Saturday, July 7, 2018

Post-Postscript to "Beaver Falls Is In Grand Canyon National Park"

Krista Langlois and Amy Martin have offered their opinion that the boundary between Grand Canyon National Park and the Havasupai Reservation, where it crosses Havasu Creek, is "disputable". However, the documents generated during the legislative history of the 1975 Enlargement belie that opinion. 

The documents are clear that the boundary crosses at the upstream end, top, of Beaver Falls. From that location, the boundary goes in two straight lines, east-north-easterly and south-westerly respectively, to Ukwalla and Yumtheska Points. (See the maps in my previous posts.) That boundary was explicitly set by Congress so that the stretch of Havasu Creek known as Beaver Falls and the adjoining land on either side of the Creek would be retained in the National Park.

Any Park visitor travelling down the Colorado River who stops at the junction with Havasu Creek and walks upstream and visits Beaver Falls can take that trip entirely within the National Park. Visiting those Falls from the river therefore does not require any payment to the Havasupai. 

Since a Havasupai at Beaver Falls has been asking Park visitors up from the river to pay a fee, the Havasupai must somehow have forgotten or mislaid the documents relevant to their successful 1974-5 effort to have the United States repatriate a portion of their ancestral lands. Im sure they have and can consult such important material archived in Supai or some other appropriate place. 

Langlois and Martin make the point that Beaver Falls was part of ancestral Havasupai land. That is true, as it is for lands running east from Hualapai territory, down toward northern Arizona's great east-west travel corridor, past Flagstaff, and out into Navajo and Hopi lands, and including parts of the Grand Canyon below the rim (e.g., Indian Gardens) -- some million acres or so. 

However, the 1975 Act, in repatriating some of their ancestral land to the Havasupai, says about the remainder:  Sec. 10(f): "By the enactment of this Act, the Congress recognizes and declares that all right, title, and interest in any lands not otherwise declared to be held in trust for the Havasupai Tribe or otherwise covered by this Act is extinguished. Section 3 of the Act of February 26, 1919 (40 Stat. 1177; 16 U.S.C. 223), is hereby repealed." [That second sentence refers to how the Havasupai were dealt with in the original Grand Canyon National Park Act.]

Furthermore, the repatriated lands (those "held in trust"), except for uses specifically provided for by the Act or in the Havasupai's Secretarial Land Use Plan, "shall remain forever wild" (Sec. 10(b)7. Beaver Falls is nowhere mentioned in the exceptions -- for the simple reason that the Falls remained in the Park. 

Finally, I have a question about this whole matter. For decades following the 1975 Act, the Havasupai dealt with Beaver Falls as the Act intended, that is, they left that Park land alone. Just a few years ago, somehow they decided that Beaver Falls was not only not in the Park, but rather than being left "forever wild" should be tarted up and charged for. How come? What has led them to ignore the law they worked so hard for? Should we worry about other provisions of that law that protect access of "nonmembers of the tribe" to this National park?

Friday, July 6, 2018

Postscript to "Beaver Falls Is In Grand Canyon National Park"

There has been a response to my posts on Beaver Falls.

In "Outside Magazine Online", July 5, there is an article entitled "Sacred Native American Sites Are Not Your Playgrounds" by Krista Langlois. It begins with three paragraphs, copied at the end of this post.

Without giving in to the temptations offered by the writer's errors, I want to state again the truth (not a fake), the legal, legislated, fact that:
Beaver Falls and the land on either side are within Grand Canyon National Park.

The article says some river runners "circumvent" the Havasupai fee system by hiking up from the river. Given that river trips come from Lees Ferry, that is quite a circumvention. However, it is not, really, since river runners are within the Park from the Paria River to the Grand Wash Cliffs, including lower Havasu Creek (from the top of Beaver Falls) and the land adjoining it. Hikers to Beaver Falls up from the river do not owe any Havasupai fee since they are never on Havasupai land, never leave the Park.

The article links to my blog post (thank you very much), saying I am "disputing the park's boundary". Of course, I am really relating the Park's history, some of which seems to have slipped out of the institutional memory of the National Park Service, the Havasupai, and other involved parties. 

The rest of the article offers ways to reverence age-old attachments to the land, which those of us who are advocates of the National Park System, or just star-struck by this grand continent, can readily endorse.

Here is the article opening:

Deep in the Grand Canyon, on land that Havasupai Native Americans have called home for generations, is a place known as Beaver Falls. It’s an unimaginative name for an otherworldly landscape, where turquoise water tumbles over a series of terraces gouged into red desert walls. To legally reach the falls, you have to pay the Havasupai $140, hike ten miles to the tribe’s campground, then hike an additional four miles to the waterfall. The camping and hiking permits are one of the tribe’s few sources of revenue, and help ensure that Beaver Falls stays protected. 
Some Grand Canyon river runners, however, circumvent the permit system by hiking upstream from the river, without paying the Havasupai. In response, the Havasupai now station a ranger where their land meets National Park Service land, asking river runners to fork over $44 or else return to their rafts. 
It’s a fairly simple request, but some river runners are so upset they’ve begun circulating an obscure document disputing the park’s boundary, suggesting that rafters can freely hike to the falls despite the Havasupai's wishes.

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Beaver Falls Is In Grand Canyon National Park.

Beaver Falls Is In Grand Canyon National Park.
It was kept in the Park by Congress passing and the President signing the Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act of 3 Jan. 1975.*
Coming up from the river, you can travel without hindrance up its entire length because all of it, — to its top, upstream end — is in the National Park.


This entry has these parts:
THE ERROR STATED
SO, SOME HISTORY
WHAT REALLY IS GOING ON
SOME MORE HISTORY
SHOWING THE CORRECT LEGAL BOUNDARY, AND COMPARING IT TO THE
       MISLEADING 1988 USGS LINE


THE ERROR STATED:

The need to go over this situation again arises from a 5 Jun comment by Amy Martin on my blog entry VISITING BEAVER FALLS IN GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, May 22, 2018.
“As an NPS employee who works in this specific area, i would urge you to look closely at the map that you have provided as your evidence. The topo map shows that Lower Beaver Falls is in park land, but upper Beaver Falls is squarely in Havasupai land. When you do the up and over hike from the creek, you enter tribal land, which, as we charge to enter GCNP, the tribe reserves the right to charge visitors to their land.”

Tuesday, May 22, 2018

VISITING BEAVER FALLS IN GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK

You want to take a river trip through the Grand Canyon.
You want to stop at the confluence with Havasu Creek, and walk upstream to Beaver Falls.
You want to visit and walk about at Beaver Falls, the farthest downstream of the beautiful Havasu waterfalls.
You want to keep within the National Park.   And you can.    

And are legally entitled to:

The Park Enlargement Law of 1975 included Beaver Falls in the National Park since “in order to assure their protection as part of the national park” the precise boundary is to “cross upstream from the falls”.


Below are scans of the legal items that protect and insure your right to visit Beaver Falls as part of your trip in Grand Canyon National Park, a right Havasupai officials may not stop you from or charge you a fee for exercising.


  I. Public Law 93-620, Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act, p. 3, Sec. 10(a)
    describes the relevant Park boundary in words.
 II. Boundary Map 113 20-021 B, Dec 74, Grand Canyon National Park
     shows the boundary on the official legislated map. It is hard to read; the following 

     documents therefore make the crossing point clear, as does the Item V map.
III. Report, Committee on Interior & Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, No. 

     93-1374, September 24, 1974, Section-by Section Analysis of S. 1296, as 
     Recommended: Sec.10, p.11 states the “precise” point, underlined in gray, where the
     Park boundary crosses Havasu Creek, upstream from Beaver Falls, as approved by 
     the U.S. House of Representatives.
 IV. Conference Report [To accompany W. 1296], ENLARGING THE GRAND CANYON
      NATIONAL PARK, December 17, 1974, (3) Havasupai Reservation Enlargement, 

      p. 6 states that the boundary crosses Havasu Creek at the top of Beaver Falls, 
      underlined in gray, as agreed to by the House and the Senate, then signed by the 
      President on January 3, 1975.
  V. Map, Secretarial Land Use Plan for the Havasupai Indian Reservation, 

      March 23, 1982 shows the boundary, in agreement with the official map, as drawn
      and approved for the Secretarial Land Use Plan for the Addition to the Havasupai 
      Indian Reservation.

Dam Battle - August to November 1968 Press: The End

Thursday, 1 August 1968, the conferees reached agreement on the Colorado River Basin Project bill. I have clippings, summarized below, from the Arizona Republic, Salt Lake Tribune, Denver Post, Grand Junction Sentinel, Albuquerque Journal, (Tucson) Daily Citizen.

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Dam Battle - June & July 1968 Press

June newsletter of California’s Colorado Rive Assoc. noted that Sen. Jackson’s statement that the House-passed bill was “not acceptable” was countered by signs of approval from New Mexico’s Anderson, Colorado’s Allott, and Hayden, who was “confident any differences can be worked out”.
It ran a photo of the triumphant Arizona key players:


The issue also carried half a dozen little items pertaining to inter-basin water transfers, sounding a bit like whimpers after the softened “bang” from House passage of the CAP bill.

2 Jun, Republic’s Cole reports a May 28 luncheon meeting of Cong. Aspinall and Sen. Jackson, calling it “most fateful meal in Arizona history”. The content of the discussion between “two of the shrewdest bargainers in Congress” was totally secret. Optimism would be indicated if action is resumed on the long-awaited Water Commission bill. Jackson wants any interbasin plans to be studied by the Commission, while Aspinall has moved to have the Interior Secretary prepare a regional water plan. Jackson would be willing to scuttle a CAP bill if it contains any augmentation study. So the luncheon is seen as an optimistic move.

Sunday, May 6, 2018

Dam Battle - May 1968 Press

6 May, AP, Big news, no surprise, Senator Hayden announced this was his last term, setting up a November contest between his aide R. Elson and Republican B. Goldwater. Hayden had been Arizona’s first Representative (since statehood in 1912) and then a Senator, a total of 56 years in Congress, a record. At 90, he could see the successful end for his 20-year effort to bring Colorado River water west to Phoenix and on to Tucson, and considered his long record of helping Arizona and the West to develop satisfactorily complete.

8 May, Republic’s Cole’s reported on the next day’s House Rules Committee’s clearance of HR 3300, Aspinall’s version of the Hayden-driven CAP bill, was an emphatic yes to Hayden’s efforts. Four hours of debate were scheduled. Cong. Udall thought one day would be enough to get the bill passed. Aspinall believed it would bring “peace” to the Basin. Saylor stuck in a contrary oar by claiming Arizona should not have given in to California’s demand for a guarantee. However, with all major issues compromised or finessed away, Saylor’s hour of glory in battle would never come.