ment device that is available to the Federal establishment, or indeed, to either of the tribes to allow a court order to be enforced in any meaningful manner.

I think the committee must consider, and I know that the chairman of the subcommittee has a real, and I'm most appreciative, a very sincere desire to resolve this thing; and it would have been very easy for him to ignore it. So I appreciate his awareness of the situation. I also share his instincts not to want to move anybody that doesn't want to be moved, because I went through the same metamorphosis myself. I will tell the chairman, if that is indeed achievable, fine.

But the chairman should be aware as the author of the legislation that would force the arbitration as perhaps the most appealable of all the devices. The chairman should be aware and I have tried to elicit this from the Navajos, as they are a sincere people, the Navajos simply don't feel that they have to comply with anything that does not permit them to remain there.

That attitude has forced a situation that can only be compounded because both as they have pointed out; forgetting the immigration into the area, the natural population growth, that both parties are now in a head-to-head confrontation. And I will tell you that the Hopis are my friends, and the Navajos used to be my friends, and I have spent a lot of time on the reservation. And I don't know the Hopis are all that much ahead of the Navajos when it comes to taking care of their land.

I've seen the Hopi land, by any yardstock, Mr. Chairman, is overgrazed. The point is that it is not as overgrazed as the Navajo. The Navajo has not overgrazed his land because he is greedy or avaricious. He has overgrazed it because of overpopulation.

I'll tell the chairman and Chairman MacDonald, it is my firm, unalterable conviction, that whatever is done by the Congress must be, if you will, arbitrary; but it must be final in nature and cannot lend itself to any future procrastination, delay or judgment calls.

Dr. Aberle has come in here in good faith, and in my view, tried to retry Healing v. Jones because he went through the anthropological arguments that they went through for months and months and months in Healing v. Jones. That is decided. That is laid to rest.

We are now faced with the law. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the fact that it was very difficult for us to get any kind of expression; this says yes, if the Congress tells us to move, we'll move but we won't like it. Chairman MacDonald is too honest, I think, to do that.

I think Chairman MacDonald has serious doubts as to whether his people will move, but that attitude is the very attitude that's going to eventually lead to violence, and the kind of thing that we can't accept. I think we could have brought this out had we brought the Hopi witnesses back.

This is an unalterable-reason and logic is not going to prevail here. That's my point.

Mr. MEEDS. The gentleman from Arizona, I'm sure that we are all aware that this is a very difficult solution because of the attachment of both of these people to the land.

I just have one final question or observation. We are informed that the birthrate is 3 percent, and in less than 2 years, you will have created on the Navajo Reservation the same demands that are being

made by the area in question; which is less than 6 percent of the Navajo population. That is something to think about.

The gentleman from New Mexico?

Mr. RUNNELS. Thank you.

I'd like to ask Chairman MacDonald, do you know how many Hopis make their living from raising livestock?

Mr. MACDONALD. No. We were told that at least by 35 or 40 ranches of the Hopi.

Mr. RUNNELS. Let's talk about the area then. How many Navajos in that area make their living from raising livestock?

Mr. MACDONALD. In the Executive 1882 Order area?

Mr. RUNNELS. Yes.

Mr. MACDONALD. I would say about 95 percent.

Mr. RUNNELS. If the Hopis-if the Steiger bill went through and became law, and if they moved out or were forced out, what do you think the Hopis would do with that land?

Mr. MACDONALD. Nothing.

Mr. RUNNELS. They would not graze it?

Mr. MACDONALD. They won't graze it because their present demand for the grazing in the area is sufficient in the district 6. And if they do use it, they'll vacate that area and probably go into peripheral, and maybe go 5 miles outside district 6. And that's about it. It was just moving that herd that was inside district 6 outside into the 4 or 5 miles of district 6; otherwise, it would remain vacant for another 15, 20, or 25 years. I don't know how long.

Mr. RUNNELS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm just asking this question, because like Congressman Steiger a while ago, because of the essence of time; the real issue then is the Hopis do not by nature, they are not livestock people in comparison with the Navajos.

Is this a correct assumption?

Mr. MACDONALD. That is a correct assumption; not only that we tried to grasp the reason behind moving 8,000 people so that the land could be left vacant there, and no one use it, and let the alternative that we are suggesting here is that equity could be achieved in a different way without moving people, and still get the equitable solution that we would like to see.

Mr. RUNNELS. Do the Hopis have any committee or council or something to regulate their people of grazing cattle and sheep?

Mr. MACDONALD. Yes; they have a grazing committee.

Mr. RUNNELS. Do the Navajos have a grazing committee?
Mr. MACDONALD. Yes.

Mr. RUNNELS. Do you believe I had asked this question of the Hopis. I believe you were in the room. Do you believe that fencing the area off is the only solution, with a fence rather than have an open range, and a joint use space?

Mr. MACDONALD. Yes; fencing-of course, if you're going into a feedlot, fencing is not necessary.

Mr. RUNNELS. Let me ask another question then, due to the chairman's question on some acreage down in the south and west, down by Winslow, and I understood it's much better land than what we're talking about. Let's just say and using a stretch of the imagination.

If that land belonged to the Navajos, and I believe it was 900,000 acres, and that's what we're talking about. If that land belonged to

the Navajos and you went to the Navajos that were in the areas that is being argued about, and you said, we got some good land down here, much better than where you are; would you be willing to pick up stakes and move your family down there. What percentage do you think would go down to that southwest part, if the Hopis didn't want it-I'm asking you a question, do you think the Navajos would want it?

Mr. MACDONALD. I would say perhaps, there would be some percentage, but not high, perhaps 5 percent.

Mr. RUNNELS. Would all of them move?

Mr. MACDONALD. They might be interested in moving down to the new land, but the rest of them because of the long attachment to that area, it's going to be difficult for them to pick up stakes.

Mr. STEIGER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. RUNNELS. Yes.

Mr. STEIGER. The point is regardless of whatever happens to the Hopis that Chairman MacDonald wishes to recite, and whatever the transposition of the roles is: the fact is the land belongs to the Hopis and they want it. It's really that simple. This is the hub of the situation, that the Navajos are in possession and they want it.

All of this logic and reason can't be applied to this situation. Thank

you.

Mr. RUNNELS. Well, the chairman asked why couldn't they move them to other parts. Am I assuming correctly, water is the main reason why they cannot move, because water can be very difficult—you've showed the map of all the windmills, the windmills and the source of water.

On the rest of the Navajo Reservation is water as easily available as it is in that area?

Mr. MACDONALD. That and plus two other things. No. 1, the people living in that red area, it took them over 100 years to know the land, to cultivate it and locate homes exactly where they wanted it. And that's where they are. It's going to take them that long to come to the new land and experiment with it and move around and finally get to the point. This is the one thing they don't want to go through because they've already found a way to use that land by knowing it for over 100 years.

Number two is that the Navajos also like to have justice rendered to them, just the way that the outside justice works. For instance, we have land much further north of the present reservation boundary and east of the reservation boundary. We know that there are ranchers in there, and other non-Navajo ranchers such as even the city of Gallum, the town of Farmington, Cortez, Colo., and there are people that live in that area and yet, we have a right to that land even by the Indian Claims Commission. And they said the land was ours.

Now, we want that land just as the Hopi wants that land. If you use Mr. Steiger's argument that the Navajo wants that land and Cortez wants to maintain their city there, and doesn't want to move the city, what do we do? You are facing the same question. Would you move the whole city and give the land to the Navajos, even though we don't live there at all, and have not had that land for some time? The question is that this is not the way. You can do it to us, but you are going to say, we are going to let Cortez be where it is, Gallup where

26-110-74-7

it is, Farmington be where it is. We're going to pay you off. Let the people live there because you don't use it now.

You're in the other area. We are going to pay you for that; not only that, we are going to pay you the value of the land at the time of the taking, in the 1800's, the value of the land at that time.

So this is what we're asking. I was very appalled when Senator Goldwater said this morning that we don't need to give moneys to the Indians for their relocation. This hurts me, because here it is, my representative saying that, when I know that Steiger and Conlan are busy trying to introduce a bill to pay for the relocation of ranchers from Apache reservations.

This kind of justice is not right. All we are asking here is consider us just the way you would do it if you were in that area, and the Navajos had a claim to it. If there were 6,000 Anglos in a city in that area, would you move it?

I don't think so. You won't even pay us the present value. You would pay us the value that was before anything was ever developed.

I think that what we are asking for is the kind of justice that you would give to everybody else.

Mr. MEEDS. On that happy note, these hearings will be in recess; each side having had their 2, somewhat over, 2 hours.

Thank you very much.

[Whereupon at 3:45 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter was adjourned.]

PARTITION OF NAVAJO AND HOPI 1882 RESERVATION

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 1973

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Lloyd Meeds, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.

Mr. MEEDS. The Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the full Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs will be in session for the taking of further testimony on H.R. 5647, H.R. 7679, and H.R. 7716.

The witnesses today will be those from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and we are delighted to have with us as the first witness, and the chief witness, our colleague and friend John Kyl. John, welcome back. Mr. KYL. Thank you very much.

Would you like me to proceed, Mr. Chairman ?

Mr. MEEDS. Please proceed, since you know the rules of the committee.

STATEMENT OF JOHN H. KYL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CONGRESSIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY IRVING SCHWARTZ,, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS; CHARLES SOLLER, ASSOCIATE SOLICITOR FOR INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; DENNIS DRABELLE, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. KYL. We have with us this morning Dennis Drabelle from the Legislative Office; Ralph Reeser from the Legislative Office, BIA; Mr. Irving Schwartz, who is a resources and development specialist; Charles Soller from the Solicitor's Office; Dave Jones from the Solicitor's Office; Robert Bruce from BIA; and Ray Jackson from the Real Estate Office in Phoenix.

Mr. Franklin and Mr. Rogers are occupied this morning before another committee of the House.

This is our brief statement this morning, accompanied by the report. You have already had a day of testimony on the Hopi-Navajo land dispute, and I think that it would be superfluous for me to retrace its history this morning. Our report covers this history in some detail. I propose to turn immediately to the position we are taking.

Last year we supported H.R. 11128 as one possible solution to this dispute while at the same time noting that there might be other

(95)