« AnteriorContinuar »
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2 sentence of section 23 of the 1974 Act are hereby repealed. 3 (b) Except as repealed by this Act or as inconsistent 4 with the provisions of this Act, all provisions of the 1974 Act 5 as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.
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.
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 v.Jor.es
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
(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. Jor.es.
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
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
Under P.L.93-531, the area would be partitioned
equally between the two tribes with each tribe receiving about
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
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.
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