1917
JAN, Graves and Albright meet, with Graves' full approval of going with Hayden lines. His handwritten assurance adds, "I will see that no eliminations are made from the portion of the Tusayan or Kaibab Forests without consulting your office and the adjacent lands to the Park will be administered to secure full coordination of the common problems. If it appears that a revision of boundaries is desirable, we can jointly ask for the changes later." His acquiescence is justified, as shown in the resulting map making clear how the Park shrank, not only from any ideal, but from the Monument.
JAN 24, there is a Hayden bill, HR 20447, with tightly girdling boundary:
(though a pencilled note fixes two mistakes). It is the same as S. 8250 introduced by Senator Henry Ashurst. Sent over by Interior, there had been a south line change as Hayden had "suggested" using the road to get closer to rim than the more generous section lines.
My red drawn boundary is a bit approximate-- the middle southern line is a road; the west line starts out following the west rim of Cataract/Havasu Canyon, then across to the north bank of the Colorado, up that to Tapeats, up that & tributaries to the NM line. The northeast boundary follows the hydrographic divide above Nankoweap, even "by the shortest route" to the east line. These lines seem more the actions of demented Restrictives than a Grand Canyon boundary. Above irony is that the one area above the rim that is Generous is the plateau land that should have been part of any reasonable Havasupai reservation in the 1880's; imagine what heartache might have been saved had the Park boundary been set on the east rim of Great Thumb Mesa? (Be very careful of getting what you ask for.) Aside from that "Havasu" western section, this boundary is the extreme --the nadir-- of Powell's original misconception that all of the Canyon that was worth celebrating in a Park was the Big Hole. Where was the ASHPS spirit when it was needed?
