1 22 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 (a) Subsection (f) of section 10 and the last 2 sentence of section 23 of the 1974 Act are hereby repealed. 3 (b) Except as repealed by this Act or as inconsistent 4 with the provisions of this Act, all provisions of the 1974 Act 5 as amended, shall remain in full force and effect. HR 4281 IHIS BACKGROUND: H.R.4281 1) The 1882 Executive Order Reservation In the 1870's, the BIA agents in Northern Arizona complained to Washington that the Hopi Tribe needed to have a reservation in order to be protected from white intermeddlers, Mormor settlers and encroaching Navajos. As a result, in 1882, President Chester Arthur by Executive Order, established a reservation for "the Hopi Indians and such other Indians as the Secretary of the Interior may see fit to settle thereon". That reservation, which was about 70 miles long and 55 miles wide, consisted of approximately 2.5 million acres in Northern Arizona. 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 reservation. Evidence shows that ever. then, about 300 Navajos were living inside the 1882 reservation. Hopi Tribe at that time had a total population of about 1800 people. The In spite of the creation of a reservation for the Hopis, Navajos continued to move into the Hopi reservation. In 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 reservation. 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 Healing 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 the reservation. -2 (P.L. 85-547, 72 Stat. 403). The tribes went to court and in the case of Healing v. Jones210 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 belonged jointly to both the Navajo and Hopi tribes because the Secretary of the Interior in assigning 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. Jones, 373 U.S 758). Beginning in 1963, the two tribes attempted without success to negotiate a settlement which would cor.form to the Court's decision in Healing v. Jones. By 1970 however, failure to reach any regotiated settlement moved the Hopis to petition the Federal court for an order of compliance to enforce their rights under the Healing decree. In 1974, in the case of Hamilton v. Macdonald, 503 F 2d 1138, a Federal Circuit Court recognized the right of the Hopis to share a joint, undivided and equal interest in the Joint Use Area (the area of the 1882 reservation 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 reduction. 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, Congress 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 -3 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 and the Federal court established the line of partition on February 10, 1977. The Court order became final on April 18, 1979. Congress, in 1974, was aware that a partition of the area would result in some Navajos being located on the Hopi side of the partition and some Hopis being located on the Navajo side of the partition. Since under Federal law, Indians from one tribe do not have a legal right to remain or another tribe's reservation, the Navajos and Hopis who ended or the wrong side of the partition would be subject to eviction. In order to assist such Navajos and Hopis to relocate outside of the contested area, Congress in P.L. 93-531, created the navajo-Hopi Relocation Commission as an independant agency within the Interior Department. The task of the Commission was to assist members of both tribes to relocate outside each other's area by providing each household with a new or replacement home as well as moving expenses and additional incentive payments. 4) The July 7, 1986 deadline. P.L. 93-531 provides that within 24 months after the date of the District court's order finalizing the partition line, the Commission had to prepare and submit to Congress a relocatior. Plan. The Report and Plan was given to Congress 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 remaining Navajos -4 still on Hopi Partitioned lands. All Hopis have already beer. relocated out of the Navajo Partitioned lands). However in the 1986 Interior Appropriation Act, Congress provided that "None 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 until 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 language does not extend the July 7, 1986 deadline since it does not prevent the Hopis from using their own funds to evict Navajos from the HPL. Ir. addition, the use of Federal funds is only prohibited in cases of eviction of Navajo families which have not been offerred a new or replacement home. 5) Amount of families affected by relocation.. 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 found to be eligible for relocation benefits, about 900, consisting of about 4000 persons have been relocated while 1100 families (about 4500 persons) have moved away from the HPL but have yet to receive their relocation benefits. While The actual number of Navajo families still residing on the HPL has been the subject of sharp disagreement and 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 inquiries indicates |