On the Edge VI: A Green Alternative

In my previous entry about Mather Point, I was ambivalent about some of the features of the upgrade: the wide, black asphalt, straight, walk-ways in particular. Today, Mrill Ingram showed me some photos of a project that shared some of the goals, but is a step up in environmental consciousness. It is called WaterWash. Designed by Lillian Ball (she has a website), it is a recycling feature nurturing a wetland with a green infrastructure. I offer a few photos to compare with those of the Park Service's project at Mather.

On the Edge V: In the Flesh

On a visit to the upgraded Mather Point, Friday, 21 October, I walked about, listened, chatted with a few people, contemplated, made lots of notes, and took some photos with my Jobs-book. I left with the notion that I was having two legitimate reactions:

1. The changes at Mather Point and the new visitor center are greatly to be applauded; they bring a huge improvement. They are the ultimate realization of Mather's potential as a first-look orientation focus.

2. Why, oh why, couldnt it have been done with more inspiration from the Canyon and respect for the importance of the visitor's first look, that Spanish experience? (see my previous post, 26 October)
President Garfield said this about education: My definition of a University is Mark Hopkins at one end of a log and a student on the other. Well, that 1872 statement may need updating, but my definition of the first-look experience of the Grand Canyon will remain: A visitor standing on the edge, the Canyon opening out beyond.  A straight-forward, untrammeled, connection. 

But you decide; here is what I recorded:

On the Edge IV: The 1990's, From the Inside

In "On the Edge III: The 1990's" (12 Sep 2011), I presented maps from the 1995 General Master Plan (GMP) for GCNP showing several alternative levels of development for Mather Point. I have very little personal documentation or archival material for that period, one in which I was distracted from Grand Canyon affairs. On the other hand, that period is so recent that I thought it might be worthwhile to see which participants might be willing to talk about the goals of the 1990's and what prevented them from being realized. 

I did recall having a talk, maybe in 2000, with Brad Traver, whom I remembered as the chief operational officer for the GMP's ambitions, particularly with respect to the vexed matter of visitor transportation. "Vexed" of course because of the difficulties caused by over 60 years of cultivating the private automobile as the primary mode for 2, 3, 4 & up million visitors each year to come to and get around in Grand Canyon National Park. "Vexed" for me because in the 1970's, during an earlier round of transportation planning for the Park, I tried hard to convince the planners that cars and the "Spanish experience" did not mix, while they remained tied to the idea that cars did and would rule. 

GCNP-Hualapai Boundary, Addendum 2/3: What Might the Park Service Say?

If the National Park Service were to continue to assert that the boundary of Grand Canyon National Park adjacent to the Hualapai Reservation goes up the left bank from the river to the high water line, how might that position be justified? And, which high water line would be used?

Hualapai Reservation north boundary; addendum 1

Conceptually & emotionally, the Hualapai have often referred to haitat when discussing the question of the Reservation's northern boundary that goes "to" and "along" the Colorado River adjacent to the part of the Grand Canyon National Park boundary that is set "on the south bank" of the Colorado.

GCNP-Hualapai Boundary: Reflections on the Swamp

River Middle Muddle And The Water Line That Got High--With A Big Downer After

So where is the boundary? Lets check off the points:

1883 Executive Order says "to" and "along" Colorado River.

19th & 20th century surveys: stayed away from river boundary.

1910-20's: U.S. withdrawals of river + ¼-mile or more for hydropower, including reservation land.

1930's: Lake Mead covers variable amounts of reservation land as the reservoir fills and drops, etc.

1939: Hualapai interested in getting something from proposed Bridge Canyon Dam(BCD).

1930-40's: Supreme Court settles Hualapai title, but nothing defined for river boundary.

1949-50: Arizona federal legislators accommodate Hualapai demands for compensation if BCD built as part of Central Arizona Project; no statement on boundary.

This starts the period, still continuing, of Hualapai claim to middle of river; haitat.

1950's-60's: Indian Claims Commission process: Hualapai claim to middle of the river. ICC rejects claim and defines northern river boundary as on southern shoreline, but is not more definite. During testimony, evidence is given that Hualapai & Southern Paiute both used rivershore and crossed river.

Scanty archeological evidence from that period and since adds nothing definite about use and occupancy. 

1960's-70's+: Hualapai pursue participation in BCD authorization, but boundary not further defined since no need given the amount of land used.

1964: LMNRA Act sets NRA boundary well south of river; Hualapai reject including any of their land in the NRA.

1960's: USGS quads show boundary in middle of river and reservation land in NRA.

1972-5: Legislative history of Park enlargement Act  shows one goal is unified administration of river. Language of Act places boundary "on south bank" with supporting statements saying entire water surface was in Park. Intent was to end ambiguity.

1975 on: GCNP Sup't tells people boundary is at high water mark; view maintained by NPS since.

1975-8: Hualapai & allies, including attorney and Goldwater aide, realizing too late what the Enlargement Act did, led an attack on NPS view of boundary, but the language of all sides ends up as saying, in effect, "where ever the Hualapai boundary was, it still is; none of their land was taken", without explicitly refuting that river water surface is in Park, or offering any evidence that it is in middle, only repeating that Hualapai claim to the middle. Hualapai attorney documents indicate his uncertainty as to whether their claim to the middle would prevail.

1976: Interior Field Solicitor writes opinion that high water line is boundary, but opinion has errors and puts boundary at high water mark only by assertion; no documentation.

Focus of analysis is on bed of river, not river surface and its traffic, and secondarily that river is a navigable stream. 

1988: Updated USGS quads show boundary exactly on water edge of south bank.

1997: Interior Solicitor opinion supports 1976 conclusion, but undercuts it, and itself offers no documentation or irrefutable legal analysis.

2000: Park and Hualapai entered into an agreement to disagree and met over several years to discuss interlocking river activities and problems.

2001: Majeske article attacked solicitor opinions as invalid, but his arguments also lack analysis and documentation, including his conclusion that river is non-navigable, made once again by assertion.

201?-on: The best answer is the "wet foot--dry foot" doctrine: GCNP has jurisdiction over the river's water surface, fluctuating as it does, and the Hualapai own the land to the water's edge, fluctuating as it does.

Hualapai, a summary history, to the dam

Dobyns & Euler open their 1975 book on the Hualapai (Walapai) by marking and lamenting the centenary of the Hualapai’s forced entry into the U.S. economy as laborers. This fits my own impression gathered from archives, that the Hualapai see their reservation, only a piece of their original territory, as a place on which to establish a viable economy. If the story of the Havasupai asks, in part, what would their lives & society have been like had the government established an appropriate reservation in 1882, the Hualapai story asks, in part, what happened to a people when they tried to use a reservation that was set aside for them to be able to abide in their ancestral lands. The answers have emphasized different geographic zones of the reservation, not all oriented toward the Grand Canyon. 

GCNP/Hualapai Boundary documents

6 Feb 1976 Interior Field Solicitor, San Francisco

Hualapai asserts they own half the bed of the river.

Therefore, they are entitled to a portion of river traffic revenues.

10 Oct 1975, in reply to Goldwater inquiry, this office said PL93-620 did not resolve boundary disagreement.

Conclusion in this reply is that 1883 EO established Reservation boundary at high water level. Title to the bed was in US until 1912, when it passed to Arizona.

After moving about, in 1881, majority of tribe proposed a tract of no great use to whites, w/ no mineral deposits, little arable land, water in small quantities, and void of grass for stock raising.

8 Jul 1881, military reservation established; followed by EO 8 Jul 1883.

Colorado River is navigable by Az v. Cal (he says 1912, but it is 1931).

Did US convey title to river bed? No evidence of any intent to do so.  Goes through several irrelevant cases, without attempting to connect to Hualapai situation.

Doubt should be resolved in favor of Indians, but no doubt in this case that EO did not include the bed, as the language "clearly" sets forth (quotes text).

Language of "along" = border the river, and this is supported by description of land without any resources. Therefore the Hualapai did not consider any portion of the river to be within their boundaries; no evidence they considered land under river to be of utility to them.

Ownership in bed lies with State, but ownership and use subservient to the Federal navigation and other paramount Federal laws.

In footnote says that control of river implied by PL93-620 language that GCNP shall "comprise all those lands, waters, and interest therein", but more research needed.

========================================================================

Boundary of Grand Canyon National Park Adjacent to the Hualapai Reservation

The Grand Canyon National Park is bounded by the Hualapai Reservation between river miles 164.8 and 273.1 of the Colorado in the Grand Canyon. I labelled this boundary segment as F on the map in my post of 14 Jul 2010. (Segment G is also a joint boundary, but is not in dispute. My blog entries on the boundary run from July into October 2010.)

BASIC POSITIONS

The Reservation was first established by the Army on 8 Jul 1881, and given permanence by President Arthur's executive order dated 4 Jan 1883. Here is the text of that order:

Here is a copy of the map the responsible Army officer drew in 1882:

By the way, just for kicks, please notice that the east-side line running north "to" the river, doesnt quite make it. And C.F.Palfrey did not even attempt to draw a line down the river, it was boundary enough. Just saying.

Note, added 29 May 2012: Army Engineer Lt C. F. Palfrey, according to E Coues (translator of Garces), went down Peach Springs Canyon to the river on 19 Jun 1881, just before the Army set up the Hualapai reservation. Palfrey retired in 1895; no date of death found, but quite possibly he would have been alive to testify had there been a court case in the early XXth century. W. R. Price, who presided over this and the Havasupai reservation, died 30 Dec 1881.

GCNP Boundary Segment F-- The River and the Hualapai: Overview

This is an orientation to the entries I am posting at this time. The subject is that boundary segment of Grand Canyon National Park adjacent to the Hualapai Nation's lands established as a Reservation by President C.A. Arthur's executive order of 4 Jan 1883.-- the  segment as set by map "113-20, 021 B" in the GCNP Enlargement Act, 3 January 1975, "on South Bank of the Colorado River (River Mile 164.8 to 273.1)".

The boundary is on the river edge; the discussion of it is a swamp. 

I do not begin to believe that the materials I am gathering here will solidify that swampy ground, but I do believe the effort to gather them is worthwhile. For space purposes, I reproduce few of the documents, instead trying to summarize the books, documents, files, and other archival materials I have collected or come across over the past three decades. I have tried to make this my definitive statement.

One of my posts, Hualapai history summary to the dam, is a sketch from the 1880's to the late 1940's, to provide context on how I see the boundary discussion.

And let me say here that I have read and tried to honor the contributions of Dobyns, Euler, McMillen, & Shepherd for their expertise on the Hualapai. I have used what they wrought. It needs to be said that they, if they could, might dispute my summaries and interpretations of their writings, since I believe I am correct in saying that these are the writing of Hualapai admirers and advocates. 

My position is not so straight-forward. In 1976, HTC Chairman W. Whatoname Sr. wrote me, "From testimony you and your organization have given in the past on Hualapai dam, it is apparent that your interest in our reservation is adverse to our interests and our attempt to develop our major resource." True on the dam, and proud of it. And in arguing for a GCNP boundary line that placed within the Park the entire water surface of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, I may still be perceived as "adverse" to Hualapai interests. Nevertheless, my goal in gathering and posting on-line these boundary materials, as comprehensive as I can make them, is to give others the chance to consider the complexities of this issue. 

With respect to the boundary, my main presentation is the entry "Boundary F between GCNP and Hualapai". This contains summaries and discussions under the following headings:

Basic Positions

Some Legislative History

Re-starting the Arguments

Summaries of (Quasi-)Legal Opinions

Surveys & USGS Topographic Maps

Hydro-power Withdrawals 

Dams and the Line

Archeo-History

And More Recent History

Indian Claims Commission

Summary and Conclusions.

An associated entry, Park/Hualapai Boundary Documents, is a lengthier analysis of four significant documents: two Interior Solicitor opinions (1976 & 1997), A. Majeske's 2001 attack on those opinions, statement by Ass't Sec. for Indian Affairs with Hualapai context-setting (1977-8)