Anticipating the hearings by a day, Senator Case introduced S. 2017 to "include all of the Grand Canyon, except for those parts that are included in Indian reservations, in the National Park". He remarked it was similar to bills he had introduced for "the past six years". His press release was included in the hearing record*, but not the text of the bill. The map (113-20011, May 1973, DSC) prepared for him by NPS, was included in the hearing record (p. 93) only as submitted by McComb. Oddly, in fact, neither the Goldwater nor the NPS map is in that record. Note that the non-river boundary is set on section lines, though there is no legal description. Existing NPS areas added to the Park are white, while the cross-hatched "proposed additions" were to come from other agencies' turf. "Indian Land" marked by diagonal lines are areas section 13 of the bill encourages the Navajo, Havasupai & Hualapai to establish as tribal parks (as the Navajo had already done).
Case's statement, stressing the Canyon's length and its divided administration, said his bill would "protect the important side canyons and plateau areas as well as the main gorge and would permit the whole Canyon to be managed on a systematic and coordinate basis." He made a point of including Toroweap Valley. He noted his bill did not exclude any current NPS lands.
His bill included no reservation land and aimed at encouraging tribal parks that would "provide protection for these lands consistent with their national park quality and their relation
to the Grand Canyon".
He called for banning aircraft below the rim and controlling aircraft use in the Canyon's airspace. Motorized watercraft would be banned starting in 1975, and most of the new Park would be designated as Wilderness for added protection.
"There is," he summed up "no justification for exposing any part of the Canyon to commercial exploitation."
In PL93-620 D of this series (posted 7 Sep 2012), I listed the provisions we had suggested to Senator Case. His final bill had 16 sections. Had Park legislation pursued even a somewhat more "normal" course, Case's effort could have been an important entry in a fuller debate of how to protect the Canyon -- Goldwater's aim as well, and their ideas did overlap. However, that course had no chance, apparently. Perhaps senatorial norms granted Goldwater some kind of ownership over the Canyon; certainly he (and his aide Emerson) acted as if that were so. Thus, given their lack of legislative skills and/or interest, it can come as no surprise that the double affront of Case's entry and the overwhelmingly negative hearing testimony (to be taken up in the next post) unhinged what might have been a more considered, broad-based response by Goldwater-Emerson, and thus everybody else. But that is to come; here I am just trying to emphasize that Goldwater had advanced a proposal based on what was important to him, and Case had done the same. And the fact that the latter was never treated equivalently or much at all, marked some very sour action by those handling the sausage making.
So, S2017's major provisions (all with the usual provisions and qualifications) were:
Section 1 named the map and emphasized the westerly boundary of the Navajo and the south bank for the Hualapai.
Sec. 2 protected existing Havasupai rights.
Sec. 3 protected existing grazing privileges, though on added lands only for ten years.
Sec. 4 aimed at acquiring lands in the Tusayan area by an immediate taking.
Sec. 5 allowed acquisition by exchange with BLM lands.
Sec. 6 & 7 transferred federal lands in the new Park to the Secretary under applicable laws.
Sec. 8 & 9 repealed the reclamation provision and vacated any federal power authority or withdrawals.
Sec. 10 prohibited aircraft below the Canyon's rim and called for control of its airspace.
Sec. 11 authorized the Secretary to regulate all watercraft on the River from Lees Ferry to the Grand Wash Cliffs, prohibiting motor use after 31 Dec 1974.
Sec. 12 allowed NPS to develop and operate interpretive facilities outside the Park.
Sec. 13 encouraged the establishment of tribal parks which would recognize park quality, be closed to commercial enterprise, and keep the land unimpaired. Money for interpretation was authorized. Ownership and administration of the lands would be unchanged.
Sec. 14 legislatively established the administratively created Vermilion Cliffs Natural Area "to complement the scenic integrity of the Grand Canyon".
Sec. 15 established the Grand Canyon Wilderness by map (of which I do not have a copy).
Sec. 16 authorized appropriation of funds.
Sources: my files and pp 59-60, "Hearing before the Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States Senate, 93rd Congress, First Session, on S. 1296", June 20, 1973.