OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

U.S.DEPARTMENT OFTHE INTERIOR 

Status of the Office of Navajo 

and Hopi Indian Relocation’s 

Land Selection in Arizona and 

New Mexico 

ONHIR REVIEW 

Report No.: 2020-WR-016-C September 2020 
OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

U.S.DEPARTMENT OFTHE INTERIOR 

Memorandum 

To: David Bernhardt 

Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior 

From: Mark Lee Greenblatt 

Inspector General 

Subject: Final ONHIR Review – Status of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian 

Relocation’s Land Selection in Arizona and New Mexico 

Report No. 2020-WR-016-C 

This report is part of a series of reports to help decision makers plan for the future of the 

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (ONHIR). We launched our review in December 

2019 with an initial report that provided an overview of ONHIR’s background and functions 

(Report No. 2019-WR-039). 

Our objective for this review was to determine the status of ONHIR’s land selection. 

Specifically, we sought to answer the following: 

1. What is the status of ONHIR’s land selection in Arizona and New Mexico?

2. What is the status of the Navajo Nation’s plan to cancel some of its land selections

and replace them with new selections?

3. What congressional considerations exist in the event of ONHIR’s closure or transfer

of duties?

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we had to limit our fieldwork. In particular, we 

reviewed relevant laws, regulations, procedures, and documents but had to limit our site visits 

and interviews. 

About This Report Series 

ONHIR’s FY 2019 appropriation required a transfer of funds to our office to review 

ONHIR’s finances and operations in preparation for its possible closure. 

We are issuing a series of reports that describes ONHIR’s responsibilities, functions, and 

current operations. Each report addresses a key topic and the related considerations for 

ONHIR’s closure or transfer of duties to a successor agency or agencies. 

Office of Inspector General | Washington, DC 
Background 

ONHIR is an independent Federal agency responsible for assisting with the relocation of 

Navajo people and Hopi people living within each other’s boundaries. ONHIR reports directly to 

the President of the United States and is overseen by both the U.S. Office of Management and 

Budget and the U.S. Congress. Pursuant to the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 

(Pub. L. No. 93-531), as amended, a presidentially appointed Commissioner serves as the head 

of ONHIR, but this position has been vacant since 1994. A Senior Executive Service Executive 

Director who has been acting under delegated legal authority manages the agency. 

Land Partitioning and Trust Acquisitions 

In 1882, President Chester Arthur set aside about 2.5 million acres of land for the Hopi 

and “such other Indians as the Secretary of the Interior may see fit to settle thereon.” At the time, 

about 1,800 Hopi and 300 Navajo were living on the Hopi reservation. In 1958, Congress passed 

a law authorizing the Navajo and Hopi tribes to file suits in Federal Court to resolve disputes 

over ownership of the reservation land. At that time, there were about 8,800 Navajo residing 

within the Hopi reservation. In court cases in subsequent years, each tribe claimed exclusive 

rights to some or all of the reservation land. 

In 1974, Congress passed the Settlement Act,1

 which authorized the partition of the 

disputed land between the two tribes and required Navajo households on Hopi land and Hopi 

households on Navajo land to relocate.2 

Along with this land partitioning, the Settlement Act, as amended, directed the Secretary 

of the Interior to take additional lands into trust3 to become part of the Navajo reservation. The 

lands selected were not to exceed 400,000 acres across two categories, specifically: 

 Category 1: Up to 250,000 acres of lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) in Arizona and New Mexico to be transferred to the Navajo at no cost.

 Category 2: Up to 150,000 acres of private lands to be acquired by the Navajo Nation.

The Settlement Act required that the border of any parcel of land transferred or acquired 

be within 18 miles of the boundary of the Navajo reservation and that no more than 35,000 of the 

400,000 acres selected be in New Mexico. Once lands are selected, they are taken into trust by 

the Federal Government for the Navajo Nation. 

The law authorized the Navajo Nation to select lands in consultation with the Navajo and 

Hopi Relocation Commission (later replaced with ONHIR) until July 8, 1983. After that date, the 

1 In its response to our draft report, the Navajo Nation referred to the Settlement Act as the “Relocation Act” and objected to any 

suggestion that there had been a mutually agreed-upon “settlement.” We note that in this report we use “Settlement Act” for 

consistency with the law’s title. 

2 According to ONHIR officials, all Hopis have been relocated. For the status of Navajo individuals yet to be relocated, see OIG 

Report No. 2020-WR-016-A, Status of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation’s Administration of Relocation Benefits, 

issued September 2020. 

3 The taking of tribal land into trust is also referred to as “trust acquisition” and is the process by which the Secretary of the Interior 

acquires title to land or interests in land to be held in trust by the United States on behalf of an individual Indian or a tribe. 

2 
Utah 

--------------- I --- I ~ 

Arizona 

- Navajo reservation 

LJ Hopi reservation 

LJ New l ands 

• Winslow 

I 

~ I I 

• Holbrook 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I @llb!1J I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

~lll;xfl I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

~: 

New lands 

New 

Mexico 

Colorado 

---------------

Ui co 

Commission had authority to select lands in consultation with the Navajo. Most of the lands 

selected and taken into trust in Arizona are referred to by ONHIR as the “New Lands,” 

consisting of about 352,000 acres. Acquisition of these lands was completed in 1986, and the 

lands were taken into trust in 1987. 

Figure 1 shows locations of the two reservations and the Navajo Nation’s New Lands 

relocation community in Arizona. The map does not depict the other lands selected and acquired 

in trust pursuant to the Settlement Act totaling about 35,008 acres, which the Navajo Nation 

also refers to as “new lands.” These lands include: (1) the Paragon Ranch, consisting of about 

34,115 acres and located 36 miles due south of Farmington, NM, and 56 miles northeast of 

Gallup, NM; (2) the Tse Bonito parcel in New Mexico, consisting of about 86 acres and located 

about 3 miles east of Window Rock, AZ; (3) the Twin Arrows parcel in and near Flagstaff, AZ, 

consisting of about 433 acres and where the Twin Arrows Navajo Casino Resort is located; and 

(4) the Turquoise Ranch parcel near Winslow, AZ, consisting of about 374 acres.

Figure 1: Map of Navajo and Hopi Reservations and New Lands Boundaries

Source: We added New Lands boundaries and several town markers to a U.S. Government 

Accountability Office map of reservation locations (from April 2018 GAO Report No. GAO18-266 and November 1990 ONHIR Plan Update).

3 
Currently the Navajo reservation is more than 17.7 million acres (the largest reservation 

in the United States) in the States of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah; the Hopi reservation is 

more than 1.6 million acres and surrounded entirely by the Navajo reservation. 

Administration of Acquired Trust Lands 

ONHIR administers the lands acquired pursuant to the Settlement Act and held in trust 

for the Navajo Nation until the relocation of Navajo people and Hopi people off each other’s 

designated land is complete. In contrast, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is generally 

responsible for the administration and management of land held in trust by the U.S. Government 

for American Indians and Indian tribes, including the Navajo Nation. The BIA administers a 

majority of all land held in trust and has issued regulations governing leasing of and grazing on 

trust land. BIA regulations do not apply to the lands acquired under the Settlement Act because 

the statute’s language places responsibility for administering those lands on ONHIR. 

In the event of ONHIR’s closure or transfer of duties, the BIA’s role in the trust 

acquisition process will presumably continue. The BIA already has in place the rules and 

regulations to fully administer tribal trust lands. An attorney-advisor with the U.S. Department of 

the Interior’s Office of the Solicitor (SOL) told us, however, that if the BIA were to assume 

ONHIR’s land management activities, changes to the BIA’s rules and regulations might be 

warranted because they differ from ONHIR’s. 

Status of Land Selection in Arizona and New Mexico 

As of March 2020, 387,448 acres (96.9 percent) of the 400,000 acres had been selected. 

ONHIR currently has land selection authority for the 12,552 acres (3.1 percent) remaining to be 

selected. Staff at ONHIR’s Flagstaff, AZ office told us that although ONHIR has authority to 

select the lands to be taken into trust for the Navajo Nation, ONHIR has always looked to the 

tribe to take the lead on land selection but has discouraged potential land selections where the 

parcel had limited potential value or serious issues, such as high risk of flooding. 

Figure 2 provides a summary of the acreage already selected. Overall, 99.9 percent of the 

250,000 acres under BLM jurisdiction in Arizona and New Mexico (Category 1 lands) and 

91.7 percent of the 150,000 acres of private lands (Category 2 lands) have been selected. 

4 
Figure 2: Status of Arizona and New Mexico Land Selection as of March 2020 

Category 1 Category 2 Total 

Land Acreage Acreage Acreage 

Total acreage authorized 250,000.00 150,000.00 400,000.00 

Arizona – New Lands 215,756.02 136,684.67 352,440.69 

Arizona – Other – 806.23 806.23 

New Mexico 34,115.22 85.68 34,200.90 

Total acreage selected 249,871.24 137,576.58 387,447.82 

Total acreage not yet selected 128.76 12,423.42 12,552.18 

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in April 2018 that about 

375,900 acres (97 percent) of the 387,400 acres selected as of December 2017 had been taken 

into trust.4

 The GAO reported that the remaining 11,500 acres (3 percent) not yet taken into trust 

were Category 1 lands located in New Mexico. These lands had not been taken into trust because 

the BLM had not processed all the applications for coal exploration (specifically those known as 

preference right lease applications) for these lands. 

In its response to our draft report, the Navajo Nation stated that, because of a land survey 

error, the Category 1 acreage remaining to be selected is approximately 884 acres rather than 

approximately 128 acres. The Navajo Nation stated that the survey error arose from a land 

selection in Arizona. According to the Navajo Nation, an updated survey showed that the land 

selection was approximately 756 acres more than the tribe “was told or thought” it would be 

acquiring. A BLM official told us that the original survey performed by the General Land Office 

(the BLM’s predecessor agency) was conducted in the 1880s and that the 756-acre difference is a 

result of more accurate, modern surveys completed by the BLM in the 1980s and early 1990s 

using GPS and other electronic instrumentation. The Navajo Nation stated in its response that it 

would like to have the 756 acres restored so it can reselect other lands. The Settlement Act, 

however, does not authorize the deselection of land previously selected to be taken into trust. 

Status of Canceling the Navajo Nation’s Land Selections 

and Replacing Them With New Selections 

An ONHIR official told us the Navajo Nation would like to reverse some of its land 

selections in New Mexico and make new selections. Because the Settlement Act does not 

authorize the deselection of land previously selected to be taken into trust, the Navajo Nation 

obtained statutory authorization under the John D. Dingell, Jr., Conservation, Management, and 

Recreation Act of 2019 (Pub. L. No. 116-9) to cancel some of its New Mexico land selections 

and replace them with new selections. 

In its response to the draft report, the Navajo Nation noted that the Dingell Act canceled 

certain New Mexico selections made in 2015 and authorized the Nation to make new selections 

4 Report No. GAO-18-266, Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation: Executive Branch and Legislative Action Needed for 

Closure and Transfer of Activities, issued April 2018. 

5 
of up to 15,000 acres of BLM land. The SOL told us, however, and the Navajo Nation agrees, 

that the Dingell Act requires the new selections to be of equivalent value to the canceled 

selections and that an appraisal of the canceled lands must be completed within 18 months of the 

Dingell Act’s date of enactment. The deadline to complete any appraisal was September 12, 

2020. The SOL told us on August 13, 2020, that the BLM had appraised the minerals (coal) on 

the canceled land selections, but a surface appraisal had not been completed. In addition, the 

Navajo Nation told us it had attempted to contact the BLM’s State Office in Santa Fe, NM, to 

find out the status of the appraisal, but as of August 28, 2020, the office had not responded. 

ONHIR told us there are currently no pending Navajo Nation land selections under the 

Dingell Act. The deadline established by the Dingell Act for the Navajo Nation to make all new 

land selections to replace the canceled land selections is March 12, 2026. 

In addition, ONHIR told us the Navajo Nation is interested in having the option to select 

land to be held in restricted fee status rather than held in trust. “Restricted fee status” means that 

title to the land is held by a tribe or individual Native American and that the owner of the land 

can transfer or limit the title to the land (through a claim, lien, easement, charge, or restriction of 

any kind) only with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. The April 2018 GAO report 

noted that allowing this option is not without precedent; a 2016 law mandated a trust acquisition 

for certain parcels of land unassociated with the Navajo and Hopi relocation unless the Navajo 

Nation elected to have the land conveyed to it in restricted fee status.5

 In its response to the draft 

report, the Navajo Nation confirmed that it is seeking the option of restricted fee status and 

appreciated our noting that this “would not set a precedent.” 

Congressional Considerations in the Event of ONHIR’s 

Closure or Transfer of Duties 

We cannot resolve any disagreements between ONHIR and the Navajo Nation regarding 

land selection, but we emphasize the below considerations for Congress as it determines how to 

proceed. 

In the event of ONHIR’s closure or transfer of duties, legislation may be needed to 

determine: 

 Whether the selection of any remaining land (currently, 12,552 acres) should revert to

the Navajo Nation or an appropriate successor agency should be designated for this

activity. This question does not apply to new lands selected in New Mexico to replace

the canceled selections under the Dingell Act, which the Navajo Nation is authorized

to do until March 12, 2026. In its response to the draft report, the Nation stated it

would like to reassume the land selection authority of any remaining acres from the

400,000 acres and maintained that land selection authority should revert to the Navajo

Nation out of respect for tribal sovereignty.

5 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Pub. L. No. 114-328, § 2829F, 130 Stat. 2000 (December 23, 2016). 

6 
 Whether an issue exists regarding the overselection of 756 acres in Arizona, and if so, 

whether legislation is warranted to allow the Navajo Nation to reverse that selection 

and reselect other lands. In its response to the draft report, the Nation stated it would 

like authority to cancel the Arizona overselection similar to the authority under the 

Dingell Act to cancel land selections in New Mexico and replace them with new 

selections. 

 Whether future land selections should be taken into trust as a mandatory trust 

acquisition. Without congressional action, any acres remaining from the 400,000 

acres that the Navajo Nation wants taken into trust after ONHIR’s closure might be 

considered a discretionary trust acquisition subject to BIA regulations under the 

Indian Reorganization Act (Pub. L. No. 73-383). In its response to the draft report, 

the Navajo Nation stated that, even after ONHIR closes, the obligation to take land 

into trust on a mandatory basis survives. The Navajo Nation maintained that one of 

the Settlement Act’s principal benefits is the mandatory acquisition into trust of 

certain lands, and the Nation stated that it does not want to lose that benefit at the end 

of ONHIR’s life. The SOL indicated its agreement with the Navajo Nation’s position, 

stating that no acquisitions under the Settlement Act are discretionary. 

 Whether the Navajo Nation should be given the option of restricted fee status versus 

trust status in future land selections. Without statutory authorization, any acres not yet 

selected pursuant to the Settlement Act cannot be held in restricted fee status. 

Conclusion 

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we had to limit our fieldwork. In particular, we 

reviewed relevant laws, regulations, procedures, and documents but had to limit our site visits 

and interviews. We conducted our review in accordance with the Quality Standards for 

Inspection and Evaluation as put forth by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and 

Efficiency. We believe that the work performed provides a reasonable basis for our conclusions. 

We invited ONHIR and Navajo and Hopi officials to provide input on a draft version of 

this report. ONHIR provided suggested edits to two sentences in the “Background” section and 

the third bullet in the “Congressional Considerations” section, which we have incorporated in 

this report. The Navajo Nation provided a written response; we have incorporated some 

information in this report where applicable and included the full response in the attachment. 

Hopi officials did not provide a response. 

If you have any questions, please contact me at 202-208-5745. 

The legislation creating the Office of Inspector General requires that we report to 

Congress semiannually on reports issued. 

7 
 

 

cc: Christopher J. Bavasi, Executive Director, Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation 

Tara Sweeney, Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs 

Richard Myers, Chief of Staff, Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Jerold Gidner, Director, Bureau of Trust Funds Administration 

Dan Jorjani, Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor 

Craig Crutchfield, Chief of the Interior Branch, U.S. Office of Management and Budget 

Milton Bluehouse, Jr., Deputy Chief of Staff to the President and Vice President, Navajo 

Nation 

Clark Tenakhongva, Vice Chairman, Hopi Tribal Council 

Attachment 

8 
Attachment: Response to Draft From the Navajo Nation 

The Navajo Nation’s response to our draft report follows on page 10. 

9 
THE NAVAJO NATION 

JONATHAN NEZ I PRESIDENT MYRON LIZER I VICE PRESIDENT 

MEMORANDUM 

To: Office of the Inspector General, Department of the Interior 

From: The Navajo Nation 

Re: Navajo Nation Comments on Office of Inspector General Draft Report Current Status 

of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation 's Land Selection in Arizona and 

New Mexico, Report No. 2020-WR-016-C 

Date: July 31 , 2020 

Introduction. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the OIG draft report titled Current 

Status of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation 's Land Selection in Arizona and New 

Mexico. Although the report is largely descriptive in character, there are certain statements that 

the Nation does not agree with or that otherwise would benefit from additional context. 

Navajo Nation Rejects the Implication that It Is "In Part" Responsible for the Relocation. 

In the Background section, the draft report states: "ONHIR is an independent Federal agency 

responsible for assisting with the relocation ofNavajo people and Hopi people living within each 

other's boundaries as a result, in part, of a longstanding land dispute between the tribes. " 

(Emphasis added.) The draft report never explains the reference to "in part," however, the 

Navajo Nation strongly disputes the notion that the cause of the relocation is in any part the 

responsibility of the Navajo people or, in its origin, the result of a ·'longstanding land dispute" 

between the Navajo and the Hopi given the generations of peaceful coexistence between our 

peoples before outside forces "created" the land dispute. Notably: 

• The actual origin of the land dispute was federal policy towards the Church of Jesus Christ 

of Latter Day Saints. In 1882, at the request of the local Bureau of Indian Affairs agent who 

was seeking authority to evict two Mormon missionaries working among the Hopi, President 

Chester Arthur signed an executive order establishing a reservation "for the use and 

occupancy of Moqui [Hopi], and such other Indians as the Secretary of the Interior may see 

fit to settle thereon." ' At the time the reservation was created there were 300 to 600 Navajos 

living within its boundaries and approximately 1800 Hopis.2 President Arthur's order, by 

its broad reference to "such other Indians," clearly encompassed the Navajos who made up to 

one-quarter of the population. Even so, it was evident that little thought had been given to 

the actual land usage of the two tribes as the boundaries of the new reservation (known as the 

1 Healingv. Jones (Ji) , 210 F. Supp. 125, 129 (D. Ariz., 1962). 2 Emily Benedek, The Wind Won't Know Me (1992) at 34; Hollis A. Whitson, A Policy Review of the Federal 

Government's Relocation of Navajo Indians Under P.L. 93-53 l and P.L. 96-305, 27 Arizona Law Review 371, 372-373, 

375 n.30 (1985). 

NAVAJO NATION OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT 

POST OFFICE BOX 7440 · WINDOW ROCK, AZ 86515 · PHONE: (928) 871-7000 · FAX: (928) 871-4025 

10
1882 Reservation) were artificially designated as a rectangle--one degree of latitude in width 

and one degree of longitude in height. Inside this artificial reservation there were over 900 

Indian sites--the majority of which were Navajo. 3 

• After creating an irrational reservation designation, for suspect purposes, the Federal 

government then sought to divide the land for energy development. According to a history 

of the land dispute "[i]t was not repeated Hopi complaints about Navajo encroachment onto 

uninhabited 1882-area lands that drove the [Federal] government to action. It was the 

pressure of oil and gas companies to determine ownership of the area." The "disputed lands" 

lie on top of one of the richest coal beds in the Western United States.4 

• The Navajo Nation strongly opposed the relocation, which was not voluntary in nature, and 

offered numerous alternatives, generally in the form of land exchanges, that would have 

allowed Navajo families to remain on the land that they had inhabited for many 

generations. In light of Navajo opposition to the relocation, it is notable that the draft report 

uses "Settlement Act" as an abbreviation for the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act of 1974 (Pub. 

L. No. 93-531 , as amended), reinforcing the false concept that the Navajo Nation agreed 

to a settlement that included mandatory relocation ofNavajo people, even though the only 

"settlement" was imposed by Congress and court order. 5 In these comments, the Act will 

be referred to as the "Relocation Act" since its central purpose was to impose a mandatory 

relocation on approximately 15,000+ traditional Navajos from their ancestral land, 

consistent with titles of the 1980 and 1988 amendments to the Act. 

Correction for Surveying Error and Additional Authorization. The draft report does not 

mention the surveying error which has effectively cost the Navajo Nation the right to select 

approximately 756 acres of land, at no cost, from its allocation of 250,000 acres from Bureau of 

Land Management (" BLM") land. This error arose from a selection in Arizona that turned out, 

after an updated survey was completed, to be 756+ acres more than the Navajo Nation was told or 

thought it would be acquiring. The result is that the BLM believes that there are only 

approximately 128 acres remaining to be acquired at no cost to the Nation, while the Nation 

believes it is still entitled to approximately 884 acres. This may seem like a relatively small 

injustice in the scheme of things given all the other harm caused by the relocation, but it still merits 

correction. The restoration of this acreage would be very valuable to the Nation and was 

promised by the law. 

As OIG has noted in this report, because the Relocation Act does not authorize the deselection of 

land previously selected to be taken into trust, the Navajo Nation obtained statutory authorization 

under the John D. Dingell, Jr., Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act to cancel some 

3 Whitson, supra, at 375 n.30, citing Healing v. Jones (II) , 210 F. Supp. at 137 n.8 ("As revealed by extensive 

archeological studies, there were over nine hundred old Indian sites, no longer in use, within what was to become the 

executive order area but outside of the lands where the Hopi villages and adjacent farm lands were located. Most of 

these were Navajo sites. Tree ring or dendrochronological studies show that of a total of 125 of these Indian sites 

within the executive order area for which data was successfully processed, the wood used in the structures was cut 

during a range of years from 1662 to 1939. A considerable number of these specimens were cut and presumably used 

in structures prior to 1882. There is no convincing evidence of any mass migration ofNavajos either into or out of the 

executive order area at any time for which the tree ring data were available." ). 4 Benedek, supra, at 134. 5 See former 25 U.S.C. § 640d-3 ; Sekaquaptewa c. MacDonald, 626 F.3d 113 (9th Cir. 1980). 

2 

11
of its land selections in New Mexico and replace them with new selections.

6 In pa11icular, that 

legislation cancelled certain selections made in 2015 and authorized the Nation to make an 

additional selection ofup to 15,000 acres ofBLM land.

7 This should be clarified in the final report. 

The Nation also would like Federal support for a similar authority with regard to the Arizona overselection. 

Congressional Considerations. The draft report proposes three matters for Congressional 

consideration: 

Whether the selection of any remaining land (currently, 12,552 acres) should revert to 

the Navajo Nation, or an appropriate successor agency should be designated for this 

activity. The rep011 notes: 

"ONHIR currently has land selection authority for the 12,552 acres (3 .1 percent) remaining 

to be selected. Staff at ONHIR's Flagstaff, AZ office told us that although ONHIR has 

authority to select the lands to be taken into trust for the Navajo Nation, ONHIR has always 

looked to the tribe to take the lead on land selection and has discouraged potential land 

selections where the parcel had limited potential value or serious issues, such as high risk 

of flooding. " 

Notwithstanding ONHIR's generous assessment of its administration of this responsibility, the 

Navajo Nation would like to reassume this authority, which it held pursuant to Section l l(c) 

of Public Law 93- 531 , as amended, for three years after July 8, 1980. It is not clear why the 

Nation originally had this authority for only a limited period, but it is paternalistic for this 

authority to continue to reside with ONHIR. As a matter of respect for tribal sovereignty, it 

should be restored to the Nation. 

Whether future land selections should be taken into trust as a mandatory trust 

acquisition, as provided for in the Settlement Act. The draft report states that " [ w ]ithout 

congressional action, any acres remaining from the 400,000 acres that the Navajo Nation wants 

taken into trust after ONHIR's closure would be considered a discretionary trust acquisition 

subject to BIA regulations under the Indian Reorganization Act (Pub. L. No. 73-383)." The 

Nation does not understand the basis for this assertion and considers this legally unwarranted. 

As much as the Nation has opposed the Relocation Act over the years, it still does not want to 

be shorted at the end of ONHIR's life on one of the Act's principal benefits, which is the 

mandatory acquisition into trust of certain lands. Even after ONHIR closes, the obligation to 

take land into trust on a mandatory basis survives. 

Moreover, without further congressional action, ONHIR can only cease to exist when the 

President determines that its functions have been fully discharged (Relocation Act, Section 

12(f)). Since land selections are one of ONHIR's functions, as the report acknowledges, the 

President cannot properly determine that ONHIR has fully discharged its functions until 

ONHIR has made all authorized land selections. 

Whether the Navajo Nation should be given the option ofrestricted fee status versus trust 

6 See Pub. L. No. 116-9, § 1121 (b ), 133 Stat 580, 638-39 (20 I 9). 7 See id 

3 

12
status in future land selections. The Navajo Nation does seek this option and appreciates 

that OIG has noted that this would not set a precedent. 

Additional Proposed Consideration - Boundary Clarification. The Navajo Nation is entitled 

to select lands in New Mexico as reparation for lands lost due to the Relocation Act. Such land 

selections are subject to a restriction on distance from the Navajo Reservation boundary. While 

it seems logical that the reservation boundary is the boundary of any of the Navajo Nation chapters 

that make up the Navajo Nation, Federal officials have expressed uncertainty on this point. The 

Navajo Nation seeks clarification that the Navajo boundary includes the boundary of Navajo 

chapters in New Mexico. 

"New Lands" Reference Clarification. The draft report on page 2 states the following: "Most of 

the lands selected and taken into trust in Arizona are known as the 'New Lands,' consisting of 

about 352,000 acres. Acquisition of these lands was completed in 1986, and the lands were taken 

into trust in 1987. Figure 1 shows locations of the two reservations and the New Lands." The 

Navajo Nation recommends revising the draft report to reflect that all lands selected and acquired 

in trust pursuant to the Relocation Act are New Lands- whether conveyed into trust from BLM 

or fee and whether located in Arizona or New Mexico. Thus, this includes not only the lands within 

the Nahata Dziil, a.k.a. "New Lands", Chapter, but also other New Lands elsewhere. The latter 

includes land in and near Flagstaff, such as where Twin Arrows is located, and in New Mexico, 

such as Paragon Ranch. This is significant because ONHIR administers all that land under the 

same mandate and standards under the Relocation Act, which does not just apply to only some of 

that New Land as shown on page 3 of the draft report. This also is consistent with the 1988 

Relocation Amendments and the ONHIR Management Manual, which both refer to all lands 

acquired pursuant to the Relocation Act, not just those within the Nataha Dziil Chapter. 8 

Conclusion. The land selections are an important component of the Relocation Act. Before 

ONHIR is closed, all of the issues identified in the report and this memorandum should be fully 

addressed in close consultation and coordination with the Navajo Nation. 

Sincerely, 

q-?t-A/~ 

Jonathan Nez, President ~,,t~ident 

THE NAVAJO NATION THE NAVAJO NATION 

8 See Relocation Amendments, Pub. L. I 00-666, Section 4(b ), 8, previously codified at 25 U .S.C. Section 640dl 0( h ); ONHIR Management Manual Section 1810. 

4 

13
Report Fraud, Waste,

and Mismanagement

Fraud, waste, and mismanagement in

Government concern everyone: Office 

of Inspector General staff, departmental 

employees, and the general public. We 

actively solicit allegations of any 

inefficient and wasteful practices, fraud, 

and mismanagement related to 

departmental or Insular Area programs 

and operations. You can report 

allegations to us in several ways.

 By Internet: www.doioig.gov

 By Phone: 24-Hour Toll Free: 800-424-5081

Washington Metro Area: 202-208-5300

 By Fax: 703-487-5402

 By Mail: U.S. Department of the Interior 

Office of Inspector General

Mail Stop 4428 MIB 

1849 C Street, NW. 

Washington, DC 20240