THE HUALAPAI AND THE PARK SERVICE
A RIVER-RELATED COURT CASE
In early ’90’s, a personal injury case arose out of a boating incident in the Grand Canyon. Down river from Diamond Creek, a Hualapai motor-driven raft was turned in so tight, fast a curve that a man was thrown out and then cut badly when the motor ran over him.
Crucially, the National Park Service claimed it had no responsibility in this matter, even though the National Park includes the entire river from the Paria junction to river mile 277. Indeed in the District Judge’s decision, it was (falsely) stated that the incident occurred within the Hualapai Reservation that started at Diamond Creek!
Furthermore, NPS claimed the Hualapai were not regulated in their river operation by the GCNP administration, and therefore NPS did not even have a responsibility to warn or inform users of the Hualapai operation that NPS had nothing to do with Hualapai boating.
At this time, GCNP boating was regulated under a Colorado River Management Plan. If the NPS statement is correct, then that Plan did not cover operations below Diamond Creek. The CRMP was not mentioned in the decision, so it did not appear whether it did in fact include permits or other official actions to regulate Hualapai operations, even though in fact, the entire river from the Paria to r.m. 277 is inside the Park as legislated in the 1975 Grand Canyon Natiional Park Enlargement Act.
This lapse in NPS administration, if it did in fact exist, was remedied during the late-’90’s superintendency of R. Arnberger, who went so far as to sign, in 2000, along with the Hualapai and Lake Mead NRA, a memorandum of agreement in which the parties set aside boundary issues in order to be able to discuss matters arising from matters of joint interest dealing with boating operations. These discussions involved the highest and all appropriate personnel in a Core Group that met twice a year. (It lasted five years.)
Returning to the court case, both the district judge and the 9th Circuit Appeals Court accepted the NPS argument of having no responsibility and rejected the injured party’s claim.
Clearly, the government was in error about NPS jurisdiction over the river, since the entire 277-mile stretch of the Colorado River is in the Grand Canyon and its Park. The government claimed that it did not concern itself with the last 40 miles of the river in the Park because the Hualapai disputed that ownership. This is sophistry at best, since the Hualapai were not claiming jurisdiction over river craft operation navigating the River, which was under the 1975 Act NPS’s responsibility.
Indeed, GCNP officials had laid claim starting in 1975 not just to the river, but the river the land up to the “historic highwater mark”.
The question of NPS and Hualapai relations over the river may have involved disagreements about various matters (thus the Core Group), but such matters had been brought up and discussed at least since the 1960’s, and NPS was well aware of the various attempts of the Hualapai to use river boating to raise revenue for the tribal treasury. None of this was evidenced in the judicial decisions. As mentioned, the CRMP did not appear in the case either (there actually had been two previous versions), so it is not clear whether those highly important river administration documents dealt at all with the Hualapai. If they did not, this would be further evidence off NPS failure to properly administer navigation of the river in the Park.
In conclusion, it appears that justice was not served in this case with its errors and NPS failure to exercise its jurisdiction over the river in accordance with the law.
