Hoopa appendix supporting summary judgment - Schlosser Law Files

claims brought pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1300i-11(b) and thus activates the requirement that the
Secretary prepare and submit to Congress a report describing the decision and her
recommendations.
5. Recommendations and Observations of the Secretary.
a. The Withheld Benefits of the Settlement Act Should Be Distributed
Fairly Between the Hoopa Valley and Yurok Tribes.
Section 2 of the Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1300i-1, withheld the benefits of the
settlement from both the Hoopa Valley and Yurok Tribes unless and until those tribes enacted a
waiver of claims in favor of the United States and affirmed tribal consent to contribution of
monies to the Settlement Fund. See 25 U.S.C. § 1300i-1(a)(2) and (c)(4). The claim waiver did
not affect plaintiffs’ entitlement and judgment in the Short case. As noted above, the Hoopa
Valley Tribe enacted the requisite resolution in 1988. The Yurok Tribe, however, was unable to
act upon the resolution until the Yurok Interim Council was elected pursuant to § 9 of the Act.
The Settlement Act contemplated prompt action by the Hoopa Valley and Yurok Tribes to
enact the waivers and obtain the benefits of the Act. See HYSA § 2(c)(4)(D), § 9(d)(5). Although
elected in 1991, the Yurok Interim Council did not act to make a waiver until November 24, 1993,
when it adopted Resolution No. 93-61.
The Department held that Resolution No. 93-61 “is not a resolution ‘waiving any claim the
Yurok Tribe may have against the United States arising out ofthe provisions of the Hoopa-Yurok
Settlement Act,’ within the meaning of 25 U.S.C. § 1300i-1(c)(4) or 25 U.S.C. § 1300i-8(d)(2).”
Letter of Ada E. Deer, Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, to Susie L. Long, Chair, Interim Tribal
-13-