The Hopi Lease Proposal
Last week the Flagstaff SUN got a copy of the latest Hopi
lease proposal and did a front-page story on it. So I guess there's
no point in keeping a secret about it. The paper is trying to make
it sound like this is a real major breakthrough, which it is not.
The Hopi proposal IS an improvement over the last one. One of the
finest things about it is its friendly tone and its avoidance of
the word "lease."
On April 7 we got a copy of this document, but without its
appendix. The body of the "lease proposal" was much improved,
partly because the more objectionable portions were put into
"appendix B". Included in the appendix were most of the eviction
provisions which were so alarming in the earlier lease.
Under the new Hopi lease, a family can still be evicted for a
number of civil and criminal offenses, including cutting green
wood, polluting streams, or violating Hopi land ordinances. They
HAVE taken out eviction for dead cars; instead the Navajo Nation is
supposed to help haul them away.
The Dine' would still be under Hopi jurisdiction. The lease
states that Navajos would receive the same treatment as Hopis but
does not offer any guarantees or avenues of appeal.
An understanding from the AIP that the "three acre homesite"
would be expandable to include all family homesites, corrals,
sweathouses, etc. is spelled out in black and white.
A major concession in the new document is that the Dine'
families will be consulted on future changes in the Hopi land use
plans, and that no changes will be made without their consent.
This is a good provision, one that we hope to explore in depth with
the Hopis.
The new lease uses the "A" list - the Navajo Nation's
enumeration of full-time HPL residents - as the starting point for
eligibility. However, it allows the families to sign their
children, descendants, and spouses to also sign leases. It is not
clear whether these additional families would have their own leases
or would be accommodated on their family's "A" list lease.
The new lease spells out the earlier assumption that the
Navajo Nation would pay lease fees. It also says that a new
compensation package for the Hopi Tribe will be developed. The
Hopis and the U.S. are going ahead with this, but have not let us
know what they want yet. There may be changes in the lands
provided to the Hopis or the terms of that provision.
What has not changed is the 75-year term, the Hopi
jurisdiction, and the meager livestock provided the Dine'. The new
document discusses renewal after 75 years, but says "there is no
reason" the agreement cannot be renewed, provided that all parties
are agreeable. This gives the Hopi Tribe the power to terminate
the arrangement by the time today's children are elders.
The new agreement still puts the Dine' under Hopi
jurisdiction, with no oversight or avenue of appeal. In the
present climate of relations, this is comparable putting Black
people under the sole jurisdiction of Mississippi in the 60's, with
no oversight or appeal. More on this later.
The new agreement still gives ALL the Dine' 2800 sheep units
to be apportioned among the families by the Navajo Nation. We
don't want to be in that position, of course. More importantly,
this would only provide subsistence for about twenty families. The
details of the grazing portion, as you would expect from something
written by attorneys, are vague and leave many questions
unanswered. If the Dine have sheep, for instance, the agreement
could have them grazing at a remote location rather than near the
family home. The new agreement does open up the possibility of
having horses and cattle a little more than the last one.
My own feeling is that overall, the new agreement is on
substantive matters, very much like the Hopi lease. The tone is
changed, much for the better, and there are clarifications
substantive changes which help a lot. In the discussion I have
heard or heard about, it looks like the smaller communities are
inclined to see where they can take this lease, while the Big
Mountain and Teesto groups are pretty wary.
The U.S., Judge McCue and the Hopis are presenting this latest
proposal as the last chance, take it or leave it. The U.S. filed
a brief with the Ninth Circuit Court asking it to set a deadline of
late June or early July for final approval by the families of this
agreement. This is unfortunate, as it has already been shown how
the Dine' react to deadlines and the take-it-or-leave-it approach
to "negotiating."
On May 7, there will be a big, all-HPL meeting at Rocky Ridge.
Lee Phillips will hand out a document which each family is supposed
to sign indicating whether they want to continue discussions on the
basis of this latest proposed agreement. If a majority of the
families sign, then there would follow a period of negotiation,
working out the details. This is the government's scenario.
Once again the families are being asked to "sign now, we'll
work out the details later." The approach, as before, is to sign
a bunch of leases with individuals, one at a time. This ignores
community processes. The proposed agreement doesn't use the word
community anywhere, and makes no provision for the recognition of
Dine' communities. This a real failing. Family, clan, community -
this is the social fabric which keeps things more or less peaceful
out on the land. For a lasting settlement to work, it has to
nurture and protect community structure.
Think about it. There is a chance now to work toward a
community consensus about settlement, one which will allow that
return to peaceful relations between the Dine' and Hopi. Or the
U.S. can rush into a "settlement" that sunders communities and
families, leaves a large number of families who choose resistance,
and leaves a bad taste in a lot of mouths.
I am going to send a copy of the new "agreement" out to the
Fourth World Study Center, to be scanned and made available over
the net. It might be ready in a week or two. In the meantime, I
hope the support groups and interested outsiders can sit back and
let the Dine' work this out for themselves. There is enough
pressure on them already. A little support would help, of course.
Livestock Impoundment
When I went out to Big Mountain on Saturday, April 16, the BIA
trailers were all parked at the Keams Canyon Corral. This was
unusual, as the BIA rangers are usually out impounding at least one
day on the weekend. I have driven by a couple times since - I went
back to Big Mountain on Monday the 18th, then drove by again on
wednesday the 25th coming back the long way from Teesto. Both
times the trailers were parked, the same lonesome calf and two
scruffy ponies were in the corral.
I have not heard about livestock impoundment either, no one
has come in at all, there have been no calls. The feds do this
sometime - they will change a policy but not tell you. It's like
they don't want to admit caving in to the Dine', or they want to
keep their options open to reverse themselves.
There have been no arrests yet over the March 24th
confrontation at Big Mountain.
Firewood Case
I was in Flagstaff on the 19th and ran into Jerry Derrick. He
is a Navajo attorney with the Navajo-Hopi Legal Services, a big
young guy raised in California. He represented Betoney Bahe and
Louise Begay's sons who were charged last December with cutting
green wood. When he went into the Hopi court, he got to see their
evidence.
Unfortunately, the men had been cutting green wood, and the
Hopis had photos of it in the bed of their truck. When people come
in for help, they don't always tell you the truth, but you still
have to believe them or else what good are you? This was one of
those cases. Jerry plea-bargained and got the two sons off. Mr.
Bahe didn't have to serve any jail time but got a $450 fine with
$300 suspended. Louise Begay got her tools back.
Jerry said while he was there, he saw a couple "pretty serious
assault cases" dropped by the Hopi prosecutor. No such luck for
the Dine'. I wondered about this before. For instance, there is
a religious leader from Oraibi who killed a high school girl in a
hit and run accident while he was drunk. It's been well over a
year. His case has never been prosecuted, far as I know he never
spent a day in jail.
there has been a lot going on, and I will try to put out some
reports on it the next few days. Enough for now, though.
jon norstog