Tuesday, October 16, 2012

PL93-620 I. 1969-73: The View from Goldwater

The legislative files in Senator Goldwater's archives in ASU's Hayden library that relate to Grand Canyon & the Havasupai are organized by Congress: 91st 1968-9; 92nd 1969-72, 93rd 1973-4, 94th 1975-6. They contain discrete items that ought to build for us a perspective on events, different from that so far presented. However, there is little of the kind of glue that a journal provides, and they even seem not to include items, like intraoffice memos, that might provide more of an inside view. So this entry is more a gathering of items than a complete narrative, which I would have to supply. Thus, for instance, the files contain copies of the Case bills, but no analysis or other comment.

Various parties demonstrate various concerns.
The hunters group, Arizona Wildlife Federation, offered a map with 105 kac deleted and 82 added. Early in the year, a prominent AWF official spent some weeks in DC, in part to discuss Grand Canyon legislation. In summer, their efforts included a fly-over, and a resolution asking for their views to be more seriously considered. The cattle-growers agreed with AWF boundaries.

From NPS in February came views that the Park should extend to Lees Ferry, and GCNP Sup't Stricklin sent a map with a pencil line along Marble's east rim showing a setback of 500'.

Following the usual procedure, Goldwater in February asked NPS for a bill draft that would go to Lees, and have a one-mile-wide protective zone on each Marble rim with Secretarial power to revise what was taken. Plateau lands in the old Monument were to be deleted. In April, he got the draft back. Representative Udall approved, suggesting that it be introduced in both houses on the same day for the best show of strength. Goldwater wrote that he was not ready to "lump" the Hualapai dam area into the Park because of conflicting considerations, i.e., the Hualapai. 

In a letter to Navajo Chairman Nakai, Goldwater urged that the boundary was the same as in the Marble Monument, and that the Secretary was authorized to negotiate with the Navajo for Park land and a buffer within one mile of the east rim. It would only be a scenic easement and there would be compensation. The Arizona cattle-growers represented local user interests by disliking a Marble buffer on the west side. The AWF position was endorsed by the loggers too.

The bill was introduced in June, and as always there had been many meetings with interested groups. But as usual, he told Sierra Club Rep. McComb that more additions were unlikely; there was much opposition to taking any land from LMNRA, and the damsite protection issue was "spurious". Trying to build support, Goldwater met in Washington with DC reps from seven conservation groups: Sierra Club, Audubon, Wilderness Society, National Parks Assoc., National Resource Council, National Wildlife Federation, Wildlife Management Institute. Whatever his plea, Senator Case introduced a "complete Park" bill in October.

There is nothing in the files to indicate why, with this much lead time, there was no further congressional action in 1969-70.

Something must have happened, however, for in February 1971, Goldwater is writing that it is  "necessary and proper to now include the Bridge Canyon Dam site in the extended park". The Park had issued a master plan the month before, and Goldwater/Udall wrote Interior to make a draft based on it, expanding the scenic easement. Also, there should be provisions for the Secretary to help the Hualapai and Navajo in tourist development. As it prepared a bill, NPS let Goldwater know it was making boundary revisions to eliminate grazing allotments. 

McComb pushed Club views by teletype to Goldwater suggesting land exchange to get Marble and the Little Colorado. He urged additions from Cataract and Kanab Canyons, and of course opposed the deletions. He also approved the idea of something like a scenic easement for lands above the rim to prevent undesirable development, logging, and chaining. He backed cooperation between tribes and NPS. But the Hualapai again made clear they did not want any of their damsite in the Park. 

The bill draft came back from Interior including a provision to use lands to be deleted in exchange for additions. The state and tribes had to concur if any of their lands were to be added. There was a provision for a scenic easement, but eminent domain was restricted. Tribal assistance was for roads and overlooks and within a mile. River use was to be regulated. Goldwater now, May, wrote to Senator Jackson wondering about hearings; no apparent reply.

Instead, early in 1972, there were objections from the Navajo and Hulapai attorneys. Babbitt said the Secretary can already control any development within one mile of the Navajo rim. Since Goldwater is concerned, try this: scenic easement not on trust land, but no devel w/o Sec approval. "Sec 1…extending the N P to encompass present Monument boundaries would probably not be objectionable to the Tribe, provided (you add) 'subject to valid existing rights' after 'comprise'". The "map takes on much greater significance". It would be helpful to amend to remove any inference that Navajo lands "are in the process of being acquired by" NPS. The point was to have no language that implied any change.

Marks for the Hualapai was even less helpful: They hope the dam will be built, so will oppose north side expansion. Diamond Creek appears to be added. If the "river bed" is to be added, Hualapai should be consulted and approve. They should have exclusive right to develop the  shoreline and "such rights shall not be affected by administration of the river bed by" NPS. Easement idea is not clear. Section 6b is objectionable since we are ready to obtain approval from the FPC. Marks concluded: I would have preferred you had not proceeded with such a bill; but we cannot change your mind.

Then, just before the December 4 1972 meeting at Goldwater's home, Emerson sent a telex to his boss that the new bill was "tough". It made a Park of almost a million acres. There were provisions for land exchange, scenic easements, tribal assistance, river traffic regulation (including no motors), air noise regulation, dam prohibition. In addition the Havasupai were to have 60 kac from National Forest lands. This was the draft that should have been discussed at the meeting, but was not much because river management took too much time. Also, perhaps, Goldwater could then have tried to get a smaller group to negotiate details. Instead, as I have recounted, we followed separate paths, entrenching our positions, getting more entangled in our disagreements instead of straightening them out. Sausage-making is messy enough, but when everybody is off in separate kitchens, grinding away, it is nearly hopeless.

The day of that meeting, Goldwater himself wrote to new Sup't Stitt, expressing most fully his obsession about the danger on the Navajo rim. I reproduce that letter in full because it is pure Goldwater and is the only document I found in these files to express these views so explicitly.

His optimism about the effort in general comes out in a letter to fellow Republican congressional delegation members. The meeting on Monday brought  "all of us closer together than ever before". "It has got to be give and take on both sides…I am willing…and I think we have the Indians happy, the Sierra Club somewhat happy, so let's try." He said this, though the bill did not include the damsite, only forbidding "still water". And the final NPS Wilderness plan was so far from his views that it had removed the rivershore on the Navajo side from the draft proposal. 

A handwritten note in this otherwise sparse period in the files has the details on what was to become a long-running sore: the area claimed by the Havasupai on the east end of their desired reservation had been fenced in 1924, with an allotment granted in the 1940's that had been bought by Globe in 1971. So the allottee was to be given preference over the Havasupai. 
The file contains an undated legal memo to show how the pro-dam interests were protected through the amendment to apply the reclamation provision to the lands added from LMNRA. It was added only out of "a quality of super-abundant caution". This bill does not intrude upon any right for dam construction. A nice illustration of playing favorites.

There are also handwritten pages about amendments. [They could be notes from a phone call, and are likely by Goldwater aide Emerson; the concerns seem authentic. I paraphrase:]
Possible compromise is joint management, but G&F still opposed.
Additions have never been in Park or Mon.
NPS originally opposed due to "impossibility of management".
Ben suggests go to Lees, but then need to deal with boating fees.
Kanab: on west not even a definite rim; how do you tell where Park boundary is; can't see the Canyon.
Pygmy type forest; this is Strip area. 
Want legal description for west boundary in Marble.
Bill Davis: permittees in expanded areas; nowhere else to go.
Jantzen--could forest remain for hunting under G&F; no fees.
Verde Nuclear looking for Uranium; a mine has produced there before. 
Quotes about tram to Supai and Havasupai resentment about it. 

The aftermath of the June 20 Senate hearing was bitter, but these archives contain nothing of relevance. The next item is to the House Parks subcommittee when it held hearings, Goldwater claiming the changes made since the Senate hearing strengthened the bill's primary purpose, with the Canyon remaining at the forefront. 

I suppose it is correct here to give some sort of credit to Goldwater's motive; he was not a crafty protector of narrow-minded interests, He did champion, as a personal cause, expansion of the National park -- even in our terms if not to our extent, and he did lead in the sense of insisting that something happen, even if the substance kept mutating out from under his concerns. There was considerable slip between Goldwater's cup and Emerson's lip. Legislative work, even on "so simple" a matter as enlarging a National Park, is a fraught task; perhaps giving credit to the chief cheer-leader is more important at this point than criticizing him for not being the master legislative craftsman. For that we must turn to the House, and Morris Udall.

Source:  Barry M. Goldwater congressional papers, Hayden Library (4th flr), AZ State Univ.
The files I checked, arranged by archive box and folder numbers, followed by Congress & years:
188 33 91st 1968-9 Grand Canyon
196 32 92nd 1969-72              "
       33  92nd  1971-2               "
204  8-10  93rd   1973         "
204 11  93rd  1973-4 Havasupai, Hualapai
211  5  94th    1975-6 Post-passage
195  1   92nd   1971-2 nothing relevant
202  4  93rd     1973-4 Havasupai
202  9  93rd   1973  nothing relevant
209  17-18 94th nothing relevant

John Freemuth, now a professor at Boise State University, wrote a thesis, about 1975, on the history of P.L. 93-620. Although Senator Goldwater's office provided material, there were no additional internal documents available that might be useful for source material, as I had hoped when I asked Dr. Freemuth to provide me a copy, which he did, and I thank him for it. The thesis suggests that this history would make a good case study for secondary students. If so, then part of the case study would have to be the limitations of having a limited set of research sources.

No comments:

Post a Comment