Monday, June 2, 2014

PL93-620 W3. Sep 1974: The Committee Reports

Given what great changes the Udall-crafted legislation had undergone from the bill the Senate had produced, future understanding of what the House Committee had finally approved and its justifications therefor would be heavily based on the 36-page Report document that Committee staff produced on 25 Sep 1974. In the floor debate, and later in conference with the Senate, what the Report said would both set the lines of discussion and provide markers should there be changes in conference--which would, of course, produce another report. 

Here is the document's header:

The text of the amendments followed, then a short statement of purpose. Much longer were the discussions of Background, Legislative History, and more important, the Section by Section Analysis. Following the Committee recommendations, reports were reprinted from Interior (submitted November 1973) and Agriculture (July 1973, plus an addendum from April 1974), and the President's statement recommending the Havasupai reservation enlargement (May 1974). A dissenting view on the Havasupai transfer was written by Reps. Foley, Seiberling & Dellenback, while Steiger and Idaho's Symms lamented the failure to approve a dam. The Report ended by printing changes in existing law.

The first amendment changed the Park's start point from Navajo Bridge to the Paria River.
The second and third updated the acreages and map number to show our additions of upper Kanab, Whitmore, & Parashant-Andrus Canyons and the Sanup & Shivwits Plateaus.
Next, the lands added under the previous amendment in Kanab and Parashant Canyon that were in Forest Service or BLM hands, were to be studied to see if they were "unsuitable" for the Park and thus should be deleted.
Section 4 was fixed so that state lands could be exchanged, not just donated.
Section 10 on the Havasupai Reservation was completely rewritten to transfer some lands, cover them with restrictions & a secretarial land use plan, and designate some other lands, left in the Park, for Havasupai traditional use. 
The final amendment, a new provision, ordered the Secretary to report, within two years of final enactment, to the President recommendations for designation as wilderness of any suitable areas in the Park as expanded.

[My comment: It is easy to see why Udall was pleased with his legislative crafting: Park advocates would move quite a way toward their goals of a complete Park with Wilderness designation, while the outrage of the hunters & cattle-growers was to be palliated by an after-the-fact study. The dam proponents had been fended off, being left with a meaningless formula. The Havasupai's long effort to repatriate some of their land would be rewarded, but with restrictions that made sense to them and environmentally.
  In the wisdom of age, I look back astonished at this accomplishment and wonder that, instead of whole-heartedly and loudly, and in company with the Havasupai, we did not throw our full weight to push this masterpiece strongly through the House so that we could then get the Senate to just adopt it with no changes. However, so far as I remember, we never even discussed anything but strong and bitter to-the-end opposition to the Havasupai transfer. Of course, even had Park advocates backed Udall whole-heartedly, there would still have been opposition based on anti-Indian and anti-Park sentiment. 
  With whatever wisdom this blog has brought me, however, I can say that in the long run Udall's work was a success, even though narrow-minded commercial & bureaucratic interests blocked Wilderness designation for the Park later on. In the still longer run, Kanab Canyon did earn its designation as Wilderness, though not in the Park so that it is still open to damage from another set of those interests. And stretching out even longer, the western Canyon has been recognized at least, in the flawed, inadequately protected, and misnamed Grand Canyon - Parashant National Monument. 
  So, in the longest run, is it not within the wit of human consideration, to think that the Park goals of 1966-75 can still be realized? ]

The Report's statement of Purpose was "the preservation of the Grand Canyon for all time for all people." It would consolidate into one Park "virtually all" the area "generally recognized" as the Grand Canyon, 1,406,500 acres and ~280 river miles.

The Background section noted that this was a "massive" addition to the current Park of 673,575 acres; nearly all the lands were already federally administered under relevant land laws. 
There was then some nice descriptive rhetoric from Lane, Secretary of the Interior in 1919. A scientific resource, and a place of tremendous natural, scenic, and historic interest for the "layman"; "a place of beauty, peace, and quiet." For several tribes, it is home. 

Taking it piece by piece: the current Park is the "heart of the area" with geologic formations from the most ancient to younger deposits containing fossils of prehistoric life. 
The current Monument has sheer rock walls, and evidence of a lava dam. 
Some of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area is being transferred, including the backwaters of Lake Mead comprising the final stretch of the river, an integral part of the Canyon to the Grand Wash Cliffs. "It is not intended to adversely affect, in any way, the normal operating criteria presently existing for Hoover Dam."

Marble Canyon N. M. includes some outstanding scenic areas and points of access to the river "relatively uncomplicated" by high walls and other barriers.
The addition of a relatively small part of Glen Canyon N.R.A. will assure complete protection of all the major elements of the canyon & river. 
Some areas in the Kaibab National Forest are part of the Canyon, and their transfer "will assure their management in accordance with park standards."

Although some reservation lands are within the Grand Canyon, "no Indian lands will be taken for the park" without the consent of the tribes involved (italics in original). It is hoped that the Secretary will work with the tribes to maintain their lands "consistent with the objectives of the park" (my italics). He is authorized to make cooperative agreements "to assure the unified administration of adjoining lands for the protection, interpretation and enjoyment of the park."
  Some BLM and State lands are included to insure the Park's integrity. Any State land taken requires the State's consent. 

The Legislative History was four pages long, appropriately the longest part.

"Public hearings" were conducted in late 1973; "all the issues involved were presented." [Although the hunters chose not to appear, and only started making their case 6 months later.]
First issue (a) was the area to be included. Supporters urged that "all lands  within the geographic Grand Canyon and some of the tributary side canyons" be included, and opposed any deletions from existing NPS areas. "Grazing and timber spokesmen …wanted …no action adverse to their interests". In resolving this controversy, the Committee
1) included "several important additions … to assure preservation of the Grand Canyon from the rim to the river;"
2) required a study to determine whether certain portions "are needed for the preservation, use and enjoyment of the park;"
3) provided an orderly phase-out of grazing;
4) eliminated the need for a "zone of influence" along the rim by including critical areas;
5) required tribal consent "before any Indian reservation lands" could be included.

(b) Wilderness: some proposals provided for wilderness designation. Although some areas have been fully studied, this bill incorporates much new land, so the Committee concluded there should be studies of the new land leading to a revised plan. So the entire area is to be studied within two years "and transmitted to the Congress for its consideration." [My emphasis. I had not remembered this discrepancy with the bill language, which only called for the study results to be reported by the Secretary to the President. This turned out, in 1977, to be a crucial difference; the excellent Wilderness proposal was smothered within the Office of the President by people friendly to the motor-boater concessionaires and has never been sent to Congress.]

( c) Dam: In the mid-1960's Congress was involved in one of the most intense conservation controversies of this century--whether to authorize Hualapai dam at the Bridge Canyon site.
For many years, it had been recognized as an outstanding powersite on the Colorado. It was included as one of the principal features of the Colorado River Basin Project Act. Because of its "large" reservoir extending into the Monument, within the "geographic Grand Canyon", a "great national outcry arose and ultimately the dam was deleted from the legislation." Congress did not authorize a Federal dam and "expressly prohibited" the Federal Power Commission from licensing any power project between Glen Canyon and Hoover dams.
The damsite would have been on Hualapai and Lake Mead NRA land, unless the Park is enlarged. The Lake Mead NRA Act "expressly provided" that power purposes would not be affected by the NRA, so the prohibition in the Basin Project Act is the "only real bar" to a dam. As explained, the proposed dam would be built by the Arizona Power Authority under contract to the Hualapai Tribe. One abutment and facilities would be on Hualapai Reservation. The reservoir from this "low profile dam 400' above the river bed" would "flood" about 50 river miles. 
The Committee recognized the importance of the dam to the Hualapai. There are 1000 members, high unemployment, and low per capita income; they see the dam as a means to improve their standard of living. "Because of the importance of this area to the Grand Canyon", the Committe concluded that "this segment of the river should not be destroyed by inundation, and that the entire Grand Canyon should be preserved for all people for all times with 'with nothing to mar its grandeur.'"

(d) [The write-up on the dam was longer than the pro-Canyon sections; that on the Havasupai is longer than all the rest of the History put together.]
Historically, the Havasupai have lived in and around the Canyon; always a small tribe and never wealthy, their poverty "contrasts sharply with the relative affluence enjoyed by others". Basically agrarian (sic), more than half live on the 1880's reservation; little use is made of the southern addition, "seemingly unproductive" land 25 miles up canyon. [It had been added in the 1940's to secure a water right for grazing.]
They used to range over 2½ million acres, moving to the plateau in the winter to hunt and gather food. In 1893, President Harrison created a forest preserve including some of their aboriginal lands. In 1908, President Roosevelt created the first Monument, which Congress converted to the Park in 1919, with an explicit provision not to affect Havasupai rights, and to permit individuals to garden inside the Park. 
The Havasupai say their title was never extinguished. Whether this is so, Congress can enlarge any Indian reservation by setting aside public lands in trust. The Havasupai won their 2¼ million acre claim before the Indian Claims Commission and accepted the $1,240,000 judgment. However, the Havasupai also retained their free permit to about 250 kac. The ICC had no authority to consider revesting title to land. They have sought an enlarged reservation for decades. Legislation was proposed in 1908 and the BIA has made recommendations from time to time. They seek now to have Congress place the grazing permit lands in trust. 
"The Havasupai situation is unique." The ICC compensation did not affect their permit nor Congress' express sanction of their use in the Park in the 1919 Act. Therefore, the Committee recommends an "equitable" solution on behalf of the Havasupai, who desire trust title to all the permitted land. It also recognizes its responsibilities as trustee of the Nation's natural heritage. To do justice, the Committee recommends that 65 kac within the present Park & Monument and 120 kac in the National Forest be held in trust. This leaves within the Park all of the outer gorge, the boundary being set back ¼ mile from the rim. The legislation is "intended to give a greater degree of security" to continued use, but the bill expressly limits the uses permitted.
Unlike existing reservation lands, the additions must be used according to "a land use plan developed by the Secretary in consultation with the tribe." "No use is to be permitted which will detract from the existing scenic quality of the lands." According to Representative Udall: The "land…must be used, in perpetuity, in ways that are fully consistent with total protection of that great feature known as the Grand Canyon." He added that the plan would also protect the Havasupai traditional uses from being infringed upon by the Park Service, namely, uses for agriculture, grazing, residence by Havasupai, and ceremonial & religious purposes. It is "apparently" not the wish of the Havasupai, nor the Committee's intent, to allow "any construction, development, or other uses which would intrude upon natural and scenic values of the lands transferred or to interfere with the public use and enjoyment of the adjacent park and forest lands."
In addition, the Havasupai are allowed to continue traditional use of about 95 kac below the rim. Access to this area should be guaranteed because it contains places of historic significance, burial grounds, and religious shrines.
The unique circumstances in this case warrant Congressional action as an exception to ICC adjudication. While the Committee is unwilling to grant unlimited trust title, its recommendation protects the Park and will result in a much more satisfactory arrangement with the Havasupai than the present permit. Since this is a grant by Congress, no payment by the Havasupai is required for the benefits conferred. It finally settles the question of title to the land. 

1 provides the name: The Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act.

2 recognizes the entire Grand Canyon from the Paria's mouth to the Grand Wash Cliffs as a natural feature of national and international significance. This Act will provide additional protection and interpretation.

3 enlarges the Park to ~1,406,500 acres as "generally" depicted on a boundary map. It includes lands within the existing Grand Canyon & Marble Canyon National Monuments (which it abolishes), the present National Park, and Federal lands in Glen Canyon and Lake Mead National Recreation Areas and in Kaibab National Forest. The Secretary is directed to study specified areas to determine if the public interest is best served by leaving them in or removing them from the Park, and to submit recommendations within one year to Congress for review.

4 authorizes land acquisition by purchase, donation, or exchange. It transfers all Federal lands to him for administration.

5 provides that State lands may be acquired only by donation or exchange. It prohibits transfer of any "interest in Indian lands" except with the approval of the governing body of the tribe involved.

6 "encourages" the Secretary to enter "cooperative agreements" with Federal, State, and local entities and Indian tribes (my italics) "to assure unified administration for the protection and interpretation of the Park." Under such agreements, the Secretary may develop and operate interpretive facilities associated with the Grand Canyon as a geographic entity.

7 sets up the systematic phasing out of grazing leases. Existing lessees may renew, but only for 10 years after enactment.

8 authorizes the Secretary to initiate action against noise caused by any aircraft operating below the rims, in order to assure environmental integrity and visitor protection.

9 indicates there is no change in certain provisions of the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 relating to the development and use of the Colorado River, and that the possible construction of a Federal reclamation project is not precluded on lands formerly within Lake Mead NRA.

10 provides that ~185,000 acres of Federally owned land is to be "held in trust for the use of the (Havasupai) subject to explicit restrictions on the uses permitted." The Havasupai are allowed to continue traditional uses on certain lands in the Park. All the lands transferred are outside the perimeters of the Canyon's main stem; the boundary crosses one major tributary at Beaver Falls. "It is the intention of the Committee that in establishing the precise boundary for the park at this point that the Secretary should cross upstream from the falls in order to assure their protection as a part of the park." For the Canyon's "complete integrity", the Park boundary should extend ¼ mile from the outer rim.
The Committee wants it perfectly clear that it is not granting permission to make unrestricted use of the lands. Permissible uses include traditional (hunting, gathering, and religious uses); agriculture and grazing to the extent the land can reasonably sustain such uses; historic burial grounds; and, where deemed suitable, in limited areas for residential, educational and community facilities. Logging & mining are prohibited.
Tourism is an important source of income and the Committee does not intend to preclude continuing to generate such income. However, the Committee "does not grant the tribe the right to prohibit access to persons who are not members of the tribe who wish to visit the Park." If compatible with the land use plan, there may be some tribal facilities such as campgrounds and "modest" concessions". However, the legislation does not authorize "any major economic, commercial or industrial development." Certainly nothing is permitted that would have a major impact on the scenic and natural values of the lands, such as condominiums, motels, tramways, observation towers, or other artificial man-made attractions which would detract from the area's "wild character".
The Secretary is ultimately responsible for the plan, but must consult with the tribal council, and will seek the assistance of the Park and Forest Services. It would seem advisable to allow public comment on the plan or its revision. "In no event" will structures be allowed to sprawl across the landscape. The Secretary, with the tribal council, should select limited areas where residential, educational, and community facilities can best serve Havasupai needs, and develop so as to blend with the general character of the region. Federal programs available to other tribes will be available if compatible with the restrictions.
Also, Havasupai may use certain Park lands for grazing and other traditional purposes. 

11 The Secretary is required to study the expanded Park under the provisions of the Wilderness Act and to report recommendations "to the Congress" within 2 years after enactment. [Unfortunately, the bill's wording actually only required a report to the President -- our, and a, fatal error.]

12 authorized expenditures for land acquisition and development. 

Six were listed:
1) extending the boundary to the Paria;
2) increasing the acreage;
3) designating the boundary by reference to a map;
4) adding two areas for study of Park suitability, which only Congress could exclude;
5) holding 185,000 acres in trust for the Havasupai subject to restrictions in a comprehensive land use plan developed in consultation with the tribe to assure the area's natural, scenic and scientific values; permitting Havasupai to use for traditional uses ~95,000 acres of Park to remain forever within the Park; extinguishing all claims of the Havasupai;
6) requiring the wilderness study of the enlarged Park, recommendations to be reported to Congress within two years.

Land acquisition costs are relatively nominal, since most lands are Federally owned. The area is to be maintained in a relatively primitive state, so the development authorization is limited.

The Committee recommends the approval of S.1296 as amended. Some roll call votes were conducted on some amendments; the bill was ordered reported by a voice vote on August 14, 1974.

The Interior report of 9 Nov 1973, was a repetition of what it had submitted for Senate consideration, with the somewhat irrelevant addition that it discussed the bill the late Rep. John Saylor had introduced. In any case, most of the report had been outpaced by events, making it also irrelevant.

The Agriculture report of 25 Jul 1973, although rewritten from its report to the Senate a month earlier, still only opposed the Zone of Influence and enlarging the Havasupai Reservation. Specifically, it agreed to the transfer of the 640-acre Coconino addition, a scenic backdrop for the Park's rim drive, and of the lower Kanab area of 36,280 acres, an integral part of the Canyon.

However, 9 Apr 1974, Agriculture, alerted at this point as were the hunters and state game department (see my post on hunter opposition), "commented" on the House Parks Subcommittee's moving 50-60 kac of Kanab Canyon to the Park, "a deep intrusion into the National Forest". Primarily managed for recreation, wildlife, and grazing, the major recreational use is big game and upland bird hunting. Valuable for wildlife habitat, there were grazing permits for cattle & horses, and this use should be allowed to continue. The boundary in the Kanab area should be left as passed by the Senate.  
  [Historical aside: Only a few years later, KNF suspended grazing along Kanab Creek because of the damage it did. The area, of course, is now in the Wilderness system, and the Forest Service seems committed to a non-grazing policy.]

The added report also opposed the Subcommittee's Havasupai provision, strongly urging that another study be done. Events had passed this provision by, of course.

The President's statement supporting the Havasupai was included.

There were three.

From Rep. Thomas Foley, John Seiberling, & John Dellenback:
Section 10 "threatens to dismantle the entire park and forest systems if carried to its natural and logical conclusion. It very innocently provides" that 185 kac will be set aside in trust for the Havasupai. However, all of the lands west of the Mississippi and lots east of it, have been aboriginal homelands. Practically all our public lands were used by Indians.
In some cases, these land were taken without compensation; in other the terms were less than honorable. So Congress concluded "the Indians should be paid", but "never intended the return of lands", since the "ramifications would be far-reaching and unreasonable". 
Over a century ago, the park idea was born -- places for all Americans, present and future. It would be sad indeed if this Congress begins what might ultimately destroy the national park system--an idea that has captured the imagination of conservationists around the world.
The forest system is likewise important, for recreation and our natural resource base "so vital to the American way of life". Congress should do nothing to suggest a change to the ownership of "a select few". 

In 1946, Congress created the Indian Claims Commission to adjudicate Indian people's claims against their Government. It was to hear evidence, determine claim validity, and award compensation in dollars and not land. 413 have been decided; awards made in 235.
The Havasupai claim was adjudicated and at the request of the tribal attorney with the tribe's approval, a stipulated settlement was agreed to. The ICC said this would be a "final determination" of all Havasupai claims. "That should have been the end of the Havasupai claim." Now they are seeking 250 kac of Park and Forest land, since they feel their present reservation is inadequate to support the needs of their people--"almost 1000 acres per reservation Indian."

This is country "carved with deep canyons from a relatively barren plateau which is barely suitable for grazing or any other productive pursuit which would enhance the economy of the Indians." "Only look at the Hualapai tribe which lives on a large reservation nearby to see problems." Congress can choose many programs more suitable to assist the Havasupai than a land transfer. Certainly the BIA could make a greater effort to enhance their well-being.
"Unless the Havasupai Indians develop a thriving tourist industry by constructing major improvements to accommodate the visiting public, any new land base of this magnitude would have only a minimal impact on their economic future, if any. [My emphasis.] This is what the recent (federal-state) economic study of the Havasupai found. "Naturally, conservationists and other users of our public lands are alarmed … that these lands might be intensively developed."
Conclusion: We "firmly believe that the enactment of (this provision) -- might lead to the dismantling of the national park system;"
… "might seriously jeopardize the future of " all our Forest and public domain lands;
… "threatens to reopen all" claims adjudicated by the ICC "thought to be finally and equitably settled";
… "will not now--or for that matter in the future--solve the economic plight of the Havasupai."

[I have put the emphasis in the above quote because it both highlights the misunderstanding so many had of what had been driving the Havasupai to petition for land title all those years, and the fact that in arguing for title, proponents & allies so often fell back on the economic & social condition of the Havasupai, and yet the Udall compromise, as the emphasized text indicates, blocked the best chance to substantially improve the Havasupai economy.
It is not possible to make valid conclusions from public documents as to how the Havasupai have fared and what they think of the 1970's struggle and its aftermath. However, many pieces of the Secretarial land use plan seem to be lying fallow, while at least some indications are that the Havasupai living conditions/style are not greatly altered by the land addition. They deeply desired the addition for what it represented about their stance and worth in the world. Did they sacrifice their chance at the dollar benefits from a Grand Canyon Village, a Hualapai Skywalk, or a Navajo Escapade; if so, are they pleased or sorry?]

Dissenting Views of Steve Symms of Idaho:
Congress has failed to find the "delicate formula" for orderly development and proper environmental protection. We seriously hamper our efforts "to balance a severely dislocated economy" by defeating the Steiger dam authorization amendment. 
There would have been 10 units producing 1366 Mw of peaking power, a healthy contribution to our need for "pollution-free electric power".  3000 new jobs would have been funded at no cost to the government. Revenues could have made the Hualapai financially independent.
Arguable is the extent "to which water rising along the steep canyon walls encroaches on the integrity of the Park's concept". Fifty miles would be backed up, leaving 200 miles of free-flowing water. It is difficult to understand the rationale, "weighing economic plusses against environmental losses". Those who "most vehemently criticized polluting energy forms were in the forefront" of fighting the "Hualapai project". "Responsible development involves weighing the management options--choosing to develop those sites where the economic benefits are greatest and the environmental losses bearable." The Committee judgment is faulty, asking America to labor under the delusion that a technological miracle will save our hides in 20 years when energy is critically short.

and Sam Steiger of Arizona:
This joint venture of the Hualapai and a state agency would not have cost the federal taxpayer a single penny. "Hysteria and emotionalism" got in its way. Water would not have backed into the Park or Monument; the dam "would not have affected adversely the scenic beauty of the canyon", would have formed a "beautiful blue ribbon-like lake", and would have left 200 miles of "open, raging and wild river" for river runners. 

There would have been 3000 skilled jobs over 14 years; the Hualapai would have made a million a year, and the State 25 million. Most important would have been the pollution-free energy provided, the equivalent of "five to six million barrels of oil annually". 
"The dam is clearly an excellent environmental trade-off."

The (Grand Canyon National Park Establishing) Act of February 26, 1919 (40 Stat. 1175, 1177, 1178; 16 USC 227) was changed by: 
Deleting Sec. 3 referring to Havasupai rights and permissions in the Park, and

Amending Sec. 7 (it became Sec. 9b in the new law) by replacing the reference to the 1919 Park with this reference to Lake Mead NRA:  "those areas formerly within the Lake Mead National Recreation Area immediately prior to enactment of the Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act, and added to the park by such Act", so that the provision now read (unchanged language in italics):
Whenever consistent with the primary purposes of such park, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to permit the utilization of those areas formerly within the Lake Mead National Recreation Area immediately prior to enactment of the Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act, and added to the park by such Act, which may be necessary for the development and maintenance of a Government reclamation project.

[This so-called "reclamation" provision thus remains a blot on the legislative history of Grand Canyon protection. It is not the only one, of course, and like so many is more of a memorial smirch for old habits than a threat. In this case, of course, the "consistent" phrase kills it outright, since reclamation projects by definition and in reality destroy places in the Canyon they touch, as the continuing impacts of Hoover & Glen Canyon dams' reservoirs show.
Further, the authorization and funding for reclamation projects have in reality always been a jealously guarded prerogative of the Congress, with its locally based politics. 

What a Secretary could do, I suppose, is authorize the utilization of areas in & around the Bridge Canyon damsite to conduct studies in aid of the promotion of developing a reclamation project. More interesting would be studies looking at the reclamation (in the true sense) of areas silted in by Lake Mead. Cannot one imagine 3000 jobs over 14 years spent ferrying out dirt left by a never-to-rise-so-high-again reservoir?]

No comments:

Post a Comment