agreed to by both tribes and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The only lease entered into with respect to the JUA was with Peabody Coal Company in the northern part of the JUA called Black Mesa. This lease was entered into prior to the enactmer.t of P.L. 93-531.

P.L. 93-531 did not change, in any respect, the legal status with respect to JUA minerals. while the law required the equal partition of the surface of the area between the two tribes, it specifically provided that the subsurface mineral interest would remain in joint ownership. Regardless of which tribe owns the surface of the former JUA, both tribes would still have to consent to any mineral development and the Secretary still must approve the lease. Since the Secretary's approval would constitute a major Federal action, all relevant provisions of NEPA must be met. In addition, the protective provisions of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, the Clean Water Act, and the clean Air Act are applicable to reservation development.

There also seems to be a perception that the Hopi Tribe is anxiously awaiting the clearing of their lands of Navajo families so that they may rush in and despoil, through mineral development, lands which are sacred to them and which are dotted with Hopi, as well as Navajo, religious shrines and sites. This simply is not the case.