Home > Latest Information

Black Mesa Indigenous Support P.O. Box 23501, Flagstaff, Arizona 86002  Message Voice Mail: 928.773.8086 Email: blackmesais@riseup.net

Statement of William P. Ragsdale Director, Bureau of Indian AffairsDepartment of the Interior
Before The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs For the Hearing on S. 1003, The Navajo Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 Amendments July 21, 2005

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is William P. Ragsdale.
I am the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). I am pleased to be
here today to provide the Department’s views on S. 1003, a bill to amend the
Navajo Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974. We applaud Senator McCain for his
efforts to bring this 150 year dispute to a close. Although, we cannot
support the bill as written, we would like to work with the Committee to achieve a
favorable result.
Background
On December 16, 1882, President Chester Arthur signed an Executive Order
that set aside approximately 2.5 million acres of land in northern Arizona for
the Hopi Tribe and “such other Indians as the Secretary may see fit to settle
thereon.” At the time of the 1882 Executive Order, there was a small but
indeterminate number of Navajos residing on the portions of the reserved lands.
Throughout the 1890’s and to this day, members of the Hopi tribe and the
Navajo Nation have disputed the right to occupy lands within the 1882
reservation. In 1962, the Federal District Court ruled that both the Hopi Tribe and
the Navajo Nation had joint rights to use the 1882 Executive Order Reservation
lands. The joint use proved unworkable. In 1974, Congress enacted
legislation to resolve the joint use rights by partitioning the land and relocating
members of each Tribe from lands adjudicated to the other Tribe. The 1974 Act
provided relocation benefits to Tribal members residing on lands partitioned
to the other Tribe, and established the Navajo and Hopi Relocation
Commission to provide those benefits. To date, all Hopi families that were residing
on Navajo land have been relocated and approximately 90 Navajo families are in
some stage of the relocation process.
S. 1003
The Department has several concerns with S. 1003. S. 1003, proposes to
terminate the Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Office (Relocation Office) in
2008 and transfer any remaining responsibilities of the Relocation Office to the
BIA. At this point, as the Relocation Office is an independent agency, we
are uncertain what responsibilities would be transferred or the policies in
effect at the Relocation Office and therefore, we do not know exactly how this
legislation would impact the BIA. In addition, in light of not knowing the
universe of responsibilities that the BIA would be responsible for, we are
concerned that the BIA does not have the necessary expertise or resources to
complete the work of the office. We have recently started a dialogue with the
Relocation Office to determine the work the Office has accomplished and the
manner in which it operates. We expect to learn the funding details for these
activities from the Relocation Office which will assist us in identifying any
limitations.
Furthermore, any transition would take time and could further delay any
relocation activity. There are currently about 90 families that are in some
phase of the relocation process. Eight of these families are resistant to
signing an accommodation agreement, and a number of appeals are also in various
phases of the appeals process. Any agreements will require significant
coordination with the Navajo Nation. It is difficult to predict how many of these
cases will be resolved prior to relocating and then ultimately terminating the
Relocation Office, especially considering the complex history of this
relocation effort. Although under the Commission’s published regulations the time
for filing applications for relocation assistance has expired, applications
continue to be filed. Therefore, we suggest specific deadlines be included in
the bill of when applications for new housing and any appeals have to be
filed. Without some specific timeframe, it will be extremely difficult to assess
the BIA’s future workload.
The BIA is also concerned with building houses for the relocated families.
The BIA has a very small program to assist tribes in their pursuit of funding
for housing repairs or renovations. We would suggest including the
Department of Housing and Urban Development in any discussions pertaining to housing
assistance.
The Administration objects to the proposed language which would provide
enhanced retirement benefits to Office of Navajo and Hopi Relocation employees as
this is unfair compared to the benefits available to other
similarly-situated federal employees. The legislation also does not keep the
Retirement Trust
Fund whole for the increased cost of these benefits. In addition to the
Administration’s objection to the retirement provisions, the Administration also
has concerns with the new separation pay authorized in Section 202. S. 1003
cites an outdated section of title 5 (5 U.S.C. 5597), which was the Department
of the Defense’s (DOD) original authorization to provide separation
incentives without Office of Personnel Management approval. DOD has since updated
their Voluntary Separation authority under the National Security Personnel
System law, 5 U.S.C. 9902 (see P.l. 108-136, sec. 1101). Instead, existing
voluntary separation authority under 5 U.S.C. 3523, recently updated under the
Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-296, sec. 1313), should be used. This updated
separation authority gives the agency head the option of offering $25,000 or
less for separations and provides the agency flexibility in determining how,
when, and under what conditions these incentives will be offered – with OPM
approval.
Finally, we request that great care be taken to ensure that property
interests are not impacted by any changes contained in the legislation.
This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.

http://www.doi.gov/ocl/2005/S1003.htm