respect honor the i don't i don't think that's going to claims court said that it did it would have been wrong because the thirty four act suit was not did not  amendments didn't change was those rights the nineteenth early for indian reservation act has never been amended it has never been changed and that created the right so it and here i mean  is that the united states should have provided a mechanism for resolving these disputes faster there's no question yes it was outrageous frankly that it did that's one of the problems in our state that's one of the issues we're say and are taking some cases that we're  property or obtained property subject to an ongoing dispute wouldn't that be a different situation if i obtained and bought the house next to my colleagues knowing that he was asserting a right of ownership over grazing or going to a set a sacred site for a religious pilgrimage once a year it opened up a whole variety of disputes that language lacked clarity to define boundaries at the time of the quest of the group as between them it was given done in the thirty's and various proposals about a certain amount of land within the right thirty four x reservation to be set aside exclusively for the o b and the remainder would be exclusively now a planted one season of the year and you could have the hopis having religious ceremonies gathering would other materials at other times of the year both of these land use is very important to the people one does not value more than the other as time went on the conflict is the population grew the conflict became apparent to come to congress that this something had to be were extremely different views about how to use the land the hopis were able to show to persuade many people that this was their traditional use of  made its findings on the extent of the use and very critical findings as to what kinds of uses would give rise to a property interest i under the statu and then partition the joint you say area the district were made toward of about sixty one thousand acres to the hopi tribe at that point and then released the trees for the balance of one point five million almost two hundred thousand one hundred ninety thousand acres as to which the hopi had sufficiently intent to use to establish a property right but then the district court partition so as a one nine hundred ninety two there was about one hundred ninety thousand acres that were still within the freeze but then when the ninth circuit reviewed the case in one nine hundred ninety five they reversed the district remaining in litigation what compensable property right to the navajos hold after the nineteen thirty four act to the area that would be defined as the that they had a compensable right to occupy that property they had a compensable right except to develop the land without regard to the hopi interest and they were occupying and making beneficial use of the property and nine construction of construction of anything construction commercial buildings construction presidential buildings construction schools construction of power lines ro hundred eighty eight when congress amended the one nine hundred eighty and to clarify or to change the law to say that repair placement could go forward without the consent so there was a period from eighty to eighty eight acreage that was subject to their claim other than religious use had been finally settled and that was about half the freeze so that land was no longer in litigation that land was taken out of litigation and out of the freezer the four reservation as they had been using it as from a practical perspective there was you would be but not uncertainty and i say not uncertainty because if it's conveying everything you use there might be a dispute over what used or not what you really are getting the right to everything you use but it is not like the fence line dispute because it's not a question of finding where what people were using that's only the first use the reservation and but it wasn't a question of just finding what that was because the seventy four act the latter partition which was then a change in the rights that were vested in thirty four but let's go back again to w in thirty four you say they did give a vested right but not to exclusive control why not it's the thirty four statute says it basically defines ownership in terms of what you've been located there on the right so why don't you have an exclusive right to everything you've been located because the hopi were also using the same property ok but that's the two hundred six hundred thousand  on and if it was discovered later that the hopi were never within the sense of the language of the statute located on that property because they didn't meet the criteria that was later used to assess who was located where then why didn't the didn't get the stick of exclusive control but if there's any doubt about that the nineteen eighty statute solves the case because the nineteen eighties statute either confirmed that the you i don't think that you can use the fact that the government took it to say they never had it if the government took away the right then you've accepted the premise that they already had the right no first position is that they did not have the right but the second in their reservation were being seriously affected and this began from the beginning so by the time congress enacted the nineteen eighty amendments that had already been in place for fourteen years and in addition to that was it turned out to be hoping there were navajos that had to be relocated from that and there was a mutual consent requirement that there would be no development on that land pending the relocation so that these  navajo original complaint talks about how the effect of the freeze on thousands of navajos going back to nineteen sixty six and the in for their complaint is a facial challenge to the nineteen eighty amendments and go back and farther than that to the nine hundred sixty six administrative order of commissioner be eighty amendments applied the mutual consent requirement to one point five million acres of land at the very end this was clear from sixty six and crystal clear  as nineteen eighty the possibility that some limited amount of development could proceed after that doesn't undercut the significance of the nine hundred eighty amendment on the statute of limitations we believe th make more sense if one were looking at it taking challenge brought by individual now the whole families who were injured by the freeze but when you look to what is being assertive here which is a challenge to the effect over a broad part of navajo reservation that was implemented and applied in one nine hundred sixty six and then confirmed by congress completely different and most importantly from this case all of that area was determined to be chilling you know the words not it not like the nine hundred thirty four area that we have exclusive use between two separate tribes eighty it went back into effect and that would put you outside the statute of limitations period so why doesn't that trigger the statute of limitations when it took away your own income but right ok because nineteen in a year or what you did was what