Back in Tucson, McComb was busy, and two newspaper stories, telling the usual Goldwater v. Sierra Club story in a decently fair fashion, were prepared by the afternoon and university papers, and published on the 20th. Also, John heard from a NWF contact that AzWF's Clemons was "livid" at losing the deletions. That did not appear in the Arizona Republic low-error article reporting Committee approval, maybe because it came from Washington, not Ben Avery. It did say that as reported, even with "a profusion of changes", Goldwater said the bill accomplished his main objective of uniting the entire stretch of the Canyon. Hunter lividity came clear in the following week (I was back in Tucson), with a Committee staffer telling me Emerson had been talking up the beauties of the "original" bill. He now wanted a one-year study of the deletions, but would do it on the floor, not through the Committee. This was also reported in the NWF "Conservation Report", as "speculation".
Monday, November 26, 2012
Sunday, November 25, 2012
The Monday, 10 September, meeting was convened by Jerry Verkler, Senate Interior Committee Chief of Staff, asking if we, meeting at the staff level, could reach consensus on the Grand Canyon bill, now that strip mining legislation was reported. A commitment had been made at the time of the CAP passage (1967-8) to reconsider GCNP boundaries. Hearings have been held, and Committee Print 1 reported by the Parks subcommittee.
Present to consider this question were three from Interior (Curry, Wheeler, Allen), five from NPS (Chapman, Stitt, Whitlock + 2), the Committee (Verkler + Hartung, and Harrison Loesch, minority counsel), Wildlife Federation (Clapper), Emerson, and George Alderson & me. My contemporaneous notes take up 2-½ pages in my journal. What follows are as close to quotes, fleshed out with grammar, as I could record.
Emerson (E): We are trying to do today what Goldwater has tried to do over four years of meetings in his offices.
Clapper: Where are Monument deletions?
E: Isnt it true that NPS agrees to deletions with tight archeological safeguards?
Chapman: Our position initially was deletions as a basis of exchange, but no more. With (archeological) evidence now, we do not take the position for deletion.
Allen: And that position (against deletion) has not been changed.
E: I will settle that right now. (My notes say he "dashes away".)
Harrison Loesch(H): Goldwater has a very strong impression that the Secretary had agreed to change the position. (I commented in the margin that we had "got to the nut awful fast".)
Curry: The letter from Reed to Church is the official position. (The letter was dated the 12th; see below.)
Ingram: We will fight against deletions at every step.
Clapper: The needs of wildlife management in principle require harvesting (= deer hunt).
Stitt (S): Slide Mtn cannot hold many(?).
George Alderson (G): Over-grazing or browsing?
S: Nothing recent.
G: Cattlemen want to get back in; would not that stimulate others to ask?
Verkler (V): Lets review grazing.
E and S go back and forth.
V: Secretary could continue (grazing permits), yes.
E: Lets get it into open, and explore question. Arizona & National Wildlife Federation are primary here; these are not Park quality lands. There are trophy bucks; antelope could come back; they are open grasslands. Need intensive wildlife management.
(In journal, I comment: "taking lumps from Arizona delegation".)
E: You will get a new position, I guarantee.
H: The Department will accede to the deletions. Senators Fannin & Goldwater feel they have an understanding with Secretary Morton, even though there is nothing in writing.
V: The Committee will want to know what the Departmental position is.
E: You will know!!
Clapper: Im reflecting ideas of executive of N.W.F.
S: (In answer to question) water tanks will not be maintained.
V: So deer would migrate to where water is.
NPS man: Another point of difference is the lower river.
E: Goldwater will have to look at whole policy; there is now a national TV campaign on the Havasupai.
V: Will this bill be so controversial that it will have to be put on the back burner?
H: Not of utmost importance, but minority will go along.
V: So much pressure to get a bill out.
E: Will go along with the Havasupai if certain things preserved, such as 270 miles of river.
H: Caveat: there is not total agreement on Indian lands.
V: So a letter from Jackson to Morton could ask what is the position?
G: Is deletion critical?
E: Yes. Critical to Arizona.
H: Critical to Fannin (for intensive wildlife management & antelope restoration).
E: It is grassland.
S: No, it is pinyon-juniper.
E: Grazers are of great importance.
V: If deletions are kept, would Goldwater oppose the bill?
H: Fannin would, too.
H (whispering to NPS's Curry): You know we had agreement with Sec. Morton.
V: If Senator had agreement with Morton, why did not people know? I didnt know about this before. I sure do now. Jackson is calling me. I'll tell you today.
End of meeting.
Friday, November 23, 2012
At first, the summer looked crowded. The hearing complete, the Senate subcommittee on Parks under Senator Bible would work over the bill. Very quickly, we heard changes were being made by Goldwater's and Senate committee staff. There was talk of sub-committee "mark-up" of the bill with these changes in mid-July, followed by consideration in the full Interior Committee. A vote by the full Senate would complete action there. As well, the initial indications were that the House Parks subcommittee might try to hold its hearings around July 20th. Thus, McComb and I knew we would have to get ourselves to Washington in its most uncomfortable season, the muggy summer. And, since we wanted to push for changes that Senator Goldwater opposed, we would be introducing ourselves to new casts of characters, hoping we could convince a number of them not only to be interested, and not just to support a settled bill, but to help us make changes the bill's sponsor was against. My file contains pages of hand-written comments, notes, suggestions on whom to contact and how. Most, Im afraid, are undated and some, obscure. It is still entertaining, though, to read through and try to re-create that hectic quality of walking & bustling about the halls of the Senate's (as later the House's) office buildings, chewing over our issues and prospects, purposefully with the many, always busy, aides, and, with more freedom, among ourselves.
Monday, November 12, 2012
The inadequacies of the Goldwater + Emerson approach to legislating had been brought into embarrassing view in the June 20th Senate hearing. Even after years of consultations and meetings, the testimony made obvious that major issues had not been resolved; the bill being considered seemed just the latest in the series of trial balloons since 1966. Unfortunately, the Senator seems to have been under the impression that he deserved agreement on his "compromise". However, of the two interests that should have been energetically supporting their approach, we Grand Canyon advocates hated the deletions and wanted a more complete Park, while the Havasupai, as the only strong supporters, failed to gather the kind of allies needed to counter their array of opponents.
Here is a recap of how the parts of the bill fared in the hearings:
Recognition of complete Canyon and unified interpretation: no controversy.
Boundaries: Canyon advocates were anti-deletion and wanted more; hunters, loggers, and other interests the reverse.
Acquisition: criticized for lack of eminent domain.
Indian protection & support: Navajo were indifferent & did not appear; Hualapai were opposed.
Havasupai: supported an enlarged reservation, but did not like not being deprived of the Globe Ranch allotment.
Zone of influence: universally attacked.
Grazing for 10 years: no comment.
Aircraft regulation: weak, evoking little notice.
Reclamation provision: opposed by supposed beneficiary Hualapai tribe.
Wilderness: rejected as inadequate.