H O P IP E O P L E O F T H E L A N D

Sustaining Agriculture on the Hopi Reservation

CM-14-02

CM-14-02

Copyright © 2014, University of Nevada Cooperative Extension.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, modified, published, transmitted, used, displayed,stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise

without the prior written permission of the publisher and authoring agency.

The University of Nevada, Reno is committed to Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action in recruitment of its studentsand employees and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, creed, national origin, veteran status,

physical or mental disability, and sexual orientation.

The University of Nevada employs only United States citizens and aliens lawfully authorized to work in the United States. Women and under-represented groups are encouraged to apply.

A Partnership of Nevada Counties;University of Nevada, Reno;

and U.S. Department of Agriculture

Project Funded by WSAREProfessional Development Program Grant

in Partnership with:

A

Loretta SingletaryInterdisciplinary Outreach Liaison, University of Nevada Cooperative Extension

Staci EmmExtension Educator, University of Nevada Cooperative Extension

Micah Loma’omvayaNatural Resources Planner, Hopi Tribe

Janine ClarkUniversity of Nevada, Reno, NSF-REU Undergraduate Student Scholar

Matthew LivingstonUniversity of Arizona FRTEP Extension Educator, Hopi Reservation

Michael Kotutwa JohnsonUniversity of Arizona, Doctoral Student, American Indian Studies

Ron OdenMedia Production Specialist, University of Nevada Cooperative Extension

Federally RecognizedTribal Extension Program

Title Page A

Chapter 1: The Hopi: Our People of Long Ago 1 Hopi Cultural Ceremonial Calendar Mural (Pull-out) 7 Chapter 1 Review 14

Chapter 2: Hopi Land Base 16 Map Page of History of Executive Orders (Pull-out) 26 Chapter 2 Review 29

Chapter 3: Hopi Tribal Governance 31 Chapter 3 Review 36

Chapter 4: Agricultural Irrigation and Water Rights on the Hopi Reservation 37 Chapter 4 Review 47

Chapter 5: Agricultural and Natural Resource Challenges on the Hopi Reservation: Results of a Needs Assessment 49 Chapter 5 Review 54

Chapter 6: Focus Group Research Methodology and Results 55 Chapter 6 Review 67

Chapter 7: Implementing Agricultural and Natural Resource Programs on the Hopi Reservation 69 Chapter 7 Review 75

Appendix A: Hopi [Moqui] Petition for Title to Land 77

Bibliography: Chapter 1 94 Chapter 2 96 Chapter 3 97 Chapter 4 98 Chapter 5 100 Chapter 6 101 Chapter 7 101

TABLE of CONTENTS

1

The Hopi: Our People of Long Ago

Learning Objectives:

n Explore early Hopi culture and history n Examine the physical and socioeconomic characteristics of the Hopi Reservation n Discover the dryland agricultural practices used on the Hopi Reservation today

The Hopi people are descendants of ancient agrarian societies. This chapter provides a brief overview of the early history of the Hopi people and specifically the role of agriculture as a foundation for the Hopi culture. Physical attributes of the land and current socioeconomic trends on the Hopi Reservation are described. Traditional dryland farming practices that still characterize Hopi agriculture today are highlighted.

Hisatsinom – Our People of Long Ago

The Hopi refer to their ancestors as Hisatsinom or Our People of Long Ago. The Hopi are descendants of some of the oldest human settlements discovered in the Americas. In fact, archaeological evidence suggests that the Hopi descended from sedentary agrarian cultures dating back to 10,000 B.C.E., including the ancestral Puebloans, Mogollon, Hakataya and Hohokam (Pearlstone, 2001).

Archaeological evidence dating to 1100 C.E. has produced remnants specific to the ancestral Puebloans who lived above ground in stone block townhomes located near present-day Hopi mesas. A pervasive and severe drought between 1275 and 1300 C.E. is thought to have caused these ancient towns to disappear. Their descendants, the Hopi, then migrated to the region of the Hopi mesas (Donahue & Johnston, 1998).

Creation Story

According to Hopi oral history, the Hopi occupy the “fourth world”, having emerged from three underworlds by climbing up a reed (Bonvillain, 2005; Courlander, 1971). Upon arrival, they found a land covered by water with three mesas, and there they met Maasaw, the deity and ruler of the fourth world. Maasaw presented the Hopi with three gifts that symbolized life principles. These were corn seeds, a gourd filled with water and a planting stick.

Corn (qaa’o) was to be the soul of the Hopi people. The planting stick (sooya) would provide simple but dependable farming technology. Maasaw warned the people against reliance upon technologies that had overtaken the third world and had led to discontent, materialism and greed. The water gourd (kuywikoro) represented the Creator’s blessing and the Hopi’s relationship with the natural environment. Maasaw formed a sacred covenant with the Hopi and foretold of difficult and challenging times that lie ahead; but if the Hopi held fast to the covenant, they would live long and spiritually full lives (Mails & Evehema, 1993; Donahue & Johnston, 1998). Maasaw instructed the people that in order to live on the mesas, they needed first to travel to distant lands to acquire knowledge useful to Hopi society (Gilbert, 2010). The people divided into clans and migrated to each of the four cardinal directions.

C H A P T E R O N E

1

1

During their travels, the Hopi learned how to survive a range of environments. Theyencountered a variety of insects, animals and plants with which they identified and whose names they adopted to identify their clans. The people learned from and exchanged ideas with many other cultures. Each founding clan returned to the mesas from the four cardinal directions to contribute to Hopi society something meaningful they had learned andexperienced during their migrations (Gilbert, 2010). Today, the Hopi sustain their deepconnection to the land established in the covenant with Maasaw and follow the “Hopi way” through embodying the Hopi values: “cooperation, humility, hard work and stewardship” (Balenquah, 2012, Page 64).

Hopi Reservation

A U.S. executive order issued by President Chester A. Arthur on Dec. 16, 1882 set aside 2.4 million acres of land in northeastern Arizona for the use of the Hopi “and other Indians.” Through a series of federal legislative actions, the Hopi Reservation today comprisesapproximately 1.6 million acres (Tiller, 2005).

Located within the Great Basin Desert on the Colorado Plateau, the Hopi Reservationencompasses and extends beyond the southern edge of Black Mesa. The southernescarpment breaks off sharply to form the broad, flat Little Colorado River Valley.The southern scarp of Black Mesa forms a series of individual, narrow mesas calledAntelope Mesa, First Mesa, Second Mesa, Third Mesa, Howell Mesa and Coalmine Mesa(Suderman & Loma’omvaya, 2001).

Since the first official contact with federal Indian agency representatives during the 1870s, the number of Hopi villages has increased from seven to 12 currently occupied villages. These are located primarily on or around First, Second and Third Mesa. Some tribal members reside in small, outlying communities surrounding these primary villages. The most recent Census estimates the Hopi Reservation population at 7,185 (U.S. Census, 2012).

Five major washes cross the Hopi Reservation. These are the Moenkopi, Dinnebito, Oraibi, Polacca and Jeddito. The washes are considered tributaries of the Little Colorado River, and flow in a generally northeast to southwesterly direction. While the majority of the washes flow only after heavy rains, intermittent and perennial streams exist in some areas, primarily as a result of groundwater discharge (Hack, 1942).

The Hopi Reservation climate is semiarid, with precipitation ranging from 6 to 10 inchesper year on average. The majority of the precipitation occurs July through October.Annual snowfall totals approximately 14 inches. The climate is characterized by mild to hot summers with cold winters. In summer the average temperature is 70 degrees Fahrenheit, and average daily maximum temperature is 87, with all temperatures being recorded inKeams Canyon, Arizona. The ecological zones within the Hopi Reservation are basedon climate, vegetation and soil criteria. There are five zones: Semiarid Grasslands,Mixed Grassland, Sagebrush-Grassland, Pinyon-Juniper Woodland and Wetlands(USDA-NRCS, 1996).

______________________________1Chapter 3 provides an overview of federal legislative actions surrounding the Hopi Reservation boundary dispute.

2 The easternmost First Mesa contains three villages. One of these villages (Hano) became home to the Tewa Pueblo during the 1600s. The Tewa migrated from present-day New Mexico to First Mesa to seek refuge among the Hopi from continued Spanish invasion. The first generation of Tewa to migrate spoke a different language and practiced different rituals than the Hopi. Consequently, the Hopi remained socially distant from the Tewa until about the mid-20th century (Walker & Wyckoff, 1983).

2

Early Hopi Farming

The early Hopi were farmers whose complex religion and societal organization wereimmersed in agriculture. Once settled near the three mesas, the early Hopi adapted quickly to the arid environment and developed planting techniques to support human life.The alluvial fans and floodplains that cut across Black Mesa and sloped downward from the northeast to the southwest provided much of the cropland. They discovered ways to cook and preserve the food produced, and collected wild edible plants in the early spring and into the summer to supplement their diets.

The early Hopi took advantage of minimal precipitation, related runoff and occasionalflooding. In fact, the Hopi became known for their traditional dryland farming practices and produced a multitude of crops on the Colorado Plateau. As Hurt (1987) states, “Of all the farmers in the Southwest, the Hopi, the westernmost Pueblo Indians, were the best dryland farmers. Corn was (and continues to be) their most important crop. Although they did not know about cross-pollination, the women were skilled at seed selection, and they did not choose kernels from an ear that they believed to be a mixture of two varieties. Consequently, Hopi corn varieties remained fairly pure” (Hurt, 1987, Page 51). Hopi corn seeds have been cultivated for centuries. Over time the seeds’ genetics have adopted characteristics, such as a short stock height, that help them to grow and thrive in the desert. The continual storage and natural modification of this seed overtime for use in dryland farming allows Hopifarming and spiritual traditions to survive today. It is important to the Hopi people that their long history of desert farming recorded in the genetics of that seed remains pure and within the hands and care of the Hopi people (Balenquah, 2012).

Early Hopi used springs to irrigate crops located both close to and far from the villages.The distances to the fields often required the Hopi farmer to run for many miles to reach the fields and return each day. Distance running became an ingrained part of the early Hopiculture. Many farmers slept at the fields during the growing season to protect their crops from animals and insects.

The early Hopi focused on cultivating row crops, mainly vegetables. They expanded their agricultural production over time when new crops and lifestock were introduced to them through various encounters with newcomers. The Spanish arrival at Hopi villages in themid-16th century influenced some Hopi agricultural practices that continue today.While the Spanish brought many European customs with them, much of which the Hopi resisted, they also introduced goats, horses, sheep, burros, watermelon, onions, chilies and peach trees (Vaidyanathan & Lamb, 2004). Similarly, the neighboring Navajo acquiredlivestock and produce from the Spaniards during this time (Grahame & Sisk, 2002). Years later, the Hopi traded their cultivated harvest for meat from the Navajo. As non-Indian settlement and Western expansion continued through the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Hopi sold their surplus agricultural products to trading posts. In the early 1900s, their agriculturalactivities were considered profitable, as they acquired cash for surplus products notconsumed on the reservation. The Hopi also became successful cattle producers at the turn of the century (U.S. Census, 1902; Hough, 1918; Forde, 1931).

1

3

Early Hopi Religion and Society

The word Hopi means “peaceful, good and wise” or “good in every respect.” The Hopi’s questfor wisdom and balance in life has been demonstrated through their devout religiouspractices for more than a millennium (Bonvillain, 2005). In fact, the early Hopi culture has been identified as one of the most complex religious societies (James, 1974). Their daily lives and social organizational system are immersed in ritual.

Because the early Hopi were unique among Indian tribes and remain so to this day, the Hopi are understandably protective of their culture, and particularly their religious practices, which have often been misunderstood, attacked or even commercialized. The Hopi remain especially cautious about non-Hopi individuals explaining the Hopi culture to others, as in the past this often has led to confusion and the development of policies believed by the Hopi to be detrimental to their way of life (James, 1974).

Western research methods may be incapable of fully understanding the unique culturalattributes of the Hopi. For the Hopi, oral tradition holds more value than written history,and this practice continues to this day. A key role and responsibility of clans and religious societies is to maintain the integrity of sacred knowledge; this knowledge is consideredprivileged property of a hierarchy of societal priests (Hieb, 2002; James, 1974).

Because of this hierarchy, only a limited number of Hopi possess a full accounting of the most important sacred knowledge. And, knowledge transference significantly differs for Hopi males and females concerning traditions, rituals, customs and histories (Hieb, 2002). As compared with Western history, Hopi oral tradition documents important cultural attributes differently in terms of time, space and place. To understand the Hopi concept of place, space and value is to acknowledge and understand the sacred covenant between the Hopi and Maasaw and the sacred nature of Hopi lands or Hopitutsqua (Devereaux & Griffin, 2013).

Cycles of Life

The Hopi recognize and honor the interconnectivity of all forms of life and lifecycles through their ceremonies and planting cycles. Rituals mark significant times of the year related to agricultural and associated religious activities. Both men and women are involved in these activities and ways of life, through religious societies and social organization. Figures 1.1-1.2 outline ceremonial and planting cycles in the context of a 12-month calendar as well as the Katsina season.

4

1

5

Figure 1.1. Hopi Ceremonial Calendar (mural)

Acrylic painting, 1975 by Artist Hopid members:Michael Kabotie (Lomawywesa), Terrance Talaswaima (Honvantewa), Neil David, Milland Lomakema (Dawakema) and Delbridge Honanie (Coochsiwukiomao).

Artist Hopid (Members 1973-1978)

Created in 1975 by Artist Hopid members, the mural is displayed at the Hopi Cultural Center andMuseum at Second Mesa. In the years from 1973 to 1978, according to Michael Kabotie (Lomawywesa), then leader of the the Artist Hopid, the group came together because of their concerns forpreserving the traditions and interpretations of the Hopi way. The group desired to communicate, educate and redirect a sense of purpose and values to Hopi artists with the primary objective ofpromoting and encouraging an honest and accurate portrayal of Hopi culture in their works.They believed that this redirection of purpose could bring and reflect a renewed American spirituality in their art. The work covers a wall space some 35 feet in width, a total of 274 square feet,and exemplifies the ceremonial culture, spiritual beauty and eloquence of the “Hopi way.” The dedication quote given at the formal unveiling ceremonies written by Lomawywesa (Michael Kabotie) reads as follows:

This mural was painted in reverence and in homage to HOPI:

“A life force and philosophy that nurtured and gave strength to countless generations of HOPI PEOPLE

A way of life, time tested by the forces of Mother Nature for eons; survived and matured.

A concept so deep that deliberate attempts by gold and soul hungry ideologies to unroot it have failed.

A spiritual outlook so strong, that despite the hardships, it prays for all living beings to have fulfilling lives,

And those beautiful souls that live its teachings, and guide it,

THE HOPI PEOPLE

So with the greatest honor and respect, members of ARTIST HOPID dedicate the

HOPI CEREMONIAL CALENDAR to the HOPI PEOPLE and all living beings.”

ARTIST HOPID

(See pull-out, page 7)

Hopi Ceremonial Calendar Mural

Figure 1.2. Hopi Calendar

6

Nov

ember

December January February March April May June July

Augu

st

Sept

embe

r

O

ctob

er

C

eremonies Powamu Bean Dances

C

erem

onies

Wuw

tsim

t M

en’s

Cer

emon

y

W I N T E R S O LST I C E

ANCIEN

T HO

PI

CE

RE

MO

N

IES

KATSINA

CE

RE

MO

NIES

k

atsin

a ceremonies

P lan t ing and Prepara t ion

Pe

r iod

Pe

riod of Songs, Rain and Growth

H

arv

es

t a

nd

Sto

rag

e P

er i

od

K y e l mu y a K y a a m u y a P a a m u y a P o w a m

u y a O

s om

uy

a K

wiyam

uya Hakitonmuya Wuko’uyis Taalangva Tala’paam

uya

N

asan

mu

ya

A

ng

ak

mu

y a ....

S U M M E R S O LST I C E

Soyal Paamuya Kiva Dances

Snak

e o

r Flu

te

M

araw

& L

alko

nt/

Ow

aqol

t W

omen

’s C

erem

onies

SOYALLANGW(Winter Solstice)

Adjoined circlesrepresent ceremonial kinship of clans.

August

Each small circle symbolizestwo moons, or an approximateequivalent of two months.

Moons �ow left to right, moving from August through fall and winter months to December, which marks the winter solstice at approximately Hopi mid-year, and mid-center of the mural.

July

TAAWAVAHO(Summer Solstice,Late June)

Ancient Hopi Ceremonies Katsina Observances

Hopi Ceremonial Calendar (mural)

August - Snake orFlute Ceremonies(Non-Katsina)

A

ASeptember, October andNovember - Dances of theWomen’s Societies(Ancient Hopi Ceremonies)

B

BNovember - Wuwustimt,Men's Priesthood Ceremony(Ancient Hopi Ceremonies)

C

C

Late December - Winter Solstice Time Soyal Ceremonies, and the Transition to Katsina Ceremonies(Ancient Hopi Ceremony)

D

D

January throughFebruary - Paamuya KivaDances and PaamuyaBean Dances (Katsina)

EMarch throughSummer Months -Various PlazaDances Take Place(Katsina)

F

F

July - Niman Time, Following Summer Solstice, Katsinam Returnto Their Spiritual Homes Including to Nuvatukwi'ovi, the San Francisco Peaks.

G

G

Annual Path of Life from Taawa, Father Sun, followed by the Hopi people.

E

1

7

Figure 1.1. Hopi Ceremonial Calendar (mural)

1

Preparation Period: Winter Solstice—March

Between the winter solstice, near Dec. 21 through March, ceremonies are performed toensure a good planting season. The winter solstice marks the beginning of Katsina season (see below). Ceremonies at the beginning of this season are performed in a Kiva, arectangular-shaped structure partially or completely underground, with a ladder at itsentrance symbolizing the emergence of the Hopi into the fourth world (David, 1993; Hough, 1918; Bonvillain, 2005; Wall & Masayesva, 2004). A primary ceremony held in early February, or Powamuya (Purification Moon), is the arrival of the Katsina Crow Mother and her many children who present the villagers and children with gifts of fresh bean sprouts, Katsina dolls and rattles, lightning sticks and dancing wands.

At home, Hopi women determine which crops will be needed for the year’s harvest and prepare the seeds for the men to plant. They decide what to plant based on the needs of the variety of ceremonies, social events and prayers that will happen the following year. They bless the seeds with water and pray for them to grow strong before they present them to the men for planting. This vast expertise of Hopi cultural needs is passed on from femalegeneration to female generation, continuing the cycle of knowledge.

In March, most farmers begin assessing and preparing their fields to plant. Farmers may plant any time between April through the Summer Solstice in June, depending on farmerpreference, type of crop, frost and moisture. Planting takes several days and often involves the entire family’s efforts (Wall & Masayesva, 2004).

Season of Songs, Rain and Growth: March—July

Once the fields have been planted and the seeds begin to sprout, farmers guide the plantsto grow strong by singing to them, scaring away the rabbits and rodents, clearing worms from the individual plants, and building and maintaining flood channels to the field.During this time, Katsina rituals are performed. The Katsina play a key role in Hopi religion and are believed to be benevolent spirit beings that reside in or essentially are the clouds in the skies—spirits of ancestors (Pearlstone, 2001). According to Wall and Masayesva (2004)ceremonies are performed to “ask the spirits of the earth, the sky, the mountains and the clouds to bring the rain [and good weather]” for the crops to flourish and allows thecommunity to gather in such a way that “sustains a rich cultural tapestry of spirituality, work, and tradition” (Page 441). The end of Katsina ceremonies comes in late July with thebeginning of the monsoon rainy season, during the Niman ceremony, when the Katsinas return to their home on the San Francisco Peaks southwest of the mesas (Talaswaima, 2008).

Time for Harvest and Storage: August—Winter Solstice

Harvesting season begins at the end of summer, when corn plants are 4- to 5-feet tall, and continues through early November. Farmers bring the mature corn home and present it to their wives. The women examine the season’s harvest, sort it for storing and processing and select ears to be used for special occasions (Wall & Masayesva, 2004). Other ceremonies are conducted during this time, including the Snake or Flute dance and the women’s and men’s priesthood ceremonies. The winter solstice marks the beginning of the Hopi new year, and Katsina ceremonies, continuously renewing the cycles of life (Talaswaima, 2008).

Farming and Ranching on the Hopi Reservation Today

Steady economic development in the state of Arizona has impacted Hopi agriculture, with over half of reservation employment reliant upon nonfarm wages today. This employment

8

trend follows the rest of the U.S. population with regards to a reliance on nonfarm income. As Hopi families continue to maintain gardens, grow corn for ceremonial purposes and raise cattle, subsistance agriculture persists as an important cultural asset, rather than as anentrepreneurial role on the reservation.

The Hopi Reservation economy currently depends upon coal mining royalties, tribal andfederal governments, schools and tourism employment. A major employer on thereservation is the Hopi tribal government, which employs approximately 500 individuals, roughly 46 percent of the total number of jobs. Federal government schools and Indian Health Sevices are also primary employers of tribal members. While mining companies that lease mineral rights from the Hopi Tribe remain a key employer of Hopi tribal members, the tribal and federal governments are more prominent. Tourism and recreation play a large entreprenuerial role in the sale of handcrafted Katsina dolls, pottery, baskets and jewelry to visitors in addition to offering guided tours of some of the oldest continuously occupied settlements in the U.S. (Hopi Tribe, 2014).

Lands surrounding the 12 villages atop the three mesas are still used for farming, grazing, subsistence gathering and religious purposes. However, livestock grazing dominatesreservation land use or roughly 1.5 million out of the 1.6 million acres that comprise the Hopi Reservation. Approximately 9,000 of the total 1.6 million reservation acres are cultivated in crops (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2014).

The majority of Hopi farms remain small. Approximately 70 percent of farms are in 0.1- to 9-acre plots and 23 percent are 10- to 49-acre plots (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2014). Traditional Hopi village and clan leadership, in addition to federally recognized tribalgovernment authorities, continue to regulate residential and agricultural land use.

Hopi Dryland Farming

Dryland-farmed traditional corn and edible beans still dominate Hopi farming practices. In 1942, Hopi crops by total area of the reservation included corn (72 percent); tree crops such as peaches, apples and apricots (13.2 percent); and beans (8.7 percent) (Hack, 1942). In 1993, Soleri and Cleveland reported that 100 percent of farmers planted corn and 86 percentreported planting lima beans. Tree crops were being maintained by 72 percent of Hopifarmers. The 2003 Hopi Farmer Survey reported that after corn and beans, the next most important crops were melons and squash (Moon & Livingston, 2004). According to the most recent (2012) agricultural census, Hopi crops by total number of farms reported included traditional corn (59 percent), edible beans (excluding lima beans) (23 percent), melons(33 percent), squash (18 percent) and tree crops (2 percent) (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2014). Only 40 percent of the total number of farms were irrigated (U.S. Department ofAgriculture, 2014).

Dryland farming does not exclude moisture, as the crops would not grow in dry soil. Corn is planted into sandy ground about 4 to 6 inches deep, down into the soil still moist from the winter snowpack. Hopi farmers know where to look for moisture. After the seeds are planted, plants rely on spring and summer rains to moisten the ground and create runoff that can be channeled to the fields (Wall & Masayesva, 2004). Some corn can be planted in floodwater fields, referred to as Ak-chin fields. Essentially, these fields are the alluvial fans of washes with storm water spreading through these fields as it runs off from higher elevations. Fields are also planted near springs where water seeps up to the surface.

1

9

Corn

Corn remains a main staple of the Hopi diet, and is still the most widely cultivated of all crops. The Hopi produce several different corn varieties for different uses. Wall and Masayesva (2004) explain, “for [the Hopi] corn is sustenance, ceremonial object, prayer offering, symbol [of life], and sentient being unto itself (. . .) the Hopi people sustain the corn and the corn sustains Hopi culture” (Page 437).

The traditional planting practice is to plant with a digging stick made out of greasewood.The farmer makes a hole with the stick, pulling back the sandy top of the field until he findsa moist layer. Usually eight to 12 seeds are placed in the hole. Placement of the next hole, usually about three steps away, is determined by feeling the moisture content of the soil.This pattern is repeated until the field is planted.

n White corn is used primarily in ceremonies, for offerings, in Kiva and Katsina rituals, and for special occasions and rites of passage. It is also used in certain dishes, such as nöqkwivi, a hominy stew. n Blue corn is used in many Hopi recipes, such as piki, a paper-thin rolled bread. n Red corn is used to make piki and other corn-based foods such as parched corn. n Yellow corn is typically eaten fresh during the harvest season. n Sweet corn is roasted overnight in buried fire pits during the harvest in the fall. It is also used to make a corn cake for special occasions, such as weddings (Pooyouma, 2002).

Beans

Beans are the second most dryland-farmed crop after corn. The Hopi cultivate severalvarieties, with the Hopi purple string bean being one of the most widely grown. More than half of Hopi farmers produced this bean in the late 20th century (Soleri & Cleveland, 1993). The beans are planted 4 feet apart with seven to 10 beans per hole. The farmer digs down to locate the available moisture, then plants down another 3 to 4 inches. Besides the purple bean, the Hopi grow white and red string beans. Field bean varieties include yellow, black, black pinto, light yellow, pink and gray.

The Hopi also plant both lima beans and tepary beans. Varieties of lima beans include yellow, or in Hopi, sikya hatiko. In addition, there are three other varieties of Hopi limas, which are gray, white and red; and two types of tepary, a white, qööts tsatsaymori and a blackqömaf tsatsaymori (Soleri & Cleveland, 1993).

Fruit Trees

In 1900, the U.S. Census reported 15,541 peach and apricot trees on the Hopi Reservation (U.S. Census, 1902). The original trees arrived with Spanish Catholic missionaries during the 1500s. Trees were planted from seed, with sandy areas being the preferred planting sites. The fruit became an important part of the Hopi diet. The original peaches brought by the Spanish were white flesh peaches. Later introductions arrived with Mormon farmers (Forde, 1931). While the Hopi still produce fruit trees, they are not present in the numbers found in 1900. Community organizations, such as Hopi Tutskwa Permaculture, have led efforts to plant new trees and some small orchards in the village of Kykotsmovi and at Hopi High School.

10

Ranching

Because the Hopi Reservation is characterized by an arid climate, ranching is limited by the amount of water and grass available for livestock. The Hopi have raised small herds of sheep beneath the mesas since the 16th century, when the Spanish introduced them to the area(Gerke, 2010). While almost all Hopi agriculture is grown for subsistence and culturalpurposes, some areas operate cattle ranches commercially. Ranches can be found both on the Hopi Reservation and off the reservation, on land privately owned and operated by the Hopi Tribe. The main off-reservation ranch land is known as the “Hopi Three Canyon Ranch” area, just outside of Winslow, Ariz. The tribe was able to purchase this land with money from the Navajo/Hopi Land Dispute Settlement Act of 1996 (see Chapter 2). Both on andoff-reservation cattle operations are marketed to sale yards yearly (Tuttle & Livingston, 2008; Smeal, 2013). The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported for 2012 approximately 2,225 total cows and calves in inventory on Hopi Reservation ranches, with 657 sold within the year reported, in addition to 1,177 sheep and lamb with 73 sold, 525 goats with 72 sold and 498 horses with 93 sold (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2014).

Hopi Farming Tools

The Hopi planting stick is still the most widely used farm tool on the reservation. Planting was traditionally comprised of village planting events and clan family planting events. That has changed as more tribe members rely on off-farm jobs to make ends meet. More farmers now prepare the field with a tractor, but still plant by hand. Some still cultivate completely by hand (Moon & Livingston, 2004).

The continued use of ancient farming tools illustrates the Hopi commitment to theircultural roots. Around the turn of the 21st century, the Hopi elder traditionalists in the village of Hotevilla provided the following description of their farming activities, which illustrate their relationship with nature, their land and their agricultural traditions.

“Spring is here, the time for hard work is fast approaching. It will be a relief to go out into the wide open spaces, surrounded by the mesas, hills, and mountains after the long winter months. We missed our fields and are anxious to once again work the land and plant.”

“This is a good time to pass on our greetings to our loved ones with thoughts of good health and happiness. It is a time which gives us good feelings of strength, so we hustle around readying our gardens and fields for planting. With our blessings, the seeds are put into the soil, the womb of our Mother Earth. She too feels the warmth of our Father Sun. She begins to stir, with the power of her kindness, she commences her duty of glorifying the land with a green coating of meadows and flowers. Let us be in harmony, for we are one. We have called to Mother Nature with our prayers. May your Creations come up strong and healthy so there will be an abundance of food for us and for all.”

“Some of us will be busy working the fields, planting, blending with nature, putting in our seeds, watching them appear. It makes us proud that we too are creators. We pamper our plants, sing and pray so they will grow healthy and strong. They will grow to produce food for our nourishment in return for our kindness and care so that we will stay strong and healthy. The plants will be happy for the duty they have done, both we and the plants will be happy to be part of nature.”

“So the time passes on into summer and men tend their plants like newly born infants. We will face all the challenges of nature, wind, animals, and insects, plus keep the weeds removed, or the soil will be sucked bone dry.”

1

11

“Ears of corn begin to appear on the stalks. Melons and beans appear on the vines. As you walk among the plants talking and singing, a good feeling of pride and happiness fills your heart. You can now say the labor you put into it will produce some harvest which will keep the wolf away from your door.”

“We are now into Harvest Season. Our youngsters and adults take it just like any other season, but it has some important meaning. It changes the life pattern of all land and life.”

“We Hopi are enabled to look at ourselves as we are. The amount and quality we harvest reflect our ways of life in the past years. If the harvest is good, our mind power was strong and clear and in harmony with nature and spirit through prayers. This is faithfulness and happiness. If the harvest is poor, our power of mind strayed because it was not clear, and the prayers did not connect to accomplish the desire. This is sadness and a reason to worry.”

“This season is also a harvest of unknown mystery. Only nature and spirit know what kind of life we did harvest, what they store away for us for the coming year, what most of us will see as we move ahead.”

Source: (Mails, T.E., 1997, The Hopi survival kit: The prophecies, instructions and warnings revealed by the last elders.)

12

1

13

Summary

Archaeological evidence suggests that the Hopi may be descendants of the Pueblo, an ancient agrarian culture dating back 10,000 B.C.E. The early Hopi were considered to be one of the most complex indigenous societies in terms of religion and social organization. Their relationship with nature and land are tied closely with religious rituals revolving around their agricultural activities.

Since time immemorial, the Hopi have cultivated fields on alluvial fans and floodplains,taking advantage of the minimal precipitation that characterizes their arid environment. They developed sophisticated dryland practices to farm successfully on the ColoradoPlateau. They preserve food produced and collect wild plants to supplement their diets.The Hopi were considered successful farmers and ranchers at the turn of the 19th century, trading surplus crops with the Navajo and trading posts.

An executive order, signed by President McArthur in Dec. 16, 1882, set aside 2.4 million acres of land in the Great Basin Desert on the Colorado Plateau for the Hopi Indians. The HopiReservation today comprises approximately 1.6 million acres (Tiller, 2005).

The Hopi currently occupy 12 villages located on or around First, Second and Third Mesa, and some reside in small outlying communities surrounding these primary villages. The most recent Census estimates the Hopi Reservation population at 7,185 (U.S. Census, 2012).

In order to compete and survive in the 21st century with steady economic developmental pressures surrounding the Hopi Reservation, more people have had to get jobs off thereservation. This has resulted in farmers having less time to dedicate to their fields. Hopi families continue to maintain gardens, grow corn for ceremonial and consumptive purposes, and raise cattle and sheep. Currently the Hopi Reservation economy depends upon mining, tribal and federal government, and tourism employment.

Hopi dryland farming continues to dominate farming practices, with most farms consisting of 0.1- to 9-acre parcels. The Hopi continue to use ancient technologies, such as the planting stick, to produce traditional crops. Corn remains a ceremonial necessity and diet staple;it remains the most widely cultivated reservation crop, followed by beans and fruit trees.

14

Chapter 1 Review

Instructions: Select the best answer or provide a written response where space is provided.

1. Identify the practices associated with and reasons for Hopi dryland farming:

A. Due to the dry climate, 2 to 14 inches of annual precipitation and short periods of runoff, the Hopi developed a system that uses moisture in the soil from the snowpack. Ancient farming practices using a planting stick to dig to the moist soil, heritage seed saving and floodwater irrigation are still used today.

B. Due to the dry climate, 2 to 14 inches of annual precipitation and long periods of runoff, the Hopi developed a system that uses moisture in the soil from the rainfall. Ancient farming practices using a hoe to uncover the shallow moist soil, heritage seed saving and floodwater irrigation are still used today.

C. Due to the wet climate, 32 to 48 inches of annual precipitation and long periods of runoff, the Hopi developed a system that uses dry soil, avoiding snowpack. Modern farming practices using a planting stick to dig to the moist soil, rejecting heritage seeds and floodwater mitigation, are in place today.

2. Provide an example of how Hopi religious and agricultural cycles are connected:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. How does the Hopi Reservation land base differ today from the original 1882 land base? Their ancient land base?

A. The Hopi Reservation land base today is only 1.6 million acres; whereas the original land base in the 1882 executive order spanned 2.4 million acres. While the Hopi Reservation is still within the region of their sedentary agrarian ancestors dating back as far as 10,000 B.C.E., the three mesas that the 12 villages are located on and around comprise a portion of their heritage land.

B. The Hopi Reservation land base today is 2.4 million acres and growing. It has expanded since the 1882 executive order, which only included 1.2 million acres. The Hopi Reservation spans beyond the region of the Hopi sedentary agrarian ancestors dating back as far as 10,000 B.C.E., which is only 1.6 million acres of the reservation.

C. Their sedentary agrarian ancestors dating back as far as 10,000 B.C.E. lived in the same region as the 1.6-million-acre Hopi Reservation today. The three mesas that the 12 villages are located on and around are the same as the Hopi’s heritage land and do not expand beyond the boundaries today, as the 2.4-million-acre 1882 executive order had originally designated.

4. Explain why most Hopi agriculture is sustained for ceremonial and subsistence purposes, and not for profit:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Which types of crops and livestock are produced and are more prevalent on the Hopi Reservation? Why?

A. The Hopi cultivate corn, beans and fruit trees. They do not raise livestock, besides one or two sheep used for meat and wool. The most important crop is beans, as it provides a good source of protein for the Hopi people.

B. The Hopi cultivate corn, beans, fruit trees and various other small garden crops in addition to raising cattle and sheep. Of these crops, corn is the most important because it is the basis of the Hopi people’s cultural, spiritual and physical existence, a cultural keystone derived from their creation story.

C. The Hopi are solely ranchers. They grow cattle for profit and sheep for wool. Of the two, cattle are the most prevalent.

1

15

2

A R I Z O N A N E W M E X I C O

WinslowFlagsta�

50 miles

Hopi Reservation

Hopi Aboriginal Lands

Present NavajoReservation

U T A H

C O L O R A D O

Second Mesa

First Mesa

Third Mesa

Hopi Land Base

Learning Objectives:

n Review federal Indian policies that have shaped Indian land tenure n Define Indian land tenure types n Examine a brief chronology of federal legislative actions involving the Hopi Reservation n Explore the implications of Indian trust land tenure on the Hopi Reservation land base Federal Indian policy implemented over the past two centuries has created the landtenure system in place on Indian reservations today. This chapter provides a brief overview of these key federal policies and defines the three types of land tenure that exist onreservation lands. A brief chronological review is presented of numerous federal actions since 1882 that have impacted specifically the Hopi Reservation land base.

Prehistoric Hopi Land Base

The Hopi have lived in the area near the mesas and have been stewards of this land for hundreds of years. The village of Oraibi (ca. 1150 A.D.) is regarded as the longestcontinually inhabited area in North America (Hopi Tribal Council Land Team, 2000).For the Hopi, land is not something to be owned, but something to be tended to and cared for. The early Hopi practiced a matrilineal land tenure system, based on clanship andtraditional land use (Hurt, 1987). Land, houses, property and ceremonial knowledge were in the care of clans and their lineage, or line of maternal ancestry, within the clan to be passed down through generations (Eggan, 1950; Clemmer, 1995).

In recent history, contact with several powerful groups—the Spanish, the Navajo and the Mormons—has shifted the locations of Hopi villages, power and presence with in theregion, and the goods the tribe cultivate and process. The Spanish were the first major power to invade Hopi lands in recent times. Their some 200-year stay in the Hopihomeland brought about many changes, several of which related to their land base and territories. Prior to Spanish contact, several villages were located at the foot of themesas, near springs and washes. However, after the Spanish period of contact, the villages moved to the tops of the mesas for security and defense purposes. Additionally, the Hopi started delineating grazing areas for the sheep introduced by the Spanish (see Chapter 1), on land separate from the mesas from as early as the 1700s. Later, the introduction ofhorses by the Spanish influenced the Hopi when the Navajo and other tribes who hadhorses began raiding their villages and the Navajo began migrating into their territory.The raids left the Hopi with few possessions, and increasingly consolidated occupied lands. The strife over territory and power has continued to dominate the relationship between the Navajo and Hopi, with the current Hopi Reservation located in the middle of the Navajo reservation. For a small period of time the Hopi allowed the Mormons to stay on theirland, and in turn, the Mormons served as a buffer between the Hopi and Navajo territories.During their stay on the Hopi Reservation (1848-1902), the Mormons had their ownsmall subsistence farms and irrigation methods. This added stress on the washes that the Hopi used for irrigation as well. The Hopi had an amicable relationship with the Mormons; however, few converted their religion. The Mormon settlers left in 1902 when thefederal government bought their holdings on the Hopi Reservation. The interaction with

2

C H A P T E R T W O

16

each of these groups influenced the experiences of Hopi interactions with groups thatfollowed them, including contact with non-Mormon Americans (Clemmer, 1995).

Federal Indian Policy and Indian Land Tenure

Indian Removal Act (1830)During the 19th century the federal government enacted several key pieces of legislation that produced the land tenure system that exists on Indian lands today. First, the IndianRemoval Act (1830) authorized the U.S. president to grant unsettled lands west of theMississippi for Indian occupancy in exchange for native Indian homelands within existing state borders. The legislation specifically targeted Indian nations within the rapidlydeveloping Southeastern states. These nations were the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek and Seminole.

The Cherokee in particular, whose homelands were in the state of Georgia, had successfully drafted a tribal constitution (1827) and lobbied for federal recognition as a sovereigngovernment. Rapid encroachment of non-Indian settlers onto their homelands led the Cherokee to seek legal action (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia). In a split vote (2-2-2), Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall’s ruling (1831) established the Trust Doctrine relationship between Indian nations and the federal government, defining Indian nations as domestic, dependent nations and wards of the U.S. government.

Indian Appropriations Act (1851)The Indian Removal Act combined with the 1831 Supreme Court ruling set the stage foradditional federal legislation to designate lands for Indian occupancy. The IndianAppropriations Act, implemented in 1851, set aside lands for Indian use in unsettledterritories farther west of the Mississippi River. It also served to restrict Indian movement todesignated lands, thereby making lands adjacent to reservation boundaries, described as surplus lands, available to settlers. Thus, while the Indian Removal Act and IndianAppropriations Act authorized federal funding to reserve lands for Indian use, these actions also resulted in a significant loss of traditional Indian homelands (Satz, 2002).

General Allotment Act or Dawes Severalty Act (1887)In an effort to force Indian assimilation, the federal government passed the GeneralAllotment Act or Dawes Severalty Act (1887). The Dawes Act sought to transfer Indian trust lands to fee-simple status and to facilitate individual Indian ownership of tribal land. Sen. Henry L. Dawes, R-Mass., who championed the legislation, argued that individual ownership would encourage entrepreneurship and address the poverty prevalent on newly established reservation lands (Banner, 2005).

Allotments issued by the federal government certified that the Indian allottee possessed beneficial ownership while the land remained in federal trust and under federal and state jurisdiction. To prevent Indians from alienating their allotments through sales and immediate state taxation, and to provide a reasonable time period for Indian allottees to establish farms, legislation stipulated that the federal government retain the title in trust for 25 years. After 25 years, the federal government conveyed the allotment title in fee simple to the Indianallottee and also granted the allottee U.S. citizenship.

The Dawes Act served to accelerate the loss of Indian lands as many allotments, onceconverted to fee-simple status, were sold or lost due to the inability of Indian allottees to pay property taxes (Prucha, 1984). Many of the allotments were unsuitable for small-scaleagriculture or were marginally productive. Additionally, Indian allottees lacked operating

17

capital, equipment, seeds and other necessary inputs to ensure their success. Those Indian nations that had been successful agricultural-based economies were forced to adoptWestern cultural practices on randomly assigned lands, which conflicted with existingtraditional Indian land tenure systems. The Dawes Act authorized the Secretary of the Interior to acquire “surplus” lands remaining after the reservation allotment process. These excess lands were then made available to non-Indians for settlement (Banner, 2005).

American Indian Land Tenure Definitions

As a result of 19th century federal Indian policy, three types of land tenure exist today on Indian reservations. These are:

n Tribal trust land: The federal government holds the legal title, but the tribe has beneficial use of the land. The tribe cannot sell or lease trust land without consent of the federal government. Tribes may purchase additional land to hold in trust pending approval of the federal government. n Allotted (individual trust) land: The federal government holds the legal title, but beneficial interest of a particular surveyed parcel is allocated to individual American Indians. n Fee-simple land: This refers to Indian trust lands that were allotted to individual Indians but converted from trust to fee-simple status. Fee-simple lands may lie within, adjacent or outside a reservation comprised of tribal trust lands (Regan, 2014).

Tribal Trust LandThe concept of Indian trust land derives from Trust Doctrine and expresses a fundamental principle of federal Indian policy. In terms of Indian land tenure, Trust Doctrine describes the federal government’s assumed role to act as trustee for American Indian tribes and, as such, assume a fiduciary or trust responsibility. Indian trust land is the right of Indians to occupy lands for their beneficial use. The federal government prohibits tribal governments from mortgaging tribal-owned lands. This restriction can severely limit a tribe’s ability to secure financing for construction or improvement projects. In addition, federal trust authorityrestricts land leasing and other critical land-use decisions on tribal-owned lands.

Tribal-owned lands include homesite leases (also called assignments), or a specific site upon which to reside. Tribal lands may also include grazing and agricultural land-use permits for Indian individuals and families to utilize. Land leases (assignments) and permits may exist for the life of the family and can be passed onto children pending tribal approval. As with the tribe, the individual or family does not receive legal title to the land, only the privilege to use it. Depending on tribal land-use code, if one exists, tribal governments may retract leases or assignments. Given the political nature of governments, land assignments, leases andpermits may present an uncertain and therefore unstable land tenure that maydiscourage investment in long-term improvements necessary to achieve agriculturalproductivity and to manage the resource base sustainably. Additionally, it may be difficult for individuals to obtain loans for property improvement or housing due to the Indian trust land status and nebulous terms of ownership or occupancy of assigned or leased lands.

Allotted LandAllotted lands are the result of the federal government’s forced assimilation policy period. From the beginning of the allotment period, problems resulted relating to Indian descent because of the federal trust status of allotted lands. That is, when an original allottee died, ownership of the allotment was distributed equally among Indian heirs. Thus, a pervasive

2

18

and negative impact of the Dawes Act is fractionation, which allows multiple descendants to inherit undivided interests in Indian trust allotments. With each generation, the number of undivided interests increases. Thus, an individual allotment may be divided repeatedly overtime among heirs so that today an individual allotment may likely be highly fractionated.A highly fractionated parcel is defined as one with 50 or more co-owners, with no undividedinterest greater than 10 percent (Goetting & Ruppel, 2007). Fractionation lowers theeconomic value of the property, discourages individual investment in Indian lands, and raises important issues concerning a lack of efficacy or ability to manage fractionated lands in a cohesive and sustainable way (Regan & Anderson, 2013; Anderson, 2013).

Fee-simple LandFee simple is land tenure status in which an individual owner holds the legal title. Fee-simple land status guarantees the owner the right to manage the land and the resources therein, the right to sell or donate it and the right to pass the land to heirs with specifications orconditions. Fee-simple land has no federal restrictions and can be mortgaged or used ascollateral for bank loans.

Since the allotment period, many Indian allotments have been converted to fee-simpletenure status. Thus, one important and lasting impact of the Dawes Act is the checkerboard tenure pattern that exists today on Indian reservations. That is, Indian reservations may include a mix of trust and fee-simple land owned by tribes; individual Indians; non-Indians; or county, state and federal governments. These complex ownership patterns within the boundaries of Indian reservations create numerous and ongoing jurisdictional and natural resource management issues (Miller, 2012). The extensive network of public agenciesinvolved in reservation land management increases the costs of invasive weed control, water conservation, water infrastructure, water quality protection, range management andlivestock herd health. Additionally, tribes cannot fully realize their subsurface mineral wealth due to the bureaucracy that the trust relationship requires.

Federal Indian Policy and the Hopi Reservation: A Brief Chronology

As evidenced in the previous discussion, federal 19th century Indian policy has producedthe American Indian land tenure system in place on reservations today. For the Hopi, inparticular, ongoing federal policy interventions have had dramatic effects on their traditional land tenure system. Figure 2.1 illustrates a basic chronology of federal actions surrounding the Hopi Reservation. The following discussion provides a brief overview of this chronology as it relates the Hopi people.

Early Hopi Land Tenure and Forced AssimilationWhen the Hopi Reservation was created by executive order in 1882, approximately 300 to 600 Navajo and about 1,800 Hopi resided within the 2.4-million-acre reservation boundaries. The executive order language was vague, “for the use of and occupancy of the Moqui [Hopi] and such other Indians as the Secretary of the Interior may see fit to settle thereon.” Thisambiguous language laid the foundation for early and ongoing land disputes. When the Treaty of 1868 established a reservation for the Hopi’s neighbors, the Navajo, many Navajo families continued to reside on what they perceived to be traditional Navajo lands located near Hopi settlements. Partly in response to a steady increase in Navajo families settling outside the boundaries of the newly created Navajo Reservation—at the time, non-Indian settlers took little interest in this arid and remote area—the federal government expanded the size of the Navajo Reservation in 1878 and again in 1880. Between 1882 and 1922, federal policy vacillated with regards to the rights of Navajo families to reside on Hopi Reservation

19

lands. Four decades of federal indecisiveness served only to compound the land dispute(Kammer, 1980). Between 1893 and 1899, efforts were made to allot trust lands on the Hopi Reservation. This was done in part to implement the language of the Dawes Act and,according to historical records, to protect the Hopi from encroaching Mormon settlers (Godfrey, 1988). However, the Hopi people were adamantly opposed to the allotment of their lands. They understood from experience that randomly assigned parcels of arid lands were insufficient to ensure successful farms. Secondly, the Hopi lacked the operating capital,irrigation delivery infrastructure and agricultural knowledge needed to emulate a westernEuropean, one-size-fits-all, agricultural business model (Anderson, 1992).

But, perhaps most importantly, the Dawes Act was in direct conflict with the ancient land tenure system key to the social organization of the Hopi (Clemmer, 1995). It conflicted with the traditional role of Hopi clanship, village and ceremonial hierarchy as the fundamental decision makers and land stewards. For the Hopi, the clan held in trust for futuregenerations lands, homes, personal property and ceremonial knowledge (Eggan, 1950). Matrilineal descent provided the key social organizational structure. The matrilineal clan determined ownership rights with regard to houses, water rights, land and ritual knowledge (Eggan, 1950; Clemmer, 1995).

Appendix A presents a copy of the original petition [Indian Office document #14830] signed March 27-28, 1894 by all of the Moqui [Hopi] chiefs and headmen (National Archives, 1894). Several federal government representatives witnessed the signing of the petition by the Hopi. In their petition, the Hopi requested that the federal government transfer the title of their land to them in common rather than subdivide or allot the land to individuals. Office of Indian Affairs notes, handwritten on the petition, are as follows: “transmits petition fromMoqui [Hopi] Indians with other papers, asking that they be allowed to hold and cultivate their lands according to their own culture.” As transcribed directly from the archiveddocument, the Hopi petition is as follows:

“To the Washington Chiefs:

During the last two years strangers have looked over our lands with spy-glasses and made marks upon it, and we know but little of what this means. As we believe that you have no wish to disturb our possessions, we want to tell you something about this Hopi land.

None of us ever asked that it should be measured into separate lots, and given toindividuals for this would cause confusion. The family, the dwelling house and the field areinseparable, because the woman is the heart of these, and they rest with her. Among us the family traces its kin from the mother, hence all its possessions are hers. The man builds the house but the woman is the owner, because she repairs and preserves it; the man cultivates the field, but he renders its harvests into the woman’s keeping, because upon her it rests to prepare the food, and the surplus of stores for barter depends upon her thrift.

A man plants the fields of his wife, and the fields assigned to the children she bears, and informally he calls them his, although in fact they are not. Even of the field which he inherits from his mother, its harvests he may dispose of at will, but the field itself he may not. He may permit his son to occupy it and gather its produce, but at the father’s death the son may not own it, for then

___________________________________________________________________________3A copy of the Hopi Petition archived document may be accessed online at: http://research.archives.gov/description/300340 (Retrieved March 11, 2014).

2

20

it passes to the father’s sister’s son, or nearest mother’s kin, and thus our fields and houses always remain with our mother’s family.

According to the number of children a woman has, fields for them are assigned to her, from some of the lands of her family group, and her husband takes care of them. Hence our fields are numerous but small, and several belonging to the same family may be close together, or they may be miles apart, because arable localities are not continuous. There are other reasons for the irregularity in size and situation of our family lands, as interrupted sequence of inheritance caused by extinction of families, but chiefly owing to the following condition, and to which we especially invite your attention.

In the Spring and early Summer there usually comes from the Southwest a succession of gales, oftentimes strong enough to blow away the sandy soil from the face of some of our fields, and to expose the underlying clay, which is hard, and sour, and barren; as the sand is the only fertile land, when it moves, the planters must follow it, and other fields must be provided in place of those which have been devastated. Sometimes generations pass away and these barren spots remain, while in other instances, after a few years, the winds have again restored the desirable sand upon them. In such event its fertility is disclosed by the nature of the grass and shrubs that grow upon it. If these are promising, a number of us unite to clear off the land and make it again fit for planting, when it may be given back to its former owner, or if a long time has elapsed, to other heirs, or it may be given to some person of the same family group, more in need of a plant-ing place.

These limited changes in land holding are effected by mutual discussion and concession among the elders, and among all the thinking men and women of the family groups interested. In effect, the same system of holding and the same method of planting, obtain among the Tewa, and all the Hopi villages, and under them we provide ourselves with food in abundance.

The American is our elder brother, and in everything he can teach us, except in the method of growing corn in these waterless sandy valleys, and in that we are sure we can teach him. We believe that you have no desire to change our system of small holdings, nor do we think that you wish to remove any of our ancient landmarks, and it seems to us that the conditions we have mentioned afford sufficient grounds for this requesting to be left undisturbed.

Further it has been told to us, as coming from Washington, that neither measuring nor individual papers are necessary for us to keep possession of our villages, our peach orchards and our springs. If this be so, we should like to ask what need there is to bring confusion into ouraccustomed system of holding corn fields.

We are aware that some ten years ago a certain area around our lands was proclaimed to be for our use, but the extent of this area is unknown to us, nor has any Agent, ever been able to point it out, for its boundaries have never been measured. We most earnestly desire to have one continuous boundary ring enclosing all the Tewa and all the Hopi lands, and that it shall be large enough to afford sustenance for our increasing flocks and herds. If such a scope can be confirmed to us by a paper from your hands, securing us forever against intrusion, all our people will be satisfied.”

Source: (National Archive Document dated March 27 and March 28, 1894.)

21

A letter from E.H. Plummer, acting Indian agent, accompanied the petition, urgentlyrecommending that the Hopi’s request be granted. Further, his letter refers to a commission convened at Keam’s Canyon, roughly around 1889 or 1890, to address the matter ofdesignating a “circle” of land to which the Hopi should have exclusive use. Plummer’s letter notes that no record existed of the commission’s recommendations having been confirmed.

The aggressive assimilation policy underlying the Dawes Act created an internalsociopolitical divide among the Hopi, resulting in two factions; the progressives (those who accepted assimilation efforts and were called “friendlies”) and the traditionalists (those who did not accept the efforts and were called “hostiles”). That is, the Dawes Act did not just seek to allot Indian lands, but also forced assimilation by separating Hopi children from their parents to send them to boarding schools (Gilbert, 2010). The residents of Oraibi, the oldest continuously occupied human settlement in the U.S., who were forced to side with either the traditionalists or the progressives, led the “Oraibi Split” in 1906. This split was pivotal as it fractured Hopi traditional social organization and established the existence of two political factions among the Hopi (Clemmer, 1995).

Nevertheless when the federal government attempted the land allotment process again in 1910, with the exception of 11 20-acre allotments established near Moenkopi, theprocess failed. Hopi traditional land use and ceremonial-clan and village-based governance, so fundamental to the social system, were thought to contribute to this second failedattempt (Sutton, 1975).

Hopi Land Challenges: Federal Livestock Reduction ProgramTo complicate matters further, through a series of presidential executive orders andCongressional acts between 1901 and 1930, the Navajo Reservation boundaries wereextended, so that by 1934, Navajo Reservation lands surrounded the Hopi Reservation on all sides (Clemmer, 1995).

Prior to the 1930s, the Hopi primarily raised sheep as an asset to trade and sell. Theyexpanded their livestock production in the early 1900s with an estimated 50,000 sheep,or 20 to 100 sheep per Hopi band. In 1915, the Bureau of Indian Affairs drilled wells,established windmills and dug stock ponds on the Hopi Reservation. By 1933, cattle had replaced sheep as the largest source of cash income for the Hopi. First and Second Mesas continued to regulate Hopi land tenure by matrilineal clanship. Hopi villages, rather than clans, began to regulate the use of rangeland needed for grazing livestock. Hopi men owned the livestock, and cooperative livestock production involved men from different clans(Eggan, 1950). During this same period, Navajo sheep herds increased exponentially and became the key source of cash income for Navajo families.

In 1936, the bureau determined that livestock overgrazing posed a threat to the Navajo andHopi land base and implemented a stock-reduction plan. The plan established 19 grazing districts on the Navajo and Hopi Reservations without the consent or consultation of the Hopi people. Between 1934 and 1940, the bureau reduced Navajo and Hopi Reservation stock by 50 percent (Ruffing, 1978). Also, as a result of the creation of grazing districts, the Hopi Tribe reserved exclusive rights to preserve 624,064 acres or approximately one-fifth of their original 2.4-million-acre reservation. This area became [grazing] District Six.

2

22

YEAR ACTION

1882 President Chester A. Arthur issues an executive order setting aside 2.4 million acres around the Hopi mesas for the Hopi and “such other Indians as the Secretary of the Interior may see fit to settle thereon.”

1887 The General Allotment Act or Dawes Severalty Act (24 Stat. 388) is implemented, allotting Indian land to individual Indians and separating families by forcing Indian children to attend boarding schools.

1891 The Navajo-Hopi boundary dispute is “settled” through establishment of a 519,000-acre area for the Hopi.

1894 Hopi chiefs submit a certified petition requesting that the federal government transfer the legal title to their lands to the Hopi people in common, rather than allot individual Indians parcels of land.

1906 The influence of federal actions to force assimilation causes the Hopi village of Oraibi to divide into two political factions, resulting in the Oraibi Split.

1910 Eleven 20-acre allotments are created near the Moencopi village.

1920 The Hopi land-use area is estimated at less than 384,000 acres.

1931 The Commissioner of Indian Affairs and Secretary of the Interior agree that land should be set aside exclusively for Hopi use.

1936 The Bureau of Indian Affairs implements stock-reduction plan on Navajo and Hopi lands, reducing stock numbers by 50 percent.

1938 The U.S. Congress enacts the Indian Mineral Leasing Act (25 USC. 396), which requires that a federally recognized tribal council authorize mining leases on tribal lands.

1938 A tribal council for the Hopi is created, and a constitution is adopted.

1943 The federal government disbands the Hopi Tribal Council due to its lack of enforcement of the Bureau of Indian Affairs livestock-reduction program.

1943 To address overgrazing issues, the Department of the Interior establishes 19 grazing districts on Navajo and Hopi lands, setting aside 653,013 acres exclusively for Hopi use; this area becomes the official Hopi Reservation— Grazing District Six.

1944 Standard Oil requests a lease to drill within the 1882 reservation boundaries.

1946 The Federal government determines that the Navajo and Hopi Tribes who jointly own this area must each negotiate separate mineral leases.

1950 The Navajo-Hopi Long Range Rehabilitation Act (P.L. 92-474) appropriates approximately $89 million to build facilities to promote diverse economic activities and to develop natural resources on Navajo and Hopi Reservation lands.

1951 The Department of the Interior revives the previously disbanded Hopi Tribal Council; the council hires John S. Boyden to file a land claim against the Navajo on behalf of the Hopi.

1955 Boyden files a petition to acquire Hopi mineral rights to the 1882 executive order reservation area.

Figure 2.1. Chronology of Federal Actions Regarding Hopi Reservation Land Base

23

1958 The U.S. Congress passes Public Law 85-547, which authorizes the Hopi and Navajo to use litigation to determine ownership of the 1882 executive order area.

1962 The U.S. Supreme Court rules (Healing v. Jones) that 1.8 million acres of the original 2.5-million-acre 1882 reservation is jointly owned by the Navajo and Hopi and cannot be partitioned properly. This becomes the Joint Use Area.

1961- Boyden secures Fisher Contracting Company to prospect for minerals and allows oil1964 companies to access 63 percent of the Hopi Reservation.

1966 Peabody Western Coal Company receives a lease from Navajo and Hopi tribal councils to mine nearly 65,000 acres, of which 40,000 acres lies within the Joint Use Area, in Black Mesa. The lease also includes rights to pump water in underlying aquifers (see Chapter 4).

1966 Secretary of the Interior Robert Bennett issues the Bennett Freeze to prohibit construction and development on approximately 1.5 million acres that lie within the Joint Use Area and the 1934 Navajo Western Reservation lands.

1970 The Hopi Tribal Council passes an ordinance to prohibit and impound Navajo stock trespassing on Hopi land.

1972 The U.S. District Court of Arizona orders a significant reduction in Navajo live stock numbers in order for the Hopi to use half of the Joint Use Area range, and reinforces the Bennett Freeze on Navajo construction and property improvement in the disputed area.

1974 The U.S. Congress passes the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act (P.L. 93-531), also referred to as the Relocation Act, to equally partition the Joint Use Area into Hopi Partitioned Lands and Navajo Partitioned Lands. The act requires that 12,000 to 15,000 Navajo and 100 Hopi relocate to respective partitioned lands, and authorizes the Bennett Freeze to remain in place until the boundary dispute is settled (Section 10(f) of P.L. 93-531).

1977 The U.S. District Court of Arizona ruling seeks to partition the Joint Use Area. A Navajo appeal delays the date of partition to April 18, 1979.

1981 The Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Commission must submit a relocation plan to Congress.

1986 Relocation from the former Joint Use Area is scheduled for completion.

1992 The Hopi Reservation District Six is increased from 624,024 to 1.5 million acres.

1996 The U.S. Congress passes the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act (P.L. 104-301), allocating 500,000 acres and $50 million to the Hopi in exchange for granting 75-year leases to the remaining 1,000 Navajo living on Hopi-designated lands. The act establishes a March 1, 1997 deadline for relocation, and the Bennett Freeze remains in effect.

1997 The Hopi Tribe purchases 299,000 acres, known as the Three Canyon Ranches, outside of Winslow, Ariz., for grazing and ranching with money from the 1996 Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act (see Chapter 1).

2005 The Navajo and Hopi develop a tribal intergovernmental agreement to repeal the Bennett Freeze and settle the land dispute; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., sponsors a federal bill (S.531) to repeal the Bennett Freeze, which passes in the Senate but is never voted on by the House.

2009 President Barack Obama signs a Senate bill (S. 39) that repeals the Bennett Freeze (Section 10 (f) of P.L. 93-531).

2

24

Hopi Land Challenges: The Discovery of Mineral Wealth and the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute

In 1909, the U.S. Geological Survey determined that the 2.4 million acres that hadcomprised the 1882 reservation included vast mineral deposits, including coal, uraniumand oil. Beginning in the 1920s, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power beganconducting feasibility studies to develop coal resources to provide electrical power for a growing population. During the 1930s and 1940s, coal mining and oil companies solicited permission to acquire mineral leases on Hopi lands. The federal government in 1938implemented the Indian Mineral Leasing Act (25 USC.396a-q), which provided the Secretary of the Interior the authority to oversee the development of mineral rights on Indian trust lands, but stipulated that mineral leases receive formal tribal council approval (Carroll, 1986). A tribal council was created in 1938, but it did not adequately represent the Hopi villages or receive the support of Hopi people. Since the Hopi lacked a functioning tribal council at the time, mineral leasing was momentarily tabled.

However, the state of Arizona began to look to the reservation coal reserves to support its energy needs, in addition to the needs of a coalition of 21 utility companies representingsix additional Western states, cooperating as Western Energy Supply and TransmissionAssociates (WEST). In 1950, the federal government implemented the Navajo-Hopi Long Range Rehabilitation Act (P.L. 92-474), which allocated nearly $89 million to developreservation facilities and to develop natural resources. The Bureau of Indian Affairs used a portion of this funding to conduct a feasibility study for the development of coal reserves on both the Hopi and Navajo Reservations. Subsequently, the Department of the Interior revived the Hopi Tribal Council specifically to approve Hopi mineral leases and also to hire an attorney to file a claim for additional lands for the Hopi Reservation. As a result, the deep division between Hopi traditionalists and progressives resurfaced.

In 1958, Congress passed P.L. 85-547, which authorized the Hopi and Navajo to uselitigation as necessary to determine rights to the 1882 executive order area. And although the Hopi Tribal Council did not represent all 12 villages, Boyden, the attorney from Salt Lake City, solicited the council to hire him. Knowing that Hopi traditionalists were opposed to mining, Boyden secured approval from Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall to authorize the Hopi Council to approve leases in order to pay Boyden his legal fees associated with land claims. In 1962, Boyden filed a petition for additional lands for the Hopi and to acquire Hopi mineral rights to 1882 executive order lands. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled (Healing v. Jones) that 1.8 million acres of the original 2.6-million-acre 1882 reservation being jointly ownedby Navajo and Hopi could not be partitioned properly; this became the Joint Use Area(see Figure 2.2).

Between 1961 and 1964, Boyden negotiated leases with oil companies that allowed accessto 63 percent of the Hopi Reservation. In 1966, Boyden negotiated leases with PeabodyWestern Coal Company to mine 65,000 acres in Black Mesa, of which 40,000 acres werewithin the Joint Use Area. Leases also granted mining rights to pump groundwaterunderlying Hopi lands. The Hopi received only 3 percent of the proceeds from the gross sale of its mineral wealth. The lease did not allow for renegotiation but rather the option to renew every 10 years. It was later learned that in addition to representing the Hopi Tribe, Boyden also represented Peabody Western Coal, and his firm represented WEST. This conflict ofinterest posed problems for the tribe for years to come.

In 1966, with Boyden as the representing attorney, the Hopi Tribe filed suit for landscomprising the original 1882 reservation, addressing the Joint Use Area specifically. Pending a court decision, Commissioner of Indian Affairs Robert Bennett implemented what became

25

50 25 0 50 100Miles

Executive OrderMay 17, 1884

Executive OrderMay 17, 1884 Executive Order

Oct. 29, 1878Pres. R.B. Hayes

Executive OrderJan. 8, 1900

Pres. W. McKinley HopiPartitioned

Lands1974

NavajoPartitioned

Lands1974

Hopi District Six1936

Navajo Treaty ReservationJune 1, 1868

Pres. U.S. Grant

Executive OrderJan. 6, 1880

Pres. R.B. Hayes

Executive OrderNov. 14, 1901

Pres. T.D. Roosevelt

Congressional ActJune 14, 1934

Executive OrderJan. 28, 1908

Pres. T.D. Roosevelt

RamahChapter

Navajo AllottedCherkerboarded Lands

CanoncitoChapter

AlamoChapter

McCracken MesaLand Exchange

Executive OrderDec. 1, 1913

Congressional ActMay 23, 1930

Congressional ActJune 13, 1934

History of Executive Orders and CongressionalActs Creating Hopi and Navajo Reservations

Executive Orders and Congressional Acts

Executive Order, December 16,1882, President C.A. ArthurHopi District Six - 1936Hopi Partitioned Lands - 1974Alamo ChapterCanoncito ChapterCongressional Act of February 21, 1931Congressional Act of June 13, 1934Congressional Act of June 14, 1934Congressional Act of March 1, 1933Congressional Act of May 23, 1930Congressional Act of March 1, 1933Executive Order, December 1, 1913Executive Order, January 28, 1908, President T.D. RooseveltExecutive Order, January 6, 1880, President R.B. HayesExecutive Order, January 8, 1900, President W. MckinleyExecutive Order, March 10, 1933, President F.D. RooseveltExecutive Order, May 17, 1884, President C.A. ArthurExecutive Order, May 7, 1917, President W. WilsonExecutive Order, November 14, 1901, President T.D. RooseveltExecutive Order, November 19, 1892, President B. HarrisonExecutive Order, December 16,1882, President C.A. ArthurExecutive Order, October 29, 1878, President R.B. HayesMcCracken Mesa Land ExchangeNavajo Partitioned Lands, 1974Navajo Treaty Reservation, June 1, 1868, President U.S. GrantO.H.N.I.R New LandsRamah ChapterCity BoundaryHopi Tutskwa Indigenous LandsArizona Highway

Figure 2.2. 1882 Hopi Reservation, District Six and Joint Use Area

U T A H

A R I Z O N A

N E W M E X I C O

C O L O R A D O

Hopi I ndianReser vat ion

1882 Executive OrderReservation for Moqui (Hopi) Indians of 2.4 Million Acres by

President Chester A. Arthur

Executive OrderMay 7, 1917

Pres. W. Wilson

Moenkopi DistrictRestored to Hopi Tribe

in 1996

Congressional ActJune 14, 1934

O.H.N.I.RNew Lands

Congressional ActMarch 1, 1933

Executive ActMarch 10, 1933

Executive OrderMay 17, 1884

Congressional ActFebruary 21, 1931

Executive Order Nov. 19, 1892Pres. B. Harrison

Congressional ActMarch 1, 1933

Hopi Tutskwa

15 MillionAcre Region

1882U.S. Executive OrderHopi Indian Reservation2.4 Million Acres

1939Navajo Grazing Unitscreate a Hopi District Six650,013

1974Navajo-Hopi Land

Settlement ActHopi Partitioned Lands

900,000 Acres

1996Moenkopi District

Restored to Hopi Tribe62,000 Acres 1996

Hopi Three Canyon Ranches Purchased with Settlement Funds

Source: USGS.

15 MillionAcre Region

Source: Clemmer, 1995.

2

26

known as the Bennett Freeze. This federal action banned any improvements on parts of the Joint Use Area and approximately 1.5 million acres of the western Navajo Reservationestablished in 1934. The ban included subsurface leases and rights of way, homeconstruction, repairs and improvements, and road development.

In 1974, Congress passed the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act (P.L. 93-531), which divided the contested 1.8-million-acre, jointly used area into the Hopi Partitioned Lands and the Navajo Partitioned Lands. The law required approximately 10,000 to 15,000 Navajo families living on Hopi Partitioned Lands to relocate.

Additional court rulings through the U.S. District Court of Arizona continued repartitioning lands so that by 1992 the Hopi Reservation had been increased from 624,064 acres (District Six) to a total of 1.5 million acres, an area much larger than District Six but approximately 900,000 acres less than what had been assigned by the 1882 executive order.

In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act (P.L.104-301), which was intended to present a final resolution of the land dispute. The legislation granted Navajo families who had not yet relocated the right to apply for permits from the Hopi tribalgovernment for 75-year leases for 3-acre homesites and permits to graze sheep and to use ceremonial sites. The law stipulated that if at least 85 percent of the remaining 1,000Navajo agreed to the lease agreement, the federal government would allocate approximately 500,000 acres of trust land and $50 million to the Hopi Tribe. The congressional act allotted additional acreage to the Hopi in exchange for 75-year leases to Navajo families who were living on the designated lands. However, approximately 26 Navajo refused to sign these life leases, and therefore the legislation did not fully resolve the dispute.

In September 2005, the Navajo and Hopi approved an intergovernmental agreement to resolve litigation in the Bennett Freeze area and clarify the reservation boundaries, while also guaranteeing equal access to and protection of the religious sites of both the Navajo and Hopi. That same year, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., attempted legislation to accelerate the forced relocation and to repeal the Bennett Freeze. While the Senate passed the bill, the House of Representatives did not vote on it. The freeze remained in effect until 2009, when President Barack Obama repealed it. This allowed Navajo to seek federal funds to beginimproving and developing reservation lands received through the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-531).

Mixed Views Concerning the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute

Views vary regarding this long and complex land dispute. Most agree that the vaguelanguage of the 1882 executive order set the stage for lasting dispute over reservation land boundaries. Numerous federal actions to intervene, legal actions filed on behalf of the Hopi by an attorney who also represented mining interests, and the public media described the conflict on a scale approaching civil war between the two tribes.

Some believe that the land dispute was invented by mining lobbyists and then escalated and sensationalized by the press in order to justify federal policy intervention. The ultimate goal, they believe, was to establish puppet tribal councils to approve mining leases and remove Navajo from Hopi Reservation lands that were determined to have vast mineral deposits (Mails & Evehema, 1993). In fact, the federally legislated joint land ownership between the Navajo and Hopi served to significantly complicate tribal negotiations for mineral rights and mining leases.

2

27

Summary

Federal Indian policy in the 19th century created the Indian trust land tenure system still in place today. As defined by Trust Doctrine, American Indians may use the land while the federal government holds the legal land title in trust. This land tenure structure provides the federal government with a major decision-making role concerning these lands, called “trust responsibility” (Miller, 2006).

The Indian Removal Act (1830) and Indian Appropriations Act (1850) set aside lands forIndian occupancy and provided a means to control tribes and tribal economies byholding their assets in trust (Regan & Anderson, 2013; Anderson, 2013; Anderson & Parker, 2008; Anderson, Benson & Flanagan, 2006). Indian trust status has not served the bestinterests of tribes, particularly where mineral wealth exists on reservation lands.

Indian trust land tenure can severely limit the ability of American Indian farmers andranchers to secure financing for construction or improvement projects or for expansion of their agricultural operations. While tribal governments may have authority to manage their land base, tribal politics can influence or simply delay crucial resource managementdecisions. For this reason, Indian trust lands may possess greater obstacles to achieving sustainable resource management and can potentially derail sustainable agriculture and resource management (Anderson & Lueck, 1992).

Research indicates that improving the quality of life on Indian trust lands is best achieved by increasing Indian involvement, management and control of the resource development (Anderson, 1995; Anderson, 1992). However, the trust authority that the federalgovernment maintains over tribal lands increases transaction costs involved in managing tribal natural resource assets and minimizes potential gains from managing their assets as a fully self-determined tribe (Regan, 2014). This is particularly true with regards to mineral wealth as is demonstrated through a brief overview of federal actions involving the Hopi Reservation once subsurface mineral deposits were discovered in the early 20th century.The Hopi Reservation land base is held as tribal trust lands. Self-determination suggests that the Hopi possess full authority to manage their land and resource wealth with limited federal intervention. This authority requires functional tribal governance and effective triballeadership that is in step with traditional and contemporary Hopi culture.

28

2

Chapter 2 Review

Instructions: Select the best answer or provide a written response when space is provided.

1. What are some of the limitations to tribal trust lands?

A. Land assignments from tribal trust lands may discourage investment in necessary long-term improvements to land. Additionally, it may make it difficult for individuals to obtain loans for property improvement or housing.

B. Land assignments from tribal trust lands may encourage investment in unnecessary short-term improvements to land. Additionally, it may make it easier for individuals to obtain loans for property improvement or housing that is outside of a family’s budget.

C. Land assignments from tribal trust lands may discourage investment in necessary long-term improvements to land. Additionally, it may make it easier for individuals to obtain loans for property improvement or housing that is outside of a family’s budget.

D. Land assignments from tribal trust lands may encourage investment in necessary short-term improvements to land. Additionally, it may make it difficult for individuals to obtain loans for property improvement or housing.

2. How has contact with outsiders starting in 1540 shifted the original land base of the Hopi Reservation?

A. The Hopi land base has been shrinking since the Spanish arrival in 1540. The Hopi experiences with the Spanish prompted several Hopi villages to relocate from the base of the mesas to the top. After the semi-nomadic Navajo obtained horses from the Spaniards, they began raiding and invading Hopi territory, forcing the Hopi to consolidate. Mormon settlers acted as a buffer between the Hopi and Navajo for a short period of time; however, the settlers stressed the already scarce natural resources and eventually left the area.

B. In 1540 the Hopi forced the Navajo off of their land and established their home base along the mesas. The Hopi raided Navajo villages for sheep, cattle and corn seeds, which they then adopted as their own. The Hopi openly welcomed the Spanish and adopted Christianity.

C. The Hopi land base has expanded since Spanish arrival in 1540. The Hopi experiences with the Spanish prompted them to expand beyond the mesas. After the Navajo visited Hopi villages, the Hopi openly accepted them and gave them space on their land. The Mormons did not agree with this, forcing the Navajo out of Hopi territory, initiating the long-standing land dispute.

3. Explain the purpose of P.L. 93-531 and P.L. 104-301 and discuss how these laws have impacted the Hopi land base:___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

29

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. District Six refers to:

A. The consolidated Hopi-Navajo School District

B. One of the 19 grazing districts created by Bureau of Indian Affairs during the

1930s to address overgrazing

C. The Hopi’s exclusive rights to 624,064 acres of their original 2.4-million-acre reservation

D. Hopi Partitioned Lands or HPL

E. B and C only

F. C and D only

5. Identify key federal and tribal actions that relate to the Navajo-Hopi Land dispute:

Year Action____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

6. Regarding the Navajo-Hopi land dispute, many Hopi and Navajo traditionalists maintain that the dispute:

A. Was invented by mining lobbyists

B. Was sensationalized by the press to give the appearance that Hopi and

Navajo were engaged in a civil war

C. Justified decades of federal legislative intervention

D. All of the above

30

2

3

Hopi Tribal Governance

Learning Objectives:

n Examine the evolution of the Hopi tribal government n Understand the structure of the Hopi tribal government n Explore traditional Hopi cultural and religious beliefs related to Hopi tribal government authority

As Indian reservations were established during the latter half of the 19th century,socioeconomic conditions of American Indians steadily declined. Several federal policies pressured the Hopi people to relinquish their cultural and religious traditions to conformto the Euro-American model of governance. This chapter examines traditional authorityand the evolution of Hopi tribal governance.

Traditional Authority

Land is sacred to the Hopi people, and agriculture is central to the Hopi social system.Matrilineal clans are the communal holders of the land, the traditional home and office oftraditional authority (Richland, 2008). Clan chiefs (mongwi) have authority over their clans and are the head of certain ceremonies.

The Hopi clans occupy 12 villages. Four original prehistoric Hopi villages practiced traditional Hopi theocratic governance. Today, new and old villages have a mixture of westerndemocratic forms of elected leadership. The villages maintain the land base, while the clans are permitted to use and tend the land. Village social organization prohibits a singleindividual or group of individuals from having authority over an entire village. A village chief (kikmongwi) represents a founding clan and also acts as religious leader. However, hisauthority is limited when issues emerge within clans (Euler & Dobyns, 1971).

Hopi villages are located near the base and on the tops of three mesas. The Hopi see thevillage as all encompassing; it includes the village proper, its people and its agricultural lands (Mails & Evehema, 1993). Gardening, small-scale farming, and cattle and sheep ranching are included and associated with the 12 villages. Each village is listed below by Hopi name with the English translation.

First Mesa: Waalpi (Walpi); Hanoki (Hano or Tewa); Sitsomovi (Sichomovi)

Second Mesa: Songoopavi (Shongopavi); Musangnuvi (Mishongnovi); Sipawlavi (Sipaulovi)

Third Mesa: Hotvela (Hotevilla); Paaqavi (Bacavi); Munqapi (Moencopi); Kiqotsmovi (Kykotosmovi); Orayvi (Oraibi)

Source: Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, 2009. Retrieved Aug. 11, 2014. [Online] http://www8.nau.edu/~hcpo-p/villages.html.

Hopi Clans

Clan members trace their matrilineal ancestry to a common ancestor who plays a role in that clan’s creation story. Clans include more than one family and ancestral lines. The Hopi clans

3

C H A P T E R T H R E E

31

are clustered into villages and are identified in terms of their emergence into the Fourth World; those who migrated together are considered phratries. Each of the 34 living Hopi clans is distinct but related to other clans within their particular phratries.

Special duties are associated with membership in each clan. Each clan has its own history, which explains not only how that clan came to be but how all Hopi came to be who they are. Each clan is also responsible for hosting ceremonies and for keeping and honoring certain sacred ceremonial objects. Women inherit property through their mother’s clan. Clanmembership also determines ceremonial offices and responsibilities, and certainimportant offices must rotate among members of different clans.

Clans determine behavior with other individuals. Hopi are forbidden to marry anyone from their own clan. The entire clan is considered family, and Hopi must take care of clan members and treat them with great respect. The mother’s clan, which is the primary clan, is owedspecial respect and responsibilities. For instance, the mother’s sister’s family is as highly regarded as immediate family. The father’s clan relatives serve a special role by providing guidance, support, material resources and kindness for their children.

When a Hopi child is born it is a time of great joy and responsibility. The new mother and newborn are cared for by the paternal grandmother and female relatives therein accept paternity by providing a naming ritual and a village feast. In this way, each child begins a life surrounded by the web of clan relationships.

Indian Reorganization Act (1934)

The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 authorized the Hopi people to organize a tribalgovernment under the direction of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of IndianAffairs. Key components of the legislation authorized tribes to: 1) create and adopt a tribal government constitution; 2) restore to tribal governments the authority to conductgovernment-to-government negotiations with local, state and federal governments; and 3) receive a majority of approval from tribal members prior to negotiating land sales orexchanges (Lang, 2007; Franz, 1999). The act was intended to slow the loss of Indian lands due to the allotment process. It also sought to decrease poverty on reservation lands by establishing a revolving fund to make loans available to Indian corporations or tribalgovernments. The policy also gave the Bureau of Indian Affairs explicit authority over tribal forest, range and mineral resource management (Rusco, 2000).

Establishment of First Hopi Tribal Council

The first Hopi Tribal Council was established under the act with the first tribal constitution created and adopted on Dec. 19, 1936. The federal government created the Hopi Tribal Council under the act as an attempt to create a tribal governing body above the village level without disturbing the authoritative clan structure or any governmental structure at lower levels (Rusco, 2000). For example, the village chief certified new tribal council members torepresent their villages. However, the structure of traditional Hopi social organization didnot readily adapt to the structure of a tribal council. Many Hopi traditionalists saw the IndianReorganization Act tribal council as adopting “white man’s ways,” and thus a threat to thesacred Hopi Covenant with Maasaw (Mails & Evehema, 1993) (see Chapter 1 and 2). As aresult of the ongoing and growing factionalism between Hopi traditionalists andprogressives that had emerged during the Oraibi Split in 1906, the first federally recognized

32

Hopi Tribal Council was inactive. It wasn’t until the 1950s that the council was reconstituted and federally recognized as the governing body for the Hopi Tribe (Tiller, 2005; Sheridan & Parezo, 1996).

Hopi Tribal Government Structure Today

The 12 Hopi villages remain autonomous, with one village adopting its own constitution. Other villages adhere to variations of traditional Hopi governance and rules fordecision-making. Villages apply a combination of elected and traditional governance, while retaining a village chief but also holding a seat on the Hopi Tribal Council.

The Hopi Tribal Council office is located in Kykotsmovi. The tribal government has anadministrative and legislative branch and a judicial system. There are 14 council members who represent the villages of Upper Moencopi, Bacavi, Kykotsmovi and Sipaulovi.The villages of Mishongnovi, Shongopavi, Oraibi, Hotevilla, Lower Moencopi and First Mesa consolidated villages (Walpi, Sichomovi and Tewa) lack representation on the Hopi Tribal Council. Council representatives are elected by participating communities or appointed bya village chief. Each council representative serves a two-year term (see Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1. Organization of Hopi Tribal Government: Legislative, Administrative and Judicial

Hopi Tribal Council Authority

Hopi practices in clanship-based cultural and religious traditions create the primar authoritative identity for tribal members. Debates among the Hopi continue regarding Hopi governance and tribal council authority (Devereaux & Griffin, 2013). The Hopi continue toquestion the Euro-American influence on tribal political structure and governance from the traditionalist versus progressive points of view. These competing views have influenced past and current land-use decisions, water (plumbing) availability and access to power in some reservation communities. This debate also results in many villages refusing to seat arepresentative to the Hopi Tribal Council (Richland, 2008).

n Tribal Counciln Chairman Officen Vice Chairman Officen Tribal Secretaryn Office of Enrollmentn Tribal Treasurern Executive Directorn Tribal Operationsn General Counseln Tribal Prosecutorn Domestic Violencen Hopi Tutuvenin Revenue Commissionn Election Board

n Administrative and Technical Servicesn Department of Educationn Department of Social and Behavioral Healthn Department of Community Health Servicesn Department of Natural Resourcesn Department of Public Worksn Department of Public Safety and Emergency Services

n Tribal Courtn Administration/Court Clerk Office n Probationn Tribal Prosecutorn Public Defendern Domestic Violence

Legislative Administrative Judicial

3

33

While the debate continues and impacts internal tribal politics, the Hopi Tribal Council remains the federally recognized governing body for the tribe. The council’s authoritative power is recognized by both federal Indian Reorganization Act guidelines and Hopi tribal constitutions and bylaws. The Hopi Tribal Council oversees departments that operatevarious tribal service programs. Through its federally recognized status, the tribal council has the authority to negotiate on behalf of the Hopi Tribe with federal, state, local and other entities. Overall, the council is the official entity authorized to make decisions concerning programs and services for the Hopi people within the reservation boundaries. However, Hopi traditional values continue to play a role in the council’s authoritative powers, creating adualistic political structure. This dual government structure leads to internal political and social conflict (Frantz, 1999).

Land-use permissions are an example of Hopi traditional values influencing decisions. Article VII in the Hopi Constitution states that villages may follow their own customs orconstitution in assigning land use, including inheritance from traditional clan holdings. Because Hopi villages often incorporate traditional land tenure practice, land-use permission authority processes vary among villages. Questions regarding specific land-use permissions should be referred to the individual village. Additionally, Article VII states that land outside of village and clan holdings is under jurisdiction of the Hopi Tribal Council. Currently the Office of Hopi Lands Administration is drafting an application for use of Hopi Partitioned Lands: the areas of the Hopi Reservation that lay outside of District Six and are part of the former Joint Use Area (see Chapter 2). Further information on the application process can be found by contacting the Office of Hopi Lands Administration (Hopi Tribe, 2014).

______________________________ 4Hopi Tribe (1936). Constitution and By-Laws of the Hopi Tribe Arizona, approved Dec. 19, 1936. Retrieved Aug. 11, 2014 from: http://archive.library.nau.edu/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/61151.

34

Summary

The Hopi Tribal Council is the governing board and authoritative power recognized by the U.S. government under the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act-authorized tribal constitution and bylaws. The Hopi Tribal Council oversees social and natural resource programs andservices for the residents within the reservation boundaries. However, traditional Hopireligion, based on their sacred Covenant with Maasaw, and traditional Hopi matrilineal clan and village-based rules for decision-making, create a unique system of tribal governance. The council does not represent all Hopi villages, and, in fact, some villages remain firmlyindependent from the council. This has created a dualistic political structure involving Hopi traditionalists and Hopi progressives, and resulted in ongoing conflict, with many actions decided by the federally recognized Hopi Tribal Council.

Matrilineal clans are the communal holders of the land, home and ceremony (Richland, 2011). Chiefs (mongwi) have decision-making authority for clans and are heads of esotericceremonial societies. Villages are home to various clans. Each village includes its people,agricultural lands and the village proper. The village is autonomous in its leadership, andvillage authority is disseminated across clans and determined by social hierarchy influenced by ceremony. Social organization provides that no single individual, or group of individuals, has authority over the whole village at all times. Land permission uses are specific to each village and often follow traditional clan holdings.

3

35

Chapter 3 Review

Instructions: Select the best answer or provide a written response where space is provided.

1. What is the Hopi clans’ role in social organization:

A. Clans are comprised of individuals who trace their matrilineal ancestry to a common ancestor who is part of that founding clan’s creation story. They are the communal holders of the land, the traditional home and office of traditional authority.

B. Clans are comprised of individuals who trace their patrilineal ancestry to different ancestors. They are solely spiritual guides and have no role in land tenure or housing.

C. Clans are comprised of random groups assigned at birth. They have not played any role in social organization since the establishment of the Hopi Reservation.

2. What is the villages’ role in traditional authority and social and geographicalorganization:

A. Hopi villages are the maintainers of the land base, while clans are allowed to use the land. No single person or specific group can govern the village; however, the kikmongwi resides as the chief religious leader with limited political authorities.

B. Villages have the same authority as cities. They have their own government, but must adhere to tribal council rules.

C. Villages have no authoritative role in social organization. They are a forced aspect of Western culture that the clans have been coping with for the past century.

3. Characterize the dualistic political structure of the Hopi Tribe and explain how it evolved:___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. Explain the importance of a federally recognized tribe having a tribal council to oversee tribal affairs:___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

36

3

5. Describe land-use authority as outlined in Article VII of the Hopi Constitution:___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4

Agricultural Irrigation and Water Rights on the Hopi Reservation

Learning Objectives:

n Understand Indian water rights in the state of Arizona n Explore sources of water for the Hopi Reservation n Explore Indian water rights conflict and negotiated settlements in terms of the Hopi Reservation

Water rights issues are extremely complex throughout the Western U.S. This chapterexamines water resources available to the Hopi Tribe and raises awareness of water resource challenges to sustaining agriculture on the Hopi Reservation. A brief overview is provided of Hopi Reservation water resources in light of increasing and competing demands for water rights to the Little Colorado River. A chronology of actions affecting Hopi water allocationsis discussed.

The Cultural Significance of Water

Water sustains Hopi life. It plays a “powerful cultural and spirtual role” in both everyday life and in ceremonies (Glennon, 2002 (Page 158)). Hopi oral traditions teach children about the importance of water. The stories emphasize that in such an arid climate, any source of water is appreciated and shown respect. Lyle Balenquah, an archaeologist and Hopi tribal member, explains, “Hopis believe that water contains immense physical and spiritual energy,” (Balenquah, 2012 (Page 56)). Some of the Hopi ancestors lived along the major rivers in the Southwest, specifically within the Colorado River watershed. Today, the Hopi still honor these rivers as an important part of their history. Tribal water allocation agreements are deeply rooted in these cultural values.

Hopi Water Availability and Quality

Water is of utmost value on the Hopi Reservation. Water users must balance thecompeting and diverse demands for water with limited water supplies. Surface water on the Hopi Reservation is scarce. Springs and seeps along washes are fed by groundwater and precipitation events (Puhuyesva & Duffield, 2013). Recently, washes have been experiencing drops in water levels due to stresses within the watershed (Grabiel et al., 2006).

Figure 4.1 shows a map of the Hopi Reservation’s surface waters and important aquifers. There are five washes on the Hopi Reservation: Moenkopi Wash, Dinnebito Wash,Oraibi Wash, Polacca Wash and Jeddito Wash (wash names are listed in the order as theyappear from west to east in Figure 4.1). Springs are scattered around washes and alongtheir tributaries.

Several aquifers are located beneath the Hopi Reservation, including the TorevaFormation (T-Aquifer), Dakota Formation (D-Aquifer), Navajo Formation (N-Aquifer) and Coconino Formation (C-Aquifer). Most springs on the Hopi Reservation used for irrigation are fed by the shallow T-Aquifer in the sandstones of the Mesa Verde Group. This aquifer is vulnerable because it is settled closest to the surface, yet it provides water to the villages

4

C H A P T E R F O U R

37

Figure 4.1. Hopi Reservation Hydrology.

(Puhuyesva & Duffield, 2013). The D-Aquifer, a sandstone aquifer, has limitedconsumptive use due to high levels of naturally occurring Total Dissolved Solids (TDS),but provides groundwater to shallow wells used for livestock. The C-Aquifer provides good quality water for the livestock in the Three Canyon Ranches area (see Chapter 1) and is the primary source of drinking water to the city of Flagstaff, Ariz., southwest of the HopiReservation (Puhuyesva & Duffield, 2013). Drinking water on the Hopi Reservation is drawn exclusively from the N-Aquifer. This aquifer is also used by municipalities on theneighboring Navajo Reservation and by water-intensive industries such as mining (Grabiel et al., 2006). The Hopi Tribal Council has prioritized the protection of the N-Aquifer toensure that it maintains high quality standards and reliable availability (U.S. Bureau ofReclamation, 2006). Efforts such as the Hopi Water Resources Program and the HopiIntegrated Resource Management Plan (see Figure 4.2) are in place to protect, restore,______________________________

5Lionel Puhuyesya is the director of the Hopi Water Resources Program and James A. Duffield, R.G., a hydrogeologist, is the Hopi Water Resources Program representative for the Northern Arizona University Office. They presented this information to the Colorado Plateau Water Advisory Council on Dec. 11, 2013.

38

Source: Prepared by the Hopi Tribal Office of Community Planning and Economic Development, April 2001.

manage and maintain water supplies on the reservation (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013). The Hopi Water Resources Program, under the Hopi Department of Natural Resources, is a regulatory program with the mission “to ensure that a safe, dependable,long-term water supply is available to the Tribe,” (Puhuyesya & Duffield, 2013). Still, because of declining groundwater supplies, portions of contaminated surface water and lack of plumbing in some homes, many residents haul water for their daily needs (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2006).

Hopi Irrigated Farming and Ranching

Historical land conditions combined with extreme climate events, such as drought and floods, have impacted Hopi agricultural activities for centuries. The Hopi are known for their farming successes with limited water resources, utilizing dryland farming techniques and early water-channeling activities, especially in the Moenkopi Wash and Pasture Canyon.

Water-channeling activities on the reservation mostly consist of nonpermanent earthen ditches, dams and diversions. A concrete dam was put in place by the federal government in 1915 on land previously held by Mormons in the Moenkopi area. Because the federalgovernment assumed direct control over the land and water rights after they purchased theMormon holdings in 1903, it built the concrete diversion dam to control floodwater. The federal government reserved land and water specifically for the American Indian Tuba City Boarding School farm. However, Hopi agricultural producers took advantage of theopportunities to lease land, as they competed with neighboring Navajo families forproductive farmland (Godfrey, 1988). To manage agricultural risk, the typical Hopi familycultivated plots in various sections of the reservation in case a particular farm plot failed.

Mapping Actions Affecting Hopi Water Rights: A Brief Chronology

The importance of water to Hopi traditions, culture and wellbeing emphasizes the urgency of appropriate management and apportionment to the tribe. Figure 4.2 provides an overview of actions affecting the quantity and quality of past, present and future water supplies for the Hopi Reservation.

4

39

YEAR ACTION

1834 The Indian Non-Intercourse Act restricts tribes from permanently selling their land or natural resources. Tribes are permitted to lease their rights upon congressional approval (Colby & Jacobs, 2006).

1882 The Hopi Reservation was established under President Chester A. Arthur’s executive order.

1903 The federal government purchases Mormon holdings near Moenkopi and assumes control of adjacent water rights.

1908 Supreme Court Case, Winters v. U.S., gives Indian reservations water rights priority to the date the reservation was established.

1963 Supreme Court Case, Arizona v. California, establishes Practicably Irrigable Acreage to quantify American Indian water rights.

1966 The Hopi Tribe begins leasing water to mining activities near Black Mesa for $1.67 per acre-foot, less than the fair market value (Glennon, 2002).

1987 The Hopi Tribe renegotiates its water lease for mining activities near Black Mesa and implements new terms for $300 per acre-foot, with the rate doubling after the first 2,800 acre-feet (Wilkinson, 2004).

1991 The Hopi Tribe becomes eligible to request drought assistance under Title I of the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2010).

2000 The Hopi Water Resources Program applies for Environmental Protection Agency Treatment in the same manner As a State to implement and manage environmental programs (Puhuyesya & Duffield, 2013).

2001 Arizona Supreme Court Case, Gila River V. (2001), rejects the Practicably Irrigable Acreage standard and establishes a new standard of water rights quantification for American Indian tribes based on present and future needs.

2001 The Hopi Tribe, in conjunction with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, develops “Hopi Tutskwat Makiwa’yta: SoosoyHimu Hopit Tutavoyat ev Hintsakitiwqa Qatsis Oovi Natwaniwa” (Hopi Land Stewardship: An Integrated Resources Management Plan for the Hopi Reservation), outlining how Hopi values relate to natural resource management and including a section for planning water resources.

2004 The Hopi Tribe purchases 6,000 acre-feet per year of Colorado River water entitlements from Cibola Irrigation District (Federal Register, 2004).

2006 Mohave Generating Station and Black Mesa Coal Slurry are forced to shut down after the company fails to implement pollution retrofits required by a 1997 lawsuit. Groundwater withdrawals cease from the N-Aquifer for the coal slurry.

Figure 4.2. Brief Chronology of Actions Regarding Hopi Reservation Water Rights

40

2008 The Hopi Water Resources Program gains approval of its As a State application and the Evironmental Protection Agency approves Hopi water quality standards (Puhuyesya & Duffield, 2013).

2009 The U.S. Department of Justice files a Hopi Tribe water rights claim as Federal Trustee in Arizona State Court

2011 The Hopi Water Resources Program gains Environmental Protection Agency approval of revised water quality standards and establishes Groundwater Enforcement and Wellhead and Source Water Protection ordinances (Puhuyesya & Duffield, 2013).

2012 The Navajo-Hopi Little Colorado River Water Rights Settlement Act (S. 2109) proposes claims to the Little Colorado River to ensure water availability into the future. Due to insufficient support, the Senate bill dies. Settlement negotiations are ongoing. ______________________________5 This is not a complete list of actions related to Hopi water rights, but rather an overview of actions related to current Hopi water quality and quantity.

4

41

Influence From the North: Reserved Water Rights Doctrine

Water rights for Indian agriculture and Indian reservations were introduced in the early1900s as Western settlement increased the demand for water supplies. While the Hopi wereadapting their agricultural environment to a changing climate, the federal government filed claims on behalf of the Fort Belknap Reservation in Montana’s Milk River Valley. The claim for water rights for the reservation was a result of upstream, off-reservation irrigators diverting water that hampered the development of agriculture on the reservation. A Supreme Court ruling (Winters v. U.S.) in 1908 resulted in what is referred to as the Winters Doctrine.The Winters Doctrine reserves federal water rights to fulfill the purpose of why Indianreservations were established. That is, it reserved Indian water rights based upon the date a reservation was established.

The Winters Doctrine set a precedent for American Indian water rights and represented apivotal landmark in Western water law. The precedent was applicable to all reservations in the U.S., regardless of whether the reservation was created by treaty, act of Congress or executive order (Sukhwal, 1991). According to the Winters Doctrine, the Hopi Reservation reserves priority for water rights in 1882, the year the reservation was established underPresident Arthur’s executive order.

State of Arizona Water Law

Approximately 28 percent of land in the state of Arizona is held in trust by the federalgovernment on behalf of American Indians. The role of the federal government andAmerican Indian tribes in managing Arizona’s water supply is jurisdictionally complex.The majority of the water settlements to quantify Indian water rights claims are driven by litigation that is both lengthy and costly. Many American Indian water rights claims are still being negotiated and litigated (Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2014).

A water right encompasses who has the right to use water, what it is used for, and where itis used. Water policy in the U.S. is determined at the state level. Each state has its own water law governing water allocation. The state of Arizona adopted the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation for surface water, a legal concept that allocated water rights based onseniority, “first in time, first in right.” Those who arrive first and stake a claim maintain a prior or senior right to water resources as long as they can provide a beneficial use for the water.

Arizona Revised Statutes defines surface water as:

“…waters of all sources, flowing in streams, canyons, ravines or other natural channels, or in definite underground channels, whether perennial or intermittent, floodwaters, wastewaters, or surplus water, and of lakes, ponds and springs on the surface” (ADWR, 2014).

Arizona Revised Statues defines beneficial use as the basis, measure and limit to the use of water within the state. Beneficial uses include:“Domestic which includes the watering of gardens and lawns not exceeding one-half acre,municipal, irrigation, stock watering, waterpower, recreation, wildlife including fish,nonrecoverable water storage, and mining uses…Arizona Department of Water Resources will determine the quantity of water that may be appropriated for the beneficial uses on a case by case basis” (ADWR, 2014).

42

Federal Reserved Water Rights

The Winters Doctrine established federal reserved water rights for reservations based on their year of establishment. In addition to American Indian reservation lands, the Supreme Court case Arizona v. California (1963) extended the Winters Doctrine to include otherpublicly owned lands, such as wildlife refuges, military bases and national parks (Weis, 1987). Federal reserved water rights are encouraged to present some justification andquantification through explanation of the primary purpose of reserving the federal landsto the state (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 2011; Weis, 1987).

State of Arizona Decreed Indian Water Rights

In addition to securing federal reserved water rights for public lands, Arizona v. California defined Indian reservation reserved water rights through a standard of Practicably Irrigable Acreage to quantify the water right (Colby & Jacobs, 2006). An Arizona Supreme Court Case, Gila River V. (2001), rejected Practicably Irrigable Acreage as a sole standard for waterquantification. It established a new standard of water rights quantification for AmericanIndian tribes in Arizona that relates the beneficial use clause of the Prior AppropriationDoctrine. This case determined that American Indian water rights quantifications within the state of Arizona are based on “the tribe’s actual and proposed uses for the water, along with the parties’ recommendations regarding feasibility, and the amount of water necessary toaccomplish the homeland purpose of the Indian reservation,” (Colby & Jacobs, 2006(Page 207)).

In Arizona v. California, the court decreed that four Indian reservations along the Colorado River receive specific quantifications or entitlements. The reservation and associatedentitlement in acre-feet are as follows:

n Cocopha: Priority 1; 8,821 acre-feet, Priority 4; 2,026 acre-feet n Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT): Priority 1; 662,402 acre-feet n Fort Mohave: Priority 1; 103,535 acre-feet n Fort Yuma: Priority 1; 6,350 acre-feet (Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR, 2014).

State of Arizona Indian Water Right Settlements

Litigation to quantify Indian water rights is a lengthy and costly process. As water becomes increasingly scarce and economically more valuable, efforts to clarify ownership will increase, and the competition for water rights will become more complex (Sukhwal, 1991).Increasingly, negotiated settlements are the most common means used to mitigate conflict involving Indian water rights.

Water right settlements can provide opportunities for all parties to collaborate and build relationships among diverse water user groups. Tribal water settlements usually involve a federal negotiating team that works directly with the tribe under the federal government’s trust responsibility.

Several Indian tribes in Arizona have settled their water right claims, which provide water allocations necessary for the tribes to plan for growth and long-term economic development (ADWR, 2014). The following federally recognized Indian tribes in the state of Arizona have settled their water rights claims and possess water rights recognized by the U.S. Congress:

n Ak Chin Indian Community n Tohono O’odham Nation

4

43

n Alt River-Pima Maricopa Indian Community n Fort McDowell Indian Community n San Carlos Apache Tribe n Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe n Zuni Indian Tribe n Gila River Indian Community (ADWR, 2014)

The following federally recognized tribes in Arizona are not currently involved in active water right settlement negotiations:

n Havasupai n Hualapai n Kaibab Paiute n Pascua Yaqui n San Carlos Apache (Gila River tributaries) n Tohono O’odham (Sif Oidak District) n Tonto Apache (ADWR, 2014)

The following federally recognized Arizona tribes are currently involved in water rightssettlement negotiations:

n White Mountain Apache Tribe n Yavapai Apache Tribe n Hopi Tribe (ADWR, 2014)

Leasing Water Rights

The 1834 Indian Non-Intercourse Act allows the leasing of American Indian land andnatural resources, such as water rights, so long as it gains congressional approval, throughthe Bureau of Indian Affairs. Water leasing allows water rights to be transferred temporarilyto a non-Indian user. Because Arizona follows the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation, and many tribes have seniority over other non-Indian water users, tribes are often approached to lease water rights (Colby & Jacobs, 2006). Additionally, Active Management Area laws in Arizona require that new development show continual and sufficient water supplies for 100 years. Developers often seek solutions to this requirement through leasing water rights fromAmerican Indian supplies (Colby & Jacobs, 2006).

In 1966 the Hopi and Navajo tribes individually leased mineral and water to mining activities on Black Mesa, which crosses both reservations (see Chapter 2). Water rights were acquired for the 273-mile coal slurry pipeline that shuttles coal mixed with water to the Mohave Generating Station outside of Laughlin, Nev. In an attempt to incentivize water conservation and establish fair pricing that reflects the value of water to Hopi and the surrounding desert landscape, the Hopi Tribal Council renegotiated the lease in 1987 to $300 per acre-foot for the first 2,800 acre-feet, increasing the rate to $600 per acre-foot thereafter (Wilkinson, 2004). The added demands led to decreased water levels in the N-Aquifer, the primary source of drinking water for Hopi and Navajo Rreservations (Wilkinson, 2004).

44

In 2000 and 2006, the Natural Resources Defense Council assessed the material damageimpacts from groundwater withdrawal around the Black Mesa area. The assessmentidentified problems associated with pumping the N-Aquifer over time and maderecommendations for remediation (Grabiel et al., 2006). Due to the Mohave GeneratingStation’s failure to update pollution retrofits by the required date established by a lawsuit filed by environmental groups over noncompliance with the Clean Air Act in 1997, thegenerating station and coal slurry were forced to cease operations Jan. 1, 2006 (Grabiel et al., 2006). Both the Hopi and Navajo Tribes continue to cope with the effects of decreasedN-Aquifer levels (Grabiel et al., 2006).

Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe Water Settlement Negotiations

During the 1990s, the Lower Colorado River Adjudication Court appointed a committee for the purpose of negotiating a settlement agreement. The negotiations were halted when the Navajo Nation filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of the Interior over its operation of theColorado River. A federal court entered a stay in the case to allow negotiations with the U.S., state of Arizona and intervening parties (ADWR, 2014).

These negotiations resulted in federal legislation titled, Navajo-Hopi Little Colorado River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2012. This Senate bill (S. 2109) was intended to settle water rights claims of the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe and the allottees of the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe in the state of Arizona. It proposed to authorize construction of municipal water projects relating to the water rights claims and resolve litigation concerning Colorado River operations affecting the states of California, Arizona and Nevada. Additional water rights claims for other purposes were also listed in the bill.

The settlement attempted to resolve water rights claims for the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Reservation and involved about 30 different entities, including approval by Congress.However, it required each tribe to waive rights to future additional claims to water rights.The waivers would not take effect until Congress appropriated the funds for the water delivery projects for both the Hopi Reservation and the Navajo Nation. The delivery projects would provide water to rural communities on both reservations. In addition, the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation would work together on a groundwater management plan on the diminishing N-Aquifer.

The Navajo-Hopi Little Colorado River Water Right Settlement Act of 2012 (S. 2109) wasintroduced on Feb. 14, 2012 in the 112th Congress. This bill died and the House version ofthe bill was referred to committee. Reports in the Indian Country Today newspaper stated that the Hopi elders adamantly opposed the bill, warning about a time when water wouldbe taken from the Hopi people (Indian Country Today, 2014). Litigation to quantify Hopiwater rights is currently ongoing.

4

45

Summary

Water is important to sustaining Hopi life and culture. Surface water is the result ofprecipitation events and springs and seeps fed by groundwater along fractures and joints within sandstone formations. Groundwater from several aquifers provides water forconsumption and agriculture. The N-Aquifer, the exclusive source of drinking water for the reservation, is under stress from multiple users. The shallow T-Aquifer feeds most springs, while the D-Aquifer is pumped for livestock consumption and has high amounts of naturally occurring total dissolved solids. The C-Aquifer provides water to the Three Canyon Ranches outside of the Hopi Reservation. Programs such as the Hopi Water Resources Program and the Hopi Integrated Resource Management Plan are in place to protect, restore, manage and maintain water supplies on the reservation.

Historical land conditions combined with extreme climate events, such as drought and floods, have impacted Hopi agricultural activities for centuries. The Hopi are knownspecifically for their dryland farming techniques and their unique success in early waterdiversion activities. The role of the federal government and American Indian tribes inmanaging Arizona’s water supply has become extremely important, as 28 percent of the land in the state is held in trust by the federal government on behalf of American Indians. The majority of water rights settlements to quantify Indian water rights claims are driven bylitigation that is lengthy and costly. While the Hopi Tribe has water rights dating to 1882, based on the Winters Doctrine, with legislatively quantified rights (Arizona v. California and Gila V.), their claims are still being negotiated.

The Hopi Reservation leased water and mineral rights to mining activities in 1966. For the next 40 years, the company pumped groundwater to operate a 273-mile pipeline of coalslurry to a generating station in Laughlin, Nev. The operation withdrew water from theN-Aquifer, the main source of drinking water for the Hopi and Navajo Reservations. Thesignificant water demands resulted in an observance of reduced levels of the N-Aquifer.Because the generating station failed to update pollution retrofits by the required date in 2006, it was forced to cease operations, including the coal slurry pipeline (Grabiel et al., 2006).

The Navajo-Hopi Little Colorado River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2012 (S. 2109)attempted to approve the settlement of water rights claims of the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe and the allottees of the Navajo and Hopi Tribes in the state of Arizona. The legislation proposed to resolve water rights claims for each tribe, and involved about 30 differententities, including approval by Congress. It required each tribe to waive rights for additional claims to water rights in the future. The waivers would not take effect until Congressappropriated the funds for the water delivery projects for both the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation. The bill was introduced on Feb. 14, 2012, lacked sufficient support, and subsequently died. Litigation is currently ongoing.

46

Chapter 4 Review

Instructions: Select the best answer or provide a written response where space is provided.

1. What is the significance of the Winters Doctrine in Western water laws concerning American Indian water rights:

A. The Winters Doctrine determined separate water rights for American Indians in Western water law. Instead of giving water rights upon the date a reservation was established, water rights were determined based on the land area of the tribe.

B. The Winters Doctrine set a precedent for American Indian water rights in Western water law because it reserved Indian water rights for tribes under the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation based upon the date a reservation was established.

C. The Winters Doctrine determined that American Indian water rights are decided by each state and based upon the date a reservation was established.

2. Explain how have mining activities affected water supplies on the Hopi Reservation:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. What is the source of surface water (springs and streams) on the Hopi Reservation and five main washes:

A. Surface water is only fed by precipitation events. The five washes on the Hopi Reservation are: Moenkopi, Dinnebito, Oraibi, Polacca and Jeddito.

B. Surface water is the result of seeps and springs fed by surface water runoff along the sandy hills coming off of the mesas. They are formed by precipitation events. The five washes on the Hopi Reservation are: Moenkopi, Dinnebito, Oraibi, Polacca and Jeddito.

C. Surface water is the result of seeps and springs fed precipitation events and groundwater along fractures and joints within sandstone formations. The five washes on the Hopi Reservation are: Moenkopi, Dinnebito, Oraibi, Polacca and Jeddito.

4. Outline the actions, in chronological order, the Hopi Tribe has taken regarding its water resources:

Year Action____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

4

47

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

5. What was the intent of the Navajo-Hopi Little Colorado River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2012?

A. Settle water right claims for the Hopi Reservation

B. Settle water right claims for the Navajo Reservation

C. Waive future water right claims for the Navajo and Hopi Reservations

D. Both A and B

E. All of the above

48

4

5

5

C H A P T E R F I V E

Agricultural and Natural ResourceChallenges on the Hopi Reservation:

Results of a Needs AssessmentLearning Objectives:

n Examine agricultural and natural resource issues of concern to Hopi Reservation producers n Consider implications of survey results for improving USDA outreach program effectiveness on the Hopi Reservation

This chapter summarizes the results of a needs assessment survey conducted between 2013 and 2014, using primary data collected from survey interviews with individuals living on the Hopi Reservation. The research presented here identifies and ranks issues that may challenge sustainable agriculture on reservation lands. Identifying and understanding challenges, as perceived by agricultural producers on the Hopi Reservation, provides insight necessary to redesign outreach programs accordingly. Future programs might then be tailored to improve assistance in order to strengthen sustainable agricultural and natural resource management practices on the Hopi Reservation.

Needs Assessment Overview and Purpose

In order to facilitate profitable, sustainable agricultural operations and natural resourcemanagement practices on reservation lands, Extension and other U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA) outreach professionals must seek to identify issues of concern as per-ceived by those individuals who live on reservation lands (Martenson, Newman & Zak, 2011; Emm & Singletary 2009; Hart, 2006). American Indians who farm and ranch reservation lands can best inform outreach professionals about how to target specific issues for agricultural assistance programs (Singletary, Emm & Hill, 2011; Hiller, 2005).

The survey targeted agricultural producers and natural resource managers on the Hopi Reservation. The survey was designed to assess and identify potential barriers to sustainable agriculture specifically on Hopi Reservation lands. Additionally, the study sought to identify Indian producers’ land tenure status and preferred land tenure status.

The survey featured 39 questions to assess perceived agricultural and natural resource issues of concern to tribal agricultural producers on the Hopi Reservation. Each question used a 5-point, equal-weighted Likert-type scale. These questions were developed, in part, based on the outcomes and implications from prior published survey research targeting AmericanIndian populations on reservation lands (Emm et. al, 2012; Singletary, Emm & Hill, 2011; Wilsey & Beaulieu, 2009; Emm & Breazeale, 2008; Hassel, 2007).

A key objective in the development of this survey instrument was to produce a succinct list of questions that addressed those issues most relevant to agricultural producers onreservation lands. The rationale was that a small number of relevant questions would garnerfuller participation. Additionally, questions asked respondents to report whether theiragricultural operation was in trust or fee-simple status, and which land tenure status they preferred. A panel of four faculty members representing the Federally Recognized Tribal

49

Extension Program in Arizona and Nevada, familiar with survey instrumentation design,reviewed drafts of the questionnaire. Officers of the Intertribal Agriculture Council alsoreviewed the questionnaire. Founded in 1987, the Intertribal Agriculture Council promotes the conservation, development and use of agricultural resources on reservation lands for the betterment of American Indian people. The purpose of these reviews was to identify missing items and to check for clarity and comprehension of questions. To increase content validity, the authors revised the questionnaire based on the panel reviews.

The authors implemented the final questionnaire during face-to-face meetings withinvited tribal agricultural producers on the Hopi Reservation. At these meetings, participants received an oral explanation about the purpose of the survey. The authors instructedparticipants to take five to 10 minutes to voluntarily complete a two-page questionnaire, omit their names and any contact information, and submit their completed questionnaires to the survey facilitator. Based upon an assurance of participant anonymity, this one-time data collection protocol received exemption from the University of Nevada, Reno Office of Human Research Protection and the approval of the Hopi Tribe’s Internal Review Board.

Results

A total of 166 individuals, all residents of the Hopi Reservation and of American Indian ethnicity, completed the survey. Regarding perceptions of issues that challenge sustainable agriculture on reservations, survey respondents were asked to rate the extent to which 39 issues presented were of concern, using a scale of 1 being not a concern to 5 being a major concern.

Table 5.1 illustrates the ranked mean scores for the 39 issues. Of the 39 issues featured,19 ranked as either a concern or major concern (mean score of at least 3.5 or greater).While the remaining 20 items ranked comparatively lower, 19 of the 20 mean scores werestill greater than neutral (3.02 to 3.43).

Table 5.1. Agricultural and Natural Resource Issues of Concern on the Hopi Reservation

1 Lack of leadership among tribal government 4.39 0.996 166 2 Conflict among tribal government officials 4.36 1.078 162 3 Lack of organization among tribal government 4.33 1.028 164 4 Lack of tribal government support of youth involved

in agriculture 4.31 1.051 163 5 Availability of water for irrigation and livestock 4.08 1.172 164 6 Invasive weed control 4.07 1.074 165 7 Responding to wildfire on reservations 4.05 1.123 164 8 Water quality management 4.03 1.071 162 9 Lack of reservation-wide plan for sustainable agriculture 3.97 1.253 166 10 Wildfire prevention on reservations 3.95 1.125 165 11 Access and delivery of water for irrigation and livestock 3.87 1.24 165 12 Animal disease traceability 3.76 1.201 163

Agricultural and natural resource issues of concern toyou based on your experience on your reservation

ItemRank

StandardMean Deviation N

50

13 Availability of veterinarian services 3.75 1.213 163 14 Grazing land previously burned by wildfire 3.71 1.292 164 15 Animal diseases (example: hoof/mouth disease) 3.69 1.319 165 16 Wildlife management 3.63 1.182 161 17 Fallowed or dewatered Indian agricultural lands 3.58 1.198 164 18 Livestock herd management practices 3.56 1.251 162 19 Horse herd management 3.53 1.307 163 20 Riparian area management 3.43 1.238 155 21 Lack of an Indian brand meat product 3.38 1.362 164 22 My time and organization management skills 3.32 1.248 165 23 Lack of an Indian brand organic agricultural product 3.31 1.311 166 23 Marketing American Indian crops 3.31 1.442 165 24 Cost of farm equipment 3.24 1.378 163 25 Land management issues associated with checkerboard lands 3.22 1.427 164

26 Improving or repairing individual credit score 3.21 1.374 165 27 The status of my Indian trust land preventing me from getting farm and ranch loans 3.19 1.497 166

28 Competing with non-Indians to lease reservation land for agricultural use 3.18 1.507 163 29 Marketing American Indian livestock 3.17 1.479 163 30 Duration and/or type of land lease hindering my ability to qualify for USDA program 3.13 1.397 164 31 Process required to convert fee-simple Indian land back to trust land 3.12 1.369 165

31 Land management issues associated with highly fractionated lands 3.12 1.377 165

32 Availability of farms and ranch loans 3.10 1.455 164 32 Competing with non-Indians to lease reservation land for purposes other than agricultural 3.10 1.508 166

33 Farm families’ skills to manage finances 3.09 1.376 162 34 Process required to convert Indian trust land to fee simple 3.07 1.386 164

35 Interest rates on farm and ranch loans 3.02 1.461 163 36 Cost of grazing (fees) livestock on reservations 2.76 1.469 163

Agricultural and natural resource issues of concern toyou based on your experience on your reservation

ItemRank

StandardMean Deviation N

Rating Code: 1 = Not a Concern; 2 = Slight Concern; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Concern; 5 = Major Concern

5

51

The top 10 agricultural and natural resource management concerns identified, in descending order, were: 1) Lack of leadership among tribal government; 2) Conflict among tribal government officials; 3) Lack of organization among tribal government; 4) Lack of tribal government support of youth involved in agriculture; 5) Availability of water for irrigation and livestock; 6) Invasive weed control; 7) Responding to wildlife on reservations; 8) Water quality management; 9) Lack of reservation-wide plan for sustainable agriculture; and 10) Wildfire prevention on reservations.

Nearly all survey respondents (97.6 percent) reported living on reservation trust land,with only 2.4 percent living on fee-simple land. As Figure 5.1 illustrates, the majority of theserespondents (51.2 percent) live on a combination of assigned and allotted trust lands,followed by 33.6 percent living on assigned lands only, and 8 percent living on allotted lands only. Only 2.4 percent of the respondents live on a combination of allotted and fee-simple and 2.5 percent live on public domain allotments. When asked about their preference for trust or fee-simple land tenure, the majority of respondents indicated a preference for trust land tenure (see Figure 5.2).

Assigned

Allotted

Combination of Assigned and Allotted

Fee-simple

Combination of Allotted and Fee-Simple

Public Domain Allotment

Trust

Fee-simple

2.4%2.5%

51.2%

33.6%

8%

11.59%

88.41%

2.3%

Which type of landtenure do youmost prefer foryour Indian land?

Please indicatewhether yourIndian land is:

52

Figure 5.1. Survey Respondents’ Indicated Land Tenure Type

Figure 5.2. Survey Respondents’ Preferred Land Tenure Type

Summary

The research results presented here provide important insight into agricultural and natural resource challenges on the Hopi Reservation. Reservation survey respondents ranked 19 of 39 agricultural and natural resource issues as a concern or major concern (mean score of at least 3.5 or greater). While the remaining 20 items ranked comparatively lower, 19 of the 20 mean scores were still greater than neutral (3.02 to 3.43).

The top four major concerns involve Hopi tribal government organizational, leadership,communication and relationship-building skills, in addition to lack of support for youth involved in agriculture. Water availability for irrigation and livestock and water quality issues also rated as major concerns in addition to invasive weed control and wildfire prevention and response. The lack of a reservation-wide plan for sustainable agriculture rated ninth. Water access and delivery for agricultural irrigation rated 11th out of 39 issues as a concern on the Hopi Reservation.

With regards to land tenure on the Hopi Reservation, the majority of agriculturalproducers who responded to the survey operate on Indian trust lands. These includeassignments or leases, allotments, or some combination of assigned/leased and allotted lands. Based on the findings reported here, Extension and other USDA outreachprofessionals must strive to design educational and assistance programs that account for the unique challenges that Indian land tenure presents. An understanding of the background and complexities surrounding Indian land tenure will assist those working with Indianagricultural producers to appreciate land-use decisions and motivations behind thedecisions as well as the absence of decision-making. It may also help to improve and increase producers’ participation rates in agriculture-assistance programs involving the HopiReservation land base.

Developing and implementing effective outreach programs designed to address the unique barriers that producers on the Hopi Reservation face requires a different approach that must consider tribal culture, history and socioeconomic factors. For example, the majority of producers who responded to the survey indicated a preference for Indian trust land over fee-simple. This may be due to a preference for what has become familiar to the Hopi people since the reservation was established in 1882.

In order to improve outreach educational and assistance programs, USDA professionals must learn about, acknowledge and demonstrate respect for the cultural and belief systemspracticed on the Hopi Reservation. And, as demonstrated in the focus group findings, a sense of disconnect and geographic isolation, generational distrust of the federal government and a chronic lack of individual operating capital on the Hopi Reservation further challenge USDA outreach assistance program effectiveness. These realities suggest that traditional Western USDA programs may not work effectively on the Hopi Reservation.

Finally, tribal government officials must seek to understand the challenges that Hopiagricultural producers face operating on Indian trust lands. Likewise, effective USDAoutreach means learning about the unique attributes of the Hopi tribal government.For example, it is important for USDA outreach professionals to understand that agricultural producers perceive lack of leadership skills, conflict and lack of organization among their own tribal officials as potential barriers. However, only the Hopi people can effectivelyaddress this aspect of tribal governance and perceived barriers presented by tribalgovernance. Nevertheless, USDA outreach programs that address the key concernsidentified in this assessment may be especially helpful on the Hopi Reservation.

5

53

Chapter 5 Review

Instructions: Select the best answer or provide a written response when space is provided

1. The needs assessment survey was conducted on the Hopi Reservation to:

A. Help USDA outreach professionals understand the perceived issues of concern to producers on the Hopi Reservation

B. Improve USDA outreach programs by potentially targeting issues of concern to reservation producers

C. Increase knowledge about challenges to sustainable agriculture and natural resource management on the Hopi Reservation

D. All of the above

2. Referring to Table 5.1, list the top 10 major concerns to Hopi Reservation producers:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Examine the answer to the previous question and explain the implications for USDA agricultural and natural resource program improvement:___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. Given the concerns of the Hopi Reservation respondents, USDA professionals must strategize outreach assistance and education to focus attention on:

A. Creating a reservation-wide plan for sustainable agriculture

B. Water quality planning and improvement

C. Leadership development programs for tribal government officials

D. A and B only

54

5

6

Focus Group Research Methodologyand Results

Learning Objectives:

n Understand the use of focus group methodology to assess barriers and opportunities to USDA program implementation on the Hopi Reservation n Report the results of a focus group session conducted on the Hopi Reservation n Explore implications of focus group results and recommendations for future USDA program improvements

This chapter summarizes qualitative research to identify perceived barriers and opportunities to sustaining agriculture on the Hopi Reservation. It identifies potential strategies fortargeting the challenges most often cited as well as other suggestions to improve USDA program design and delivery for the Hopi Reservation. With many of the large-scale USDA outreach and assistance programs, problems arise to which there may be no immediate solutions. The focus group discussion reported here highlights some of the more complex challenges. Identifying these challenges and surrounding issues is the first and critical step to identifying a strategic reservation-wide plan for sustainable agriculture and natural resource management.

Part One: Focus Group Research Methodology

Why Focus Groups?

The purpose of including focus group research as a part of this outreach project was togenerate qualitative information regarding how Hopi Reservation residents view theU.S. Department of Agriculture and USDA program implementation on the Hopi Reservation. Focus group methodology provides an effective tool to assess perceived barriers andopportunities, the results of which could help identify ways to improve outreach programs (Wilsey & Beaulieu, 2010). Data are gathered through conversation, observations,demographic characteristics and social interaction among focus group participants andfacilitators (Krueger & Casey, 2009).

This qualitative methodology draws on the perspectives of those most directly involved in agricultural operations on Hopi Reservation lands. Their perspectives provide a richerunderstanding of the barriers to sustainable agriculture and natural resource management of Indian lands, as well as potential opportunities (Emm et. al, 2012). Risk factors andcommon concerns, as perceived and voiced by the Hopi Reservation residents, can inform USDA outreach professionals if they are willing to listen and understand the importance of seeking out this information (Martenson, Newman & Zak, 2011; Emm & Breazeale, 2008).

The resulting information communicates multiple and diverse realities that provide a glimpse of a world that we would otherwise not experience (Start & Hovland, 2009).This information is intended to complement the information gleaned from quantitative data collected through interviews with individual Hopi Reservation residents (see Chapter 5). The focus group component was designed to further explore perceptions regarding experiences with past and present USDA programs implemented on the Hopi Reservation. Additionalquestions were designed to specifically probe land and water resource challenges and issues.

C H A P T E R S I X

6

55

Focus group participants shared many stories about their struggles concerning agriculture and the implementation of USDA outreach programs intended to assist them. In examining the discussion or narrative results of the focus group, key themes emerged.

Focus Group Method

The purpose of the focus group method was to examine Hopi Reservation residents’perceptions of the USDA, their general knowledge of and experience with USDA outreach and assistance programs, and potential challenges and opportunities in implementing USDA programs on reservation lands. The focus group method facilitates the qualitative datacollection over a relatively short period of time. Group discussions are structured to provide a relaxed environment that encourages participants to think deeply about issues, consideralternatives, and volunteer their impressions and thoughts candidly (Onwuegbuzie,Dickinson, Leech & Zoran, 2009; Krueger & Casey, 2009).

Focus Group Questions

A series of questions was developed in cooperation with the University of ArizonaFederally Recognized Tribes Extension Program (FRTEP) faculty and Hopi tribal staff.Additionally, questions were developed based on prior focus group research conducted by the authors on 19 of the largest Indian reservations in a six-state area of the Western U.S. These included Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, North Dakota and South Dakota(Emm et al, 2012). Additionally, the focus group questions reflected the results gleaned from prior survey research conducted on the 10 largest reservations in a four-state region of the western U.S., including Nevada, Idaho, Oregon and Washington (Singletary, Emm & Hill, 2011).

FRTEP faculty in Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico reviewed drafts of the questions. These included FRTEP faculty working and living on the Hopi Reservation and Navajo Nation.Three of the FRTEP faculty reviewers were also members of the Navajo Tribe. Additionally,a panel of three University of Nevada, Reno faculty considered experts on focus groupquestion and process design reviewed the focus group questions and provided input.Additional questions were included to clarify key questions and to facilitate discussion.

Questions were refined based upon these reviews. The final series of questions were asfollows:

1. When you hear the words “United States Department of Agriculture – USDA,” what comes to mind? A. What USDA programs have you or your tribe used? B. What effects, if any, have these USDA programs had on you or your tribe?

2. What problems have you had in using USDA programs and/or what prevents you from using USDA programs?

3. Has water access or use affected your farm or ranch? Please explain. A. Identify source of water and particular access/use issue.

4. Has land tenure affected your farm or ranch? Please explain. A. Identify type of land tenure and particular issues associated with it. B. Has working capital been an issue in sustaining your farm or ranch? Please explain.

5. What can USDA do better to serve you and your tribe? 6. What type(s) of USDA assistance do you need to sustain your farm or ranch?

56

7. What could USDA do to improve your success with USDA programs? A. How can USDA improve your access to its programs? B. How can USDA improve the quality of its programs? C. What could you or your tribe do to improve your success with USDA programs?

8. How well has our discussion captured your interests, values, use, knowledge, and future vision for agriculture on your reservation? Is there anything you would like to add?

Focus Group Meeting and Participant Recruitment

The University of Arizona FRTEP faculty on the Hopi Reservation recruited focus groupparticipants through public notice and personal invitation. Prospective participants were told that the purpose of the meeting was to assess program needs, and the results were to be published to better assist USDA staff in understanding the reservation social, political and economic environment related to USDA program implementation. The focus group session was conducted for approximately three hours on Nov. 18, 2013. Seventeen Hopi Reservation residents comprised the focus group, which included farmers, ranchers and various Hopi tribal government staff.

Data Analysis

During the focus group discussion, qualitative data were collected continuously. The data were analyzed by noting and highlighting words and phrases that occurred most frequently for each question asked during the session. These frequent words and phrases created a Wordle or word diagram to illustrate prevailing themes for each question. The followingdiscussion summarizes thematically the results of the discussion in response to eachquestion (Wilsey & Beaulieu, 2010). Additionally, the word diagram for each question ishighlighted.

Part Two: Focus Group Research Results

Resulting Themes

The most prevailing theme resulting from the focus group session is a sense of pervasiveisolation and disconnect. This theme resonates throughout each of the seven primaryquestions and subquestions asked during the session. The theme of isolation anddisconnect was observed to exist at numerous levels with respect to USDA outreachprograms. The theme of disconnect was expressed between Hopi Reservation residents and:

n USDA outreach professionals, including the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Farm Service Agency (FSA);

n USDA outreach program specifications, including required engineering plans, expected completion timelines, and completion of required application forms;

n USDA program capital or cost-share requirements; and

n USDA lack of understanding and acceptance of Hopi culture and the Hopi experience with and knowledge of traditional agricultural practices.

The theme of isolation was expressed related to the geographic and physical remoteness of Hopi Reservation communities with respect to:

n Long driving distances between USDA field offices and Hopi Reservation

n Maintenance of local infrastructure to facilitate and support agricultural operations; and

6

57

n Access to social infrastructure to facilitate and support agricultural operations.

Focus Group Results

A facilitator asked each of the seven questions (and probes) below during the focusgroup session:

When you hear the words“United StatesDepartment of Agriculture –USDA,” what comes to mind?

Figure 6.1 illustrates those wordsmentioned most frequently byparticipants. The most commonwords depicted were “hard,” “headache” and “needs.”These word frequencies werefollowed by “regulations,” “difficult,” “paperwork,” “understand,” “commodity,”“complex,” and “people.”

Participants associated the term “USDA” most readily with agricultural commoditiesproduced on the Hopi Reservation. “Livestock,” “beef,” “corn” and “wool” were mentioned most often. Participants also associated USDA with commodity provision programs for low-income families on the reservation. Participants frequently cited confusion concerning perceived“red tape” involved with meeting tribal needs through existing USDA programs.

The National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) was mentioned frequently as whatcame to mind when participants thought of USDA. Participants indicated that they do notunderstand the NASS census survey and would like to learn more about how to completeit and how the information is used. For example, participants expressed concern thatcompleting the NASS survey would affect individual and family income tax obligations.

Overall, the participants did not appear to understand the various existing USDA programs, tax implications of implementing programs, and the difficulty and complexity of formsand other paperwork required to participate in USDA programs. A key theme voiced was aperceived lack of responsibility by both the Hopi tribe and USDA with regards to theexpectations necessary to achieve success with USDA programs.

What USDA programs have you or your tribe used in the past and what was the effect?Figure 6.2 illustrates the word diagram answers to this question. As indicated, theUSDA program participants mentioned most frequently was NRCS, and specifically theEnvironmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP). Also mentioned frequently was FSA farm assistance programs to loan operating capital.

In terms of “what was the effect” of the USDA programs used, clearly identified themesincluded problems using the programs. These included a “lack [of capital needed for EQIPcontracts cost share], lack [of communication], technical assistance [required for EQIPcontracts] and engineering, paperwork and contracts.”

Figure 6.1. Word Diagram: When you hear the words “United States Department of Agriculture or USDA,”what comes to mind?

58

6

Figure 6.2. Word Diagram: What USDA programs have you or your tribe used in thepast and what was the effect?

Participants commented frequently on a general lack of operating capital and theirexperience with a lack of communication in working with USDA programs. Specifically,these included Natural Resources Conservation Service programs associated withwater-related improvement and Farm Service Agency loan programs for improved access to operating capital. For example, technical assistance required of EQIP contracts was cited as a major obstacle to successful project implementation. Participants reported that theclosest Natural Resources Conservation Service technical engineer assigned to work with Hopi Reservation residents was based in Flagstaff, Ariz., an approximately three-hour drive from the Hopi Tribal headquarters in Kyotsmovi, Ariz.

Participants recognized the expertise and effort of the USDA professional assigned to work with them. However, participants suggested that protocol be established to help bridge the gap between Hopi-clan and village-based land-use practices and USDA-approved andrecommended specifications and project requirements. They indicated the same appliedto Bureau of Indian Affairs programs.

Participants described specific examples of ways in which these programs have failed in the past. These examples highlight obstacles involving project size required for project funding;

59

responsibility for project contract completion; lack of partnership between agencies; Indian trust land status and associated requirement of Bureau of Indian Affairs involvement; and the chronic lack of operating capital to secure the required project cost share. Comments include:

n The rancher has to be the one doing the contract and they don’t understand that they are the one responsible for that.

n We need smaller projects.

n Trying to get NRCS and BIA to agree has been very hard and the process just falls apart.

n (I’ve) been ranching for 46 years and I know projects work off the reservation. So why can’t they work on the reservation?

n No one has taken advantage of 30 percent cost share because lack of money and know how.

n NRCS had a hard time teaching people how the contracts work.

n People find ranching and farming fun but hard to do, and it’s hard to build a sustainable community without USDA support.

What problems have you had in using USDA programs and/or what prevents you fromusing these programs?

Words that surfaced most often in response to the problems or obstacles participants have experienced in using USDA programs were “technical” and “land” (see Figure 6.3).These were followed by the words “get,” “assistance,” “permit” and “ranchers.”

Figure 6.3. Word Diagram:What problems have you had inusing USDA programs and/orwhat prevents you from usingthese programs?

Often USDA agencies announce program funding allocated specifically for tribal lands.Tribal members understandably give their best effort to take advantage of these programs.

60

However, when they try to participate, they find that USDA programs are not amenable to the reality of Indian trust lands. In fact, several comments during this discussion pointed to issues specifically associated with Indian trust land status. Comments include:

n Who will take over the O&M (operation and maintenance) on EQIP project sites for the elders?

n Permit land is hard because the tribe owns it and you put all this money and work into it. This stops a lot of ranchers from upgrading.

n [Field technician] says land tenure is a problem when it is a life estate.

n When we have a permit on tribal land and the permit is only five years and gets canceled, then what is the incentive to improve the land?

n The Hopi ranchers don’t own land; [the] tribe owns it. So why make it better and work on it?

Additionally, USDA-NRCS programs require technical assistance to address contractspecifications. Participants voiced concerns regarding a lack of available technical expertise across the Hopi Reservation. Because the Hopi practice ancient cultivation techniques and base their practices on traditional norms, USDA-recommended technical guidelines do not fit with the Hopi agricultural system. And, due to the trust land status, Bureau of Indian Affairs adds additional layers of oversight, bureaucracy and administrative requirements. Comments include:

n The application is too technical. [There is a] lack of technical assistance once you do sign a contract…lack of available engineers.

n When we get technical information, we don’t understand what it means.

n There is no technical assistance to help us to make sure we do it right the first time.

n They change the rules and no one tells us. Took us six more months on what we needed to finish our projects.

n Engineers told one rancher that he needed to do something that doesn’t work with what the rancher knows about his area.

Focus group participants expressed the sentiment that because the Hopi Tribe “owns”the reservation lands, there is little incentive to make needed improvements on the land.This was said to be the case on lands leased through tribal permits as well. Since Hopifarmers and ranchers do not hold the legal title to their land, and their agricultural practices may also differ from USDA norms, this creates a situation that potentially dooms the Hopi Reservation producer to failure. Indian trust land tenure allows the federal government to maintain a major decision-making role on the Hopi Reservation (see Chapter 2). It can limit the ability of Hopi Reservation producers to secure financing for production improvements or expansion. Since land assignments, leases and permits are subject to tribal councilapproval, tribal politics may affect or postpone crucial management issues.

How has water access or use and land tenure affected your farm or ranch?

Water development and related water infrastructure were critical issues for the participants in this focus group (see Figure 6.4). Consistent and efficient access to agricultural water was identified as a barrier to sustainability.

6

61

Figure 6.4. Word Diagram: How has water access or use affected your farm or ranch?

How has land tenure affected your farm or ranch?

The federal government, through a series of 19th century policies, set aside lands for tribes for occupancy and beneficial use. However, with the exception of the General Allotment Act (1887), federal Indian policy stipulated that the U.S. government hold the title to these lands in trust, which prevented tribes, such as the Hopi, from fully utilizing and benefitting from their land assets (see Chapter 2). Additionally, where the Hopi are concerned, land tenureissues are complicated even further by ancient land tenure protocol requiring village and clan oversight and approval. This practice does not necessarily complement the function of the federally recognized Hopi Tribal Council. This demonstrates the additional challenges to Hopi land resource management posed by a dualistic governmental structure (see Chapter 3). Figure 6.5 illustrates responses to the question, how has land tenure affected your farm or ranch? Comments include:

n Need to understand the [tribal] lands. Village and clan lands are the biggest obstacles but go back far in time.

n Everything is in tribal trust. But within that trust, the tribal government is restricted. Within village and clan lands, there are no permits.

n Working capital is a major concern to improve lands. Ours is culturally based agriculture—just like culturally designed conservation. We don’t look at capital as capital. Our herds are used as savings accounts. When you need something, you sell a cow to finance the purchase.

n Trying to protect and preserve cultural heritage—primary motivation for agriculture.

n No range management plan. Who is responsible?

n Trying to save seeds for cultural use and keep the tradition.

n We are running cattle for quality of life, not profit.

n Tax and land issue, clan land, village lands, tribal trust, the government does not have rights to all our land.

n Our cattle are supplemental income.

n We are not operating our farms and ranches to make a profit but rather to support our culture. Preservation of Hopi seeds, for example. We are using our traditional crops and need to preserve traditions.

n Farming and ranching is not a free enterprise… but if we could make a living from it we would. We are just surviving now. Most of our livestock gets shipped out or our family eats it. Being capitalists is not the first thing in our mind, but we need to address market barriers and other barriers to make a sustainable living.

62

Figure 6.5. Word Diagram: How has land tenure affected your farm or ranch?

What can USDA do better to serve you and your tribe? What could you or your tribe doto improve your success with USDA programs?

Focus group participants indicated that they were operating their farms and ranches for the most part to support their traditional culture. Key words used during this discussion included “USFA,” “Hopi,” “marketing,” “beef” and “grass-fed” (see Figure 6.6). Additional words included “cooperative,” “market,” “adapt,” “understand,” “traditional,” “land” and “tribal.”

Figure 6.6. Word Diagram: What can USDA do better? What could you or your tribe do to improve your success?

The majority of participants reported that Hopi Reservation residents do not farm forprofit. Marketing of agricultural products was stressed as a key obstacle to receiving cashincome from farming and ranching. They expressed a belief that agriculture could beprofitable but that it was primarily a mechanism to protect Hopi culture and heritage.For example, participants indicated major efforts were under way to preserve Hopi seeds.As one participant stated, “Being capitalists is not the first thing on our mind, but we needto address market barriers and other barriers to make a sustainable living.”

6

63

In terms of what participants thought they or their tribe could do to improve success with USDA programs,” participants suggested training the Hopi Tribal Council about what Hopi Reservation farmers and ranchers need to be successful and then building capacity from within the tribe. They suggested that producers work cooperatively to brand their products in order to market their products more successfully. This included, for example, a Hopi brand beef product. Comments include:

n In the area of conservation, the tribe can demonstrate best practices to USDA for how Hopi do things.

n We still plant by hand and some use modified planters. We have developed our own planters that work for Hopi lands; our spacing is designed to conserve our land and water. If USDA could see the value of what Hopi do instead of telling us how to do things that western or American agriculture does.

n USDA needs to see what type of traditional dryland farming we have been taught and understand it. And how we adapt to soil erosion, depredation from wildlife, wild horses, cattle… and have to figure out how to mitigate this.

n We don’t mass-produce crops just to sell but to use… so have to figure out how to traditionally work with these things rather than being told how they would do it.

How well has our discussion captured your interest, values, knowledge and futurevision for agriculture on your reservation?

Participants reported that they learned from participating in the focus group process.They indicated that being asked these questions and thinking about these questions, in general, were helpful to them (see Figure 6.7). Words that surfaced most often were “letting,” “talk” and “problems.” Additional key words included “resources,” “solutions,” “work together,” “viewpoints” and “listened.”

Figure 6.7. Word Diagram: How well has our discussion captured your interests, values, knowledge and future vision for agriculture on your reservation?

Participants reported that they found the discussion helpful in that it allowed them tothink about and voice their concerns regarding potential challenges and opportunities to sustainable agriculture on the Hopi Reservation. The participants concluded that theyhave to find ways to address these problems and look for solutions. Comments include: n Just being able to talk about these issues as we have here tonight is helpful.

n We have to find ways to get around these problems and find solutions.

64

Implications Moving Forward

The use of focus group methodology is useful to Extension and other USDA outreachprofessionals who seek to expand the program efforts on the Hopi Reservation. Focus groups provide a venue for strengthening existing partnerships between the Hopi communities and the land-grant university, in addition to NRCS, FSA and similar federal agencies. Providing for structured time to ask relevant questions and listening to answers creates opportunities for building relationships.

The opportunity to build trust exists in agencies’ responses to programmatic needs asvoiced by the Hopi focus group participants. Outreach professionals who seek to exchange knowledge with Hopi community partners are more likely to address their interests in aculturally appropriate and sustainable way. Resulting program successes can then beascribed to the mutual respect between outreach professionals and Hopi communityresidents (Martenson, Newman & Zak, 2011; Wilsey & Beaulieu, 2010).

Building relationships and trust requires time, patience, and fiscal and human resources. Ideally, outreach professionals develop an intimate knowledge and respect of community culture and perceived natural resource opportunities and barriers. It suggests that USDAoutreach professionals who are residents of the Hopi Reservation community may serve to accelerate outreach efforts by providing a bridge for communication and knowledge exchange between reservation residents and USDA agencies (Singletary, Emm & Hill, 2011; Martenson, Newman & Zak, 2011).

The Hopi’s Vision for Successful USDA Partnerships

If Hopi Reservation residents want more effective USDA programs that address their unique and ancient culture, they must develop and communicate their vision for how effective programs look on their reservation (Emm et al., 2012). Participants indicated that in order to be more successful they need education to participate in programs and technical assistance that respected their cultural agricultural heritage. Learning from each other, Indianproducers could share USDA program details and experiences.

USDA professionals seem to be most successful when they operate at the local level and use local examples. This includes describing producers’ goals, explaining why the program selected was most applicable, describing the qualification process that took place, outlining the implementation timeline giving detailed results and including examples of successes and failures. Outreach can take many forms, but effective outreach builds relationships and partnerships (Emm et al., 2012; Singletary, Emm & Hill, 2011).

Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in his ability to perform successfully (Ayres, 1987). Is it possible that USDA outreach programs have not been successful because the outreach professionals themselves have generally low expectations of the abilities of the Hopi to farm and ranch successfully—success being defined by the USDA western model of agricultural profitability? Is it due to a lack of understanding by USDA outreach professionals concerning what can work best on the Hopi Reservation and what Hopi Reservation residents believe can work? Or is it due to a historical lack of resources dedicated to USDA effective outreachin Indian country (Hiller, 2005)?

6

65

Summary

A focus group session was conducted on the Hopi Reservation with agriculturalproducers and tribal staff in 2013. The purpose of including focus group research as apart of this outreach project was to generate qualitative information regarding how Hopi Reservation residents view USDA and USDA program implementation on the HopiReservation. These data can be used to assess perceived barriers and opportunities,the results of which could help to identify ways to improve outreach programs.

The results of the focus group indicated a prevailing theme of pervasive isolation anddisconnect. The theme of isolation and disconnect was observed to exist at numerous levels with respect to USDA outreach programs. The theme of disconnect was expressed between Hopi Reservation residents and:

n USDA outreach professionals, including Natural Resources Conservation Service and Farm Service Agency;

n USDA outreach program specifications, including required engineering plans, expected completion timelines and completion of required application forms;

n USDA program capital or cost-share requirements; and

n USDA lack of understanding and acceptance of Hopi culture and the Hopi experience with and knowledge of traditional agricultural practices.

The theme of isolation was expressed related to the geographic and physical remoteness of Hopi Reservation communities with respect to:

n Long driving distances between USDA field offices and Hopi Reservation communities;

n Maintenance of local infrastructure to facilitate and support agricultural operations; and

n Access to social infrastructure to facilitate and support agricultural operations.

These and additional results illustrated in word diagrams can help USDA professionalsbetter understand the obstacles Hopi Reservation residents perceive with regards to their participation in USDA programs. These include obstacles related to cultural differences,traditional agricultural practices and trust land tenure issues on the Hopi Reservation.The focus group research results indicate an opportunity for USDA agency professionalsto target strengthening relationships with Hopi Reservation producers and tribalgovernment officials. This can be accomplished through exchanging information andknowledge on equal terms and through USDA agencies operating at the local level using local examples.

66

Chapter 6 Review

Instructions: Select the best answer or provide a written response where space is provided

1. A focus group session was conducted on the Hopi Reservation to:

A. Draw on the perspectives and experiences of those directly involved in agricultural operations on Hopi Reservation lands and provide structured time to ask relevant questions and listen to answers to create opportunities for building relationships

B. Help USDA outreach professionals understand perceived barriers to sustainable agriculture and natural resource management of Hopi lands

C. Teach USDA outreach professionals the importance of listening to the producers so that they may better understand risk factors to program success on the Hopi Reservation

D. C only

E. All of the above

2. List seven examples of perceived isolation and disconnect as expressed by the focus group participants concerning USDA program implementation on the Hopi Reservation:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Given the focus group session results reported here, USDA agencies may need to strategize outreach assistance to help the Hopi tribe to:

A. Update antiquated water delivery infrastructure on the reservation

B. Clarify who is responsible for operations and maintenance of water infrastructure

C. Formally adjudicate water rights to reservation residents

D. A only

E. All of the above

4. The focus group research results suggest that USDA outreach professionals may be most successful on the Hopi Reservation if:

A. They operate at the local level using local examples.

B. They explain in detail USDA programs that have worked in the past and what made them work

6

67

C. They provide examples of both program successes and failures within a reservation environment

D. A and C only

E. All of the above

6. Based on the focus group results reported here, use the space below to suggest at least five ways in which USDA program implementation might be improved on the Hopi Reservation:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7. Based on the focus group results reported here, use the space below to describe some of the perceived challenges to USDA program implementation on the Hopi Reservation:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

68

6

7

7

C H A P T E R S E V E N

Implementing Agricultural and NaturalResource Programs on the Hopi ReservationLearning Objectives:

n Understand the linkage between Hopi culture and USDA program implementation n Explore options for strengthening USDA programs on the Hopi Reservation

USDA outreach and program implementation has proven to be challenging on theHopi Reservation. This chapter explores options to strengthen sustainable agriculture and natural resource management on the Hopi Reservation. Specifically, it examines effectivecommunication and relationship building as tools for improving USDA programimplementation.

Improving the Utilization of USDA Programs on the Hopi Reservation

A combination of factors over time related to federal Indian policy and Western expansion has impacted Hopi agricultural practices. During the focus group session in 2013(see Chapter 6), the majority of participants reported that farming activities directly relate to and support their cultural traditions and quality of life. Many depend on farms to provide traditional foods for ceremonial and consumptive purposes. Participants also stated that they desire to earn a profit from their agricultural activities. Participants expressed different views of what agricultural success is, but shared similar goals related to natural resourcemanagement, conservation and stewardship.

Specific differences exist concerning Hopi agriculturalists and USDA professionalsimplementing federally regulated agricultural assistance and conservation programs.Finding common ground between the two presents multiple challenges. Key challengesrelate to Indian trust land tenure, lack of operating capital, communication, and variedcultural views concerning conservation and resource stewardship practices. Exploring new ways of looking at natural resource management and conservation on the Hopi Reservation can occur through increased involvement of the Hopi producers in USDA program design and improved communication between Hopi producers and USDA professionals.

Increasing Local Involvement and Improving Communication

Exploring ways in which to increase Hopi producer involvement in USDA program design and implementation begins with involving the Hopi producer in problem solving.USDA outreach professionals have been considered knowledge experts for more than acentury. Moving into the 21st century, however, requires outreach professionals to allow forcommunities where programs are to be implemented to also serve as knowledge experts (Peters et al., 2006).

Therefore, USDA outreach professionals must more fully partner with community citizens “whose knowledge does not necessarily correspond to scientific models or Eurocentric views,” (Hassel, 2005). University research provides the foundation for USDA programs rather than “nonscientific” knowledge. Yet, nonscientific knowledge, or ancient, ancestralknowledge, may provide valuable input for problem-solving (Hart, 2006).

69

Increasing local involvement also means acknowledging that cultural differences existand understanding the nuances of these differences (Payne, 1996). Awareness of culturaldifferences can help USDA professionals to learn about and learn to value Hopi ancientagricultural practices and knowledge. Fundamental patterns that depict cultural differences and relate to reservation natural resource management and sustainable agriculture are:

CommunicationCommunication styles vary widely among USDA professionals and Hopi farmers, ranchers, tribal staff and others living on the reservation. Styles include direct one-on-onecommunication and nonverbal communication. Individuals believe and value knowledge based upon their worldview (Hassel, 2005). Taking time to learn from one another can strengthen communication and learning. Learning nonverbal communication cues, forexample, becomes an important part of this process.

Because lack of communication between USDA professionals and Hopi tribal members was a major concern raised by focus groups, improving communication should be a priority when engaging with the Hopi community. Some communication tools for promoting participation include: utilizing communication tools already in the local community, such as localnewspapers and radio stations; holding workshops in the community to facilitatediscussions; and establishing an interactive role with the community where USDA agents can approach the community, and the community can approach agents (Bessette, 2004).For example, USDA agents may consider holding information sessions through open forum at a reservation community center, such as the Hopi Cultural Center, for residents to discuss assistance options and ask agents questions about USDA programs. Agents can also use the local newspaper, Hopi Tutuveni, and the local radio station, Hopi KUYI 88.1, to promote discussion meetings or to give brief descriptions of USDA programs and how to find out more. USDA agents also may consider better introducing the programs to the community by establishing a good working relationship with the tribe and opening the door for two-way communication, as well as making their contact information easily available.

Attitudes toward Natural Resource ManagementThe comprehensive regulation involved in USDA-approved conservation planning may not mesh with Hopi producers’ attitudes toward natural resources. The Hopi believe they know and understand their natural resource base on their reservation lands and can find solutions, based on ancient Hopi knowledge, without USDA oversight. Therefore, a process of examin-ing different points of view involving USDA professionals and Hopi producers has the po-tential to help USDA professionals find common ground to work more effectively with Hopi producers (Hassel, 2005).

Approaches to Completing TasksDifferent cultures approach work and complete tasks differently. These differences include varied access to resources, incentives and rewards for completing tasks, and different con-cepts of time. USDA professionals and Hopi farmers and ranchers need to build relationships with one another early on so that all parties can work together effectively to accomplish agreed-upon tasks.

Decision-making StylesDecision-making styles vary widely among different cultures. USDA decisions are delegated from the top down through a chain of federal agencies. The decision-making process of the

70

7

Hopi culture, in contrast, involves clan, village and tribal government. Each plays a role in natural resource management decision-making on the Hopi Reservation. In addition to decision-making factors based upon culture, individual expectations about their role inshaping a decision may be influenced by individual experiences.

Attitudes Toward DisclosureThe attitudes of Hopi farmers, ranchers, tribal staff and other reservation residents toward disclosure of Hopi knowledge to outsiders must be considered before collaborative natural resource management planning can occur. Areas of collaboration must be identified based on the views, experiences and goals of the Hopi people.

Approaches to KnowingNotable differences exist between USDA and the Hopi with regards to ideas about natural resource management. USDA considers information acquired through cognitive means, such as counting and measuring, more valid than other ways of “knowing.” In contrast, Hopi culture depends upon affective ways of knowing, including emotional and spiritualrelationships with natural resources. These different approaches to knowing affect USDA program implementation currently and suggest that USDA professionals consider new ways of looking at old problems (Hassel, 2004).

Understanding these six fundamental patterns of cultural differences can help strengthen USDA program implementation on the Hopi Reservation. Understanding these fundamental patterns may help build trust and a relationship based on cooperation. Acknowledging and respecting differences can only help to improve USDA program implementation.

Cooperation and Trust

The research presented here documents that USDA program implementation is difficult on the Hopi Reservation. Is USDA program implementation difficult on the Hopi Reservation? Or do we just think it is difficult? Thinking there is a problem, in fact, can sometimes be the problem (Covey, 2006). However, it is important to note that everyone plays a role in the perceived difficulty. Cooperation and trust provide powerful motivation and inspiration to perceive that another outcome is possible.

Improved trust and cooperation may improve the Hopi producers’ understanding of USDA programs. It can also help USDA professionals to better understand Hopi traditional farming and conservation practices. Improved understanding, trust and cooperation can lead to joint and consensus-driven natural resource management planning and program implementation on the Hopi Reservation.

Stephen M. R. Covey, in his book Speed of Trust: The One Thing that Changes Everything(2006), presents a model for building trust based on what he describes as five waves of trust. His model illustrates the interdependent nature of trust resulting in trust-based action.As applied to USDA program implementation, the five waves of trust are presented asfollows:

1. Self-Trust: Self-trust is the ability to have confidence in ourselves and the commitment and ability to set individual goals. Setting agricultural production goals in planning food provisions for annual Hopi rituals and significant ceremonies, such as weddings and baby naming, is an ancient and ingrained aspect of traditional Hopi culture. Therefore, an individual Hopi farmer’s motivation for agricultural planning may differ somewhat

71

from the USDA-recommended approach to agricultural planning, which is based on input costs with the goal to optimize profit margins. This apparent difference may set the tone for disagreement in planning goals that stem from cultural dissonance; this, in turn, may cause individuals to question their ability to set and reach goals.2. Relationship Trust: Relationship trust is necessary to establish and increase the “trust accounts” that can develop between USDA professionals and Hopi Reservation farmers, ranchers and tribal staff. This can be achieved when each participating party demonstrates consistent behavior, which includes consistent fulfillment of agreed-upon actions and commitments.3. Organizational Trust: Organizational trust can occur when there is an improved alignment between Hopi tribal leadership and USDA agencies to facilitate program implementation that sustains agricultural activities on the Hopi Reservation. This can be done through relationship-building between USDA agents and the tribal leadership and developing a structure for program implementation.4. Market Trust: Market trust is based on the reputation and level of mutual understanding and acceptance demonstrated by all parties. USDA programs have a reputation on Indian reservation lands. Due to the pervasive isolation and disconnect expressed by Hopi Reservation residents, USDA agencies must strive to rethink and reinvent their approach in order to improve program implementation on the Hopi Reservation.5. Societal Trust: Societal trust is based on creating value for others and the Hopi people at large. The underlying principle is contribution and/or giving back. USDA programs have the ability to create value, and eliminate the suspicion and cynicism surrounding USDA that appears pervasive at this time.

These different waves of trust can provide overall infrastructure to USDA programimplementation on the Hopi Reservation. Each individual involved has extraordinaryinfluence on the first two waves, and so these can be a place to start in building trust.Other waves of trust can be influential as well, depending on an individual’s position, roles and responsibilities. For example, if USDA program professionals cannot find common ground with respect to Hopi clan and village-based decision making, a ripple effect canoccur that may negatively impact overall program implementation on the reservation.

Lack of Reservation-wide Plan for Sustainable Agriculture

The needs assessment for the Hopi Reservation completed in 2013-2014 resulted in Lack of areservation-wide plan for sustainable agriculture as among the top 10 concerns for the Hopi. An initial reservation-wide discussion of agricultural challenges, goals and proposed action is essential to creating a collective vision for agriculture on the reservation adhering to Hopi values and beliefs. USDA programs struggle on the Hopi Reservation because they do not readily fit with Hopi Reservation land tenure and issues relating to multiple signatories on contracts, lack of operating capital, and delegation and completion of tasks.

Jurisdictional issues related to decision-making involving tribal lands are complex due to a dual government structure that includes the villages, clans and the federally recognized tribal council. Often USDA program goals are simply culturally inappropriate for the Hopi’s system of social and traditional practices.

Striving for an overall vision for sustainable organization agreements in a reservation-wide plan could result in a process for implementing USDA programs to enhance and sustain

72

7

agriculture on the reservation. The innovation process in organizations creates a sequence ofdecisions, actions and events led by innovation champions, who seek to overcome adversity by bringing individuals together (Rogers, 2003). If the organization, for example, is theHopi tribal government, a five-stage process occurs.

The process may include five stages and begins with initiation (see Figure 7.1). This consists of information gathering, conceptualizing and planning for USDA program implementation to occur. Secondly, an implementation activity must occur, consisting of all the events,actions and decisions involved in implementing USDA programs.

In the initiation stage, an agenda is set and matched with an appropriate USDA programor service. USDA program-implementation issues are identified and reservation needsand issues are aligned with various programs offered by USDA. For example, awater-development project to improve access to and quality of drinking water would align with USDA-Rural Development, while a water-development project for livestock would align with USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Figure 7.1. USDA Program Implementation Conceptual Process for the Hopi Reservation

1

AGENDA SETTING

Reservationissues related to USDA program

implementationare identified

2

MATCHING

Reservationissues are aligned

and fit with aUSDA program

3REDEFINING/

RESTRUCTURING

USDAprogram

regulations andtribal regulations

are adaptedtoward

implementation

4

CLARIFYING

Relationshipsbetween allparties aredefined asrelated to

USDA programimplementation

5

ROUTINE

USDAprogram

implementationis an ongoing

element of tribaloperations

I. INITIATION II. IMPLEMENTATION

Source: (Rogers 2003.)

After the initiation stage, USDA program-implementation process for the reservationoccurs. This begins by working with both USDA program regulation and Hopi tribalregulation (including the Bureau of Indian Affairs) to implement programs. Regulationswill have to be adapted on both sides in order to implement programs.

The relationships among USDA professionals, Hopi tribal council members, and Hopi villages and clans will need to be strengthened and more clearly defined. Creating a tribal process to facilitate USDA program implementation will provide community members with better access to programs. Program implementation can benefit from formal tribal infrastructure to facilitate programs and improved relationships among Hopi producers, tribal government officials and USDA outreach professionals.

73

Summary

A combination of factors related to federal policy and pressures from Western expansionhas impacted Hopi agriculture. Specific differences exist between Hopi agriculturalists and USDA professionals seeking to implement federal program mandates related to USDAconservation programs. Finding common ground is difficult and presents several challenges, but is needed to move forward to improve USDA program implementation on theHopi Reservation.

Exploring new ways of looking at natural resource management and conservation onthe Hopi Reservation can occur with effective cross-cultural communication related toland tenure challenges, lack of financial capital, and acknowledging and respecting cultural differences. Understanding the six fundamental patterns of cultural differences is important to improving USDA program implementation while honoring traditional Hopi culture. In order for USDA programs to be implemented more successfully on reservation land,effective communication must occur to support divergent views regarding natural resource management.

Working relationships will need to be more clearly defined and strengthened involving USDA professionals, Hopi tribal government officials, and Hopi villages and clans. An adaptation of programs to Hopi culture is necessary to implement USDA programs consistently and successfully on the reservation. An organizational innovation process creates a sequence of decisions, actions and events led by innovation champions who seek to overcome adversity by bringing individuals together.

Participants who completed a needs assessment on the Hopi Reservation between 2013and 2014 ranked Lack of a reservation-wide plan for sustainable agriculture among the top 10 priorities. A reservation-wide discussion of agricultural challenges, goals and proposedactions is essential to creating a vision for agriculture on the reservation adhering to the Hopi values and beliefs within the clans, villages and tribal government officials. USDA programs have struggled on the reservation because they are culturally inappropriate and often lack local involvement. Improving communication and respecting different cultural views are critical to improving USDA program implementation.

74

7

Chapter 7 Review

Instructions: Select the best answer or provide a written response where space is provided

1. Describe the first two “waves of trust” as related to USDA program implementation on the Hopi Reservation. Why are they important to the success of subsequent waves of trust?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Under the conceptual USDA Program Implementation Process, agenda setting is related to:

A. Identifying reservation issues

B. Aligning and fitting reservation issues with an appropriate USDA program

C. Relationships among all parties are defined

D. USDA program regulations and tribal regulations are adapted

3. Describe how strengthening trust and cooperation among Hopi farmers and ranchers, tribal members and USDA professionals may improve program implementation.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

75

4. What are the key challenges in finding common ground between Hopi agriculture and USDA professionals implementing federally regulated agricultural assistance and conservation programs:

A. Key challenges include Indian trust land tenure, lack of operating capital, communication, and varied cultural views concerning conservation and resource stewardship practices.

B. Key challenges include an unwillingness to participate in USDA programs, lack of motivation to conserve and take care of resources, and varied opinions about how capital should be divided.

C. Key challenges include Indian land remoteness, survival of untrustworthy old-style crops, insufficient equipment supplies and differing views on how to be a Western farmer.

5. Refer to your understanding of the six fundamental patterns of cultural differences and describe one way you would partner with the Hopi community to improve USDA program implementation:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

76

7

Hopi [ Moqui ]Petition for Title

to Land

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

Bibliography

Chapter 1

Balenquah, L. (2012). Connected by Earth: Metaphors from Hopi Tutskwa. Thinking Like a Watershed: Voices from the West. J. Loeffler & C. Loeffeler. Albuquerque, N.M.: University of New Mexico Press.

Bonvillain, N. (2005). The Hopi. New York, N.Y.: Chelsea House Publishers.

Courlander, H. (1971). The fourth world of the Hopis: The epic story of the Hopi Indians as preserved in their legends and traditions. Albuquerque, N.M.: University of New Mexico Press.

David, N. (1993). Kachinas: Spirit beings of the Hopi. Tucson, Ariz.: Avanyu Publishing, Inc.

Devereaux, C. & Griffin, M. (2013). Narrative, identity, and the map of cultural policy: Once upon a time in globalized world. Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Donahue, J.M. & Johnston, B.R. (1998). Water, culture, and power: Local struggles in a global context. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Forde, C.D. (1931). Hopi agriculture and land ownership. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol.61: 357-405.

Gerke, S. (2010). Hopi Reservation. Arizona State University: Nature, Culture and History at the Grand Canyon. Tempe, Ariz.: Arizona State University.

Gilbert, M.S. (2010). Education beyond the mesas: Hopi students at Sherman Institute, 1902-1929. Lincoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska Press.

Grahame, J.D. & Sisk, T.D. (2002). Navajo (Diné). Canyons, cultures and environmental change: An introduction to the land-use history of the Colorado Plateau. Flagstaff, Ariz. Northern Arizona University.

Hack, J.T. (1942). The Changing Physical Environment of the Hopi Indians of Arizona, Reports of the Awatovi Expedition. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 35(1). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University.

Hieb, L.A. (2002). Social memory and cultural narrative: The Hopi construction of a moral community. Journal of the Southwest, 44(1): 79-94.

Hopi Tribe. (2014). Personal communication. June 24, 2014.

Hough, W. (1918). The Hopi Indian collection in the United States National Museum. Proceedings of the National Museum, 25 (2235): 235-296. Washington, D.C.: Washington Government Printing Office.

Hurt, R.D. (1987). Indian agriculture in America: Prehistory to the present. Lawrence, Kan.: University Press of Kansas.

James, H.C. (1974). Pages from Hopi history. Tucson, Ariz.: The University of Arizona Press.

94

Mails, T.E. & Evehema, D. (1993). Hotevilla: Hopi shrine of the covenant, microcosm of the world. New York, N.Y.: Marlowe & Company.

Mails, T.E. (1997). The Hopi survival kit: The prophecies, instructions and warnings revealed by the last elders. San Francisco, Calif.: Compass Books. Moon, D. & Livingston, M. (2004). Hopi Farmer Survey Results: Part One – Crop Production & Tractor Usage, Hopi Tutuveni, 14(4): 7.

Pearlstone, Z. (2001). Katsina: Commodified and appropriated images of Hopi supernaturals. Los Angeles, Calif.: UCLA Fowler Museum of Cultural History.

Pooyouma, F. (2002). A Five Lesson Thematic Unit on The Topic of Corn within the Hopi Culture, Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Exceptional Students Elementary Lesson Plans Grades 4-6. Flagstaff, Ariz., Northern Arizona University.

Smeal, M. (2013). Hopi Three Canyon Ranch: Business Plan 2013. Kykotsmovi, Ariz.: Hopi Tribe Economic Development Corporation. More information can be found by contacting Mary Smeal: mary.smeal@H3CR.com.

Soleri, D. & Cleveland, D.A. (1993). Hopi crop diversity and change. Journal of Ethnobiology, 13(2): 203-231, Spring.

Suderman, B. & Loma’omvaya, M. (2001). Hopi land stewardship: An Integrated Resource Management Plan for the Hopi Reservation. Hopi Tribe Department of Natural Resources.

Talaswaima (Hotvantewa), T. (2008). The Hopi Way: Art as Life, Symbol and Ceremony. Hopi Nation: Essays on Indigenous Art, Culture, History and Law. Lincoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska Digital Commons.

Tiller, V.E.V. (2005). Tiller’s guide to Indian country: Economic profiles of American Indian reservations. Albuquerque, N.M.: Bow Arrow Publishing.

Tuttle, S. & Livingston, M. (2008). The Hopi Reservation and Extension Programs. Tucson, Ariz.: The University of Arizona College of Agriculture and Life Sciences: Arizona Cooperative Extension.

U.S. Census Bureau. (1902). U.S. Census Report, Volume V, Twelfth Census Of The United States, Taken In The Year 1900, William R. Merriam, Director, Agriculture, Part I – Farms, Livestock And Animal Products, Prepared Under The Direction Of Le Grand Powers, Washington, D.C., United States Census Office, 1902, Page 732.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Hopi Reservation and off-reservation trust land, Arizona: Profile of general population and housing characteristics, 2010. 2010 Census Summary File 1. Retrieved Aug. 6, 2014 from: http://factfinder2.census.gov.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2014). 2012 Census of Agriculture: American Indian Reservations. Volume 2, Subject Series, Part 5. Retrieved Oct. 2, 2014 from: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/American_In dian_Reservations/AMINDIAN.pdf.

95

U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service. (1996). Soil survey of Hopi area, Arizona, parts of Coconino and Navajo counties. Washington, D.C.: USDA-NRCS.

Vaidyanathan, C. & Lamb, S. (2004). Breaking News! Hopi-Spanish Relations. Colorado Plateau Digital Archives: Hopi History Curriculum. Flagstaff, Ariz.: Northern Arizona University.

Wall, D. & Masayesva, V. (2004). People of the corn: Teachings in Hopi traditional agriculture, spirituality, and sustainability. American Indian Quarterly. 28 (No. 3/4). Lincoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska Press. Retrieved June 16, 2014 from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4138926?origin=JSTOR-pdf.

Chapter 2

Anderson, T.L. (2013). On Target: Restoring Indian Dignity. Vol. 32, No. 2 Fall/Winter. Property and Environment Research Center.

Anderson, T.L. (1995). Sovereign nations or Indian reservations? An economic history of American Indians. San Francisco, Calif.: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.

Anderson, T.L., Ed. (1992). Property rights and Indian economies. Savage, M.D.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Anderson, T.L. & Parker, D.P. (2008). Sovereignty, credible commitments, and economic prosperity on American Indian reservations. Journal of Law and Economics. 51:641-66.

Anderson, T.L. & Lueck, D. (1992). Land tenure and agricultural productivity on Indian reservations. Journal of Law and Economics. 35:427-54.

Anderson, T.L., Benson, B.L. & Flanagan, T.E. (eds). (2006). Self-determination: The other path for American Indians. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Banner, S. (2005). How the Indians lost their land: Law and power on the frontier. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Carroll, P.F. (1986). Drumming out the intent of the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938. Public Land and Resources Law Review. 7(135).

Clemmer, R.O. (1995). Roads in the sky: The Hopi Indians in a century of change. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

Eggan, F. (1950). Social organization of the western Pueblos. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.

Gilbert, M.S. (2010). Education beyond the mesas: Hopi students at Sherman Institute, 1902-1929. Lincoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska Press.

Godfrey, A. (1988). Hopi agricultural report: 1540-1934. Salt Lake City, Utah: U.S. West Research. Retrieved March 5, 2014 from: http://www.azwater.gov/Adjudications/ documents/HopiContestedCaseDisclosures/Hopi kikmongwi 20Initial%20Disclosure/ HP4068.pdf.

96

Goetting, M.A. & Ruppel, K. (2007). Who is eligible to inherit your trust lands and retain trust status? Planning for the passing of reservation lands to future generations. Extension Fact Sheet. Bozeman, Mont.: Montana State University Extension.

Hopi Tribal Council Land Team. (2000). The Taking of Hopi Lands. Kykotsmovi, Ariz. The Hopi Tribe.

Hurt, R.D. (1987). Indian agriculture in America: Prehistory to the present. Lawrence, Kan.: University Press of Kansas.

Kammer, J. (1980). The second long walk: The Navajo-Hopi land dispute. Albuquerque, N.M.: University of New Mexico Press.

National Archives. (1894). Hopi petition to the U.S. government. Retrieved March 10, 2014 from: http://research.archives.gov/description/300340.

Mails, T.E. & Evehema, D. (1993). Hotevilla: Hopi shrine of the covenant, microcosm of the world. New York, N.Y.: Marlowe & Company.

Miller, R.J. (2012). Reservation “capitalism”: Economic development in Indian country. Lincoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska Press.

Miller, R.J. (2006). Native America, discovered and conquered. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.

Prucha, F.P. (1984). The great father: The United States government and the American Indians. Lincoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska Press.

Regan, S. (2014). Unlocking the wealth of Indian nations: Overcoming obstacles to tribal energy development. Property and Environment Research Center Policy Perspective, February, No. 1.

Regan, S. & Anderson, T.L. (2013). The energy wealth of Indian nations. Dallas, Texas: George W. Bush Institute.

Ruffing, L.T. (1978). Navajo Economic Development: A Dual Perspective. S. Stanley (Ed.) American Indian economic development. Paris: Mouton Publishers.

Satz, R. (2002). American Indian policy in the Jacksonian era. Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press.

Sutton, I. (1975). Indian Land tenure: Biographical essays and a guide to the literature. N.Y.: Clearwater Pub. Co.

Chapter 3

Euler, R. & Dobyns, H. (1971). The Hopi people. Library of Congress: 79-167920. Washington, D.C.: Northland Press.

Devereaux, C. & Griffin, M. (2013). Narrative, identity, and the map of cultural policy: Once upon a time in globalized world. Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate Publishing Company.

97

Franz, K. (1999). Indian reservations in the United States. Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chicago Press.

Hopi Tribe (1936). Constitution and By-Laws of the Hopi Tribe Arizona, approved Dec. 19, 1936. Retrieved Aug. 11, 2014 from: http://archive.library.nau.edu/cdm/ref/collec tion/cpa/id/61151.

Hopi Tribe. (2014). Personal communication, June 24, 2014.

Lang, P. (2007). Legislating Indian country: Significant milestones in transforming tribalism. New York, N.Y.: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Mails, T.E. & Evehema, D. (1993). Hotevilla: Hopi shrine of the covenant, microcosm of the world. New York, N.Y.: Marlowe & Company.

Richland, J. (2011). Hopi tradition as jurisdiction: On the potentializing limits of Hopi sovereignty. Law & Social Inquiry. 36(1), 201-234.

Richland, J. (2008). The state of Hopi exception: When inheritance is what you have. Law and Literature. 20(2), 261-278.

Rusco, E.R. (2000). A fateful time: The background and legislative history of the Indian Reorganization Act. Reno, Nev.: University of Nevada Press.

Sheridan, T.E. & Parezo, N.J. (1996). Paths of Life: American Indians of the Southwest and Northern Mexico. Tucson, Ariz.: University of Arizona Press.

Tiller, V.E.V. (2005). Tiller’s guide to Indian country: Economic profiles of American Indian Reservations. Albuquerque, N.M.: BowArrow Publishing Company.

Chapter 4

Arizona Department of Water Resources (AWRA). (2014). Arizona Water Atlas, volume 1, appendix G: Indian water rights claims and settlements. Retrieved Feb. 2, 2014 from: http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/documents/ appendix_g.pdf.

Arizona Department of Water Resources (AWRA). (2014). Arizona water atlas, volume 2: Little Colorado River Plateau Basin. Retrieved Feb. 2, 2014 from: http://www.azwater.gov/ AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/wateratlas/documents/Volume_2_final_web.pdf.

Arizona Department of Water (AWRA). (2014). Hopi use and development of water resources in the Little Colorado River drainage basin of Arizona: An archaeological perspective to 1700. Retrieved March 31, 2014 from: http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/SurfaceWa ter/Adjudications/documents/Hopi%20Tribe%203rd%20supplemental/HP22261- HP22417.pdf.

Balenquah, L. (2012). Connected by Earth: Metaphors from Hopi Tutskwa. Thinking Like a Watershed: Voices from the West. J. Loeffler & C. Loeffeler. Albuquerque, N.M.: University of New Mexico Press.

98

Colby, B.G. & Jacobs, K.L. (2006). Arizona water policy: Management innovations in an urbanizing, arid region. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.

Federal Register. (2004). Quarterly Status Report of Water Service, Repayment, and Other Water Related Contract Negotiations. Retrieved June 17, 2014 from: https://federalregister.gov/a/04-4355.

Glennon, R.J. (2002). Water follies: Groundwater pumping and the fate of America’s fresh waters. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Godfrey, A. (1988). Hopi Agricultural Report 1540-1934. U.S. West Research. Retrieved Feb. 2, 2014 from: http://www.azwater.gov/Adjudications/documents/HopiContestedCase Disclosures/Hopi%20Initial%20Disclosure/HP4068.pdf.

Grabiel, T., Beckman, D., Fricke, L., Kuhnel, V. & Cross, B. (2006). Drawdown: An update on groundwater mining on Black Mesa. Los Angeles, Calif.: Natural Resources Defense Council Environmental Justice Program.

Hopi Tribal Office of Community Planning and Economic Development. (2001). Maps and Drawings. Hopit Tunatya’at 2000: The Hopi Strategic Land Use and Development Plan. The Hopi Tribal Office of Community Planning and Economic Development, April.

No author. (2014). Indian Country Today. Hopi Elders Speak Out on Senate Bill 2109. Aug. 2, 2012. Retrieved Feb. 2, 2014 from: http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork. com/2012/08/02/hopi-elders-speak-out-senate-bill-2109-126402.

Puhuyesva, L. & Duffield, J.A. (2013). Hydrogeology and Water Resources of the Hopi Reservation, Arizona. Hopi Natural Resources Department – Water Resources Program. Retrieved Aug. 6, 2014 from: http://www.cpwac.org/presenta tionfiles/Hopi_12_11_2013.pdf.

Sukhwal, B.L. (1991). Native American water rights in the water scarce western United States: Its causes, consequences and probable solutions. GeoJournal. 24(4), 347-354.

Tiller, V.E.V. (2005). Tiller’s guide to Indian country: Economic profiles of American Indian Reservations. Albuquerque, N.M.: Bow Arrow Publishing Company.

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. (2011). Federal Reserved Water Rights. Information on Federal Reserved Water Rights June 1, 2011 DENCA Meeting. Grand Junction, Colo.: Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area. Retrieved June 19, 2014 from: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/co/field_offices/ denca/DENCA_Advisory_Council/extra_materials_for.Par.33214.File.dat/FedResWa terRights.pdfm.

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation. (2006). North Central Arizona Water Supply Study: Report of Findings. Denver, Colo.: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation.

99

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation. (2010). Policy and Program Services, Drought Program, Title I: Assistance During Droughts, List of Entities Eligible to Request Title I Drought Assistance. Retrieved June 13, 2014 from: http://www.usbr.gov/drought/website-eligible-entities.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). Treatment in the Same Manner as a State. American Indian Environmental Office Tribal Portal. Retrieved July 10, 2014 from: http://www.epa.gov/tp/laws/tas.htm.

Weis, J.L. (1987). Federal Reserved Water Rights in Wilderness Areas: A Progress Report on a Western Water Fight. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. 15 (125), 125-154.

Wilkinson, C.F. (2004). Fire on the Plateau: Conflict And Endurance In The American Southwest. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Chapter 5

Emm, S. & Singletary, L. (2009). People of the Land: Sustaining American Indian Agriculture in Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. University of Nevada Cooperative Extension Curriculum Material, CM-09-01. Reno, Nev.: University of Nevada, Reno.

Emm, S., Lewis, S., Singletary, L., Brummer, F., Hebb, V. & Frasier, K. (2012). American Indian Farmer and Rancher Outreach and Assistance Improvement Project. University of Nevada Cooperative Extension Curriculum Material, CM-12-06. Reno, Nev.: University of Nevada, Reno.

Emm, S. & Breazeale, D. (2008). Determining the needs of American Indian audiences for Cooperative Extension programs. Journal of Extension, 46(1) Article1RIB1. Retrieved Jan. 3, 2014 from: http://www.joe.org/joe/2008february/rb1.php.

Hart, J.G. (2006). Exploring tribal leadership: Understanding and working with tribal people. Journal of Extension, 44(4) Article FEA3. Retrieved Jan. 25, 2014, from: http://www.joe.org/joe/2006august/a3.shtml.

Hassel, C.A. (2007). Can cross-cultural engagement improve the land grant university? Journal of Extension, 45(5) Article 5FEA7. Retrieved Feb. 15, 2014 from: http://www.joe.org/joe/2007october/a7.php.

Hiller, J.G. (2005). Is 10% good enough? Cooperative Extension work in Indian Country. Journal of Extension, 43(6) Article 6FEA2. Retrieved March 15, 2014 from: http://www. joe.org/joe/2005december/a2p.shtml.

Martenson, D.M., Newman, D.A. & Zak, D.M. (2011). Building community-university partnerships by listening, learning, and responding. Journal of Extension, 49(5) Article 5FEA4. Retrieved Feb. 26, 2014 from: http://www.joe.org/joe/2011october/a4.php.

Singletary, L., Emm, S. & Hill, G. (2011). An assessment of agriculture and natural resource Extension program needs on American Indian reservations in Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Journal of Extension, 49(2) Article 2FEA2. Retrieved March 1, 2014 from: http://www.joe.org/joe/2011april/a2.php.

100

Wilsey, D. & Beaulieu, S. (2009). We listen to them: Assessing natural resource perspectives and priorities in a tribal community. Journal of Extension, 48(5) Article 5FEA9. Retrieved Sept. 2, 2013 from: http://www.joe.org/joe/2010october/a9.php.

Chapter 6

Ayres, J. (1987). The leadership development continuum. Department of Agricultural Economics, West Lafayette, Ind., Journal Paper 11,813.

Emm, S. & Breazeale, D. (2008). Determining the needs of American Indian audiences for Cooperative Extension programs. Journal of Extension, 46(1) Article 1R1B1. Retrieved Mar. 23, 2014 from: http://www.joe.org/joe/2008february/rb1.php.

Emm, S., Singletary, L., Lewis, S., Brummer, F., Hebb, V. & Frazier, K. (2012). American Indian farmer and rancher outreach and assistance improvement project, CM-12-06. Retrieved Mar. 24, 2014 from: http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/files/ag/2012/cm1206.pdf.

Hiller, J.G. (2005). Is 10% good enough? Cooperative Extension work in Indian Country. Journal of Extension, 43(6), Article 6FEA2. Retrieved Mar. 15, 2014 from: http://www. joe.org/joe/2005december/a2p.shtml.

Krueger, R.A. & Casey, M.A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research, 4th Edition. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Martenson, D.M., Newman, D.A. & Zak, D.M. (2011). Building community-university partnerships by listening, learning, and responding. Journal of Extension, 49(5) Article 5FEA4. Retrieved April 3, 2014 from: http://www.joe.org/joe/2011october/a4.php.

Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Dickinson, W.B., Leech, N.L. & Zoran, A.G. (2009). A qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research. International Journal for Qualitative Methods, 8(3). Retrieved April 2, 2014 from: http://research.apc.org/images/2/2f/A_Qualitative_Framework_for_Collecting_and_ Analyzing_Data_in_Focus_Group_Research.pdf.

Singletary, L., Emm, S. & Hill, G. (2011). An assessment of agriculture and natural resource Extension program needs on American Indian reservations in Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Journal of Extension, 49(2), Article 2FEA2. Retrieved Feb. 1, 2014 from: http://www.joe.org/joe/2011april/a2.php.

Start, D. & Hovland, I. (2009). Research tools: Focus group discussion. Retrieved April 1, 2014 from: http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion- files/7074.pdf.

Wilsey, D. & Beaulieu, S. (2010). We listen to them: A method for interaction and assessing natural resource perspectives in tribal communities. Journal of Extension, 48(5) Article 5FEA9. Retrieved April 5, 2014 from: http://w.joe.org/joe/2010october/a9.php.

Chapter 7

Bessette, G. (2004). Involving the community: A guide to participatory development communicaiton. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: International Development Research Centre.

101

Covey, S.M.R., (2006). The speed of trust: The one thing that changes everything. New York, N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Hart, J.B. (2006). Exploring tribal leadership: Understanding and working with tribal People. Journal of Extension, 44(4) Article 4FEA3. Retrieved Feb. 10, 2014 from: http://www.joe.org/joe/2006august/a3.shtml.

Hassel, C.A. (2004). Can diversity extend to ways of knowing? Engaging cross-cultural paradigms. Journal of Extension, 42(2) Article 2FEA7. Retrieved April 1, 2014 from: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004april/a7.php.

Hassel, C. (2005). The craft of cross-cultural engagement. Journal of Extension, 43(6) Article 6FEA1. Retrieved April 15, 2014 from: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005december/a1.php.

Peters, S.J., O’Connell, D.J., Alter, T.R. & Jack, L.H. (2006). Catalyzing change. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Payne, R. (1996). A framework for understanding poverty. Highlands, Texas: aha! Process, Inc.

Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations, 5th edition. New York, NY: Free Press.

102