Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement and Relocation Program

In 1882, President Chester Arthur signed an executive order creating a reservation for the Hopi Tribe in northeastern Arizona — but Navajo families were already living there. For nearly a century, both nations shared the land as the "Joint Use Area," a legal ambiguity that generated escalating disputes over grazing rights, water, and land use. Congress resolved the dispute in 1974 by drawing a boundary through the middle of the Joint Use Area, assigning half to each tribe — and requiring the families on the wrong side of the line to move. The result was one of the largest forced relocations of Native Americans in U.S. history since the 19th century, affecting approximately 12,000 Navajo people and roughly 100 Hopi individuals. The Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act (25 U.S.C. § 640d) established a federal commission to administer the relocation and fund the transition. The regulations governing that process — including housing payments, eligibility determinations, life estate leases for elderly residents who refused to leave, and archaeological protections — appear at 25 CFR Part 700.

Current Law (2026)

Legal Authority

• 25 U.S.C. § 640d — Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act (Pub. L. 93-531, 1974): ordered the partition of the 1882 reservation (the Joint Use Area) equally between the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe; established the Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Commission; required persons living on the wrong side of the partitioned boundary to relocate; mandated federal funding for relocation assistance. Amended by Pub. L. 96-305 (1980) and Pub. L. 100-666 (1988).
• 25 U.S.C. § 640d-11 — Established the Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Commission (later reorganized as ONHIR), setting its membership and mandate to develop and implement a relocation plan
• Pub. L. 100-666 (1988) — Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation Amendments Act: authorized the acquisition of "New Lands" in northern Arizona for Navajos who could not find adequate replacement housing elsewhere; established the New Lands Grazing Program; created the life estate lease program for elderly Navajo residents who could demonstrate extreme hardship

Key Mechanics

The Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act (1974) partitioned the former Joint Use Area equally — creating the Hopi Partitioned Land (HPL) and the Navajo Partitioned Land (NPL) — and required all residents living on the wrong side of the partition line to relocate. The Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (ONHIR), which succeeded the original Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Commission, administers the program under 25 CFR Part 700. Eligible relocatees received: (1) replacement housing payments covering the fair market value of their existing structure plus a differential to afford comparable replacement housing; (2) moving expense reimbursement; and (3) access to New Lands in northern Arizona acquired by the federal government for Navajos without viable relocation alternatives (authorized by the 1988 amendments). Elderly Navajo residents who could demonstrate that relocation would cause extreme hardship received life estate leases allowing them to remain on HPL for the remainder of their lives, subject to restrictions on improvements and occupancy. The relocation program is widely regarded by Navajo advocates as one of the most traumatic federal Indian policy actions since the 19th century; many Navajo families disputed the land partition, and some "resisters" refused to leave for decades. The Bureau of Indian Affairs administers the New Lands under grazing and land use regulations (25 CFR Part 700, Subpart R). ONHIR continues to administer remaining open cases and life estate leases as of 2026.

What This Rule Does

25 CFR Part 700 (227 sections across 18 subparts) governs every aspect of the federal relocation program: who is eligible for assistance, what benefits they receive, how disputes are resolved, and how the land is managed after relocation.

Eligibility and certification (Subpart A): the Commission certified heads of household living in the partitioned area as eligible for relocation benefits — the formal certification triggered the suite of replacement housing payments, moving expenses, and other assistance. Applications required completion of a Commission form (Form #69-R0001) establishing the applicant's identity, household composition, and residence in the affected area.

Replacement housing payments (Subpart E): eligible relocatees received payments to replace the fair market value of their habitations and improvements on the partitioned land, plus a replacement housing payment to cover the differential between their old home's value and the cost of a comparable replacement in a new location. The program mirrored the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. § 4601) framework but adapted to the unique circumstances of traditional Navajo housing on trust land.

Moving expenses (Subpart D): the program covered actual moving costs plus a temporary emergency move allowance. Expenses covered included transportation of personal property, temporary housing costs, and storage fees where the relocation process extended across multiple phases.

Life estate leases (Subpart M): the most contentious aspect of the program. Elderly Navajo residents who demonstrated that relocation would cause extreme hardship — including those who could not speak English, had lived their entire lives on the land, and would face profound cultural dislocation — could apply for a life estate lease that allowed them to remain on the Hopi Partitioned Land for the rest of their lives, subject to restrictions on improvements, grazing, and transfers. Life estate lessees remain subject to Hopi tribal jurisdiction on the HPL. The life estate program was an accommodation to widespread Navajo resistance to relocation; a significant number of Navajo families refused to leave and remained on the HPL as "resisters" for years after the official relocation deadline.

Eligibility hearings and appeals (Subpart L): persons denied certification or whose benefits were disputed could request an administrative hearing before a Commission hearing officer and subsequently appeal to the full Commission. The hearing procedures follow standard administrative law requirements for evidence, notice, and record.

New Lands Grazing (Subpart Q): after Congress authorized the acquisition of New Lands in 1988, ONHIR developed grazing regulations for Navajo livestock owners who received land assignments in the new area — covering permit requirements, carrying capacity limits, and the allocation of grazing permits among eligible households.

Archaeological resources (Subpart R): implementing the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) for land under ONHIR jurisdiction — both the land being vacated by relocatees and the New Lands acquired for Navajo resettlement. The Joint Use Area contains significant Ancestral Puebloan and Diné archaeological sites; the relocation process included cultural resource surveys and protocols for managing discovered sites.

How It Affects You

If you are a Navajo or Hopi individual affected by the relocation program: ONHIR continues to administer remaining relocation cases and life estate leases. Persons who were certified eligible and have not completed relocation may still be entitled to benefits. Life estate lessees and their situations are actively administered by ONHIR — contact the agency directly regarding lease terms, renewal, or any changes in household status. ONHIR's offices are in Flagstaff, Arizona.

If you are a researcher, journalist, or attorney working on Navajo-Hopi land issues: The relocation program generated a substantial body of federal Indian law litigation, including challenges to the partition (Healing v. Jones, 1962), disputes over life estate conditions, and ongoing disagreements about "resisters" who refused to leave. The program is considered by many scholars to be among the most consequential and contested federal actions in Indian Country in the 20th century. Court decisions, ONHIR administrative records, and the Federal Register history (particularly the 1982–1991 rulemaking period) are the primary legal sources. The Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe maintain active government relations with ONHIR regarding ongoing land management issues.

If you follow federal Indian policy: The Navajo-Hopi settlement illustrates the tension between tribal sovereignty, federal power over tribal lands, and individual Native rights. The program imposed a federally determined partition over the objections of the Navajo Nation and resulted in documented cultural, economic, and psychological harm to relocated individuals. It remains a reference point in debates about federal authority to reallocate trust land between tribes.

Implementing Regulations (25 CFR Part 700)

The regulations at 25 CFR Part 700 implement the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act in full detail across 18 subparts:

• Subpart A — General Policies and Instructions (41 sections): definitions, waiver procedures, notice requirements, and the Commission's operational framework
• Subpart B — Acquisition and Disposal of Habitations and Improvements (9 sections): how the Commission appraises, acquires, and disposes of the physical structures left behind by relocatees
• Subpart C — General Relocation Requirements (10 sections): the core eligibility and certification process
• Subpart D — Moving and Related Expenses, Temporary Emergency Moves (13 sections): payment schedules and eligible expense categories
• Subpart E — Replacement Housing Payments (4 sections): the differential payment to cover replacement housing costs
• Subpart F — Incidental Expenses (3 sections): closing costs and related incidentals
• Subpart G — Assistance Payments / Incentive Bonus (1 section): the additional "incentive bonus" payment for early voluntary movers
• Subpart H — Last Resort Replacement Housing (3 sections): federal fallback when no comparable replacement housing is available on the market
• Subpart I — Commission Operations (1 section)
• Subpart J — Inspection of Records (9 sections): FOIA-consistent public access to Commission records
• Subpart K — Privacy Act (22 sections): Privacy Act implementation for Commission records systems
• Subpart L — Determination of Eligibility, Hearing and Administrative Review (11 sections): the appeals process for eligibility denials and benefit disputes
• Subpart M — Life Estate Leases (7 sections): terms and conditions for elderly Navajo residents who qualify to remain on Hopi Partitioned Land for their lifetimes
• Subpart N — Discretionary Funds (15 sections): the Commission's authority to use discretionary resources for community services and transition assistance
• Subpart O — Employee Responsibility and Conduct (33 sections): standards of conduct for Commission employees
• Subpart P — Hopi Reservation Evictees (6 sections): provisions for the small number of Hopi individuals on the Navajo Partitioned Land
• Subpart Q — New Lands Grazing (17 sections): permit system for Navajo livestock owners resettled on the New Lands
• Subpart R — Protection of Archaeological Resources (22 sections): ARPA implementation for ONHIR-administered lands

BIA Grazing Permits for Remaining Navajo Residents

The BIA's separate regulation at 25 CFR Part 161 — Navajo Partitioned Lands Grazing Permits — governs livestock grazing by Navajo families who remain on the Navajo Partitioned Lands (NPL) under the land settlement. The Part establishes a permit system for Navajo grazing use coordinated between BIA and the Navajo Nation: BIA sets range units and carrying capacities with Navajo Nation concurrence (§§ 161.202–161.204), manages stocking rates, and requires range management plans (§ 161.203). Permits specify authorized livestock types, numbers, and seasons. Enforcement provisions (Subpart G — permit violations; Subpart H — trespass, 18 sections) allow BIA to suspend or cancel permits and assess livestock trespass damages. Navajo Nation laws generally apply to land under the Part and are enforced through the permit conditions (§§ 161.100–161.101).

This Part implements the same authority (25 U.S.C. § 640d) as Part 700, but addresses the ongoing land management question — not the relocation itself — for Navajo families continuing to use the NPL for traditional grazing.

Recent Developments

• 89 FR 18363 (2024) and 90 FR 23859 (2025) — recent Federal Register amendments indicate that ONHIR continues to issue regulatory updates, suggesting the program remains administratively active more than 50 years after the enabling legislation.
• ONHIR has never formally declared the relocation program complete. An estimated several hundred families remained on the Hopi Partitioned Land as "resisters" through the 1990s and 2000s, with some disputes continuing. Life estate leases — which run for the life of the original lessee — are still active for surviving elderly residents.
• The program has been the subject of repeated congressional inquiries and at least one attempt at legislative resolution of remaining disputes (the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute Settlement Act, S. 1973, 107th Congress).
• Scholarly and journalistic accounts describe the relocation as having caused severe disruption — the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and multiple anthropologists documented high rates of psychological distress, economic hardship, and cultural loss among relocated Navajo families. The program is frequently cited in comparative literature on forced population displacement.