Thursday, December 12, 2013

PL93-620 T4. Apr-Aug1974: Udall's Story; Grinding The Innards

The papers in Box 187, folders 16-18, of the Udall archives are legislative history gold. Though a mix of purities, and not always easily assayed, the materials in these folders provide the best picture we have of how Udall's Havasupai position --which is to say, the position that ended up as the law-- evolved and settled in April-May 1974. A warning: not all the papers were dated; I have done the best I can to figure out what led to what. Nor, not surprisingly, are the authors always obvious; Udall's office and the Havasupai group were certainly trading ideas and phrasing.  

Remember from the narrative post numbered T3 that Udall gives some credit to Edw. Spicer for the idea of a transfer combined with a master plan embodying environmental protections. What these papers show is the working of several minds trying to satisfy the demands of what might superficially seem to be just two views:  the Havasupai on the one hand, and Udall on the other. In this period, Canyon advocates, seemingly ignored, were making mostly futile efforts in the background. However, keep in mind that even the story I tell here is certainly too simple; more information would bring more complication. 

The Parks Subcommittee-approved provision (see my 6/19/13 post for the text) -- altered and edited by Udall up to the last moment -- ordered the Secretaries to formulate and expeditiously implement a plan for Havasupai use of 100 kac. This was, of course, worse for the Havasupai cause than the outright transfers Steiger and Meeds proposed (as had the original Goldwater bill), but was supposed to improve on the even vaguer version of a study that did pass the Senate with administration approval.

After the subcommittee acted, pro-Havasupai pressure continued, and Udall kept working on the wording, as shown in hand-written drafts, one of which called for a land use plan by the Secretaries for 200 kac, but without any transfer. A second would have issued irrevocable permits, and ordered a study for transfer. (I am only summarizing the essence here.)

A third draft, and it was typed up later as an amendment to S.1296, deleted lands from the Park in order to create a larger Reservation but with strong protections, and then had the Secretary of the Interior study and draw up a land use plan. Still deeper in the file is a transfer in trust, with the Secretary keeping full access to the lands. There would be a joint study by NPS and the Havasupai to formulate a master plan. Another version for outright transfer made it subject to Secretarial restrictions that would have the aim of proper management and environmental protections.  

All the above might have been variations being tried out and discussed in March and early April by Udall and his staff, but before he got the full press from the Havasupai, which emphasized that they wanted the land outright, and without any encumbrances from their old adversary, NPS. For that effort, there are unanswered questions [possibly Havasupai lobbyist Sparks or files kept by the AIAA could help provide answers]. Surely, the Havasupai and Sparks came to the Udall meetings with written-out proposals to argue for; they must have had a set of specifics. So when did these crucial meeting(s) take place (March/April?) at which such proposals were presented? We know that Udall had already expressed his general support for the Havasupai in various ways. On 26 Mar, Pontius told McComb the Sparks amendment was "bad"; which was that? About 28 Mar, Pontius was working on a "more pro-Havasupai amendment"; which? Was the material from Spicer (15 Apr) important, even crucial? For that matter, when did the Havasupai lobbyists get involved with Udall staff in trying different formulations? (Pontius and Sparks had dinner on 11 Apr.) What were they peddling when to whom? Were Steiger or other Havasupai-friendly Representatives in the discussions?  Was the language really still "fluid" on 16 Apr? When Sparks met with Interior officials the week of 22 Apr, had Udall told him he favored a transfer?

Fitted into the answers to those questions of what was argued when are two Havasupai-originated drafts contained in the files. What appears to be the first is a Sparks original that transfers land in trust. The Secretary of the Interior would have access to lands deleted from the Park System. In a year, the Havasupai, BIA, and NPS were to do a joint study to draw up a master plan. (Sounds similar to the third draft above.)  Like the 22 Apr one that follows, the description is by sections, though in fact it just follows existing NPS and Forest boundaries. (By the way, in January, the original Park expansion proposal we made to Udall likewise used section boundaries, and then also was revised to map form.) The northern boundary went to elevation 3600' along the river; which is equivalent to the next map's ¼ mile from midstream. Here is McComb's rendition (the diagonal lines indicate parts of the Canyon below the upper rim):
(map below is Udall archives map04b Hav. Res. map)

The next draft, dated 22 Apr, has an "HT" (= Hav. Tribe) and a Sparks note about an understanding with Dale. The land would be in trust. The Havasupai would do a plan in one year covering the economy, agriculture, grazing, religion, and residency. They would consult with the Secretary. The Havasupai could go on other lands for traditional uses. They would have traditional use in the area to the north. The geographical description looks like their northern line went to within ¼ mile of river, as shown here (n.b. in middle, section 3 is 22):

Mapped, it looked something like this:

Though not dated or signed the next, typewritten, draft would seem to be evolved from the above, and much closer to what finally showed up: Lands were to be held in trust in order to provide for seven functions. There could be traditional uses, agriculture & grazing, and burial grounds. For residences, there was, first, a compact area ½ mile from the Park, and next, a use plan that would select contiguous areas for residence & education. There could be no logging or mining. Non-Havasupai could have reasonable access. The lands would be kept "forever wild", with uses not to detract from scenic & park considerations.  A provision to get money back from the ICC settlement is crossed out. The Rain Tank allotment would be transferred after ten years. The concept of Use Lands is proposed for the Canyon below the main rim. A Grand Canyon National Parkway was proposed, with the Havasupai to provide services. 

A similar draft specifies a 185-kac transfer, using a boundary ¼ from the rim of the outer gorge and crossing at some key named points. Then follow the 7 provisos.  There would be a Use Area of 95,300 acres. This is very close to the final.

A 14 Jun paper suggests acreages of 238,808 without Pasture wash. A Use Area boundary would be between 4400 contour and the Colorado river for 26682 ac. I cannot fit this into anything else. 

A hand-written note by MU summarizes his plan as evolved by the end of April or early May): My compromise has 4 main points: the land transferred is all outside the main gorge. In the gorge, there is a Use Area. The land use plan by the Secretary will preserve traditional uses and Park values in the Use Area. In the Residential area, the plan must protect park values, while Havasupai may have residences & agriculture. This is typed up, with point 4 being the plan that includes the residential/education area. There would be 253 kac in aggregate (no Rain Tank). To preserve values, Havasupai and the Secretary in a year shall jointly study to develop the plan. 

An undated note in his own typing from MU to DP asks if there is language to have the land use plan subject to congressional veto. NPS was to regulate all action of non-Havasupai below the rim, and the plan would not permit Havasupai uses to exceed the present level for such uses as cattle-raising and visits to shrines & springs. These protection suggestions were based on phone calls with Tucson environmentalists Coshland, McComb, Rodack.

There is an undated summary, May or later, making the case for the transfer as it finally settled down: 
 Maximize environmental protection; the gorge is in the Park; boundary ¼ mile back from rim. There would be a land use plan by the Secretary. The transferred lands would be "forever wild" except for residences, grazing, and traditional uses. (Did Udall suggest the use of this phrase, originally applied to protected Adirondack lands in New York State?) There would be no detraction of existing scenic quality. These provisions would be better protections than now exist. The claim of the Havasupai is unique; they had made many previous proposals to enlarge their reservation. The Administration supports the transfer. The ICC result should not bar congressional alleviation of problems. There is no precedent since it is a unique claim. Any such claims should be taken up case by case, so no floodgates are being opened. The Havasupai say they want no commercial development, and they cannot have any under the bill. On Pasture Wash--the Havasupai had used it and it is the best grazing land. Their title was never extinguished; enlargement had always been considered. 

Finally, the Havasupai provisions of the bill, as presented by Udall to the full Committee, became the following (note, however, that this language would be amended somewhat before final congressional action):

Pontius passed on to Udall  a map McComb supplied along with an acreage of 185,014 for the Reservation and 95,319 for the Use Area. (Udall archive map04a for full Comm)

Source: Box 187, folders 16-18, of the Udall archives at the Univ. of Arizona

No comments:

Post a Comment