PL93-620 O. Sep-Nov 1973: Prospecting In The House

Picking up the House story, we go back to the week of 10-13 September, when Senate action was coming to a climax:

An afternoon visit with Representative Udall allowed me to tell the story of the week, and I emphasized the distance between an aide and a Senator and the latter's reversal. I showed them the Senate agenda item, and then asked him, "Would you see your way to crafting a good bill with 2-300,000 acres additional?" Udall replied that the problem would be subcommittee chairman Taylor who would not want any controversy. If there were only one amendment with no policy change, probably o.k. If, that is, its on the quiet. I asked about spending some time on this, with hearings in early 1974. Udall  said o.k. Later, his aide, Bracy, wanted me to believe he knew what would happen in the Senate; it would never have gone against conservationists. 

For Peters, minority staffer on the House Parks subcommittee, who was an optimist, I worked up an outline of what a good bill would have. First, fix some problems, like changing the start from Navajo Bridge to Lees Ferry, repealing the reclamation provision, adding park values to the study of Havasupai needs. Second, there should be a study of the entire new park for Wilderness. Third, we wanted additions: 23 kac along the river, 120 kac of side canyons, and 80 kac of rim country. Knowing that there was no way of getting an NPS recommendation for these, I suggested that NPS be quizzed about them during the hearing. Fourth, other protections were needed: no aircraft below the rim; jurisdiction over the entire river to NPS; protection of road corridors to Park; counter pressure by Tusayan developers to get Park water. Finally, there should be encouragement of tribal parks. 

PL93-620 N. Jun-Sep 1973: Havasupai Action During Senate Consideration.

This series of posts on S.1296 described what the Havasupai had to say at the Senate hearing. My 16 Jul 2011 post on the Havasupai repatriation, based on my notes made on materials in the Truxton Canyon Agency files, sketches out from that perspective the situation of the Havasupai and their allies during Senate consideration. I have inserted a copy of that post in the table of contents under the tab PARK.

  Even sketchier is Hirst's account (pp 264-70,), though it does offer officials' excuses for why the Havasupai expansion got dropped from the bill. Given what happened when their cause finally acquired a competent and connected lobbyist in March 1974, however, Havasupai lack of action in May-Sep 1973 provides a nice lesson in legislative sausage-making: you have got to keep furnishing meat and grinding that handle around if you want to get attention from Congress.

 Sketchiest of all are the pro-Havasupai secondary accounts such as those listed below; they largely ignore Senate action. 

 In any case, the Great Havasupai vs. Sierra Club head-butt took place in 1974, and I will recount it in order as the major event it became.

Sources:

I have gone through the Spamer bibliography, hoping to find some account of the Havasupai effort that I had missed. Hirst ( Hirst, Stephen,  Life in a Narrow Place, 1976) remains basic. We will know there is a more definitive account when one appears that includes an interview with Joe Sparks.

Others:

In these accounts, it is not just the errors, omissions, mis-characterizations, and overall tendentiousness that grates on me, but the reminder of just how hard history is. I have written about mis-steps I have made both in memory and in sources, and even tried to correct some. Imagining what would be required to analyze accounts such as those cited here is daunting to the point where I can only urge anyone interested to read as much as you can stand, and  judge it all for yourselves. Or maybe, just pick the sausage flavor you like and stick with it.

Keller, R. H. & M. F. Turek, American Indians & National Parks, 1998

Morehouse, B. J., A Place Called Grand Canyon: Contested Geographies, 1996

Miller, Kristen

2010

17.1218

The story of the Havasupai: A look at their claim to the Grand Canyon National Park. Wittenberg History Journal (Wittenberg University, Springfield, Ohio), 39(Spring):55-70.

PL93-620 M. Sep 1973: A Lobbyist's Work Is … Polishing In The Senate

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".

PL93-620 L. Sep 1973: 3. BOOM! And When The Dust Clears...

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?

E returns.

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?

E: Yes.

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.

PL93-620 K. Jun-Sep 1973: 2. Summer Maneuvers (map added 12/12/12)

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.

PL93-620 J. Jun-Sep 1973: Another, embittering, try

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.

Reflections of a monument: My interview with Bruce Babbitt

Reader beware. I recorded my September 27, 2012, interview with former (1993-2001) Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, and then transcribed it. This post is that material, gathered into topics. My goal was to produce his words, smoothed, ordered, and connected for reading purposes, but trying to keep his voice. I did not use quotation marks or paraphrasing. 

My main focus was his personal role in, and reflections on, the establishment of the Grand Canyon - Parashant National Monument (the fourth for the Canyon). What I like about this material is that it became a mini-essay on governance in a society in which openness and participation are central values. When "I" is used, that is Babbitt in smoothed quote. Material in parentheses is explanation or bridging for smoothness. In an exchange, B is for B.Babbitt, J for me.

Here is a map of the Monument as it now exists -- . 

The southern purple part within the red line is in Lake Mead National Recreation Area; the purple south of that is Grand Canyon National Park. The bulk of the Monument is administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and contains three wilderness areas. The light blue, mostly square, patches are state lands, while the gray is private. Extending the black line of the south-going road inside the Monument more or less west would outline the drainage area into the Canyon itself as the eastern "half" (see the second map below). West and north of that line, the drainage is over the Grand Wash Cliffs into Lake Mead.

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.

1969

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.

PL93-620 H. Jun 1973: Gathering up the views—the Senate hearing

To start with a personal note, I was in the hospital and missed the hearings. We kept hoping; I prepared a statement (submitted later for the record), and even bought a new suit, having it fitted bedside. McComb did attend and spoke, and I have several pages of notes I took on what he observed. The hearing record is also a help by recording the exchanges between Senator Bible (subcommittee chairman and only Interior committee attendee--Arizonan P. Fannin was the senior member and showed up at the beginning when Goldwater appeared, but did not participate) and witnesses. Then there are the 200+ pages of formal statements, markers of position at one crucial point; perhaps they could be considered "taste tests" of the sausage as then constituted and ground, or even suggestions on how to make the product more palatable.

So from my notes, McComb's report, not necessarily coinciding with the hearing record below:

Fannin stayed for 30 seconds. 

Goldwater read his statement and left. He has been twisting arms.

Senator Moss of Utah (a pro-motorboater) showed up to rake NPS Director over the coals for the river companies--spent 25 minutes. Director bad on answering. An aide to Moss said Moss got Goldwater to drop his provisions on river regulation. 

The administration is opposed to all; does not want Monument deletions and does want to study Havasupai for a year. Lovegren had committed NPS to exchange, and therefore would have supported Havasupai deletion.

The Forest Service was strong on its positions.

Interior Undersecretary only cared that Havasupai get land.

Hualapai attorney Marks opposed NRA being added to Park; even with concurrence.

Havasupai only ones in support of their request. Thanked Lovegren. When Bible queried, they said they wanted 24,000 acres back, then will not press for Great Thumb. Want an entry fee increase. 

Clemons of hunter group against the Havasupai transfer. Wanted the zone of influence defined. Wanted Mt. Emma; supported LMNRA and ok on deletions. Another attacked condemnation absence and Bible agreed.

When timber people said they feared blanket authorization for zone, and wanted it defined, Bible agreed. 

Emerson was more hostile than ever before; to McComb, he sounded bitter. At one point, when McComb was asking about some issue, Emerson replied, "You want too much."

Goldwater was seeing Senators personally.

Udall, on the other hand, when McComb met with him, took off his shoes, leant back and listened, asking questions. He was hearing some of this for the first time, and had not been well staffed. After Goldwater had pushed him, Udall had committed himself to hold hearings , but his staffman Bracey was not so certain.

What is historical proof? A personal shock.

In late September, going through the Goldwater congressional papers stored in Arizona State University's Hayden Library, I found the sheet on which attendees had written their names at the January 29, 1973 meeting in Goldwater's home. 

My memories of this meeting are vivid, from sitting next to McComb, to the sense of overall disappointment I wrote about in my journal entry, to the rebuff John & I got from Terry Emerson when we went up to him at the meeting's end to offer our help.

As I read the list of names on the sign-up sheet, once, and again and again, I did not see my name. Literally, the proof of my attendance was not there. 

Did I dream it all? Is the past only a matter of constructed pseudo-memories? Should some historian ever try to piece together how Goldwater and advocates for a complete Park came to dagger-points, will I fail to figure? 

This is not the first area about which I have had such musings. In recent interviews, I have also pondered whether what I remember could be corroborated, either by physical evidence or other participants, and in some cases concluded that even my strongest memories may have no other support.

Here is another story connecting my comments above with those that follow:

I have remembered all these years that John & I met with Bruce Babbitt about the Navajo position on the Goldwater bill; at the time, 1972, he was an attorney in the firm that was counsel for the Navajo.

When I recently read my journal entry from that time, I had written that we talked with him about the ... Havasupai!

I happened to mention this 1972 meeting to Babbitt when I interviewed him (see below). He quickly corrected me, saying it was the Navajo he represented -- just as I remembered; not the Havasupai as my journal entry said.

I went back and re-read the journal, and concluded based on the content of what we talked about that yes, back in 1972, I had written the wrong tribe!

Memory or written record; could old Henry have been right—History IS bunk? 

In my September 27th interview (more on that later) with former Interior Secretary Babbitt about the creation of Grand Canyon - Parashant National Monument in 1998-2000, I recorded this comment of his:  "I am getting senile; I have no memory of this stuff at all." 

I am glad I have lots of supporting materials for the memories offered by this decidedly non-senile exemplar of public service. 

Otherwise, would it all just evaporate, like a digested madeleine?

PL93-620 G. Jun 1973: Senator Case's Bill

Anticipating the hearings by a day, Senator Case introduced S. 2017 to "include all of the Grand Canyon, except for those parts that are included in Indian reservations, in the National Park". He remarked it was similar to bills he had introduced for "the past six years". His press release was included in the hearing record*, but not the text of the bill. The map (113-20011, May 1973, DSC) prepared for him by NPS, was included in the hearing record (p. 93) only as  submitted by McComb. Oddly, in fact, neither the Goldwater nor the NPS map is in that record. Note that the non-river boundary is set on section lines, though there is no legal description. Existing NPS areas added to the Park are white, while the cross-hatched "proposed additions" were to come from other agencies' turf. "Indian Land" marked by diagonal lines are areas section 13 of the bill encourages the Navajo, Havasupai & Hualapai to establish as tribal parks (as the Navajo had already done). 

GCNP-Hualapai Boundary: Another note in the continuing series; this time from 1973

In my consideration of the dispute over this boundary, I wrote (Oct 2011) that in 1975 -- after the GCNP Enlargement Act became law -- then-superintendent Stitt started talking about the boundary being on the "historic high water line", and I, --along with the Hualapai and their attorney Marks -- was surprised and displeased because it was our understanding that putting the boundary on the south bank was only intended to give NPS jurisdiction over the water surface in order to control river traffic. Going up to a historic, maximum-ever high water mark would be taking Hualapai land, in a common-sense interpretation of the 1883 reservation establisment, which used "to" the river, and "along" the river.

PL93-620 E. Mar 1973: Goldwater's serve — S1296 as introduced

March 20 was the big day. I do not know whether Senator Goldwater actually went to the Senate floor, but the Congressional Record for the day published his 7-column statement and the text of the bill he introduced for himself and 24 others. This entry summarizes the bill language and Goldwater's explanation. (For comparison, my entry of 26 July 2012 contains the text of Act as passed two years later.) Since the proposed boundary was the centerpiece, here first is an NPS map (a little off in the top center) of his proposal:

PL93-620 F. Mar-Jun 1973; Making some changes while waiting

My journal has few entries for the three months between the bill introductions and Senate hearings on June 20. Hirst's account does not describe any action during this period by the Havasupai, either. NPS, however, having provided much of the foundation for the Goldwater bill, worked hard to settle the details of its own position. 

In my work notes, dated 3/22, I made this list: 

1. The G bill: decent base except for H. transfer. 

defects: 

 A Havasupai economic development transfer 

 A Monument exclusion

 B Lees Ferry

 B Kanab and Whitmore-Parashant area

 C condemnation

 B river not in Wilderness; Hualapai concurrence

 C weak aircraft regulation

 C reclamation provision

good points: downstream, "entirety", "protect & interpret", Zone of Influence, cooperative interpretation

2. Process: Intro with sponsors;   got Udall

Senate hearings: Bible, Fannin

  a) will need big noise: no deletions

  b) need alternative (Case) bill

Mark up of bill: Jackson; Bible- Church, Johnston; Hansen, Hatfield, McClure

Passage

House Committee: Udall will do it for them

(and a Havasupai) Scenario:

1 conservationists, NP, NF, et al. identified as villains -- campaign

2 ask for 166,000 + other 3

3 "Forced" to accept ~60,000 of access + Havasu canyon 

(We will need:) 

Vociferous support of Case bill & (generalized) support of NPS integrity

Detailed prospectus for lands proposed for deletions with photos

Alternative proposals for Havasupai:

 1. Use rights confirmed; grazing capacity est.

 2. Increase of head tax

 3. Purchase of private ranch land

PL93-620 D. Feb-Mar 1973: In Goldwater's Court (add'ns 9/17/12)

So we had spent two months and been granted the reward of a Park boundary that would go to the Canyon's western end. Since it was almost all NPS land anyway, the final result would be a net loss of protected land since there were to be significant subtractions for what we considered to be the economic purposes of cattlemen, hunters, and the Havasupai. We had been consulted, however; therefore we were to be content. The trouble with that view was that we saw ourselves as the leaders for an expansion of the Park, working toward a presentation of the entire Canyon, an entity worthy of its status as a world-wide icon of the natural world. And what came out of the January 29th meeting was an undignified pastiche of you got some, you lost some. We wanted a Park that was taken another step toward an ultimate completion; Goldwater-Emerson was a settling of old accounts that would protect local interests: graziers, hunters, dam-dreamers. The Havasupai, of course, would have been the most pleased; for them, Goldwater-Emerson would reverse a 90-year-old injustice, bringing a repatriation of some of the land they had once lived upon without hindrance.

The alert observer might wonder if we should have "reconsidered our position", as Goldwater urged. No chance. McComb & I, along with so many other Americans, had already entrenched our "position" -- our belief in protecting the Canyon -- during the fierce, if thankfully short, climactic defense of the Canyon against the attempt by southwestern/Californian water interests to turn the Grand Canyon into an appendage of theirs producing electricity and dollars for future continued economic & population increase. Defending the National Park System and the Grand Canyon in its entirety was not a "position"; it was a bedrock principle, and we firmly believed that once pieces of that System were broken off for economic exploitation, it would be nibbled to irrelevancy and death. The Havasupai might have been cheated for 90 years, but to correct that wrong by sacrificing part of Grand Canyon National Park was itself wrong, and also unnecessary. Moreover, our sense of being right would only be strengthened the more we learned about Havasupai goals and actions.

The Havasupai would win in 1975, I am now glad to say, but only after a fine old political set-to. They earned their victory. 

PL93-620 C. Jan 1973: To the summit

January, from the time we sent out our draft proposals to the meeting on the 29th at Goldwater's house, was filled with conversations as we tried to ascertain the position of other interested parties. We had spent December taking soundings, and then produced a proposal that we felt comfortable trying to convince others to accept as center-seeking. We would try to discuss it with anyone who was interested. We also continued to collect data on hunting, grazing, logging, Havasupai uses, etc., learning as we did so the difficulties lying in the details. With everybody aware of what might be done, at the actual meeting there could be discussion and maybe agreement on the items that would constitute a bill with wide support, or at least acquiescence. This narrative of publishing a proposal, followed by wide-spread discussion in order to reach for an agreeable bill, seemed like a workable scenario. We actually thought we were proceeding under Goldwater's aegis, in order to avoid the head-on conflict that Senator Jackson had told him was undesirable.

PL93-620 B. Jan 1973: Our Offer

In the new year, our first priority was to write out and circulate our ideas. We worked through at least four drafts, developing some of the language and ideas that lasted and some that certainly did not. We had a fundamental concept of unifying the Canyon in the public's mind, a single interpretive entity, even though there was no possibility of having one administrative entity, especially if it was the toughest on non-Park uses, and even if a number of the uses would not be disturbed. So our basic strategy was to get as near to a "complete" Park as we could, and then use the tools of interpretation and regulation to present and protect the Canyon in its full glory on those adjoining lands not included in the Park. 

PL93-620 A. Nov-Dec 1972: Working Together, Or Not

Public Law 93-620 is what the Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act of 1975 became after two-plus years of legislative effort and a Presidential signature. This entry begins its story.

The months before October 1972 were full of Grand Canyon action -- but on river traffic management, not Park boundaries. I have told that story in a 2003 paper book, Hijacking A River, A Political History of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon. The river controversy is important for Park legislation because it so engaged Senator Goldwater's attention in 1972, in part because Fred Eiseman had stirred the issue up. Fred, who lived in the Phoenix area, had maintained a Goldwater connection since he had been a boatman on a Goldwater Grand Canyon river trip, and he regularly ran his own trips in the classic mode using rowing dories. As I recounted in my post of 18 May 2012, Eiseman wanted Goldwater to do something about the rampant commercialization and motorization of river trips, and was worried that bad relations between Goldwater and the Sierra Club would prevent action by the Senator. A Park advisory committee on river matters brought Eiseman and Sierra Club Southwest Representative John McComb together, to the point where Eiseman appealed to McComb to join him in setting up a meeting with Goldwater to work constructively on joint concerns about the river and the Park boundary. 

Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act of 1975, text

Although I am only at the beginning of the detailed history of the Act, perhaps it is useful to see where we ended up, and to have it on-line as a reference for various on-going stories in which the Act has a role. So here are the five pages of the Act as passed and signed on 3 January 1975.

Ah, not so fast. Sausage, especially the legislative kind, is not so easy. When the bill as passed by both houses was sent to the President, Section 11, authorizing a new Wilderness study, was left out. Six months later (a story in itself to be told in the right place), the Act was amended to put the study back in. So that amending Act follows the first five pages.

Protecting the Grand Canyon's eastern rim and the Navajo's western boundary lands

In the spirit of this blog recounting the past in order to understand what futures the Grand Canyon might face, here is one thought I had for cooperative action to protect its east side from the Paria down to the Confluence at the Little Colorado.

First step: Remember it is that entire stretch that is under threat: unregulated recreation, proposed water pipe lines, trespass on sacred land, and most presently, the heinous scheme to enrich some Phoenix whitefolk by using the weapons of mass industrial tourism to suck up investment dollars while destroying the Confluence and its nearby rim.

Second step: Remember that any action affecting the 1934 west Navajo boundary must be grounded in necessity; it must be a "required … use under the authority of the United States". I believe that thwarting the above threats, coupled with the manifest desire of United States citizens, Navajo and non-Navajo, to protect and preserve traditional Navajo and National Park System values in that entire stretch, is such a required use -- provided that the case is made fully, with examples, in public, and before & in consultation with appropriate Navajo and United States government entities and individuals.

Third step: With this requirement in hand, satisfying both the 1934 Navajo Boundary Act and the words of the Antiquities Act, recall what attorney-adviser for the Interior Field Solicitor in Santa Fe, R. C. Eaton, wrote in footnotes 5 & 6 of his 28 Aug 2003 work-product:

"The Navajo Nation Department of Justice has prepared an undated document stamped 'Draft' and titled "Preliminary Analysis of Navajo Nation Western Boundary." which Stanley M. Pollack, the Navajo National's Special Counsel for Water Rights, transmitted to Andrew F. Walch, Attorney, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, by letter dated February 28, 1997. (fn.5) In the "Preliminary Analysis of Navajo Nation Western Boundary," discussed in n.5 above, the Navajo Nation argues that the Antiquities Act authorizes the President to proclaim as a national monument only "lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States" and that that term does not include Indian reservation lands. However, the Navajo Nation's argument is contrary to longstanding Department of the Interior interpretation and practice. See, e.g. September 26, 1978, memorandum from Associate Solicitor, Conservation and Wildlife, to Manager, Federal Antiquities Program, re: Antiquities Act Permits on Indian Lands (concluding that "lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States" includes tribal trust lands). (fn.6)

                 Lets deploy that interpretation for the Navajo's, Grand Canyon's, and public's benefit by a

Fourth step: Use the Antiquities Act to proclaim, as a matter of requirement and necessity, a Grand Canyon - Navajo Rim National Monument, going from the east bank of the Colorado River up to the rim of the Grand Canyon (including the entire left river bank, and the Desert Facade and Marble Canyon's east side), and running from the Paria River junction downstream to the Little Colorado River junction. (There are already Little Colorado and Marble Canyon Navajo Tribal Parks in place.)

This GC-NR NM would be interpreted and declared as a matter of law and policy to be Navajo land in its entirety, as per the 1934 Navajo Boundary Act and given the rights and required concurrence of the Navajo under the 1975 GCNP Enlargement Act.

The GC-NR NM would be administered jointly by the Navajo Nation acting through its appropriate entities, local and tribal, and by the Secretary of the Interior acting through the administration of GCNP. 

The GC-NR NM would be fully protected against all new entry, use, or action under all public land laws, and any alteration in activities carried on as of January 1, 2012 would be forbidden unless and until approved by the administering authorities after full public review, as per for instance, procedures under the 1964 Wilderness Act. All existing valid Navajo rights are protected.

Fifth step: Until the Monument proclamation is made, no actions changing the physical, social, cultural, or natural environment of the area of the GC-NR NM are allowed.

More on boundary segment B: The Navajo western boundary adjacent to the Park

PREFACE

A full title to this very, very long entry would read  "THE NAVAJO WESTERN BOUNDARY ON LEFT BANK OF COLORADO RIVER AND THE NORTH BANK OF THE LITTLE COLORADO RIVER (LCR) ADJACENT TO GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK". A subtitle might read: An argument from history, law, ethics, and common sense. My aim is to be as comprehensive and complete as I can be in gathering and presenting the relevant materials. First, I present the foundation arguments for my conclusion that the boundary is on the riverbank, the edge of the river. The focus is on the strip of Grand Canyon east of the Colorado running from the confluence with the Little Colorado River upstream along the east bank to Nankoweap. The focus then shifts to documents and action to do particularly with Marble Canyon from Nankoweap upstream, the stretch that was included in Marble Canyon National Monument. 

This matter of the Navajo Reservation boundary location is a deeply serious matter, as the current controversy over a heinous proposal to industrialize the confluence of the Colorado and the Little Colorado shows (my blog entry of 24 June 2012). Let me be honest and clear: I strongly wish, in the light (and dark) of my 50-year involvement with the Canyon, that the land & waters in question were securely, unquestionably, and unconditionally within the ownership of the people of the United States as part of Grand Canyon National Park. That it is not so I find vexing, but then, the tangled politics and law focussed on the Grand Canyon that have been generated over the past century-and-a-half are, often, exactly that: vexing, and conflict-full, and exasperating. They are, far more, deeply worth the effort, and exacting and exciting to write about.

Mapping Marble -- or losing them (added to 7/11/12)

As I have mentioned, NPS Land and Resources just finished working for over two years on trying to get the congressional boundary of Grand Canyon National park correct. I emphasize the adjective, because NPS does not care where the boundary really is, only where the legislative process put it or fantasized that it might be put or where some superintendent or solicitor put it. And lots of the line that they drew is pretty accurate. There are some howlers, like west of Andrus-Parashant canyons and south of Pearce Canyon. There are some interpretations I disagree with; rim locations can be tricky. However, these probably do not really matter, since much of such "judgmental" line-drawing is between the Park and the Lake Mead NRA section of the Grand Canyon - Parashant National Monument (which when we get smart again will be added to the Park anyway, and now does have some appropriate recognition and protection).

Matters are more serious, far more serious, when the Colorado is the boundary, as it is upstream from the junction with the Little Colorado and along the northern boundary of the Hualapai Reservation. In the case of the latter, then GCNP superintendent Stitt, in early 1975 just decided on his own that the Park went up the bank to the historic high water mark. A stupid move, and one contrary to the intent of the 1975 GCNP Act's Senate sponsor, Barry Goldwater. However, two obedient solicitors twisted around and claimed that the superintendent was correct, thereby insuring the Hualapai will always have a festering sore spot to inflame their passions with. 

And then we get to Marble Canyon. Or more accurately, the Grand Canyon from the Paria down to the junction with the Little Colorado (LCR). Which is Marble plus what some maps call the Desert Facade--the cliffs above the river where the Canyon hugely widens, from Nankoeap to the LCR. Now, the NPS Cartographer did not have a problem with the Marble+ boundary. The 1975 Act is very clear about setting the (proposed) boundary on the east side on the rim. The fact that the Navajo have to concur and havent (and wont??) is of no matter. That the boundary is subject to "valid existing rights under the Navajo Boundary Act of 1934" is of no matter. Congress put the (proposed) boundary on the rim, and so that is where NPS puts it. Without, by the way, labelling it as "proposed". Im glad that mappers do not use the same convention when they draw highway maps; trying to drive on a (proposed) interstate could get bumpy. 

And here is where the fun starts. Since the Park Service Marble+ line is not accepted by all, contested, suspect, or irrelevant to the real world, other mappers have had to make their own way. So I thought it might be entertaining to run through several maps I have and see where they place the Marble+ line. 

A Little Colorado Plan for Big Destruction, Desecration, and Dollar Devilry

For some time, there has been a typical boomer-&-booster financial scheme being puffed out of Phoenix out over Navajo country. After decades of quiet following the death of the Marble Canyon dam nightmare, another set of hypists have come trailing clouds of promises of instant prosperity for all, but which sound like a get-rich plan for a select few. 

And this time, they are going after one of the Grand Canyon unique spots, the confluence of the Little Colorado River with the main river. Most of this post is a 14 June article from the Navajo Times, http://www.navajotimes.com/news/2012/0612/061412con.php , complete with scary drawings. However, before getting to that, please note that all the land involved is, in fact, within the Navajo Reservation. This marvelous place, where the aqua of the LCR mixes in with the brown (or green) of the mighty Colorado, was in the 1919 Grand Canyon National Park, but in the 1930's, although the rivers themselves stayed in the Park, their left banks went into the Reservation.

This is truly a defining moment for the Navajo, as well as for all of us. There is much that can be done within this Navajo Marble Canyon Tribal Park to help understanding and appreciation. However, destructive desecrations like dams or exploitation for industrialized tourism can only turn the Grand Canyon toward a future as just another Phoenix development. Dollar-crazed developers have lots of spoiled places to play in. The Grand Canyon, Navajo and National Park, provides a far better future for all the rest of us.

GCNP boundary: A Revised map from NPS

After over two years of work and intra-agency discussion, the NPS Land Resources Division has made available files that represent its latest thinking (see at end for my comment about accuracy) about where NPS boundaries lie that affect Grand Canyon National Park, i.e., for the Park and Lake Mead NRA. 

Lets Play Fair: The Hualapai-Park boundary. Again.

The 1881 & subsequent orders established the Reservation boundary as "north thirty miles TO the Colorado River, then ALONG said river" (my emphasis). The 1975 legislation put the GCNP boundary "on south bank" of the said river adjacent to the Reservation. Also, the legislation forbade taking any of the Hualapai reservation without tribal permission. It has never given this permission. 

In my 21 Jan 1975 letter to the Sup't, three weeks after the Act was signed, I wrote:

However, early in 1975, the Superintendent was saying that the Park boundary was to the historic high water line or mark (HHWL), such that by July, the Hualapai attorney knew this and was objecting. As indeed, I object, too. 

A Complete Park: VI. A Survey of the Issues, 1972

Looking over the years 1966-72, I cannot help being amazed at how little was settled. Grand Canyon issues are always contentious; always those with different positions are willing to argue hard, and if they lose in one forum, appeal to another, which is why Congress has so often been the arbiter, and Arizona federal legislators key protagonists.

  

And why should the battle be short or truncated? Perseverance in the face of hostility is too often rewarded in our political system for anybody to give up. For instance, the Havasupai's land repatriation effort took almost a century. The motorboaters were behind for a decade, then gained a victory, and if they ever lose their political advantage, will have to confront a Wilderness river. Opposition to the Grand Canyon dams was so limited as to be a mere gesture for 40 years, and then in a decade, the dam dreams evaporated. Grazing has been a major shaper of Grand Canyon landscapes, physical and political, since the Civil War, and while today it hangs on here and there, it is barely anything but a tax dodge or a faint whoopee for the good old days. 

A Complete Park: V. NPS Keeps Working, 1971-2; (edited 8/17/12)

With a new Congress, Goldwater and Udall told NPS on 26 Feb 1971 to go ahead and draft a Grand Canyon National Park bill. Goldwater asked for information on mining, hunting, logging, and private lands. He especially requested details on grazing permittees. 

NPS was already looking at some new proposals:

1. Adding even more of Havasu-Cataract canyon;

2. Increasing the size of the Coconino addition on the south rim (which resulted in a larger rectangle drawn on maps, even though the acreage stayed at 640); 

3. Making the Kanab addition bigger;

4. Considering several options for the western extension. One went down to Separation Canyon. NPS thought this was logical because of the outstanding scenic & geologic values, and because the  free flowing river ended there. Such an extension would eliminate the possibility of a dam. A shorter extension, only down to Diamond Creek, would include an important take-out location for river trips, but would leave the damsite out of the Park. If the extension were even less generous, going only to Whitmore Canyon, a major river take-out would still be included, and Lava Falls, a major geologic feature, would be protected from helicopters ferrying river passengers.

A Complete Park: IV. 1969-70 NPS decisions

As recounted previously, GCNP was working on its Master Plan in late 1969, including holding public meetings. The Plan naturally tried to deal with boundary changes, and this map  (113 20,000 Nov 1969, San Francisco Service Center) might be seen as a snapshot of NPS thinking. First, the east side:

The addition of Marble Canyon still runs on both sides from the Little Colorado up to Lees Ferry, but there is no one-mile buffer or easement above the rims.

Then there is the troublesome little Coconino addition, the perplexities of which I tried to deal with in the entry of 10 Sep 2010. In this nutty-shell-game, NPS started out in the 1950's wanting two half sections added along its East Rim road alignment, 640 acres--see the smaller rectangle between the lower purple bars. However, once the road was built (the Park could not wait for legislative action), the need for this addition lessened. Strangely, instead of forgetting the addition, this Master Plan proposal seems to extend it to three full sections--note the faint rectangle around the small one--about 1920 acres. Indeed, looking back at the map prepared for Senator Goldwater (entry of 11 May 2012), the addition shown is this larger version. Here, for a more detailed understanding of this miniscule detail is a piece of the current Kaibab National Forest map:

The green is the Forest, the Park is tan, and a bit of Navajo land on the right is yellow. The sections we are concerned with are the three below and to the left of the CO in the upper COCONINO: you can see the 7, 8, and 9 section numbers (5E 30N). The original idea was to add the north half-sections of 7 & 8 -- you can see how close 7 comes to the road -- the 640 acres. On the Goldwater & Master Plan maps, the full three sections are indicated. And not to give anything away, this current map shows the three half-sections that ended up in the Park in 1975. Was any of this a thought-out NPS idea? Or was it all due to the difficulties of representing such small details on what are, after all, pretty large-scale maps?

A Complete Park: III. 1969 Plans and discussions

A quick look at before and after Jan 1969 indicates a shift in the political scene for GCNPark legislation. The dam threat was gone; many of the players were gone. The use of Park legislation to make points about the dam faded; the question of what really belonged in the Park could become uppermost. 

One of the biggest differences was the person and staff of Arizona's Senator Barry M. Goldwater (BMG, often): He had been a figurehead player in the water fight; his senior colleague Carl Hayden was the chief, and was now gone. (Hayden had been, of course, a key player in previous Park changes, mostly as a protector of local, exploiter, interests. BMG could thus, perhaps, now operate more freely.) And unlike any of the previous congressional players, Goldwater had a long-standing personal interest and experience in the Grand Canyon. He had been through the Canyon on the river, and for him, the Canyon was a personal cause. Of course, he was an Arizonan first, and had defended the dams before 1969. Now, he was free of that pressure. Anyway, in 1969, he was able to step out, to be the principal mover of Grand Canyon legislation, certainly in the Senate. 

Park Enlargement Map Designations, 1956-74

Map designations for changes to Grand Canyon NPS boundaries. 

  ("blueprint" or Xerox copies in my files)

1950's

NP,M-GC 7100    Jun 1956/Jan 1957   NPS     S. 693 Goldwater/Hayden

NP,M-GC 7100A  Apr 1963                   NPS     no bill

  Same as 7100 except that the s.e.1/8 section of the Hull addition is not included.

1966

No official map        Mar 1966   Saylor et al. for the Sierra Club. HR 14176

90th Congress

1967  

LNPSW-1000-GC, Jan 1967   Saylor    HR 1305

  n.a.                      Feb 1967   Aspinall et al.    HR 6132, S 1243

LNPSW-1004-GC, Mar 1967   Administration by Jackson    S 1300

LNPSW-1006-GC, May 1967  Case et al.    S 1686

LNPSW-1007-GC, Jul 1967     Saylor    n.a.

    The only difference from 1000 is going to Lees Ferry rather than to the bridge.

91st Congress

1969

LNPSW-1008-GC, Jan 1969   Saylor    HR 7615 (25 Feb)

113-91,000,  Mar 1969          Goldwater (16 Apr), intro 12 Jun 1969

113-91,001,  Jun 1969           Sierra Club proposal; intro by Sen Case 1 Oct 1969

Sierra Club, Jul 1969             The Grand Canyon   A Master Plan

113 20,000 Nov 1969            Boundary Proposal, GCNP Master Plan (SSC) 

1970

113-91,002,   Mar 1970          

113 20000-A  Aug 70            Boundary Proposal, GCNP Master Plan  897,935 ac.

labelled by EPDWSC, until May 1973

92nd Congress

1971

113 20000-B    Jan 71            (Current boundaries)

113 20000-C    Mar 71         Boundary Proposal, GCNP Master Plan 1,164,705 ac.

113 20000-D    Jul 71          Boundary Proposal, GCNP Master Plan    948,725 ac.

113 20004       Jul 71           Boundary Map  GCNP

113 20000-E    Aug 71         Boundary Proposal, GCNP Master Plan    953,725 ac.

93nd Congress

1973

113 20000-G Feb 73 Boundary Map, GCNP  Goldwater 1,196,925 ac.

Havasuapi Reservation (HIR)  169,000 ac.

113 91,003 May 73 Identical to 20000-G, but HIR 144,740 ac.

113 20000-H May 1973 Boundary Map, GCNP 1,239,795 ac

(maps now labelled DSC, Denver Service Center;

lines redrawn. show townships)

113 20011 May 1973  Boundary Map, GCNP, Case (S 2017, 19 Jun)

113 20012 May 1973  Wilderness Lands GCNP, Case. same as 20012

113 91,004? June 1973 Boundary Map GCNP, outline of Park. slight diff. w/ May

113 20000-i Nov 73  }     (shows deletions for HIR that did not happen)

113 20000-J Dec 73  } These 3 maps are related to the bill as it passed the Senate in

113 20000-K Oct 74  } Aug 1973, 1,294,098 ac.  In Oct 74, it would be to show the

differences with the House-passed bill.

113 20019 Jan 74 Udall bill draft with additions to Paria, Kanab, Parashant-Andrus, 

Whitmore areas; on section lines;

Note: House bills do not show acreages

113 20020 Mar 74 Udall bill, plus Shivwits area minus Marble east, add'ns on rims; 

mislabelled as approved by Senate; actually House Subcommittee

on Parks

113 20020A May 74 As in March, but now passed by Subc. No reference to river bdy

113 20020B Jul 74 Labelled as approved by Subc, March 1974; "on South Bank"

113 20021 Jul 74 GCNP w/ add'ns, plus proposed HIR & Use Lands; 2 versions;

second is outline of boundary. House passed Oct 74.

113 20021B Dec 74 Conference. As passed & signed: Public Law 93-620

A Complete Park: II. Competing Visions 1967-8

With the closing of the 89th Congress (1965-6), a tumultuous period in the political history of the Grand Canyon also ended. The massive, desperate effort to construct kitchen-sink legislation that would satisfy all the Colorado Basin states foundered in the House of Representatives, in some part because of Californian anxieties aroused by uncertainties as national opposition to the dams grew. The main signal that the party had moved on, however, came after Congress closed, as Interior Secretary Udall ordered Reclamation to study dozens of alternatives to the dams. But the alternatives were limited: No longer were they to be grand cash cows to provide for bringing new water to Los Angeles; the Secretary only wanted ways to pump water to Central Arizona while maintaining the water project's financial feasibility. 

A Complete Park: I. Foundations, 1966

In a last gasp of the 1950's fix-a-boundary mode, in April 1963 NPS produced map "NP,M-GC 7100A"  "Boundary Status Map Grand Canyon National Park and Monument". It was exactly the same as in 1956. (See my 26 May 2011 entry.) 

The next month, a bold, new, re-conceptualization was formally launched, when on 4 May 1963, in the first action of this kind, the Sierra Club Board of Directors voted a resolution recommending that "the Grand Canyon National Park and Monument be extended to include the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River between Lee's Ferry and the Grand Wash Cliffs, or that the area be protected by other suitable means, to preserve unimpaired this outstanding scenic part of the river in its natural state, and the Sierra Club opposes any further dams or diversions in this area". According to the cover letter sent by the Club President to the NPS Director, this resolution was passed following "prolonged discussion and lively debate".

In 1966, from my viewpoint as the new, and first, Southwest Representative of the Club, the question of protecting the Grand Canyon and enlarging the National Park was posed not just as a new chapter in a long history, but as opening a new book: From now on, we friends & advocates of a dam-free, wild & natural, Grand Canyon would be championing a Grand Canyon National Park built on the principle of a complete Park, one that came as close as possible to encompassing all the Canyon, its side canyons, and the plateaus into which it was dug. Between the Paria (or Lees Ferry, sometimes) and the Grand Wash Cliffs, we wanted to include all the land that drained into the Canyon. 

On the Edge XIII: Maps are meaningful

This photo is of a billboard that used to be at the Mather Point parking lot, where millions of people saw it in the 1960's and 70's. 

It was maybe 3' high by 5' wide. with a glass front, entitled "GRAND CANYON DIMENSIONS". (I dont know who the "ghost in the glass" is.) For years and years, this display misled Mather Point visitors about the Canyon's length.

The Canyon is not 217 river miles long. It is 277 river miles long.

Migration 14: Grand Canyon Peoples as the Paradigm

In mulling over my reading about the origins and spread of humanity during the past 100 millennia, I was struck by a big difference with the Grand Canyon peoplescape before the arrival of whitefolk. 

Writing about early homo sapiens speaks largely as if people then were much like each other; the talk is in generalities. I suppose this is because there is very little information about individual societies or cultures 50 millennia ago. We know that there must have been differences; but they mostly left no discoverable traces. We also know, though, that differences in physical appearance have developed, though overall we deny that these are significant indicators of capability. There might be differences in hair texture or color or body build, but these are no longer considered the markers of "racial quality" that they used to be. Recently, some anthropological work has suggested some contribution to the current human genome from Neanderthal, Denisovian, and potentially other hominids we met up with as we moved around. In general, though, detecting differences between human groups is either too difficult or too speculative or too much a fantasy of prejudice.

On the Edge XII: What do People Say? 1977 and 2003

The 1978 document justifying the NPS decision to put the GCNP parking/reception facility at Mather Point listed some results from a 1977 attitude survey conducted by the Park-affiliated Grand Canyon Natural History Association. There were 10 questions; three of the more interesting showed that 83% liked the idea of a parking area combined with a shuttle; 75% wanted parking within walking distance of the rim; 69% said a parking area "several miles from the village" would be equally acceptable. The conclusions only more firmly convinced the planners that no more studies were needed.

I recently learned, thanks to the sharp eye of Mrill Ingram, about a website, the Visitor Services Project sponsored by the University of Idaho and the NPS Social Science Program; at https://vsp.uidaho.edu/index3.htm that has collected together survey results from a great number of NPS sites, some 280 project records at this point. (The site requires signing in and various other hoops.) They range from 1988 to the present day. The Grand Canyon surveys were done in 2003, at the South and the North Rims, and use of the results requires this acknowledgment: "Data originated from the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit, Visitor Services Project. Database creation is supported by funding from the National Park Service, Social Science Division, and from individual National Park Service units."

The two surveys are not comparable in statistical validity. The 1978 questionnaire was an insert in the informational newsletter handed out at the time. There were about 3100 returned, and ~800 were taken as a sample. The 2003 survey distributed 1000 questionnaires to willing participants, and received 735 back. 

TOC Update 2

Table of Contents (TOC) pages are now available in book, narrative, format

for the blog posts I have written on the history of: 

The Havasupai

The Hualapai

The Southern Paiute

Park establishment and changes (through 1965)

Each segment of the Park boundary,

    with expanded coverage of the boundary adjacent to Hualapai land

Grand Canyon National Park planning for visitor facilities at Mather Point

Efforts to construct hydropower dams in the Grand Canyon (through 1964)

Mining

Some maps and comment

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Each of the above TOC pages is accessible by clicking on the appropriate tab at the top of the blog. This will bring up a page providing for easy access in chronological (or other relevant) order of all current blog entries.

A  regularly updated guide to the TOC is available by clicking on the CELEBRATING THE BOOK tab.

More to follow.