March 20 was the big day. I do not know whether Senator Goldwater actually went to the Senate floor, but the Congressional Record for the day published his 7-column statement and the text of the bill he introduced for himself and 24 others. This entry summarizes the bill language and Goldwater's explanation. (For comparison, my entry of 26 July 2012 contains the text of Act as passed two years later.) Since the proposed boundary was the centerpiece, here first is an NPS map (a little off in the top center) of his proposal:
This was "A BILL to further protect the outstanding scenic, natural, and scientific values of the Grand Canyon by enlarging the Grand Canyon National Park in the State of Arizona, and for other purposes", and Section 1 bestowed the short title: "Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act". Section 2 used our recognition clause covering the "entire Grand Canyon, from Lees Ferry to the Grand Wash Cliffs", which survived the whole process, only substituting "the mouth of the Paria River" for "Lees Ferry". To emphasize this aim, we took the official map and made it a bit more dramatic, which also highlighted Havasupai enlargement:
Section 3a named the NPS map (113-20,000-G) showing the current units, the deletions, and the additions, "subject to any valid existing rights under the Navajo Boundary Act of 1934", referring to the (stillborn) idea of a Marble Canyon East addition. So the bill's total acreage of 1,196,925 was more likely to be 1,171,325.
Section 3b abolished the two Monuments, and allowed the Secretary to use the northern Monument deletions for exchange up to a total of 1.2 million acres; any left-overs became "public lands" under BLM.
Section 4a allowed the Secretary to acquire land by purchase, donation, or exchange, but not by condemnation (eminent domain).
Section 4b put the Secretary in charge of the Park's land.
Section 5 required the owner's concurrence for acquisition of land of (1) Arizona and (2) "any Indian tribe or nation".
Section 6 set up the Zone of Influence; a1 by the Secretary publishing "that a coordinated protective management of the environs is necessary…to protect against certain activities which many have an adverse influence" on the new Park, a2 but applying only with concurrence to lands of "any Indian tribe or nation".
Section 6b dealt with activities: A allowed vegetation disturbance only for prescribed burning, science, interpretive development, wildlife and grazing management; B road-building only for proper management following public hearings; C hunting & fishing were permitted; D no mining activity; E grazing was permitted. Section 6c allowed land acquisition in the Zone as under 4a & 5.
Section 6b told the Secretary to make cooperative agreements as in 7 for protection and interpretation of the Canyon.
Section 7 told the Secretary to cooperate with "other Federal, State, and local public departments and agencies and with interested Indian tribes providing for the protection and interpretation of the Grand Canyon in its entirety". This could include facilities outside the Park so "that there will be a unified interpretation of the entire Grand Canyon".
Section 8a1 & 2 authorized the Secretary to set up and fund with "any Indian tribe or nation" near the Park, programs for recreational, historical, or cultural purposes, insuring that the members of the "tribe or nation" will benefit.
Section 8b gave the Secretary power to restrict development on Navajo Nation lands within one mile of the East Rim of Marble Canyon, but not to restrict any valid existing Navajo uses.
Section 8c forbade any development under 8a on the Hualapai shoreline without their concurrence. The Hualapai had exclusive right to develop the shoreline, but required Secretarial approval if it were within one mile of the south bank.
Section 9 allowed permitted grazing to continue for the longer of 10 years or the permittee's life.
Section 10 suggested the Secretary act against aircraft activity likely to cause injury to visitor health, welfare or safety, or cause "significant adverse effect on the natural quiet" by working with relevant Federal agencies.
Section 11 preserved the 1919 reclamation provision and the 1968 dam ban.
Section 12a created a 160 kac Havasupai Reservation to implement "their desire for a greater land base and an opportunity to control their own social and economic life". Title is conveyed and the lands held in trust, as usual.
Section 12b forbade any water transport outside the Reservation, and the Secretary will prevent any water use that will adversely affect the scenic qualities of the creek and falls, or the environmental quality of the area -- subject to existing Havasupai water rights.
Section 12c gave the Secretary power to approve any transport system or pipeline, and to order archeological work if necessary for any development.
Section 12d voided the 1882 Havasupai reservation order and the 1919 GCNP Act agricultural provision.
Section 13a & b & c & d designated 512,800 acres from the existing Park & Monuments as the Grand Canyon Wilderness and ordered a map made public and filed with Congress, namely EPD-WSC-113-20008-B of August 1972. When the Secretary so determined, the 86,156 acres of "potential" wilderness could be designated. Prescribed burning and archeological work may be allowed in the Wilderness. The Secretary shall administer the area under the usual provisions.
Section 14a & b authorized funds, including those from the existing units.
Quoted and paraphrased*, here is how the Senator presented his bill:
Starting way high, Goldwater's aim was "to more effectively protect and secure for future generations that magnificent creation of God we call the Grand Canyon of Arizona." His bill returned to the "original grand scheme of President Benjamin Harrison, who in 1886, while a Senator, first attempted to create the Grand Canyon National Park as one vast entity encompassing the entire canyon and its principal side tributaries." Created after 30 years, the Park was "emasculated, cut in size so that instead of becoming the Nation's largest park, it ranked eighth with 673,575 acres." S1296 would double that, combining existing units within a boundary from Glen Canyon NRA to the Grand Wash Cliffs.
The largest addition is a "sweep of land" of 331,500 acres within the canyon rim to Grand Wash Cliffs. Also added are 36,280 acres in Kanab Creek and Lower Kanab Canyon and 640 acres at Coconino Plateau". The Park would jump to fourth place in size. "More significantly", 273 river miles would be protected, three times the current 90 miles. For "the first time the Congress would recognize the concept that the entire area, above and below, that comprises the Grand Canyon…is one natural, geographic entity deserving of protection and interpretation as a whole."
In explaining that the boundary did not go to Lees Ferry because of Glen Canyon NRA, he introduced the "ecological 'zone of influence' on the park" that would cover the 4.5 mile gap.
The Zone "is unquestionably one of the major features of the bill". It was modeled on a Sierra Club suggestion for a conservation zone, an improvement over an earlier Goldwater idea for a scenic easement. He hoped conservationists, ranchers, and wildlife interests could support this "as a fresh approach to protecting the canyon's environment".
The Secretary would establish the Zone adjacent to or near the enlarged park for a coordinated protective management to guard against actions that would impair the park's beauty, environment, or interpretive and recreational values. Grazing & related improvements, hunting, and fishing would be uninterrupted, but adverse activities such as mining and road construction would be restricted. Although no Zone is mapped, the Secretary could proclaim protection for an area larger than any now proposed. However, the sponsors expect it shall include Marble Canyon's west rim and upstream from Navajo Bridge, and the three areas deleted from the existing Monument. The three areas "have been considered unnecessary to the proper management of the park" for a long time, and back in 1957 when I first introduced a park bill, they were marked for deletion since they "have been worked by ranchers for as long as anyone can remember and, as the oldest non-Indian people using these areas, I believe the cattlemen have equitable rights which should be met".
Section 7, related to the Zone concept, authorizes the Secretary to cooperate with BLM, USFS, Indian tribes, state agencies, and other public groups to restrict new development and to develop & conduct unified interpretation.
As conservation groups have urged, Section 13 designates wilderness and "potential wilderness" totaling 599 kac "in the general area of the canyon and its surrounding environs". The area is identical to President Nixon's 1972 plan except for "a small area" of the lands transferred to the Havasupai. My bill omits a Nixon provision to repeal the 1919 reclamation provision "in recognition of the vigorous interest of the Hualapai". Instead, SectionSection 11 states nothing shall affect the reclamation provision or the 1968 provision removing Federal Power Commission authority to license a "reclamation project" between Glen & Hoover dams. There will also be no effect on river trips, since limits on numbers and on motors are already in place, "pending a major study of ecological changes of the river which boatmen have already begun and which Congress should finance to its conclusion on a top priority basis". No legislation is required while the matter is being resolved administratively.
Had there been a law that the labelling of legislative sausage like this bill be accurate, the title would have been something like "The Grand Canyon Act for Park and Indian Affairs", as indicated by almost as much space being devoted in Goldwater's remarks for the latter as for the former. As he says, "First and foremost, the bill protects the existing legal rights of Indian tribes in and around the canyon." The bill provides that no Indian lands or interests can be changed "against the will of (a tribal) governing body. This safeguard is nailed down … on the face of the map." He then quotes Section 5, "clearly headed, 'Prohibition Against Taking of State or Indian Lands.'", and continues, pointing out that the Zone provisions include the same "express prohibitions without the consent of the people affected".
The boundary map repeats this prohibition. The map proposes the Park boundary be moved to the Colorado's south bank, specifically indicating that this change is "subject to concurrence of the Hualapai Nation". Again specifically, setting the boundary on the east rim "adjacent to the Navajo Indian Reservation" is "subject to concurrence of the Navajo Nation". Moreover, Section 3 says the new boundaries are subject to the Navajo Boundary Act of 1934, and Section 8 protects the exclusive Hualapai rights to develop their reservation's shoreline. Section 8 could considerably benefit Indian peoples through financial & technical assistance to develop recreational and tourist projects near the park, although the bill's emphasis on ecological protection requires secretarial approval within a mile.
Next, the bill includes "a very significant proposal" for restoring to the Havasupai some of their sacred and ancestral lands. The Hopi depict the Havasupai as "the keepers of the Grand Canyon and its sacred places". These people were driven off the plateaus and reduced to a tiny reservation in the bottom of the Grand Canyon. The original reservation was reduced even further. There is only one acre per person; "the Supais are left with no economic land base and may pass into extinction." This bill would "help this wonderful people to survive".They are the natives of the Canyon and surely any bill "relating to the ecology of the canyon should include protection for the human beings who live there". About 170 kac would be restored, including the waterfalls and plateau lands where they enjoy free grazing permits. The locations of the power station and "lone mule trail" would be added.
Now, "some environmentalists" will want assurance that bighorn sheep range will not be disrupted. Others will want the abundant archeological resources protected. Others will be concerned about the "precedent for turning park-quality ands over to individual ownership". These questions will be aired in hearings. My proposal follows lines in NPS' own park master plan. The Havasupai, also, will make the concession of giving up their right to graze and farm in the park. Moreover, the lands are held in trust and do not in any way set a precedent. Further, the Secretary may require that archeological work be done; indeed secretarial consent will be required for any development. Of course, as the original inhabitants, the Havasupai will cooperate to perpetuate their heritage.
Finally, existing grazing rights are preserved, and the Secretary is to raise any concerns about aircraft noise, although he is to utilize existing laws.
This, said the Senator, was his third effort to obtain greater protection of the Canyon, after 1957 and 1969. Since then, I and my staff have "met and communicated almost continuously with numerous interested persons and groups trying our human best to arrive at a good bill that most everyone can support." In July 1969, I met with eight conservation group representatives. Several more have visited; (four) others have written. My staff lawyer has met with Navajo and other tribal lawyers three times each. I most recently held "two large open gatherings (indicates 10 categories) at my home in Phoenix to work out an acceptable and good bill". A leading local reporter was there to accurately and completely get the word out to the public. "In short, I have tried my level best to develop a bill that will significantly improve the protection given by law to the Grand Canyon and at the same time be generally acceptable to most interested groups and persons." All have to give little, but if each yields a little of "our personal selfish wants". a bill will pass this session. "If it is the last thing that I do, I want to find proper protection for the whole wonderful thing…that will guarantee (the Grand Canyon) will not be molested and will remain forever as one of God's few practically untouched masterpieces."
The next day, Representative Udall offered his considerably shorter remarks on the companion bill, H.R. 5900. The park was vital to Arizona and an important natural resource for the country. Now was the time to act, before exploitation of wilderness did damage beyond repair. He gave credit to Goldwater's deep concern, taking into account various and sometimes conflicting interests. Grazing & hunting & such would continue, but adverse activities would be restricted. The bill would double the park size and create a zone of influence under the control of the Secretary who would have wide authority.
Key provisions were: extension from Lees Ferry to Grand Wash Cliffs, a long-sought objective of conservation groups;
placing of all land under one authority, the Park Service, instead of dividing it between the Monument and Glen Canyon NRA;
authorizes the Secretary to issue air space controls;
creates a Grand Canyon Wilderness;
"As presently written" the Havasupai reservation would be expanded including 41 kac from the Park. This is one of the more controversial provisions since it might open the parks to private interests and re-open long-dormant Indian land claims. But existing Indian rights are protected.
My introduction is to move the discussion along. The bill will act as a lightning rod, attracting criticism and careful examination of the difficult issues that have bogged canyon legislation down. Many conservationists will dispute sincerely the deletions for the Havasupai. "With them, I recognize that the lands involved" are among the best in the park. One of the options to consider is the purchase of private lands now reportedly up for sale.
* Please note that despite intense temptation, I am not commenting on the provisions or statements in the following presentation, although it is certainly true that I select and emphasize as I condense.
Source: Congressional Record--Senate, March 20, 1973, pp S 5161-5