Tell Me, Grampa: Where's the Water?

 Tell me, grampa, why the people back when you were young were so dumb they thought there would always be water, and we would never have to worry about being thirsty.

But, you see, Dearly Beloved, they did know — way back in the 1960’s — they knew there would not be enough water!

Those law-makers, expert in water matters, the local and regional water gurus dedicated to protecting their shares, the reclamation and water establishment that decided how the shares would be sucked and plumbed to move from wild river to alfalfa and other crop fields, and to kitchen taps: they did know.

Havasupai Gardens

 I was moved by the story about the ceremony at Grand Canyon National Park to send a letter to the Superintendent. May there be further such occasions!

-------------------------------------------------------

 May 15, 2023  

Ed Keable, Superintendent                             

Grand Canyon National Park

Arizona

Dear Superintendent:

It was with great satisfaction and delight that I read of the recent return of the Havasupai to one of their gardens, Ha’a Gyoh.

A cherished aim of Senator Barry Goldwater’s when 50 years ago he sponsored and moved what we know as the Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act of 1975, was embodied in section 5:      “In the administration of the Grand Canyon National Park, as enlarged by this Act, the Secretary is authorized and encouraged to enter into cooperative agreements with other Federal, State and local public departments and agencies and with interested Indian tribes providing for the protection and interpretation of the Grand Canyon in its entirety….” (my emphasis, but his intent).

It may seem that rededicating the gardens is a stretch of section 5, but I firmly believe that Goldwater and the 1975 Act’s co-author, Representative Morris Udall, would have totally approved of this action, in line with their hopes that cooperation between the Park and non-Park landowners was possible and worthwhile. 

Those hopes are exactly in line with this sentiment (from the AP report):

“Tribal members are hopeful it means a new era of cooperation that will give them more access to sites in the canyon and to tell their story through their lens and language.”

I do wish, as Im sure other backers of the 1975 Act do, that the past 50 years had been full of such actions. Better, certainly, this late than to continue the stand-offish stance of the past. (Not to mention the outright hostility that section 5 was supposed to mark the end of.)

May I direct your attention to an area of the Park that could benefit from actions of this kind? The far northwest of the Canyon might seem remote and little-visited to National Park visitors, compared to Ha’a Gyoh. Yet it is a supremely interesting area where the Grand Canyon, after its magnificent near-300-mile course deep in the gorge and spreading up onto mighty plateaus, comes to an end at its Westernmost High Point (WHP), the very end of its upper rim expression, from where the Canyon tapers down to the river in the vicinity of the Grand Wash Cliffs.

This is, I assure you, a prime area where there could be fruitful  identification and naming and visitation of prominent features (such as the WHP) that would recognize and honor the long-time former residents, the Southern Paiute. We know already some of their words applied to Canyon landscapes — Kaibab, Uinkarets, for instance. Yet there is much more that could be done, from river to rim, in canyons and on the plateaus and Esplanade features. 

There is not, I believe, a great history of controversy here, but there has been massive neglect of a people who were massively badly treated when what is now called the Arizona Strip was entered, settled, and turned over to economic uses. I would urge you to gather those with knowledge and concern of the Southern Paiute and this area to confer with the Park staff and even the public in order to lay out a program that would enrich our knowledge and recognition of the Grand Canyon’s human history.

Cordially,

Jeffrey Ingram             

3956 E Camino de la Colina, Tucson

 HUMANISM IS SOMETHING TO LIVE BY,

AND FOR SAVING, AND ENJOYING, THE GRAND CANYON 

So lets start with the substance of what a humanist has as guides; what seems reasonable as ways to help make decisions, choose life paths, come out for and against on the issues of concern.

Walking On The Western Side

 INTRODUCING THE FAR WEST

HIKING THE GRAND CANYON'S NEGLECTED BOUNDARY

As previous posts described, rectifying the Grand Canyon’s eastern boundaries led us into the tangles of governmental and legal actions. Cutting through that thicket, however, we found the physical legal boundary between the Park and Navajo Reservation is easy to navigate: down the left/south bank of the Colorado from the Paria River junction to the Little Colorado, then up that one a bit. 

The Park boundary in the Canyon’s west end, an area much less known and visited, apparently offers no legal tangles since the land is all under NPS administration -- the Park or Lake Mead NRA. Sad to say, the current western boundary ignores the Canyon’s topography and geology, using straight lines that fail to emphasize the true significance of the Canyon’s western finale.

Therefore, if we are to adhere to the idea of using the Grand Canyon drainage to figure out what to protect and proclaim within a complete National Park while not infringing on Navajo, Havasupai, or Hualapai land, then for the western end, there are new questions to answer. Pleasant surprise, that challenge invites us to scout out a newly defined line, one we can follow on foot — a hikable, likable, line. 

Navajo and GCNP. The River Left Bank is their Boundary

  Boundary Rectification I. 

Between Grand Canyon National Park and Navajo Reservation,

from the Paria junction to the Little Colorado River.

It is long past time to re-assert officially the too often erroneously stated and misunderstood western boundary of the Navajo Reservation that was located by congressional action (P.L. 73-352 of 14 June 1934) as coming ”west along the boundary line between the States of Arizona and Utah to a point where said boundary line intersects the Colorado River; thence down the south bank of that stream to its confluence with the Little Colorado River; thence following the north bank of the Little Colorado River to a point opposite the east boundary of the Grand Canyon National Park; thence south along said east boundary”.

I emphasize that the boundary goes “DOWN THE SOUTH BANK” of the Colorado. As befits a law written in 1934, there is much additional verbiage, relevant 90 years ago, that is now all a dead letter, yet lingers on to confuse official and unofficial cognizance of the line set along the south, or left, bank of the Colorado. 

FIXIN’ WHAT’S BROKE:

TO STRENGTHEN THE BOUNDARY OF GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK

AND RELATED MATTERS

This project makes proposals that gather up a number of issues, some near-trivial, others of great moment at this time of Deb Haaland’s Interior Secretaryship, the resolution of which could bring greater public recognition and understanding of the universal values embodied in the United States’ designation of a Grand Canyon National Park — a project started with John Wesley Powell and Benjamin Harrison’s legislative launch in 1884 of the first Grand Canyon National Park bill, which in its short history also started to gather in its relationship with the Canyon's long-standing peoples, in this case the Havasupai.*

Future work on the boundary must include correcting, updating, and otherwise recognizing the historic and current use and occupancy of Grand Canyon lands by the Southern Paiute, Hopi, Hualapai, Havasupai, and Navajo peoples, and others long-resident who live within the Canyon's spiritual reach.

Main changes:

Much of the boundary distinguishing administration and jurisdiction of that part of the Grand Canyon north and northwest of the Colorado River (i.e., in the area generally known as the Arizona Strip) is a source of concern for the  Club of Grand Canyon Friends &  Advocates. Boundary misalignments matter since 

1. maps in general use ought to delineate and present to the public as closely as possible the lands, canyon and plateau, that comprise the Grand Canyon; 
2. Users need to have as accurate a legal representation as possible of who has jurisdiction over the Grand Canyon lands they visit.

THE WESTERN NAVAJO LINE (CONTINUED)

KEEPING THE NAVAJO BOUNDARY ON THE RIVER BANK

Let us start from this point: 

There has been no adjudication on the Navajo Reservation western boundary, nor on the eastern Park boundary as set by the Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act of 1975. 

Therefore there are only opinions, based on events, governmental acts, documents, and arguments drawn therefrom. So…

In a very long blog post and several shorter ones, I laid out what I found to be the history of the western Navajo Reservation  boundary. (To see these essays, click on the blog tab for “Navajo”.) I concluded the Navajo Reservation western boundary lies, in the words of its 1934 boundary Act, “west along the boundary line between the States of Arizona and Utah to a point where said boundary line intersects the Colorado River; thence down the south bank of that stream to the confluence with the Little Colorado River; thence following the north bank of the Little Colorado River to a point opposite the east boundary of the Grand Canyon National Park; thence south along said east boundary” …

This Act contains several more clauses, more or less pertinent. The Act itself was followed in the 40-some years after 1934 by actions and events, more or less pertinent. I conclude that the end result of all this later activity is that the words of the 1934 Act hold firm: the Reservation boundary is along the banks of the two rivers. I am strengthened in my view that this is the correct position by the November 25, 1997 statement of Interior Solicitor J D Leshy (dealing with the Hualapai boundary) that “the canon of construction that doubtful or ambiguous expressions in treaties, statutes or documents involving Indians should be resolved in favor of the Indians.”