From: Robert Dorman <redorman@theofficenet.com>

The following was submitted by Bill Sebastion. It was put together with
help from A PROFESSOR who teaches Indian Law at UPenn Law School and has
written a long law journal article on the relocation issue. The article
refers to two documents that form the cornerstone of US policy on Black
Mesa. The A&B lists are part of the 1995 Settlement Agreement and are
incorporated into PL104-301. The list of lease signatories is the
culmination of ONHIR's work for the last 4 years. Apparently, ONHIR never
thought that anyone would bother cross-checking these two documents, as the
results of such a check contradict (by a huge margin) every public
statement by this agency. The database included is derived directly from
these documents, and anyone can verify the accuracy of the analysis.

NORTHERN ARIZONA INDIGENOUS PEOPLES LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

-----

Black Mesa Risk Assessment

Public Law 104-301 mandates the removal beginning February 1, 2000, of all
Dineh living on lands partitioned to the Hopi Tribe as a result of PL
93-531. The process is being managed by the Office of Navajo-Hopi Indian
Relocation (ONHIR), an independent federal agency. ONHIR has reported that
as few as 11 families may be subject to removal. After careful review of
census data and other federal documents relating to this issue, we have
concluded that this figure may significantly understate the number of
people at risk.

Summary of Findings
We analyzed and cross checked two documents. The first was the list of
families called the "A" and "B" lists which were derived from a 1992
census, and which were used as the basis for the 1995 Settlement Agreement
between the Hopi Tribe and the United States, which was ratified and
incorporated into PL 104-301. The second document was an internal ONHIR
document dated July 2, 1999 which listed the signatories on leases as of
that date. The following points were derived from this examination:

· 580 families were listed on the "A" and "B" lists which were based
on a census performed in 1992.

· A list of lease signatories prepared in July of 1999 shows
signatures from only 157 of those families. This means that as many as 423 families
may not be accounted for.

· The "A" and "B" list may substantially undercount the population.
For example, the 1999 signatory list included 7 homesites and 145 signers who
did not appear on the "A" or "B" list. Their appearance on the 1999 list
strongly suggests that there are more unprotected people (non-signers, for
whatever reason) who have not been counted in any census but may,
nevertheless, be legitimate residents of HPL.

This data suggests to us the following:

· The government and the Hopi Tribe have not conducted a thorough and
accurate census on the HPL

· That without such a census it appears illegal in accordance with
PL104-301 to proceed under the terms of the Accommodation Agreement,
because we cannot know how these unaccounted for people are impacted by
these terms (presumably because they were on the A and B lists they are
entitled to either homesites or relocation benefits);

· The Settlement Agreement between the US and the Hopi Tribe, which
like the AA is also a part of PL104-301 and stipulates cash and land payments
based on such an accurate census, may not be undergoing proper
implementation. This last point involves the slippage in terminology from
"head of household" (Settlement Agreement) to "homesite" (a term that is
vague when used to suggest the number of families and individuals present
on the HPL). More precisely, the Settlement Agreement between the US and
the Hopi Tribe, incorporated as a part of PL104-301, stipulates that 25
million dollars and 500,000 acres of land are due the Hopis based on the
premise that specified percentages of Navajo "heads of household" on the
HPL will sign the AA.

· The "A" and "B" list gives a total population of 1627, which is 2.8
times the number of families. In the 1980's, the relocation office used a
multiplier of 4.5 to convert families to total population, which may be
more accurate than the census count. If the higher multiplier is used and
if the undercount in the 1992 census is as high as in the list of
signatories, the population of Dineh on HPL subject to removal could be as
high as 3300.

These conclusions were based exclusively upon the two federal government
documents, and we can supply copies of the database in which the
correlations were tabulated.

A key issue is the extent to which the families subject to removal are
eligible for relocation assistance. These families are not actively
cooperating with the ONHIR, which contributes to their exclusion from the
official list of "non-signers". This non-cooperation derives from the
long-term resistance of the people to federal intrusion into their
community. ONHIR has used this cooperation to its advantage, in that
enables the agency to understate the ultimate consequences of its programs
and to minimize the obligation of the federal government with respect to
the provision of relocation benefits. If these people are not actively
brought into the process, they will lose the opportunity to file for
relocation benefits before the scheduled closure of the program. While this
will minimize the financial outlays by the federal government, it will
increase the ultimate hardship upon these people. Since they live on the
land without the protection of leases, they will ultimately be discovered,
upon which they would be treated as trespassers without any rights -
subject to the confiscation of their property without compensation and
eviction with no place to go.

The review of these documents clearly indicates a need for an immediate and
independent review of this issue. Otherwise, the use of inaccurate data
will lead to the imposition of a terrible hardship on these people.

Notes on Findings:

Precedence:
The underestimation of the consequences of US policy with respect to Black
Mesa has been a consistent feature of this policy. In 1974, government
officials testified that the proposed relocation law would would cost $40
million to provide relocation benefits. Total expenditures are now
estimated at over $400 million. In 1977, the federal mediator implementing
the relocation law estimated that the proposed partition of the Joint Use
area would result in the relocation of 3,495 Navajos. Over 12,000 people
have already been relocated and over 3,000 remain on the land.

Undercounting:
The 1995 Settlement Agreement between the US government and the Hopi Tribe
(which was ratified and incorporated into PL 104-301 in 1996) was based on
a census performed in 1992. The current ONHIR data indicates that this
census was completely inaccurate. In order to appear on the current ONHIR
list of lease signatories, a person must meet the criteria specified in
ONHIR regulations 25cfr sections 700.138-139:
· They were residents in 1974
· They were heads of households by July 7, 1986
· They are now on HPL
Thus, any signatory would have been a resident in 1992 and should have been
listed in the census. Instead, 45% of these people (145 of 320) were not
listed in the census.

Furthermore, it might be argued that the current ONHIR list is
statistically biased toward further undercounting. The people who would
have been missed in the 1992 census are also likely not to be among the
group of people currently cooperating with ONHIR, so that the undercount in
the overall population may be substantially higher than the ratio found in
ONHIR's list of lease signatories.

Analysis of Data

Attached below is a database that cross-checks the "A" and "B" lists with
the 1999 list of lease signatories. Columns include:
Homesite: The homesite as identified in the 1992 census.
NumFamilies A-List: Number of "A" list families listed for this site
Num A-Leases: Number of the A-list families at this site whose signatures appear on leases
NumFamilies B-List: Number of "B" list families listed for this site
Num B-Leases: Number of the B-list families at this site whose signatures appear leases
Spouses: Cases where people appear as separate signatories on the 7/8/99
list who appeared in a single family entry with their spouse on the A or B list
Num Xtra Signers: Number of signatures for this site from people not on the A or B list

The column totals support the statements made in the letter. We also note
the following:

· The summary sheet prepared by the government and attached to the
"A" and "B" list miscounted the total number of families, as errors were made in
computing the totals for Forest Lake and Tolani Lake. The correct total is
580 (258 "A" and 322 "B"), not 570 (253 "A", 317 "B").

· Many of the 423 non-signing families live at homesites where at
least one family has signed a lease. The status of these families is not clear, as in
many cases they would not qualify as "immediate family" of the signers. If
all families at sites with at least one signer were protected from removal,
the number of protected families would increase to 324 of the 580.

· The list of signers does not support a statement that has been made
by some officials that signatures had been obtained for 75 of the 112 "A" list
sites. Signatures have been obtained at only 52 of the 112 "A" list sites,
which is 46% of the sites. The other 23 sites are either "B" list sites or
sites not appearing on either list.

· In addition to containing signatures of people not on the "A" or "B"
list, the 320 lease signatures includes 18 cases of separate listings for
spouses who were combined as a single entry in the "A" or "B" list. For
example, the "A" list shows "John & Rena Lane" as a family, where as the
signature list records them as 2 separate entries. The signature list may
also include other family members who would normally have been considered
members of a single family. Consequently, the 320 lease signatories should
not be interpreted as representing 320 of the 580 families in the "A" and
"B" list.

· The "A" and "B" list gives a total population of 1627, which is 2.8
times the number of families. In the 1980's, the relocation office used a
multiplier of 4.5 to convert families to total population, which may be
more accurate than the census count. If the higher multiplier is used and
if the undercount in the 1992 census is as high as in the list of
signatories, the population of Dineh on HPL subject to removal could be as
high as 3300.
 

<Table headings are in same order as numbers, but may not appear alligned>
 

Home site	NumFam A list	NumA- Leases	Num Fam B-List	Num B Leases	Spouses Signers	NumXtra Signers	Total

This is a BIGMTLIST post.
Email addresses---
To Post message: BIGMTLIST@onelist.com
To Subscribe: BIGMTLIST-subscribe@onelist.com
To Unsubscribe: BIGMTLIST-unsubscribe@onelist.com
For more information on this on-going human rights crisis in the United
States, visit my web page at
http://www.theofficenet.com/~redorman/pagea~1.htm

-- Carol S. Halberstadt, Migrations (carol@migrations.com)
Native American art and crafts
http://www.migrations.com

"A generation goes, and a generation comes, and the earth abides forever."
(Ecclesiastes 1:4)

"...then weave for us a garment of brightness,
that we may walk fittingly where birds sing..."

(from a Tewa prayer)

"Lift up your eyes to the heavens and look on the earth beneath,
for the heavens will vanish like smoke and the earth wear away
like a garment..."
(Isaiah 51:6)