Politics

Lawmakers Seek to Wrap up Costly Tribal Relocation Program

Published

11 years ago

February 9, 2015

This Saturday, Jan. 24, 2015 photo provided by Ron Lee, Office of Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick shows Democratic U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona, right, speaks with tribal members on the Hopi reservation in northeastern Arizona. (AP Photo/Office of Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, Ron Lee)

Felicia Fonseca, ASSOCIATED PRESS

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. (AP) — The rolling hills of northeastern Arizona where cornfields lined a watering hole and sheep grazed in the distance were home to Susie Robinson and her extended family. When she moved farther east into a new four-bedroom home, it wasn’t by choice but the result of a bitter land dispute between the Navajo and Hopi tribes that dates back centuries.

The federal government’s attempt to have these tribes share land failed miserably, leading to one of the largest single relocation efforts in U.S. history. Thousands of Navajos have been transplanted into new homes off Hopi land, while dozens of Hopis have been moved off Navajo land.

Federal officials are trying to figure out how best to wrap up the work of the relocation program that has exceeded its original $41 million price tag by more than $500 million and dragged on decades longer than planned. The effort threatens to get even costlier with many people still awaiting new housing.

“I want to move this forward,” said Republican U.S. Rep. Ken Calvert of California, who recently visited the reservations with other congressional delegates to hear from tribal leaders on the matter. “The relocation program was never intended to be carried on in perpetuity.”

The Office of Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation was established by Congress in the years after the neighboring tribes were assigned reservations. It underlines a history of animosity between the Navajo and Hopi that has included threats of violence over property and clashes over cultural, business and political views.

Land is the most contentious issue.

The Navajo and Hopi tribes have occupied the same territory for centuries, though Navajos tended to be more nomadic sheepherders and Hopis mostly resided on three mesas towering above the surrounding desert.

In 1882, President Chester Arthur designated 2.4 million acres in Arizona for the Hopi Tribe and other Indians. Hopis outnumbered Navajos six to one on the land, but the Navajo population grew over time.

The federal government later gave the tribes the OK to sue over the land, and the Hopis responded in 1958 by seeking sole control of it. Four years later, a federal court deemed 1.8 million acres a joint-use area.

But the tribes were not amenable to sharing the land and, ultimately, Congress divided it and ordered tribal members to leave each other’s reservations. The Navajo Nation — the country’s largest reservation at 27,000 square miles — now completely surrounds the 2,500-square-mile Hopi reservation.

When the federal government proposed relocation, some Navajos armed themselves and threatened bloodshed if anyone tried to move them.

About a handful of Navajos who refused to leave Hopi land still live there under Hopi jurisdiction. Tensions run high at times, particularly over livestock grazing. The Hopi Tribe seized sheep from Navajos last year to preserve the vegetation.

The two tribes also have clashed in other areas. Until recently, they refused to be in the same congressional district. The Hopi Tribe also has been fighting a proposal for the Navajo Nation to build an aerial tram into the Grand Canyon.

“The relocation basically was a very traumatic experience for Navajo families who were directly affected,” Navajo lawmaker Walter Phelps said. “But it was also a very traumatic experience politically that has a certain amount of impact on the relationship between the tribes and the federal government.”

Still, the relocation program mushroomed, with the number of people eligible for housing benefits almost four times higher than expected.

In all, more than 7,200 heads of household have sought relocation benefits, representing 16,386 people. The relocation office has approved more than half of those applications.

The program was slated to end in 1986, but Navajo opposition to relocation early on and a shortage of suitable land to build houses helped prolong it.

Today, about 120 Navajos still await homes, 300 administrative appeals are pending, and eligibility is being determined on 65 applications, according to a recent report from the Interior Department’s Office of Inspector General. The program’s cost could go up another $35 million to $82 million once those applications and appeals are settled.

Robinson moved into her new, stucco house on a 1-acre plot in 1985. It was much larger than the two-room house she shared with her mother growing up. But the windows, foundation and stucco started cracking within a year, and she doesn’t have the sheep, cornfields, watering holes or ceremonial hogan she had as a child.

For Robinson, the relocation house isn’t home.

“I still miss my old place,” said the 60-year-old teacher who works with special education students at a school on the Hopi reservation. “If I were to get that piece of land back, I would be there in a heartbeat.”

About a dozen Hopi families relocated to a community called Spider Mound on the Hopi reservation. They have decried the lack of paved roads, running water, electricity and fire suppression that the Hopi chairman’s office said they were promised.

The delegation from the U.S. House Appropriations subcommittee that Calvert chairs said it saw an obvious need to address areas of disrepair but wasn’t sure that would be covered by the relocation program.

The relocation effort could be completed faster with legislative changes that could include a cash payout instead of a new home, or an increase in annual appropriations, the Office of Inspector General report said.

Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, whose district includes the Navajo and Hopi reservations, said she would work with the subcommittee to ensure the federal government meets its obligation to the tribes.

“They heard from a lot of concerned people who are relocates who spoke very eloquently about their conditions of living and how desperate the situation is,” she said.
Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

###

Reporter II

Posts by Reporter II

Related Topics:Arizona Indian Country Native Americans

Up Next

Community Members Question Coliseum City

Don't Miss

Lawmakers Seek to Wrap up Costly Tribal Relocation Program

Reporter II

Click to comment

Activism

OP-ED: AB 1349 Puts Corporate Power Over Community

Since Ticketmaster and Live Nation merged in 2010, ticket prices have jumped more than 150 percent. Activities that once fit a family’s budget now take significant disposable income that most working families simply don’t have. The problem is compounded by a system that has tilted access toward the wealthy and white-collar workers. If you have a fancy credit card, you get “presale access,” and if you work in an office instead of a warehouse, you might be able to wait in an online queue to buy a ticket. Access now means privilege.

Published

3 days ago

January 9, 2026

Oakland Post

Bishop Joseph Simmons, Senior Pastor, Greater St. Paul Baptist Church, Oakland

By Bishop Joseph Simmons, Senior Pastor, Greater St. Paul Baptist Church, Oakland

As a pastor, I believe in the power that a sense of community can have on improving people’s lives. Live events are one of the few places where people from different backgrounds and ages can share the same space and experience – where construction workers sit next to lawyers at a concert, and teenagers enjoy a basketball game with their grandparents. Yet, over the past decade, I’ve witnessed these experiences – the concerts, games, and cultural events where we gather – become increasingly unaffordable, and it is a shame.

These moments of connection matter as they form part of the fabric that holds communities together. But that fabric is fraying because of Ticketmaster/Live Nation’s unchecked control over access to live events. Unfortunately, AB 1349 would only further entrench their corporate power over our spaces.

Power over live events is concentrated in a single corporate entity, and this regime operates without transparency or accountability – much like a dictator. Ticketmaster controls 80 percent of first-sale tickets and nearly a third of resale tickets, but they still want more. More power, more control for Ticketmaster means higher prices and less access for consumers. It’s the agenda they are pushing nationally, with the help of former Trump political operatives, who are quietly trying to undo the antitrust lawsuit launched against Ticketmaster/Live Nation under President Biden’s DOJ.

That’s why I’m deeply concerned about AB 1349 in its current form. Rather than reining in Ticketmaster’s power, the bill risks strengthening it, aligning with Trump. AB 1349 gives Ticketmaster the ability to control a consumer’s ticket forever by granting Ticketmaster’s regime new powers in state law to prevent consumers from reselling or giving away their tickets. It also creates new pathways for Ticketmaster to discriminate and retaliate against consumers who choose to shop around for the best service and fees on resale platforms that aren’t yet controlled by Ticketmaster. These provisions are anti-consumer and anti-democratic.

California has an opportunity to stand with consumers, to demand transparency, and to restore genuine competition in this industry. But that requires legislation developed with input from the community and faith leaders, not proposals backed by the very company causing the harm.

Will our laws reflect fairness, inclusion, and accountability? Or will we let corporate interests tighten their grip on spaces that should belong to everyone? I, for one, support the former and encourage the California Legislature to reject AB 1349 outright or amend it to remove any provisions that expand Ticketmaster’s control. I also urge community members to contact their representatives and advocate for accessible, inclusive live events for all Californians. Let’s work together to ensure these gathering spaces remain open and welcoming to everyone, regardless of income or background.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of December 31, 2025 – January 6, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – December 31, 2025 – January 6, 2026

Published

1 week ago

January 2, 2026

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

2025 in Review: Seven Questions for Assemblymember Lori Wilson — Advocate for Equity, the Environment, and More

Her rise has also included several historic firsts: she is the only Black woman ever appointed to lead the influential Assembly Transportation Committee, and the first freshman legislator elected Chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus. She has also been a vocal advocate for vulnerable communities, becoming the first California legislator to publicly discuss being the parent of a transgender child — an act of visibility that has helped advanced representation at a time when political tensions related to social issues and culture have intensified.

Published

2 weeks ago

December 29, 2025

Oakland Post

Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson (D-Suisun City). File photo.

By Edward Henderson, California Black Media

Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson (D-Suisun City) joined the California Legislature in 2022 after making history as Solano County’s first Black female mayor, bringing with her a track record of fiscal discipline, community investment, and inclusive leadership.

She represents the state’s 11th Assembly District, which spans Solano County and portions of Contra Costa and Sacramento Counties.

California Black Media spoke with Wilson about her successes and disappointments this year and her outlook for 2026.

What stands out as your most important achievement this year?

Getting SB 237 passed in the Assembly. I had the opportunity to co-lead a diverse workgroup of colleagues, spanning a wide range of ideological perspectives on environmental issues.

How did your leadership contribute to improving the lives of Black Californians this year?

The Black Caucus concentrated on the Road to Repair package and prioritized passing a crucial bill that remained incomplete during my time as chair, which establishes a process for identifying descendants of enslaved people for benefit eligibility.

What frustrated you the most this year?

The lack of progress made on getting Prop 4 funds allocated to socially disadvantaged farmers. This delay has real consequences. These farmers have been waiting for essential support that was promised. Watching the process stall, despite the clear need and clear intent of the voters, has been deeply frustrating and reinforces how much work remains to make our systems more responsive and equitable.

What inspired you the most this year?

The resilience of Californians persists despite the unprecedented attacks from the federal government. Watching people stay engaged, hopeful, and determined reminded me why this work matters and why we must continue to protect the rights of every community in our state.

What is one lesson you learned this year that will inform your decision-making next year?

As a legislator, I have the authority to demand answers to my questions — and accept nothing less. That clarity has strengthened my approach to oversight and accountability.

In one word, what is the biggest challenge Black Californians are facing currently?

Affordability and access to quality educational opportunities.

What is the goal you want to achieve most in 2026?

Advance my legislative agenda despite a complex budget environment. The needs across our communities are real, and even in a tight fiscal year, I’m committed to moving forward policies that strengthen safety, expand opportunity, and improve quality of life for the people I represent.