A quick look at before and after Jan 1969 indicates a shift in the political scene for GCNPark legislation. The dam threat was gone; many of the players were gone. The use of Park legislation to make points about the dam faded; the question of what really belonged in the Park could become uppermost.
One of the biggest differences was the person and staff of Arizona's Senator Barry M. Goldwater (BMG, often): He had been a figurehead player in the water fight; his senior colleague Carl Hayden was the chief, and was now gone. (Hayden had been, of course, a key player in previous Park changes, mostly as a protector of local, exploiter, interests. BMG could thus, perhaps, now operate more freely.) And unlike any of the previous congressional players, Goldwater had a long-standing personal interest and experience in the Grand Canyon. He had been through the Canyon on the river, and for him, the Canyon was a personal cause. Of course, he was an Arizonan first, and had defended the dams before 1969. Now, he was free of that pressure. Anyway, in 1969, he was able to step out, to be the principal mover of Grand Canyon legislation, certainly in the Senate.
Sadly for me, I was, after Aug 1969, also gone from the scene for personal and career reasons. What was not gone was my and other advocates' belief in a complete Park. Fortunately, my successor as Club Southwest Representative, John McComb, was able and far more acquainted on the ground than I was. However, our vision was shared by neither Goldwater nor the Park Service, necessarily another principal player, with several members in its cast--including the new GCNP sup't, Robert Lovegren. A strange choice for such a plum appointment -- quite young at 43, and with little field experience. He had 16 years in Interior positions dealing with personnel management, before going to Yellowstone NP as Ass't Sup't; two years later he was GCNP Sup't. He lasted three turning-point years. I have detailed his Park-value-weakening tendencies with respect to river management in Hijacking A River; now we will find out how he dealt with two other prominent matters: Park enlargement and Havasupai land desires.
Knowing that legislative action got underway in 1973, this quick look leaves me asking: why was there no action from 1969-72? Four years, two congresses, several proposals, lots of discussion, and no result, although some of the ideas raised gained traction later on. Writing about this period is therefore, for me, a process of discovery, trying to get straight what the causes of delay were. I would flatter myself indeed, if I pointed out that it was only after I returned to the Southwest in August 1972 that movement into the legislative maelstrom really began. True, though. But for now, lets get started on understanding the years of the calm before that storm.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Representative Saylor was first, once again. His HR 7615 was introduced 25 Feb 1969 and focussed on incorporating the damsites. The map LNPSW-1008-GC was the same as his July 1967 map, going upstream to Lees Ferry, and down to the lower damsite. The heavy dashed line is the proposed boundary:
Saylor's bill would have allowed the Secretary to take land for visitor facilities from the National Forest along the Marble rim. The Navajo and Hualapai still had to give approval for having their lands administered as Park, but the lands were not transferred and there was no compensation. The water & power claims were voided, and the two Monuments, their land safely transferred into the Park, were abolished.
Senator Goldwater had requested a legislative draft from Interior in Feb 1969. He had agreed to start the Park at Lees Ferry, as the Park sup't had requested. The Park also wanted a 500' setback on the east, Navajo, side of Marble, and had changed its view on the transfer of Fire Point to the National Forest on the North Kaibab, wanting to keep it because the ponderosa would be logged and it is a fine overlook. Otherwise the bill would be similar to the administration bill of 1967. The draft reached Goldwater in April. The map did include all of Marble up to Lees, made the plateau deletions from the old Monument, and added the other standard NPS requests. There was now a provision to add up to a mile on the Marble rims, but no downstream addition that would have transferred Canyons lands from LMNRA administration. Any grazing could continue for ten years.
An April discussion between BMG's Emerson and the AzWildlife Fed.'s Clemons produced an AWF board statement to BMG that it wanted him to push NPS harder to get more lands deleted from the Park for multiple use. They were especially worried about any land above Marble's west rim encroaching on the buffalo or antelope range. BMG replied that his bill was a compromise, "I will fight for the Kanab plateau deletions". That stand was supported by the state cattle-growers: The deletions were an "important part of ranching operation for several of those old-time families". (Meanwhile, whenever queried, long-time Monument ranger John Riffey talked about the marginal conditions and the shrinking of the grazing.) The cattle-growers did not want any Marble buffer. The hunters and the logging company made overflights in the summer to study the territory.
Bills were introduced 12 Jun 1969 by Goldwater (S 2360) with 24 co-sponsors and M. Udall (HR 12122), the first section designating boundary map 113-91,000, March 1969. Because of the faintness of the original, the Monument deletions are outlined in green, and additions to the Park are in red.
The second section allowed the Secretary to revise the boundary within one mile of either of Marble's rims, if consent was granted, to protect scientific or scenic values or provide overlook facilities. But then, after providing for donation, purchase, or exchange, the bill authorized condemnation for a scenic easement within one mile of either Marble rim, a move that could only stir hunter and Navajo paranoia. Next, the Monuments were abolished and added to the Park except for 29,520 acres of plateau land. Grazing was limited to ten years. Whatever rights the Havasupai had were to be unaffected (even though the Long Mesa addition would definitely impact them).
Goldwater's statement called his bill a "return towards the original, grand scheme once designed for the Canyon's protection". It would double the stretch protected within the Park, including major portions that are natural extensions of what is already protected. Lees Ferry, the only launch site for river trips, would be included. Kanab Creek and Long Mesa were sizable, important additions. In all, 184.5 river miles "of the prime Canyon" would be in the Park, "85% of the total river stretch". [Well, actually about 67%; his figure would shrink the Canyon down from 277 to 217 miles, not even getting to Diamond Creek. See my post of 5 Apr 2012 for this NPS misapprehension, which did not match the official description approved by the Board of Geographic Names, on-the-river experience, or common sense.]
His statement argued that the excluded plateau lands were p-j and sage; thus not needed for the Park. The Secretary would have the power to acquire a scenic easement within one mile along Marble. He called attention to the protection given the Havasupai. Overall, his purpose was "to bar the door to any future pressures for the exploitation of the Canyon area", though it did not take the anti-dam steps that Saylor's bill had.
In writing to the Sierra Club chapter about the bill, Goldwater noted that the Monument deletions were a long-standing proposal acceptable to the Park Service. The Club was happy to congratulate him on his effort, but given the recent history of the dam fight, and given our own commitment to protecting all the Canyon, how could we just endorse what appeared to be a half-way measure? BMG set up a 30 Jul meeting of DC conservation reps. I urged the Club's D.C. Representative Lloyd Tupling to attend: Senator Case was introducing our bill, and we should show our support for his position. I did not have to be there unless there were real negotiations, and the meeting was too formal for that. So Tupling attended (with 5 other conservation group reps). He stated our appreciation for BMG's effort, but said we were working with Case on the Club bill for a larger area. Congress should be able to hear about all valuable potential areas. BMG said he agreed, and if Congress wanted to include area from the LMNRA , he would not object. However, he and NPS thought his bill met protection needs. Many of his co-sponsors would not want to give up LMNRA's multiple uses. The hunters' rep then raised their concerns about impacts on game of the Marble additions, plateau lands, and anything from LMNRA. The fishing rep agreed with him, but called for flexibility on boundaries. [Brower used to call them the hook-n-bullet-boys.] Another pro-Park rep said the bill was fine so far as it went, but LMNRA areas had Park values and should be added. BMG hoped for autumn hearings, and did not ask for agreement now, but wanted to get all views out then.
In July, Sup't Lovegren wrote AWF trying to reassure them that the easement along Marble would only be for emergencies or visitor access; there was no threat to wildlife. Goldwater met with hunters in August, hearing they were most concerned about lands on either side of Marble. NPS wanted to build a rim road, they claimed, and that would impact deer and buffalo. They also proposed more be deleted from the Monument, including Mt. Emma, and also some from the National Forest. Northern Arizona congressman Steiger had told them the legislation had no chance this year, since Senator Jackson was opposed to exchanges of Park lands. Getting more sweeping, the hunters argued there was no need to protect the river. NPS always wants more land than they know what to do with; they never give any up. This should definitely be a give-some/get-some bill. BMG tried to soothe them some by saying NPS had no Marble road plans.
In what could either be a complication or a boost, the GCNP administration scheduled an August meeting to hear public comments on master plan topics relating to preservation, wilderness, development and management. There could be oral and written statements before the Master Plan Team. The Grand Canyon chapter and I had been working on a Plan proposal for a couple of years. At the top of our list, of course, was our boundary proposal, about to be introduced by Senator Case, and the meeting would be another chance to present the complete Park concept in its latest formulation.
NPS must have been surprised when the Forest Service in August brought up again the notion that lower Kanab had grazing values, and was needed for hunting control of deer. In compensation, it wanted 30 Kac of fall deer range on the top of the Kaibab for game management. NPS had thought the 1967 agreement between the two Secretaries still held.
The continuing dissatisfaction with BMG's bill and the rumored introduction of the Case/Sierra Club bill caused the hunters even more distress, especially when they got hold of the latter's map. As the summer wore on, they were busy contacting their congressmen, and trying to get the NPS Director to meet with them.
Sep 1969, NPS undertook a review of its positions. The Park, Service Center, and DC held a conference call on boundary revisions. The GCNP master planning team were authorized to propose adding some part of LMNRA, excluding lands with logging, mining, grazing (unless there are compelling counter-reasons). The major use will be along the river, not at rim overlooks where water is a problem. An included sketch map showed a legal line boundary stepping down across Parashant Canyon, then along the edge of the Shivwits Plateau. Also, dealing with any Hualapai or Navajo lands would require consent and legislative action; they will expect to share management and fees.
Glen NRA had argued its case for keeping Lees Ferry, citing mining, rockhounding, grazing and other non-Park uses. Lovegren wanted at least the river surface from the Paria, to control boating. He also wanted below the eastern Marble rim, but was advised the Navajo will resist this as well as any buffer. Best course is to go along with the current proposal, then revise later. Lovegren also suggested regulation of the airspace.
In October, NPS region suggested putting the boundary of the southern old Monument addition on the rim to avoid grazing problems. Hunting opposition had arisen to the lower Kanab addition. The Hualapai will oppose adding any of their lands to the Park. Monument deletions should be in exchange for something. Sup't Lovegren offered several thoughts: Whitmore Canyon could be a boating exit, though without any tramway if it will encourage others. He favored using Diamond Creek, as that would help the Hualapai; they should be met with. As with the Navajo, he felt some little land ½ mi back from the rims would be important to prevent development visible from river. (He had been on a Sierra Club river trip in May, and had also joined the Club.) This kind of buffer (like that in BMG's bill) would apply to any of the Park, and perhaps there could be joint development, to provide protection. The bill could contain provisions for funding with others, and there could be tribal concessions. He wanted to keep all southern Monument land if the adjacent Long Mesa were to be added. This would blunt excessive development by Havasupai. He was to meet with hunters in a week, since they get emotional if any public land (like Kanab) would be closed to hunting. If there is not to be a dam, then it should be explicitly blocked. Unlike the Saylor bill, Goldwater's had not mentioned voiding the water & power withdrawals.
There was rumor-talk of hearings , but the administration had not even formulated its reports. Anyway, Aspinall was still in charge of House Interior; he certainly was not eager to do the Grand Canyon any favors, and indicated in September there would be no action in 1969; rumors of an October hearing persisted.
Case introduced his bill with the Sierra Club boundaries on 1 Oct: S 2977, map 113-91,001 June 1969.
It stirred up all the hunters' feathers again, with anti-Parkers pointing out that the Park would be tripled in size and damsites "locked up forever". The Case bill made Havasupai protection section 2, but only with words; our bill put into the Park the land they wanted for a repatriated reservation, though it included no Navajo or Hualapai land. The third section said grazing privileges could continue for 25 years. Since we included so much land that had private ownership, there were extensive provisions in sections 4 & 5 for dealing with that problem. The bill called for the Secretary to recommend wilderness in the new Park within two years, to be followed by the usual congressional consideration. Finally, all the water and power withdrawals and authorities were repealed and vacated.
The Case bill led to Goldwater joking that maybe Atlantic City (in Case's state) should be turned over to the Fed, too. He had already told us that Case's bill was unacceptable to Arizonans. As it turned out, the bill gathered no other sponsors; in October I was worried about it needing a broader base (although by then I had left the Club employ and was in Massachusetts). I defended leaving out any Hualapai or Navajo land, in spite of my desire for a complete Park. We should work with them; maybe we could garner Navajo support, and "simply buy the Hualapai". I also complained that the Saylor bill had no geographical coherence.
Lovegren reported in Nov on his outreach: He and the hunters' group had exchanged views on land exchange, even a map. At the Sierra Club, they had suggested to him more Navajo land, and a boundary fitted to the land contours, e.g. in Kanab, go up Jumpup some. Goldwater staff wanted to be reassured there could be hunting in any easement, and did not think the time was right for taking in the lower dam area. Udall said the dam was dead, but legislation would not be able to say that. Lovegren also heard that the Hualapai were still in favor of the dam, and would not accept any Park boundary on their reservation, so that might mean there could also be undesirable development there.
BMG continued to reassure hunters that the Marble one-mile zone required agreement by all parties, and the hunters kept talking against such a zone, including contacting the Navajo. In the same vein of trying to sound out anti-Park sentiment, AWF Clemons heard about the Hualapai concerns, and of likely support for their views from loggers. The Forest Service would also be in opposition. In October, the Game & Fish Commission wrote Goldwater opposing any above-rim extensions; everything would be a threat to the buffalo, deer and antelope. Lovegren offered some ideas about land exchanges, though only as possibilities. BMG tried again to calm the hunters about the Marble easement.
(Unfortunately, there is now a gap in the notes I have on this material, so 1970 is a blank on the hunters.)
So had there been hearings at this time, there would have been three proposals: the Saylor anti-dam Park extension, the Case complete-Park proposal heatedly opposed by Arizonans, and Goldwater's updating of NPS-crafted fixes and tidying up, which itself had not found favor as a compromise in "the Grand Canyon state". Opposition would have been voiced by the Havasupai, Hualapai and Navajo, as well as the hunters, cattle-growers, loggers, Forest Service and probably the miners and the dreamers of dams. Indeed, the Park Service itself was still working over its ideas, both internally and after hearing about its master plan. For instance, in Dec 1969, it was looking at these acreages:
Deletions Tenderfoot 5120; Tuckup 21,500; Jensen 5120.
Additions Marble 26,600; Coconino 640; Kanab 40,960; Long Mesa 12,300;
Inner Gorge 17,400 (along Hualapai); LMNRA 256,000.
Sources:
When I left the Club's employ, I passed most of my files on to McComb, keeping many of those that particularly pertained to the Grand Canyon. Throughout the 1970's I did not take advantage of this source to make copies of material from 1969-72 or that I was otherwise missing. McComb's successor Calkin took the files to Santa Fe and, when he left the job, to the city dump.
Archives & files of the National Park Service, GCNP, LMNRA, & DC
Ariz. Game & Fish Dept files
No comments:
Post a Comment