Imágenes de páginas



SEC. 13. (a) Subsection (f) of section 10 and the last

2 sentence of section 23 of the 1974 Act are hereby repealed. 3 (b) Except as repealed by this Act or as inconsistent 4 with the provisions of this Act, all provisions of the 1974 Act 5 as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.

4281 INIS


1) The 1882 Executive Order Reservation

In the 1870's, the BIA agents ir. Northern Arizona complaired to Washington that the Hopi Tribe needed to have a reservation in order to be protected from white intermeddlers, Mormor. settlers and er.croachirg Navajos. As a result, in 1882, President Chester

Arthur by Executive Order, established a reservation for "the Hopi

Ir.diaris ard such other Indians as the Secretary of the Ir.terior may

see fit to settle thereon".

That reservation, which was about 70


miles lorg and 55 miles wide, corsisted of approximately 2.5

millior. acres ir. Northern. Arizora.

At that time, the Navajo tribe, which consisted of about

13,000 members, had a reservation which was to the east and

adjacent to the Hopi reservatior.. Evidence shows that ever. ther, about 300 Navajos were living inside the 1882 reservation. The

Hopi Tribe at that time had a total population of about 1800


In spite of the creation of a reservation for the Hopis,

Navajos continued to move into the Hopi reservation.

Ir. 1943, the

Secretary of the Interior established Land Management Districts and limited the Hopis to one area known as District Six while assigning

the rest of the 1882 reservatior. to the Navajos.

District six,

which consists of about 600,000 acres, is only about one fourth the

size of the original 1882 Reservation.

2) The 1958 Act and Healirg

The respective rights of the two tribes to the 1882

reservation remained undetermined until 1958 when Congress passed

an Act which confirmed the rights of the tribes to the area and authorized the two tribes to litigate their respective rights to


the reservation.

(P.L. 85-547, 72 Stat. 403).

The tribes went to court ard in the case of Healir.g v. Jones 210

F. Supp 125,(1962) a three judge Federal court ruled that while

District Six belonged exclusively to the Hopis, the rest of the

1882 reservation belor.ged jointly to both the Navajo and Hopi tribes because the Secretary of the Interior in assigrirg grazing districts to the Navajos in 1943 had exercised his option under the

1882 Executive Order to settle such other Indians as he may see fit

in the 1882 reservation.

This 1962 decision was summarily upheld

by the Supreme Court in 1963. (See Healing v. Jores, 373 U.S 758).

Beginning in 1963, the two tribes attempted without success


negotiate a settlement which would cor.form to the Court's decision

ir Healing v.

By 1970 however, failure to reach ary

negotiated settlement moved the Hopis to petition the Federal court

for an order of compliance to erforce their rights under the

Healing decree.

In 1974, in the case of Hamiltorv. Macdor.ald,

503 F 20 1138, a Federal Circuit Court recognized the right of the

Hopis to share a joint, ur.divided and equal interest in the Joirt

Use Area (the area of the 1882 reservatior, owned by both tribes).

Since the court was not authorized to partition the area, it attempted to enforce the rights of the Hopis by imposing a reductior. of Navajo livestock, a limitation on Navajo grazing area

and a restriction on further Navajo construction in the area.

3) P.L. 93-531

Before the court's order could be implemented, Cor.gress took

the initiative and enacted P.L.93-531.

This Act provided that

unless a mediator and the two tribes could arrive to a negotiated settlement, a partition of the Joint Use Area would be done by a


Federal court.

Under P.L.93-531, the area would be partitioned

equally between the two tribes with each tribe receiving about

900,000 acres.

Mediation failed ard the Federal court established

The Court order became

the line of partition on February 10, 1977. final on April 18, 1979.

Congress, in 1974, was aware that a partitior. of the area

would result in some Navajos beir.g located on the Hopi side of the

partition and some Hopis being located or the Navajo side of the


Sirce under Federal law, Indiar.s from ore tribe do r.ot

have a legal right to remain or. ar.other tribe's reservation, the Navajos and Hopis who ended or the wrong side of the partition would be subject to eviction. Ir. order to assist such Navajos ar.d Hopis to relocate outside of the contested area, Cor.gress in P.L. 93-531, created the navajo-Hopi Relocatior. Commission as an

independant agency within the Interior Departmert.

The task of the

Commissior. was to assist members of both tribes to relocate outside

each other's area by providing each household with a new or

replacemert home as well as moving expenses ard additional

incentive payments.

4) The July 7, 1986 deadline.

P.L. 93-531 provides that within 24 mor.ths after the date of

the District court's order finalizing the partitior. line, the

Commission had to prepare and submit to Corgress a relocatior.


The Report ar.d plan was giver to Corgress or. April 8, 1981

and became effective 90 days thereafter.

Under the Act, a five

year period of planned relocation from the former Joint Use Area

then began and has to be completed by July 7, 1986.

(After that

date, the Hopi Tribe could proceed to evict any remainirg Navajos


still on Hopi Partitioned lands.

All Hopis have already been

relocated out of the Navajo Partitior.ed lands).

However ir. the

1986 Interior Appropriation Act, Congress provided that "Nore of the funds contained in this or any other Act may be used to evict

any Navajo Household who, as of November 30, 1985, is physically domiciled on the lands partitioned to the Hopi Tribe ur.til such

time as a

new or replacement home is available for such household."

The above language has been a source of confusion among the people affected by relocation. The larguage does not exterd the

July 7, 1986 deadlire since it does not prevert the Hopis from using their own funds to evict Navajos from the HPL. Ir. additior.,

the use of Federal funds is only prohibited ir. cases of evictior. of

Navajo families which have not beer. offerred a

new or replacement


5) Amount of families affected by relocatior..

It has been estimated that a total of 10,000 people are

subject to relocation under P.L.93-531. of these, only about 30 families, consisting of about 100 persons, are Hopi families, the

rest being Navajo families.

of about 2400 Navajo families which

have been four.d to be eligible for relocation berefits, about 900,

cor.sisting of about 4000 persons have beer. relocated while 1100

families (about 4500 persor.s) have moved away from the HPL but have

yet to receive their relocation berefits.'

The actual number of Navajo families still residirg or the HPL

has been the subject of sharp disagreement ard controversy.


the BIA estimates that the number is as low as 230 families, the Navajo Tribe estimates that there are still over 1000 families

still residing in the HPL. Recent Committee ir.quiries indicates

« AnteriorContinuar »