REPORT - Schlosser Law Files

19that H.R. 4469, as reported, is a reasonable and equitable methodof resolving the confusion and uncertainty now existing on theHoopa Valley Reservation.While the court in the Short case has found that no tribe has avested right in the reservation, it was equally clear on the pointthat none of the plaintiffs nor any other individual has a vestedright in the property. Again, this holding of the court is consistentwith the discussion above on the rights of tribal members in tribalproperty. Two cities from the Federal courts’ several decisions inthis case may be helpful. In a 1983 decision of the Circuit Court inthis case, the court said:At the close of our opinion we again stress-what theCourt of Claims several times emphasized and we haveinterlaced supra-that all we are deciding are the standardsto be applied in determining those plaintiffs whoshould share as individuals in the monies from the * * *Reservation unlawfuly withheld by the United States.* * * This is solely a suit against the United States formonies, and everything we decide is in that connectionalone; neither the Claims Court nor this court is issuing ageneral declaratory judgment. We are not deciding standardsfor membership in any tribe, band, or Indian group,nor are we ruling that Hoopa membership standardsshould or must control membership in a Yurok tribe orany other entity that may be organized on the Reservation.In its March 17, 1987, decision, the court said+ * * an individual Indian’s rights in tribal or unallottedproperty arise only upon individualization; individual Indiansdo not hold vested severable interests in unallottedtribal lands and monies as tenants in common.Again, the Committee agrees with the court in the Short case thatneither the plaintiffs nor any other individuals have a vested rightin the Hoopa Valley Reservation as against the right of Congress tomake further disposition of that property. As noted above, Congresshas power to make determinations above tribal membershipwith resepct to the adjustment of participation in tribal property.The power is even more clear in this case, where except for theHoopa Valley Tribe, there is no organized tribe which has a definablemembership.Settlement ProvisionsH.R. 4469, as reported by the Committee, is a fair and equitablesettlement of the dispute relating to the ownership and managementof the Hoopa Valley Reservation. The Section-by-SectionAnalysis and Explanation which follows sets out in detail the provisionsof the bill.The bill provides for the partition of the joint reservation betweenthe Hoopa Valley Tribe and the Yurok Tribe. As noted, theCommittee has concluded that there are no tribal or individualvested rights in the reservation and that Congress has full power todispose of the reservation as proposed. As a consequence, the Com-