Convention On The Punishment And The Prevention Of The Crime Of Genocide
UN Convention on Genocide
The Contracting Parties,
Having considered the declaration made by the General
Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution 96
(I) dated 11 December 1946 that genocide is a crime
under international law, contrary to the spirit and
aims of the United Nations and condemned by the
civilized world,
Recognizing that at all periods of history genocide
has inflicted great losses on humanity, and
Being convinced that, in order to liberate mankind
from such an odious scourge, international
co-operation is required,
Hereby agree as hereinafter provided: Read more
Analysis of Dineh case & needs (Center for Constitutional Rights)
ANALYSIS OF DINEH CASE AND NEEDS
Submitted by: Gabor Rona
Senior Staff Attorney
Center for Constitutional Rights
666 Broadway
New York, NY 10012
(212) 614-6437
Date: March 1, 1999
1. Description of case/issues
In continuing pursuit of a policy whose effects, if not means, are indistinguishable from
the ethnic cleansing and genocide visited on Native peoples throughout American history, the
United States seeks to relocate all Navajo (Dineh) people living on that portion of traditional
Navajo lands recently designated by the government to be for the exclusive use and occupancy of
the Hopi. This policy is the solution to a non-existent but cleverly manufactured “range war”
between the Hopi and Navajo, who have, in fact, coexisted peaceably for many generations.
How and why has this happened? Read more
An Overview of the Dineh Crisis
In continuing pursuit of a policy whose effects, if not means, are indistinguishable from the ethnic cleansing and genocide visited on Native peoples throughout American history, the United States seeks to relocate Navajo (Dineh) people living on that portion of traditional Navajo lands recently designated by the government to be for the exclusive use and occupancy of the Hopi. This policy is the solution to a nonexistent but cleverly manufactured “range war” between the Hopi and Navajo, who have, in fact, coexisted peaceably for many generations.
Dineh (Navajo) families are currently struggling against corporate and governmental powers which have attacked their right to remain on their ancestral land, to practice their traditional life-style and religion, and to retain their civil rights. The primary corporate power is Peabody Coal Company, which operates two large strip mines in the area and whose activities have caused environmental damage and the destruction of burial and sacred sites. The governmental powers include the Hopi and Navajo tribal governments, whose history and operation are interlinked with the mining industry, and the US Government, which empowered the tribal governments at the expense of the people on the land.
The combined actions of these corporate and governmental powers have had a devastating impact on the Dineh families. The forcible relocation of Dineh families living in areas partitioned to the Hopi Tribal government was mandated by P.L. 93-531 in 1974. Over 12,000 people have already been relocated from their ancestral land at a cost of over $350 million to the US government, land to which they are intimately bound by their religion and traditional economy. The estimated 250 Dineh families who remain on the land are currently being forced to choose between relocation and life without civil rights under the rule of an openly hostile government. Families near the mining area are subject to the routine destruction of their burial and sacred sites by mining activities which have also destroyed water supplies, defaced the landscape, and negatively impacted their health.
In its war against the Dineh who have resisted relocation, the US Government has destroyed wells that supplied water needed for their survival in the arid climate, outlawed even the most basic home repairs, confiscated the livestock that sustain their subsistence life-style, and subjected them to the rule of a tribal government in which they are not allowed to vote or participate.
The driving force behind the oppression was the discovery of enormous reserves of low-sulfur coal beneath the surface of their ancestral lands, so that control of these lands became the subject of a dispute between tribal governments manipulated by the coal companies. In the resolution to this dispute arranged by the US government, the civil rights of the Dineh were sacrificed so as to satisfy the ambitions of the coal companies and the tribal governments.
Events leading to removal of the Dineh can be traced back to the “Long Walk,” or forced relocation by Kit Carson and the U.S. Army of 10,000 Navajo from their ancestral homeland to an internment camp about 400 miles to the east. The belief that gold was abundant in Navajo territory enabled settlers, with the aid of the U.S. military, to easily overcome any concerns they may have had about the Navajo´s explicit rights to live unmolested in their ancient territory. The 7,000 survivors of the march were concentrated at Ft. Sumner, where many more died in the barbaric conditions of their internment. Hitler later studied this internment as a model for the creation of concentration camps. In subsequent decades, the U.S. pushed the Navajo westward by forcing them to cede eastern portions of their treaty lands. Eventually, the Navajo surrounded the much smaller Hopi Nation.
In 1934, Congress passed the Indian Reorganization Act. Under the guise of support for the ideal of self-determination, tribes were encouraged and pressured to establish electoral, “representative” governments that mining companies and the BIA could more easily control than they could traditional leadership. In 1936, an election boycotted by the majority of Hopi opposed to nontraditional governance, established a government recognized by the U.S.
In the 1950s, lawyers seeking self-enrichment at the expense of the tribes, insinuated themselves, with BIA approval, as counsel for tribal governments formed through their efforts. John Boyden, a Salt Lake City lawyer, was retained as Hopi counsel. Boyden, a Mormon Deacon, also represented the Peabody Coal Company and was counsel for the Mormon Church, which owned a controlling interest in Peabody Coal. (Thus, Peabody eventually gained subsurface rights on exclusive Hopi territory for a fraction of fees paid elsewhere, and continues to lease mineral rights in Navajo/Hopi territory to this day.) Attorney Norman Littell was hired by the Navajo Tribal Council. His contract provided him with 10 percent of coal revenues. Both lawyers were also motivated by statutory fees of 10 percent in Indian Claims Commission (I.C.C.) cases, seeking damages for wrongful taking of native lands. Only after accepting settlements were the tribes informed of the real purpose of the I.C.C.: to settle land claims by paying a pittance and thereby foreclose actions to recover lands wrongfully taken.
Unsettled boundary issues between the Hopi and Navajo remained an obstacle to mineral leasing interests. The coal deposits were mostly located on the area of the 1882 Reservation outside District 6. Boyden’s Hopi government claimed rights to the deposits within the 1882 Reservation it controlled. Littell’s Navajo government claimed the rights because the area was inhabited by Dineh. The lawyers filed a collusive lawsuit against each other in 1958, each tribe claiming the entire 1882 reservation. The 1962 Healing v Jones decision designated District 6 as exclusive Hopi land, and the rest of the 1882 reservation as a Joint Use Area. The mineral rights to the Joint Use Area would be divided between the two governments, and leases with Peabody Coal were signed in 1966.
A lawsuit against the leasing was brought by traditional Hopi whose religion forbade strip mining. The suit was dismissed for failure to join an indispensable party (the Hopi tribe) that could not be joined due to sovereign immunity. By its ruling, the Court simply avoided the claim that the recognized government was fraudulently imposed.
Exploitation of Joint Use land continued to be problematic, given dual tribal interests, but the lawyers had a solution. Coinciding with the pressures of the 1970s energy crisis, the attorneys and mining interests planted stories about a budding “range war” between Hopi and Navajo (there is even evidence that Boyden retained a public relations firm to promote the story) and lobbied hard for federal legislation that was required to separate Hopi and Navajo interests. In 1974, with little opportunity for input from tribal people, Congress passed the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act, dividing the Joint Use Area into Navajo Partition Land (NPL), on which lived 100 Hopi, and Hopi Partition Land (HPL), on which lived 13,000 Navajo. Those on the wrong side of the line were required to relocate.
Over the course of the next decade, thousands of Navajo were evicted from their homes and sacred lands. In 1988, Manybeads v. U.S. was filed to stop the relocations. The suit challenged the Navajo relocation primarily by alleging that it destroys the Navajo´s right to exercise site-specific religion. The 9th Circuit detoured the case into mediation, which was wrestled from the grasp of the plaintiffs into that of the tribal governments. They negotiated an Accommodation Agreement, permitting only specified individuals to sign, and thereby to stay put for 75 years but thereafter to forego relocation benefits. Other Dineh who were ineligible to sign were simply required to move on. This “Accommodation Agreement” was passed into law by the Congress in 1996. Recently, the “Manybeads v. U.S. case was recently dismissed. Again, the rationale was for failure to join an indispensable party (the Hopi Tribe).
Congress had not considered how it was going to evict all the people in an area larger than the state of Rhode Island. A partial solution turned up in 1979 when a dam at a uranium mine burst and contaminated a huge area in two states with the nation’s largest radiation spill. The US bought the land at a discount and turned it into the “New Lands” for the relocated Dineh. Purchased at a bargain basement price by the U.S. in 1980, the New Lands, near Sanders, Arizona, are completely inadequate for subsistence grazing and agriculture, and are 60 miles downstream from the containment dam that held back uranium-contaminated water until the dam burst and the water spilled into the Rio Puerco.
Through the federally established Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (ONHIR), a total bounty of $25 million to the Hopi was placed on Navajo Accommodation Agreement signatures, resulting in fraud, threats, and intimidation. The nonsigning resisters who cooperate with the ONHIR in their removal have some say in the location and construction of replacement housing. Resisters who do not cooperate will be concentrated in the “New Lands.” Removal of both cooperating and noncooperating resisters began in February 2000.
Meanwhile, the ONHIR enforces a strict prohibition against repairs and improvements to the properties of resisters. New glass for a broken window must be smuggled in. Vehicles and homes are searched for building materials, which when found, are confiscated. Both signators and nonsignators alike are subject to grazing restrictions that require them to sell most of their sheep and cattle, leaving them with insufficient numbers to maintain a subsistence living. Those who refuse to sell or corral their animals endure confiscation without compensation.
UN and International Support
In 1998, the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights sent an investigator to the area. It was the first time a UN human rights organ officially and publicly took on investigation of a specific case against the U.S., being particularly concerned about the impact of the relocation on the practice of traditional Dineh religion. The Dineh religion is closely bound to their traditional land, and relocation would destroy their traditional religion. The UN report, The Lehigh Presbytery of the Synod of the Trinity, The General Board of Church and Society of The United Methodist Church, the World Council of Churches and the Society for Threatened Peoples agree with the position of the UN Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, and over 250 Non-Government Organizations at the UN, that the human and religious rights of the Traditional Dineh people are being violated.
In recent months, Prayer Vigils to support Dineh have been held around the world at US Embassies, and in England, France, Germany and Japan. International Human Rights Observers and representatives from the Swedish and German governments traveled to Black Mesa to support the Dineh on the deadline date, February 1, 2000, when jurisdiction was supposed to be transferred by the US government to the Hopi Tribe. Massive evictions were threatened. Danielle Mitterrand, Foundation France-Libertés says, “I would like to present our deepest compassion and support for the Dineh people. It is a time when governments around the world must stop considering people as commodities and start embracing respect of the sacred link existing between ancestral people and their land, in due process of Universal values and the Law. I hope that you will be able during this trying time to bring the United States government to respect this law, which is presently being violated, and to stop harassing the Dineh people. Please know that the Foundation France-Libertés is fully present with you in this struggle for justice, and we will do all we can to help you to be heard and see your rights be respected.”
During the plenary sessions in Strassbourg on February 17, 2000, the EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT adopted the URGENCY RESOLUTION, against the forced relocation, the ongoing violations of human, religious and land rights of the Dineh at ‘Big Mountain’ and raised the concerns of the European Parliament members about the contaminated ‘New Lands’. In this Resolution, they call upon the US Government to respect the land rights of the Dineh people as well as the provisions for Indigenous peoples of the Vienna Declaration.
Relocation Effects
The US policy is edging toward its Final Solution. In about 30 days, the first 12 non-signer families who did not sign the leases will receive notices by the US government for eviction trials in US court. At the same time, Dineh on HPL have received general notices from the BIA informing them that their livestock, on which they depend for survival, will be impounded. Several impoundments have taken place, most of them conducted in violation of federal law. The only alternative the Dineh people are given is to sign up for Relocation or face eviction without any benefits.
The relocation program has been a tragic failure.
Leon Berger, who resigned as Executive Director of the Navajo-Hopi Relocation Commission in 1982 says, “The forcible relocation of over 10,000 Navajo people is a tragedy of genocide and injustice that will be a blot on the conscience of this country for many generations.”
Roger Lewis, one of three federally appointed relocation commissioners, who resigned in 1982 says, “I feel that in relocating these elderly people, we are as bad as the Nazis that ran the concentration camps in World War II.”
Dr. Thayer Scudder, Professor of Anthropology at the California Institute of Technology, who has studied resettlement issues in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East for the UN and the World Bank says “The forced relocation of over 12,000 Native Americans is one of the worst cases of involuntary community resettlement that I have studied throughout the world over the past 40 years. Such a situation would never have arisen in the US if the people involved had been Anglo-Americans. That alone illustrates the extent to which the human rights of one of the poorest minority groups in the US have been violated.”
In mandating relocation, the US government overlooked alternative methods for resolving the conflict between the tribal governments, such as financial compensation as normally used in such cases. It further ignored the impact of relocation upon people whose religion was intimately bound to their ancestral homesites.
Martin Gashweseoma, Keeper of the Hopi Fire Clan Tablets and a spokesman for the traditional Hopi says, “We want everyone to know that the Navajos are not the ones taking our land, but the United States. The Hopi and the Navajo made peace long ago, and sealed their agreement spiritually with a medicine bundle. It is through the puppet governments, the ‘Tribal Councils’ forced upon both nations by the United States, that the illusion of a conflict has been created on the basis of the false modern concept of land title.”
Katherine Smith, an elder from Big Mountain says, “I live about 30 miles from the Peabody coal mine, where they’ve put a fence around us. According to the law, we’re in prison. We cannot repair our house, even when the windows break. We’re not allowed to do it since it’s against the law, against the flag. And our house is so old that all of our floors are falling apart, and all because of the mine. You know, they explode the ground with dynamite so that the houses shake. We still have sheep, a horse, a cow and a goat. That’s what we live on. Good breeders can live from their sheep, from their wool. That’s how we get money to buy food or gas. That´s how the people in Washington, D.C. are trying to do us in. The stick our sheep in the pen and the horse and the cow, and they’re not allowed out again. If they break out, they take them away from us. They call that ‘impoundment,’ and we have to buy our own animals back. Nor do shovels and bulldozers come to a halt before burial places and holy sites are destroyed by the coal mine.”
Alice Begay, an elder from Owl Springs says, “I live 2 miles away from Peabody coal mine, stuck between the mine and relocation. This is high stress causing us heart problems. I am suffering but I will never relocate.”
Rena Babbitt Lane, an elder from Red Lake says, “I want to live here. This is the place I love. We have been threatened, intimidated, harassed, lied to and tricked. US government officials have told me they will throw my possessions away, bulldoze my home and confiscate my livestock. But still I live here.”
Pauline Whitesinger, an elder from Big Mountain says, “The word Relocation does not exist in the Navajo language. To relocate is to disappear and never be seen again.”
We urge all Americans to call upon Congress to repeal legislation that legalizes ethnic cleansing, that arbitrarily confiscates the homes and property of the poorest people in the country, and that strips people of their civil rights solely because of their ethnic origin. Please contact your representatives and remind them that the foundation of all policy toward America’s native peoples should be respect for their right to remain on their ancestral land, to practice their traditional religion, and to enjoy the same protections and civil rights offered to all other citizens.
The Dineh people say, “There is still hope, because there is still resistance.”
Uranium has taken a heavy toll on the Indian population
“The mining of uranium has taken a heavy toll on the Indian population in the Four Corners area. Not only did the Indians receive very little in the way of royalties for the extraction of the ore from their lands, but health and safety precautions in the mines were essentially non-existent. Read more
1868 U.S. Treaty with the Navajo
ANDREW JOHNSON, President of the United States of America, to all and singular to whom these presents shall come, greetings:
Whereas a Treaty was made and concluded at Fort Sumner, in the Territory of New Mexico, on the first day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, Read more
Public Law 93-531 (The Relocation Law)
[DOCID: f:publ301.104]
[[Page 110 STAT. 3649]]
Public Law 104-301
104th Congress
An Act
To provide for the settlement of the Navajo-Hopi land dispute, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, Dispute Settlement Act of 1996.>>
SECTION 1. <> SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute Settlement
Act of 1996”.
SEC. 2. <> FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that–
(1) it is in the public interest for the Tribe, Navajos
residing on the Hopi Partitioned Lands, and the United States to
reach a peaceful resolution of the longstanding disagreements
between the parties under the Act commonly known as the
“Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974” (Public Law 93-531;
25 U.S.C. 640d et seq.);
(2) it is in the best interest of the Tribe and the United
States that there be a fair and final settlement of certain
issues remaining in connection with the Navajo-Hopi Land
Settlement Act of 1974, including the full and final settlement
of the multiple claims that the Tribe has against the United
States;
(3) this Act, together with the Settlement Agreement
executed on December 14, 1995, and the Accommodation Agreement
(as incorporated by the Settlement Agreement), provide the
authority for the Tribe to enter agreements with eligible Navajo
families in order for those families to remain residents of the
Hopi Partitioned Lands for a period of 75 years, subject to the
terms and conditions of the Accommodation Agreement;
(4) the United States acknowledges and respects–
(A) the sincerity of the traditional beliefs of the
members of the Tribe and the Navajo families residing on
the Hopi Partitioned Lands; and
(B) the importance that the respective traditional
beliefs of the members of the Tribe and Navajo families
have with respect to the culture and way of life of
those members and families;
(5) this Act, the Settlement Agreement, and the
Accommodation Agreement provide for the mutual respect and
protection of the traditional religious beliefs and practices of
the Tribe and the Navajo families residing on the Hopi
Partitioned Lands;
(6) the Tribe is encouraged to work with the Navajo families
residing on the Hopi Partitioned Lands to address their concerns
regarding the establishment of family or individual burial
[[Page 110 STAT. 3650]]
plots for deceased family members who have resided on the Hopi
Partitioned Lands; and
(7) neither the Navajo Nation nor the Navajo families
residing upon Hopi Partitioned Lands were parties to or signers
of the Settlement Agreement between the United States and the
Hopi Tribe.
SEC. 3. <> DEFINITIONS.
Except as otherwise provided in this Act, for purposes of this Act,
the following definitions shall apply:
(1) Accommodation.–The term “Accommodation” has the
meaning provided that term under the Settlement Agreement.
(2) Hopi partitioned lands.–The term “Hopi Partitioned
Lands” means lands located in the Hopi Partitioned Area, as
defined in section 168.1(g) of title 25, Code of Federal
Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act).
(3) Navajo partitioned lands.–The term “Navajo Partitioned
Lands” has the meaning provided that term in the proposed
regulations issued on November 1, 1995, at 60 Fed. Reg. 55506.
(4) New lands.–The term “New Lands” has the meaning
provided that term in section 700.701(b) of title 25, Code of
Federal Regulations.
(5) Secretary.–The term “Secretary” means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(6) Settlement agreement.–The term “Settlement Agreement”
means the agreement between the United States and the Hopi Tribe
executed on December 14, 1995.
(7) Tribe.–The term “Tribe” means the Hopi Tribe.
(8) Newly acquired trust lands.–The term “newly acquired
trust lands” means lands taken into trust for the Tribe within
the State of Arizona pursuant to this Act or the Settlement
Agreement.
SEC. 4. <> RATIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT.
The United States approves, ratifies, and confirms the Settlement
Agreement.
SEC. 5. <> CONDITIONS FOR LANDS TAKEN
INTO TRUST.
The Secretary shall take such action as may be necessary to ensure
that the following conditions are met prior to taking lands into trust
for the benefit of the Tribe pursuant to the Settlement Agreement:
(1) Selection of lands taken into trust.–
(A) Primary area.–In accordance with section 7(a)
of the Settlement Agreement, the primary area within
which lands acquired by the Tribe may be taken into
trust by the Secretary for the benefit of the Tribe
under the Settlement Agreement shall be located in
northern Arizona.
(B) Requirements for lands taken into trust in the
primary area.–Lands taken into trust in the primary
area referred to in subparagraph (A) shall be–
(i) land that is used substantially for
ranching, agriculture, or another similar use; and
(ii) to the extent feasible, in contiguous
parcels.
(2) Acquisition of lands.–Before taking any land into trust
for the benefit of the Tribe under this section, the Secretary
shall ensure that–
[[Page 110 STAT. 3651]]
(A) at least 85 percent of the eligible Navajo heads
of household (as determined under the Settlement
Agreement) have entered into an accommodation or have
chosen to relocate and are eligible for relocation
assistance (as determined under the Settlement
Agreement); and
(B) the Tribe has consulted with the State of
Arizona concerning the lands proposed to be placed in
trust, including consulting with the State concerning
the impact of placing those lands into trust on the
State and political subdivisions thereof resulting from
the removal of land from the tax rolls in a manner
consistent with the provisions of part 151 of title 25,
Code of Federal Regulations.
(3) Prohibition.–The Secretary may not, pursuant to the
provisions of this Act and the Settlement Agreement, place
lands, any portion of which are located within or contiguous to
a 5-mile radius of an incorporated town or city (as those terms
are defined by the Secretary) in northern Arizona, into trust
for benefit of the Tribe without specific statutory authority.
(4) Expeditious action by the secretary.–Consistent with
all other provisions of this Act, the Secretary is directed to
take lands into trust under this Act expeditiously and without
undue delay.
SEC. 6. <> ACQUISITION THROUGH
CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN INTERSPERSED LANDS.
(a) <> In General.–
(1) Action by the secretary.–
(A) In general.–The Secretary shall take action as
specified in subparagraph (B), to the extent that the
Tribe, in accordance with section 7(b) of the Settlement
Agreement–
(i) acquires private lands; and
(ii) requests the Secretary to acquire through
condemnation interspersed lands that are owned by
the State of Arizona and are located within the
exterior boundaries of those private lands in
order to have both the private lands and the State
lands taken into trust by the Secretary for the
benefit of the Tribe.
(B) Acquisition through condemnation.–With respect
to a request for an acquisition of lands through
condemnation made under subparagraph (A), the Secretary
shall, upon the recommendation of the Tribe, take such
action as may be necessary to acquire the lands through
condemnation and, with funds provided by the Tribe, pay
the State of Arizona fair market value for those lands
in accordance with applicable Federal law, if the
conditions described in paragraph (2) are met.
(2) Conditions for acquisition through condemnation.–The
Secretary may acquire lands through condemnation under this
subsection if–
(A) that acquisition is consistent with the purpose
of obtaining not more than 500,000 acres of land to be
taken into trust for the Tribe;
(B) the State of Arizona concurs with the United
States that the acquisition is consistent with the
interests of the State; and
[[Page 110 STAT. 3652]]
(C) the Tribe pays for the land acquired through
condemnation under this subsection.
(b) Disposition of Lands.–If the Secretary acquires lands through
condemnation under subsection (a), the Secretary shall take those lands
into trust for the Tribe in accordance with this Act and the Settlement
Agreement.
(c) Private Lands.–The Secretary may not acquire private lands
through condemnation for the purpose specified in subsection (a)(2)(A).
SEC. 7. <> ACTION TO QUIET POSSESSION.
If the United States fails to discharge the obligations specified in
section 9(c) of the Settlement Agreement with respect to voluntary
relocation of Navajos residing on Hopi Partitioned Lands, or section
9(d) of the Settlement Agreement, relating to the implementation of
sections 700.137 through 700.139 of title 25, Code of Federal
Regulations, on the New Lands, including failure for reason of
insufficient funds made available by appropriations or otherwise, the
Tribe may bring an action to quiet possession that relates to the use of
the Hopi Partitioned Lands after February 1, 2000, by a Navajo family
that is eligible for an accommodation, but fails to enter into an
accommodation.
SEC. 8. <> PAYMENT TO STATE OF ARIZONA.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.–Subject to subsection (b),
there are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the
Interior $250,000 for fiscal year 1998, to be used by the Secretary of
the Interior for making a payment to the State of Arizona.
(b) Payment.–The Secretary shall make a payment in the amount
specified in subsection (a) to the State of Arizona after an initial
acquisition of land from the State has been made by the Secretary
pursuant to section 6.
SEC. 9. <> 75-YEAR LEASING AUTHORITY.
The first section of the Act of August 9, 1955 (69 Stat. 539,
chapter 615; 25 U.S.C. 415) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsections:
“(c) Leases Involving the Hopi Tribe and the Hopi Partitioned Lands
Accommodation Agreement.–Notwithstanding subsection (a), a lease of
land by the Hopi Tribe to Navajo Indians on the Hopi Partitioned Lands
may be for a term of 75 years, and may be extended at the conclusion of
the term of the lease.
“(d) Definitions.–For purposes of this section–
“(1) the term `Hopi Partitioned Lands’ means lands located
in the Hopi Partitioned Area, as defined in section 168.1(g) of
title 25, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date
of enactment of this subsection); and
“(2) the term `Navajo Indians’ means members of the Navajo
Tribe.”.
SEC. 10. <> REAUTHORIZATION OF THE
NAVAJO-HOPI RELOCATION HOUSING PROGRAM.
Section 25(a)(8) of Public Law 93-531 (25 U.S.C. 640d-24(a)(8)) is
amended by striking “1996, and 1997” and inserting “1996, 1997, 1998,
1999, and 2000”.
[[Page 110 STAT. 3653]]
SEC. 11. <> EFFECT OF THIS ACT ON CASES
INVOLVING THE NAVAJO NATION AND THE HOPI
TRIBE.
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be
interpreted or deemed to preclude, limit, or endorse, in any manner,
actions by the Navajo Nation that seek, in court, an offset from
judgments for payments received by the Hopi Tribe under the Settlement
Agreement.
SEC. 12. <> WATER RIGHTS.
(a) In General.–
(1) Water rights.–Subject to the other provisions of this
section, newly acquired trust lands shall have only the
following water rights:
(A) The right to the reasonable use of groundwater
pumped from such lands.
(B) All rights to the use of surface water on such
lands existing under State law on the date of
acquisition, with the priority date of such right under
State law.
(C) The right to make any further beneficial use on
such lands which is unappropriated on the date each
parcel of newly acquired trust lands is taken into
trust. The priority date for the right shall be the date
the lands are taken into trust.
(2) Rights not subject to forfeiture or abandonment.–The
Tribe’s water rights for newly acquired trust lands shall not be
subject to forfeiture or abandonment arising from events
occurring after the date the lands are taken into trust.
(b) Recognition as valid uses.–
(1) Groundwater.–With respect to water rights associated
with newly acquired trust lands, the Tribe, and the United
States on the Tribe’s behalf, shall recognize as valid all uses
of groundwater which may be made from wells (or their subsequent
replacements) in existence on the date each parcel of newly
acquired trust land is acquired and shall not object to such
groundwater uses on the basis of water rights associated with
the newly acquired trust lands. The Tribe, and the United States
on the Tribe’s behalf, may object only to the impact of
groundwater uses on newly acquired trust lands which are
initiated after the date the lands affected are taken into trust
and only on grounds allowed by the State law as it exists when
the objection is made. The Tribe, and the United States on the
Tribe’s behalf, shall not object to the impact of groundwater
uses on the Tribe’s right to surface water established pursuant
to subsection (a)(3) when those groundwater uses are initiated
before the Tribe initiates its beneficial use of surface water
pursuant to subsection (a)(3).
(2) Surface water.–With respect to water rights associated
with newly acquired trust lands, the Tribe, and the United
States on the Tribe’s behalf, shall recognize as valid all uses
of surface water in existence on or prior to the date each
parcel of newly acquired trust land is acquired and shall not
object to such surface water uses on the basis of water rights
associated with the newly acquired trust lands, but shall have
the right to enforce the priority of its rights against all
junior water rights the exercise of which interfere with the
actual use of the Tribe’s senior surface water rights.
[[Page 110 STAT. 3654]]
(3) Rule of construction.–Nothing in paragraph (1) or (2)
shall preclude the Tribe, or the United States on the Tribe’s
behalf, from asserting objections to water rights and uses on
the basis of the Tribe’s water rights on its currently existing
trust lands.
(c) Applicability of State Law on Lands Other Than Newly Acquired
Lands.–The Tribe, and the United States on the Tribe’s behalf, further
recognize that State law applies to water uses on lands, including
subsurface estates, that exist within the exterior boundaries of newly
acquired trust lands and that are owned by any party other than the
Tribe.
(d) Adjudication of Water Rights on Newly Acquired Trust Lands.–The
Tribe’s water rights on newly acquired trust lands shall be adjudicated
with the rights of all other competing users in the court now presiding
over the Little Colorado River Adjudication, or if that court no longer
has jurisdiction, in the appropriate State or Federal court. Any
controversies between or among users arising under Federal or State law
involving the Tribe’s water rights on newly acquired trust lands shall
be resolved in the court now presiding over the Little Colorado River
Adjudication, or, if that court no longer has jurisdiction, in the
appropriate State or Federal court. Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to affect any court’s jurisdiction: Provided, That the Tribe
shall administer all water rights established in subsection (a).
(e) Prohibition.–Water rights for newly acquired trust lands shall
not be used, leased, sold, or transported for use off of such lands or
the Tribe’s other trust lands: Provided, That the Tribe may agree with
other persons having junior water rights to subordinate the Tribe’s
senior water rights. Water rights for newly acquired trust lands can
only be used on those lands or other trust lands of the Tribe located
within the same river basin tributary to the main stream of the Colorado
River.
(f) Subsurface Interests.–On any newly acquired trust lands where
the subsurface interest is owned by any party other than the Tribe, the
trust status of the surface ownership shall not impair any existing
right of the subsurface owner to develop the subsurface interest and to
have access to the surface for the purpose of such development.
(g) Statutory Construction with Respect to Water Rights of Other
Federally Recognized Indian Tribes.–Nothing in this section shall
affect the water rights of any other federally recognized Indian tribe
with a priority date earlier than the date the newly acquired trust
lands are taken into trust.
(h) Statutory Construction.–Nothing in this section shall be
construed to determine the law applicable to water use on lands owned by
the United States, other than on the newly acquired trust lands. The
granting of the right to make beneficial use of unappropriated surface
water on the newly acquired trust lands with a priority date such lands
are taken into trust shall not be construed to imply that such right is
a Federal reserved water
[[Page 110 STAT. 3655]]
right. Nothing in this section or any other provision of this Act shall
be construed to establish any Federal reserved right to groundwater.
Authority for the Secretary to take land into trust for the Tribe
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and this Act shall be construed as
having been provided solely by the provisions of this Act.
Approved October 11, 1996.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY–S. 1973:
—————————————————————————
SENATE REPORTS: No. 104-363 (Comm. on Indian Affairs).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1996):
Sept. 26, considered and passed Senate.
Sept. 28, considered and passed House.
A Brief History Of Relocation On Black Mesa
In 1974 the U.S. Congress passed Public Law 93-531 allegedly to settle a so-called land dispute between the Dineh and their Hopi neighbors. This law required the forced relocation of well over 14,000 Dineh and a hundred plus Hopi from their ancestral homelands. The “dispute” being settled by PL 93-531 was, in reality, fabricated by the US government as a way to obtain easier access to strip-mine one of the largest coal reserves in North America. The land known as Black Mesa is home to thousands of traditional sheepherders, weavers, silversmiths and farmers. For hundreds of years before Europeans came to the Americas the Dineh and Hopi existed in balance with each other and with Mother Earth. Read more
Fall 2000 Big Mountain Update
There was a decision to let the Ana Mae sundance arbor to rest this summer, after many concerns, as well as the tree breaking down in the wind storms that blew through in May.
Many HPL resident weavers have organized to resist the hopi tribe’s recent decision to require permits and taxation for these traditional craftswomen to sell their rugs.
The BIA conducted livestock counting during the month of May, and impoundment notices have been issued to those families exceeding the low limit set by the BIA. The Hopi tribe has also told families that no longer will corralled livestock be legally safe from impoundment. Impoundments can begin at any time, and counting is to begin again this fall. So far few impoundments have been made, but this month cattle from a big mountain resident were impounded, this being after many of her sheep were lost to coyote. ]There has be so far no effort to tag the animals, although the BIA has threatened to do so. Read more
