JAN, Graves and Albright meet, with Graves' full approval of going with Hayden lines. His handwritten assurance adds, "I will see that no eliminations are made from the portion of the Tusayan or Kaibab Forests without consulting your office and the adjacent lands to the Park will be administered to secure full coordination of the common problems. If it appears that a revision of boundaries is desirable, we can jointly ask for the changes later." His acquiescence is justified, as shown in the resulting map making clear how the Park shrank, not only from any ideal, but from the Monument.
JAN 24, there is a Hayden bill, HR 20447, with tightly girdling boundary:
(though a pencilled note fixes two mistakes). It is the same as S. 8250 introduced by Senator Henry Ashurst. Sent over by Interior, there had been a south line change as Hayden had "suggested" using the road to get closer to rim than the more generous section lines.
My red drawn boundary is a bit approximate-- the middle southern line is a road; the west line starts out following the west rim of Cataract/Havasu Canyon, then across to the north bank of the Colorado, up that to Tapeats, up that & tributaries to the NM line. The northeast boundary follows the hydrographic divide above Nankoweap, even "by the shortest route" to the east line. These lines seem more the actions of demented Restrictives than a Grand Canyon boundary. Above irony is that the one area above the rim that is Generous is the plateau land that should have been part of any reasonable Havasupai reservation in the 1880's; imagine what heartache might have been saved had the Park boundary been set on the east rim of Great Thumb Mesa? (Be very careful of getting what you ask for.) Aside from that "Havasu" western section, this boundary is the extreme --the nadir-- of Powell's original misconception that all of the Canyon that was worth celebrating in a Park was the Big Hole. Where was the ASHPS spirit when it was needed?
Ashurst changed S. 8250 to authorize the purchase of the Bright Angel toll trail and a reclamation project (sec 7). As usual, Hayden sent this out for local reaction. Sometimes, the action seems almost more appropriate for preparing private bills for the locals. Forest Supervisor Breen noted the elimination of more sections of grazing land.
Hayden sent a press release summarizing his purposes: NM reduced by 264 square miles, so nothing will be in NP but scenic area and enough back from rim for roads. Grazing authorized, but few permits needed. All property rights fully protected. Water power development is provided for, and Reclamation has right to construct reservoirs whenever necessary. [Just you try, big boy, just you try.] Mining is allowed if consistent with Park's primary purposes. Appropriations will be possible for roads and trails, so that automobilists can drive along rim and view "the greatest natural wonder in the world". (A greatest Gulliver tied down by the Lilliputians.)
Hayden emphasized dropping of "10 townships" when he sent copies of bill to all and sundry, including the state Land Commission and Coconino County Supervisors. Boundary would be Cataract Canyon rim.
FEB, Hayden inquired of FS whether land west of Cataract should go into public domain That led to an attack by KNF supervisor Harris against agitation "in various parts of the country for purely personal and selfish reasons" in favor of GCNP. (FS in DC understands that Hayden put Harris up to this.) I believe GCNP will be to detriment of FS, and we will regret it. We will lose much pine. There will be friction and confusion about Game Preserve and about grazing. We have plans for improvements in Nancoweap and other canyons where new range can be developed. We will lose administrative sites, and need to keep control of water. "I am unable to see any sound reasons whatever for the National Park." We can protect and improve it, so only one agency needed. We administer for business, so no hope for cooperation. Locally, there are those hoping to build trail and ferry and bamboozle us into buying their interest. All in this area opposed, and we should be. DC reply to this screed is that GC is in the unparalleled class of natural features that FS agrees should be in a Park, though your loyalty appreciated. We have only objected to boundary that took land not needed for protection or development, and containing timber and grazing. And Hayden map seems to take even less land. So write him in helpful language. He is friendly to FS, so just offer suggestions on desirable changes, and answer what he asks. Opposition at this time would be detrimental to FS. So Harris writes to Hayden with some changes, and in March, Hayden asks Interior for advice. Answer is that the land is in the Monument, and has been agreed upon; no reason why there shouldn't be some water and timber in Park. FS official agrees, saying that Graves had considered all this. Hayden does not pursue matter.
And here is an useful anecdote from Hayden's (late in career) aide, Roy Elson;
To Carl Hayden, if you couldn't put it in a one-page memorandum, you didn't understand the problem. He liked everything in short, one-page memorandums.
He established the Grand Canyon National Park, I mean he passed the legislation back in the late teens. Then there was apparently an amendment to it in 1927. I couldn't find the answer to how this provision got in there. Finally I asked the National Park Service, then I asked the Legislative Reference Service. I had everyone looking. The great thing about Carl Hayden was that he had a fabulous memory of who he told to do what. He'd come by every so often and ask: "How're you comin' on the project?" I'd say, "Senator, this is a little more difficult than I thought.” Finally, after weeks, maybe a couple of months, I got it down to two pages and a quarter page on the third page. I gave it to his then AA at the time, Paul Eaton, and said, "Paul, this is the best I can do." And I told him all that I had done. He looked at it and said, "Well, it's your project. Take it in to the senator."
He was in there, and I took in the memo. He was sitting behind his desk smoking that corncob pipe. I gave it to him, and I was sort of standing at attention. He said, "Relax." He looked at it, and went though it, read one page, turned to the next page. Finally he finished it and said, "[Expletive]! Sit down young man, I'll tell you how it happened." And all we had done with all this research was to remind him of a conversation that took place between him, the then majority leader, and the minority leader, in the Republican cloakroom in 1927. He said, "We just had a verbal agreement and we put it in." That's the way it was done. (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Elson_Interview_1.pdf) So it goes. And in time, I will write about that 1920's addition, as well as what H did in the 1930's about the second Grand Canyon National Monument. And maybe what he thought of us for opposing using the Canyon for a dam to get his beloved Central Arizona Project. But just imagine a fella with power being opposed by us upstarts when he tried to bring something to fruition that, 50 years earlier, he had sowed the legislative seeds for.
FEB, mining/railroad promoter Page wants protection of his interests and end of Santa Fe monopoly.
Hayden's reply: I introduced bill at request of Park Service, and I intend action only after opportunity for all to see. I am considering amendments from Hearst to protect his interests; please submit yours. [my emphasis] Hearst amendments all have to do with properties he has acquired around Grandview and problems he has in making use of them.
Hayden to Sup't Gensler of Havasupai agency to obtain opinion [about impact of NP]. Reply is that he doesn't know. For some years we have secured free permits for stock. We would like to improve the cattle stock. Havasupai go up to pasture in winter since there is fuel there; also up there in summer; canyon is unhealthy. Brush hogans could be replaced with comfortable cottages up on plateau if they can be assured of holding land. "This piece of land holds the key to civilization, independence and perpetuity for this tribe, and I believe it could not be dedicated to a more useful purpose … than to set it aside and make it a part of the Havasupai Reservation."
Hayden tries to get Gensler to meet with House Indian Affairs Committee members traveling in April. That fails, and Gensler writes that what is desired is land west of east line of sections 20, 17, 8, 5 of 1west over to the junction of canyons. Suggests Hayden write to Robinson, sup't of irrigation, which H does, with resulting (inadequate, and no reservation set-aside) section in Park bill.
Tusayan supervisor suggests section line boundary since otherwise it may not be exact enough with respect to mining claims. Prefers that a strip along west rim of Cataract be taken in to protect scenic points; the range is not yet developed. Include the lower part of Hualapai Canyon; it is scenic, and my suggestion would make the boundary unambiguous.
A local boomer talks of the vast possibilities for electrical power, so should develop; no interference with scenery. Also calls for summer cottages. Reply says the bill allows for irrigation, but administration is against summer homes. Other points in administration replies say that Santa Fe has to be included in order to regulate it. There is no conflict with Havasupai since their permits to graze will be respected and they are in Interior, too. Then, a rare pro-park point: Just because parts of Canyon are inaccessible, it is still desirable to add them for their scenic quality.
Bass has written again opposing. Santa Fe will get monopoly. Havasupai have acquired rights, made improvements, have hundreds of animals. Doesn't even like Tapeats line; worried about losing a thousand acres of our best potato land.
FEB, SecAg reports to the Senate committee that the lands are within the Monument, and the boundary was arrived at jointly and is a practical one for administration. There are features in bill unusual in a Park, water power and mining, but that is for Interior, not us.
Hayden asks again for list of patented lands, a total of some 392 acres, less than one-percent of park.
SecInt Lane repeats the usual line that development stunted so far, and the vast throng (1915: over 100,000; more than any two of the other Parks) has little opportunity to obtain a full measure of enjoyment of the marvelous grandeur. Do not inhibit authorization of funds.
FEB, Hayden called up NP measure in Public Lands Committee on Feb 22. H had found practically no opposition, with several Arizonans noting their satisfaction over elimination of grazing land. The bill was not reported at that time (this was when concern over war with Germany began to escalate), although the Senate Public Lands Committee reported the same bill as S.8250 on Feb 20.
MAR, Ashurst offered amendments to the bill: no license fees to be charged, concessions shall go to highest bidder. New sections: 8 provides for land exchange, 9 for lease of land; reference to isolated private areas.
However, the postmaster at the Village tells Hayden that Santa Fe control means no one here in favor of NP. Others don't like government running of Parks.
Interior report to the House on the bill has no criticism, since it would allow NPS to promote and improve the Grand Canyon. Private enterprise cannot do it. Ag smirked again that including mining, irrigation & reclamation is unusual in NP, but not our business. The map shows 12 sections eliminated on north to get line closer to rim. Later concerns led Hayden to say he would confer when he got back to Arizona.
Buggeln continued lobbying Hayden to get lines that will "throw my place out of NP", since his cattle will be cut off. Interior stands firm on boundary, since there is no effect on access. Hayden gets line moved to protect access to Buggeln's reservoir.
APR: The 64th Congress having run out, Ashurst re-introduced his bill as S. 390 on Apr 4, the same day Senate voted for war. He included an amendment for condemning Bright Angel trail if County would not sell.
Complaint from another person wanting summer home permit stimulates paranoia within NPS. Albright convinced that granting permits is FS policy to strengthen it locally, and he has definite proof of local rangers opposing Park in spite of Graves' position. Albright pushes matter and gets FS to agree to stop issuing permits. Leopold mentioned as working on GC plan.
JUN, Hayden noted that war legislation now has priority, so no action until December. He is also aware of Havasupai desire to farm some lands within Park, which are now under permit.
NOV/DEC brings a flurry from railroad schemers, Cameron, complainers about loss of such good agricultural, mineral and timber lands; others say they cannot sell their mine.
JAN, Hayden sent bill to Interior asking for comments on amendments recommended by Public Lands Committee.
Reply refers to Jan 9 conference about allowing railroads; we don't think specific amendment necessary; railroad will have to take NP into account. But note on letter says that the bill should authorize the Sec. to grant rr rights of way.
Alarm sounded over reclamation provision, though not clear who brought matter up. Ass't Forester Sherman writes to Park proponent, first noting that only existing claims are protected; no new ones. Sec. 5 allows hydroelectric projects only in discretion, and we have to trust integrity of NPS. However, section dealing with irrigation would allow Reclamation Service to just go ahead, without NPS authorizing, even though proposed plans might be utterly disastrous to proper development of Park. Reclamation has utter disregard for recreation values, so 7 should be amended to provide only as consistent with primary purpose, or else stricken, even if measure is temporarily defeated. NP friends should insist on this. So McFarland of Amer. Civic Assoc. writes to Mather, who agrees, saying he wants to see the change before committee reports.
FEB, Sec. Lane writes to Senate asking for change in reclamation provision. This is made so that it reads SecInt can permit reclamation whenever consistent with primary purpose.
Another proposed change to S.390 is to put the road line on legal lines, thus eliminating six sections from NP in 1E and 1W. Mather writes he is preparing a map, and is also checking on experience with state parks, since that dead cat has been dragged in again.
MAR, Mather expresses concern about Ashurst amendments, and Ashurst drops all except for bidding on concessions, allowing county to levy tolls on trail, and not blocking private access if near rim. Mather thanks Sat. Eve. Post for support, including editorials. He also writes Santa Fe officials and other magazine editors. Later, he talks to Ashurst only to find out he is still making an amendment for Hearst, who is determined to get land on rim. The powers of the county over the Bright Angel trail are still being worked on; toll would be on horses carrying people.
Senate committee reports unanimously on Mar 20.
MAR, Mather sends Senate bill in case Hayden wishes to introduce it.
Sec. 4 on toll for Bright Angel is denounced by those who had been fighting Cameron for years; just graft on the U.S. Treasury. Mather says they fought it in committee, but had to accept it or lose bill. All we got was power to purchase.
Hayden, in reply to Bass rantings about the Santa Fe conspiracies, points out eliminations from boundary, and says most responsible bidder will get concessions. Nevertheless he queries governor about Bass idea of state park; wants to be sure it is proven bad. Others are urging H to get off the pot and get the bill passed in the House; it has already passed the Senate. Hayden reply indicates his super cautiousness about constituent opinion, no matter how bizarre.
Concerns expressed about more Cameron hanky-panky, even though claims eliminated.
APR, Hayden replies to inquiries about a state park with a memo from Interior talking about miserable experience in Yosemite and we would be unalterably opposed.
Latest map circulated by NPS, hoping that Arizonans will not push the southern boundary any closer to the rim, and pointing out what they have already done on Buggeln and southwest road.
MAY, an Arizonan worried about Ashurst bill allowing exploitation, as with reclamation project. County told (is he bragging) by Hayden that boundary reduced some more. He accepts correction to boundary from Graves.
MAY 16th, on Senate floor with amendments (boundary, bidding, toll road, reclamation, Hearst). One Senator surprised it has not been made Park long before (!me too). Passes. Mather to Lane: half the battle is won; we will now follow up with Hayden.
GCNP bill referred to House Committee on Public Lands on May 21, as passed by Senate with amendments.
Hayden files contain annotated copies of S. 390 as passed by Senate: change of boundary around Hualapai canyon; eliminating a section 3 giving proceeds to NP for upkeep since they all go into Treasury; the Senate had changed Reclamation. House committee now added Havasupai section 3 based on plea from Robinson (regional BIA sup't of irrigation), and sec. 9 revoking NM & NGP, and sec 5 granting railroad easement.
JUN, Mather urging Hayden on, while the latter waits for this and for that, usually things already dealt with.
USGS responds to call from Hayden asking for more precise boundary, since road is not a good boundary. It says that elevation markers will serve. Some farming value, says FS, but not enough to retard passage. This leads to concern over Cataract boundary and suggestion of using Hualapai canyon, though Hayden concerned about western boundary causing trouble with Hualapai reservation.
State legislature passes memorial, and Phoenix Gazetter editorializes, in favor.
JUN, Finney (of Interior; to be greatly important in the near future) wrote to Hayden in favor of great power possibilities. It is not likely they will be detriment since "the development will be down at the bottom of the canyon and not interfere with the scenic features." [sound of Bronx cheer and other rude, derisory noises.] F. noted that Sec. Lane practically wrote provision, so I would not oppose that. I think he intended that the new water-power bill would apply to the Canyon, since FPC can authorize if it finds there is no interference. He thought section 7 had to do with storage of water for irrigation, and no harm if developed either for that or power. Please push bill; it should have been NP years ago.
Hayden wrote several pages of handwritten notes on the report, and they appear in the final as he wrote them out.
Mather to Hayden, referring to conversation, that he hopes there will be a result in the committee shortly; would be fine if it could be done this month before Lane returns on Jul 1.
JUL, Graves responds to Hayden who brought up Havasupai again, that the boundary probably still includes some of the Havasupai permit area. We discussed several years ago whether there would be conflict between Park and Havasupai, and it is my understanding that the NPS will fully take care of this and protect the interests of the Havasupai. I will talk to Mather again; Havasupai should have full protection, and it would be unfortunate to delay NP bill or change the wording any further. Graves suggests Mather reassure Hayden.
Exchange with Gensler of BIA on boundary at Hualapai canyon; G wants exact boundary to protect farming land. I do not see where the Havasupai pasture is of any value to NP. Havasupai are not nomadic, just want to stay on their home; they have been pushed from one place to another until they ended up in this hole, left here to die. No future in that canyon; only if they get out will they benefit. Permit no good since it can be reversed. Need land to accomplish improvements of range. Last year, the FS drew lines to give whitefolk some Havasupai range, and told Havasupai to develop water or lose more. The latter do not see why they should do much work in this situation. I should like to see line moved: A reservation on top would give us the means. To stay in this hole…acknowledges defeat". But Graves answers that Havasuapi have special use permits for fences and tanks and farming, with no fee. I don't know whether all these are in NP or not. [Yet he had approved a reservation only four years before.]
Hayden sent Mather some amendments on boundary, using elevation markers and going across Hualapai Canyon. He conformed sec. 3 with congressional appropriation policy. I am also conforming bill with the wishes of the sup't's advice on the Havasupai; he was afraid their rights would be disturbed. It would be wise to have Sec with power to grant rr row's, e.g. on north side. Need to revoke GCNM order. Mather says Sec agrees, but will not revoke order, though game preserve will be eliminated.
JUL, Cameron claims rejected; case closed (ha).
SecInt Lane writes that after adjusting reclamation provision, "the bill will be complete in every particular and will give this department ample authority to protect, improve, and administer the Grand Canyon and otherwise advance its interests along the lines now employed in the development of the other members of the park system." [And all this time employed in loading it with trash & garbage.]
OCT 18, S.390 reported out of House Public Lands Committee, with report 832 by Hayden. Wrote at some length about protecting Havasupai reservation, and that it is advisable to permit them to use and occupy other tracts within Park. Quote from BIA official, but Hayden ignores desire for larger reservation. This is followed by language making locals feel good. Everybody says Park is a good idea. Floor action put off until after election.
NOV, the Speaker has assured Sec. Lane he will advance it. Mather talks of possible change to rr row provision; hoping for passage by Dec 1.
DEC, NYTimes ran a rotogravure section on Havasupai: first photos of lost tribe, by Spier, just returned to civilization. Sinyella, Manakaja & wife, Kohot'.
Albright complains about lagging bill, but we just have to wait.
JAN, SecInt Lane to Hayden that he approves of the bill and hopes it will be enacted without delay.
FEB, Bass continues his line of complaints. Hayden to Mather that he hopes something can be done about Bass employment and property.
Wilson signs Act on Feb 26.
Letter from Albright in 1939 says Mather and he handled park legislation without needing outside help; the Park was established without much publicity, after we "took care" of local opposition. Now, this could be; Albright was considered a smoothie. But reading through Hayden's files, it is easy to conclude that it was Hayden "taking care" of the locals, and not by opposing them, but by conciliating and trying to follow their wishes through boundary changes and substantive provisions. Albright may just be myth-making--promoting the idea that the National Park was a great step forward, when the main impetus behind it was to end the restrictions of the Monument and get a Park that was smaller and allowed every sort of exploitation along with providing for visitors. The Grand Canyon National Development Act, maybe. Or, to see the glass a third full as Albright and Mather's defenders will be quick to suggest, a foundation (shrunken, yes) on which to build. And we still are, and still in an erratic fashion.