Sunday, February 6, 2011

GCNM 2: A Rocky Childhood

With a new Congress, Senator Hayden received a petition in February from the Fredonia Farmers, Stockmen, Grazers Association, wanting the north boundary held below the south line of T34N. As the debate went on over the next year, there would be many details, but in summary, the arguments were over a band ranging from three to six sections deep in between the FFSGA line and Tillotson's NPS line(see map below). 

The petition approved of the land near the main canyon going into the Park, but the plateau was absolutely valueless for park purposes. Arizona citizenry, it said, needs to retain some little territory for room to breathe--and their animals to graze. 

 in March, Hayden asked about grazing on those GCNM2 lands NPS wanted to add to the Park, referring to the peitition by local stockmen. Tillotson replied that grazing has been unregulated, so there were no records, but he estimated that of a total of 2800 head, 1600 would be left on Park land. He planned to end grazing in Toroweap Valley, so antelope could thrive. There would be grazing on the Kanab Plateau, but not sheep or goats. Hayden, unsatisfied, asked again, and again Tillotson said there existed no records for such unregulated grazing. However, the Valley was overgrazed. He understood Hayden had fathered an "understanding" when the Park was established whereby grazing was allowed, and it has worked well--though he could not find a "scratch of the pen" on this gentlemen's agreement. He proposed to do the same on the Monument. In a meeting with a Hayden aide, Tillotson was told of sympathy for his proposal, and that the local stockmen were objecting out of ignorance. Hayden wrote the petitioners that NPS did not want to eliminate more land, so the outlook for their request was unfavorable; this indicated Hayden's stance that the agency had a strong right to decide how to handle the land under its jurisdiction. However, in April he also asked for delay of bill introduction in Senate until he could be sure his stockmen were satisfied, which indicated his stance that once legislation was being considered, compromise and protection of constituent interest was the game. He sent the NPS map to the stockmen, saying grazing management would be the same as for the original Park, as long as the permittee grazed. He asked Tillotson to go to Fredonia for discussion. In May, stockman McCormick wrote him to "beg, implore, invoke, request, and almost command you to see to it that no gross and useless injustice be saddled upon us grazers". And in June: "our antagonists through misrepresentations to the powers that be would close us out entirely, … until confiscation of our range would leave us paupers". Hayden reinforced his position in June. Cattlemen were most dissatisfied, but he was submitting the NPS bill. Since all legislation is the result of compromise, he hoped both would yield some ground. 

On another front, GLO agreed with NPS that there could be power development only if allowed by Congress on the lands that would be added to the Park, since by the 1935 Federal Power Act, Federal Power Commission authority would not apply. Rep. Murdock was particularly concerned about this, and met with the NPS director. The latter made it clear that Congress would have to act on any dam development affecting Park lands, given the changes in federal power law. In effect, neither the Secretary alone nor the FPC would be able to authorize a dam. The reclamation section would remain, however.

Arizona Representative Murdock introduced HR 7264 in May 1937 at the request of the Secretary, who noted there had been careful study, but the problems of private lands and grazing economy remained. The bill abolished the Monument and added the land as described by Tillotson (see map below) to the Park, returning the rest to the public domain to be administered by the Grazing Service. The provisions of the GCNP Act would apply, and the Power Commission would not have jurisdiction. There could be exchange of the private tracts, and the GC Game Preserve would not apply (not that it ever particularly mattered). 
Tillotson said that he did not mind losing the land south of the river if that would help, although no one was contesting that area (the Havasupai, as usual, being ignored). McCormick pointed out that the NPS map (see below) had Cataract Canyon 6 to 9 miles too far downriver. 

In June, Hayden pressed the stockmen to compromise, while telling NPS that the  stockmen were most dissatisfied. McCormick still wanted the line moved south of T34N over to Son-of-a-Bitch Point and then along rim, eliminating more of Tuckup Canyon. He continued to contest the NPS jogs above the straight line he favored, and argued that Tuckup Canyon was needed for stockwater and snow. He was undercut by a colleague, when Jackson of FFSGA wrote Hayden that Jackson was misleading; we are amenable to NPS needs. Kent, scorned by McCormick, also supported Park expansion.  (For "clarification", see my commentary below the map that follows this chronology.) Hayden also wanted the stock driveway south of Trumbull left out of an expanded Park. He again asked Tillotson to go talk with McCormick, which he did in early July. 

Afterwards, Tillotson wrote Hayden that there was a satisfactory discussion: both of us seemed willing to compromise. The line was far enough back, four miles from river, to include desired area, and if we dont work something out, there will only be trouble. He wrote his Director that his original proposal asked for more than needed, if all NPS wanted was the main canyon, lower Toroweap, and the connection with the existing Park. However, his wildlife expert had convinced him of the value of the side canyons, so he had included those lands, too. On the west side, the stockmen wanted a stock driveway, and he was willing to exclude a 3-mile strip. McCormick yielded on getting all of SOB Point, since Hayden wanted section lines, which was not enough for wildlife. 

Through July and into August, letters were sent back and forth, with various suggestions, between McCormick, Jackson, and Hayden, who accepted some of the NPS position as entirely reasonable for administration. All thought that Tillotson would accept the latest  Hayden line of 2 Aug. McCormick continued his more intransigeant language. Hayden pointed out that the House has already reported NPS version and will soon pass it. It did not.  All would be glad to have land made part of the Park if agreement could be reached. And in late August, the Hayden line appeared satisfactory to all, almost.

According to Tillotson, the cattlemen deeply appreciated Hayden's effort to protect them, and they now wrote the Senator approving the line, except they would like to keep some springs that were essential. They found Tillotson manifested a surprising spirit of fairness, explaining he only wanted some territory for game use. We have made three concessions, they said, and now spike our guns if we get that north half of 5w34. We also urge that the area be added to the Park so the roads may be improved to our mutual advantage. Hayden passed this on to Tillotson. 

Tillotson, as so often, was willing. He noted that it was plateau land, good for wildlife, but he was not sure of its importance; his concern was for the antelope in the valley. He planned to leave the plateau undeveloped anyway, so nobody would see what was there. He was more willing because the stockmen were cooperative, and in that isolated area, we would only have trouble if we do not have cooperation. Kent was heard from again with a suggestion to keep some more land in the Park, but Hayden wanted all of them to agree. After an NPS visit to Hayden stressing wildlife considerations, he wrote McCormick saying he had agreed to keep sections 2-4 of 8w33 for administration. Further, he accepted putting the boundary above Tuckup Canyon rim and having it cross at its narrowest point. Also the line was pushed west in R5W to allow for better fencing. He hoped they would agree, since the House was going to pass the NPS bill, and he wanted to be able to amend.

The above map is a contemporary NPS product, showing that the northern line was of most interest. Notice the 1932 line as proclaimed, above the words "GRAND CANYON". Tillotson came south of that down to the yellow line, taking in the lower Toroweap Valley, then some of the Kanab Plateau, most of Tuckup Canyon (where it turns north then east around the letters "NAL"), and ending by going east to the Park line on the river just downstream of the Kanab junction. 
Hayden then drew the blue line, cutting out the stock driveway land west of the valley and the plateau over to Tuckup. 
McCormick, speaking for the Strip stockmen, put forward the red line (running along the south line of T34N) to cut out the plateau land and most of Tuckup. Of course, he also wanted to keep the stock driveway in public land. 
After talk between Tillotson and stockmen, the latter moved their line, now green, north to leave lower Tuckup with NPS, along with the Esplanade. This would leave them with "that north half of 5w34" they wanted, covering the upper part of Tuckup and some plateau. 
NPS then asked for more of Tuckup. The stockmen responded with the third, brown, line. It did not give up more of Tuckup, but as compensation moved the west boundary farther west than NPS wanted.
The next negotiation, in Hayden's office on 2 Aug 1937, brought the black line: NPS was given a row of sections west of the valley ("sections 2-4 of 8w33 for administration"), and more lands in and around Tuckup.
In effect, NPS got more of Tuckup, less of the plateau, and yielded the stock driveway right-of-way on the west. Tillotson was told by NPS in DC that Hayden was cooperating to the fullest. 

NPS met with Murdock in early August. He was in favor of the Park, but wanted natural resources exploited for utilitarian as well as esthetic benefit to public. So he wanted some time to look at effects on power withdrawals. In any case, a congressional recess intervened  before the House could pass the bill. 

In August, the Interior Solicitor opined that it was unlikely reclamation was consistent with Park, and anyway all the previous investigation has been for power dams. The stockmen and Tillotson were indicating the agreement was holding, though Kent (a third voice) seemed to be thinking of himself as a tourism promoter.

In November, McCormick -- speaking for all -- was still trying to secure some springs, while willing to give up some area to west, "where poachers go to get bucks"; it was anyway too dangerous for cattle. They praised Tillotson's "fine munificent spirit", including his willingness to allow cattle to continue anywhere. 

In December, however, McCormick complained to Hayden that NPS was not accepting the Tillotson compromise, and wanted H "to throw a monkey wrench in the works" until they could meet.  Pratt, considered responsible, wrote for a group of about 30 stockmen, "resuming the old bone of contention" and rejecting the boundary McCormick and Tillotson had worked out. He sent Hayden a petition of "resident taxpaying grazers". That boundary was made by McCormick without their "connoissance", but they willingly accepted it. However, since Hayden now asked for their opinion, they wanted him to be mediator to the powers that be, for their rights of 35 years to use and develop for grazing. Hayden hoped they could adjust any controversy with Tillotson. However, they puahed a line along the natural barrier of the rim, which NPS disliked. Crisis! 

NPS's Demaray in DC on 6 Jan 1938 wrote Tillotson saying to get to Fredonia; the Pratt line is one we cannot reconcile to our viewpoint. We want our line on the east and McCormick's on the west. Perhaps you can get them to agree among themselves. However, Tillotson was on a train to DC, so was telegraphed by J V Lloyd in Park. Jan 10, T telegraphed back for him to go. Lloyd wired T that Hayden letter named graziers to reach agreement with, but wildlife division will disagree with Pratt rim boundary; Hayden wanted personal report. T wired Director that he had told Lloyd to go, but doubted a satisfactory agreement could be reached that would retain plateau land. McCormick did a dance to Hayden, saying he had only agreed without consulting other grazers because of T's fine spirit. But he knew others would want a "real feasible" natural rim boundary. And they are being generous in foregoing 13 springs; he was dithering, sorry about this friction.

When Tillotson reached Chicago, Lloyd wired that he had met with stockmen on 12 January, and they requested further concessions; letter to follow. He and two rangers had met with 15 from Fredonia and Kanab, including the Pratts and McCormick. Their position was to use McCormick line to S.B. (formerly Son of a Bitch) Point, then follow the rim to south line of T35N, then east to river; this would have eliminated all the plateau east of Tuckup, though allowing NPS to keep more of the Esplanade than the red line on the map above. Lloyd responded to the stockmen with excerpts from all that had gone before, including the wildlife reports. Lloyd also pointed out the road development that would follow an agreement "as desired by Senator Hayden". All then compromised on a line that trimmed the boundary in the Tuckup area, and again added land to the west as compensation. They also agreed not to ask for permits in this Park area, "rich with tourist travel possibilities". McCormick was not happy, although he claimed all had come to his latest proposed line. He agreed to speak to Tillotson later about his problems. The stockmen then signed their recommendation including a pledge not to ask to graze on parklands. Lloyd wrote confidentially to Tillotson that he had sent the report to the most influential; McCormick was only one not wholly in agreement; may lose springs. Lloyd believed this would stop any more new proposals. The wildlife staff thought the line was too strict, and wanted the earlier boundary to get antelope and bighorn. 

Here is what all this negotiation had resulted in:

The green and blue lines are the 1932 proclamation boundary. The red is the line that came out of the Fredonia Conference. The result was that 151 kac would have gone back into the public domain; 130 kac would have become part of the far more public National Park. 

 Tillotson commented to NPS in DC that "we got as much as we could out of the stockmen, which was a little more than we expected". He reported to Hayden in February, and Hayden replied that when "the time comes for the President to sign the bill, I shall secure for you the pen which he uses". T was grateful since it would go to the Park with the pen President Wilson had used for the 1919 Act. Hayden circulated the proposed bill to all parties (again) and to the State Land Commissioner, who was happy to see any lands back in public domain. 

Hayden and Murdock introduced identical bills drafted by Tillotson, S3362 and HR 9314, as February opened. All corners had been cut to speed it along; the bill handed informally to legislators; it would take about two weeks for administration reports. Hayden & Tillotson argued over where lands for exchange could come from. They both tried to reassure the Coconino supervisors. But, in March the Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce sniffed that the Park deprived the county of taxable wealth, so it wanted the Park revenue. Then it stirred up a totally fabricated fear that a road would now be built that would follow Canyon closely on either the north or south side, thus bypassing Flagstaff. Others wanted land to be purchased if private, not exchanged for. Buggeln, unaffected, foamed away in a telegram wanting the bill defeated. He claimed he spoke for others that the bill would be ruinous to the county, which would lose large tax income. 

Tillotson tried to answer complaints, giving up all Monument land south of the river and agreeing with Hayden on land exchange. Hayden wrote to the C. of C. that he would go along with anything everybody, including Tillotson, agreed with. Indeed Tillotson and Hayden were strongly allied at this point, as indicated by a handwritten note from "Tillie" to "Carl" on how to handle Senator Ashurst, opposed if the county was. C of C frothed at the mouth, accusing Hayden of plots and Tillotson of lying, even though all the lands north of the river were in Mohave County, and only three sections south of the river were in private hands (they remain so to this day, though that area has otherwise ended up as part of the Havasupai repatriation). 

Tillotson, writing to Hayden that he was doing some "missionary work", met with newspaper staff, and went to a C of C meeting. The local Williams paper said the legislation was in trouble: Coconino supervisors, C of C, State Land Commissioner, were all opposed. Mohave supervisors, however, approved, supported Hayden, and accused Flagstaff of a "very selfish attitude". Argument pivoted around road improvement on the Strip. Tillotson pushed the idea that not including the land south of river would end opposition. Anyway, he said, the area was not of importance, and NPS geologist McKee agreed. Tillotson "fathered this scheme for adding Monument to the Park, and I would like to see it through".

The immigration commissioner of the county, J.D. Walkup, summarized the know-nothing position as follows: County will lose taxable wealth; land forever alienated; there were already enough roads; the Park was now larger than some states; there were no outstanding features; county has lost its rights (probably referring to the Bright Angel trail scandal); roads soak up tax money; development plans will reduce visitation in Arizona; blah, blah, blah. It is a measure of Hayden's patience as a politician that he spent six pages on his "Dear Jim" letter. Hayden said only federal land was involved, and he worried about freezing out grazing interests. He had been trying for some time to get funds for a highway from Fredonia to Toroweap and Boulder Dam so that the Strip may be opened to tourism. He had conducted extensive negotiations between NPS and stockmen, and had been successful in settling that controversy, eliminating from the Park proposal all lands chiefly valuable for grazing. His S.3362 would return 55% of the Monument to the public domain, so available to provide "taxable wealth". My bill, he asserted, is "exactly in line" with your views. Any further reduction in the Monument is "a matter of grace on the part of the Park Service officials." He then scoffed at Walkup for saying the Park deprived the county of wealth, and ridiculed the idea of a "private" Canyon producing tax revenue. As for wanting Park revenues to come to the county: The Treasury now receives $82,000 and the administrative cost is $467,000; shall we shift these to the county? H concluded: I know you wish to promote the county, and I am anxious to see that Congress does nothing inconsistent with your desires. My bill is not in conflict with these goals. 

In March, Reclamation had also objected strongly, wanting a stronger provision protecting its development rights. NPS replied it would not agree, preferring that the bill die. April saw Mohave county strengthen its support as the paranoid Flagstaffians boiled on; Tillotson was another Hitler; Hayden a trickster. In May, Hayden was told that NPS had stopped work on the Toroweap road. In a letter to Kent, he related an attempt in 1934 to get to the Monument, which aroused his interest in improving the road. Then, also in May, he decided to hold up further action on the bill since NPS did not want to stir up ill feeling. 

In May, NPS and Hayden's staff agreed, based on the Reclamation objection, that it would be better for the land to stay a monument, since there was nothing NPS could do to prevent dam authorization, and it would be preferable to invade a Monument than a Park. Hayden  introduced S. 4047 on 18 May, which removed the land south of the river, cut out the northern strip, and left it as a Monument. This was now a meaningless gesture, since no action was contemplated. The bills died at the end of that Congress, 1938 being an election year. 1939 would be the try, try, try again year.

In December, Tillotson moved from the Superintendent's office at Grand Canyon to Santa Fe, to be the Southwest Regional Director. He would remain influential in GCNP affairs, for instance in the controversy (covered in my entries in mid-2010) over Bridge Canyon dam's reservoir invading NPS lands. In leaving, he re-stated his belief in reducing the Monument and adding it to the Park, regardless of Bridge dam. It was a crime there was no ranger. There would be no grazing in Toroweap, and on the plateau, he wanted to see life permits, but only cattle, no sheep. 

Sources: Hayden papers at ASU
NPS Washington office archives in NARA

No comments:

Post a Comment