Dams GCNP: a review of the formalities 1946-51

In the story I have been telling about Bridge Canyon dam, the major emerging theme is that the dam, justifiable on its own, became inextricably wound up in the project to bring Colorado River water to the Phoenix area. Inextricably and fatally; first because, as a team, Bridge and the CAP would only be authorized together. Second, since in the 1960's the dam's central role in financially supporting grander water-import schemes became ever more obvious.

Thinking back, it is hard for me to recapture the sense of frenzy water induced in developers then. Southern California had long depended on water brought from the Colorado, the Owens Valley, and northern California. Denver largely depends on water tunneled under the continental divide. In the 1960's, the dreamers wanted more northern waters, from California, the Columbia Basin, and even Canada's Rocky Mountains. There was talk of capturing part of the Great Lakes. And Texas' High Plains, sucking up their aquifer, babbled about the Mississippi. At the end of the decade, a National Water Commission was created to embrace the whole scene. However, this flood of water megalomania subsided in the next decade, due to many factors: I can think of the lessening impulse of population growth, the political obduracy of people living in potential source areas, national attention being captured by environmental concerns as well as other national issues--and, unquestionably, the crippling of Reclamation's power and future by losing the Grand Canyon cash cows.

That was not the scene in 1946-52; the future was seen in a rosy glow of eternally escalating national growth and wealth. Perhaps it was easier to let the Supreme Court decide the water issue, when there was Marble dam, and more broadly, the tremendous waterworks for the upper Basin, to plan and build. There was plenty else to do, if Bridge and the CAP had to be put on hold, which did not mean there was no activity. But before we go over what Reclamation was doing after the excitement of 1949-52, I need to review the scaffolding of congressional documents Arizona used to try to build success. First, the facts:

S. 2346 introduced 18 Jun 1946 by McFarland & Hayden; 79th Congress; Democratic;.

S. 433; 29 Jan 1947; 80th Congress -- Republican, with Democratic President Truman.

Hearings held

S. 75; 5 Jan 1949; 81st Cong; Democratic and Truman re-elected

Hearings held

Reported on 3 Aug 1949 by Senate Comm. on Interior and Insular Affairs

Passed by the Senate 55-28.

S. 75; re-introduced 8 Jan 1951; 82nd Cong; Democratic; bill reported 12 Mar 1951; also HR1501 (15 Jan)

Passed the Senate 7 Jun 1951; referred to House Comm. on Interior and Insular Affairs.

Died then, as the Supreme Court was given the task of adjudicating the water dispute.

The committee report of Aug 1949 scotched all previous argument over whether the hydropower was needed, since demand "will continue to grow far beyond present means of supply". Glen Canyon dam was given a boost, for power, silt trapping, and river regulation. The report argued the need for water in Arizona was great enough that authorization should proceed, with judicial action on water rights moving concurrently. California dissented, using hyperbole (grandiose project, excessive costs, unprecedented subsidies, admittedly infeasible…), numbers, and ridicule. It favored constructing Bridge which "has no physical relation to the central Arizona project".

Senate passage in the 81st Congress set the stage for the 82nd. Again, there was a committee report; it used much of the previous one's language. Glen was again boosted; it "should and will be authorized and constructed at an early date as a separate and distinct project". The report did note that the Indian protections were worked out with and agreed to by the Hualapai. The Park Service was given credit for the language that Bridge's height was to be "not more than" 1877' (back to Kanab Creek). The tunnel was thoroughly dropped, California having made special fun of it.

Neither report spends any time on the scenic and recreation aspects, mentions the Grand Canyon, or refers to the decade-long debate over the dam's impact. 

Here is how all these bills start: "Authorizing the construction, operation, and maintenance of a dam and incidental works in the main stream of the Colorado River at Bridge Canyon, together with certain appurtenant dams and canals, and for other purposes". In S2346, this main focus on Bridge is stated as to construct a dam "to an elevation of 1877 feet", with a tunnel and main canal from the reservoir above the dam. That was 1946 (and repeated in S433 of 1947); Arizona still liked the tunnel from Bridge best; an all in-state project. 

The arguments and reports of 1947-8 brought change: the 1949 bill, S75, authorized 1) a dam not less than 1877 feet", 2) "a related system of main conduits and canals, including a tunnel and main canal from the reservoir above the dam". Indeed, the tunnel was specifically deferred until Congress appropriated money for it, while in the same sentence an aqueduct from Lake Havasu was authorized pending the tunnel's construction. Injury was added to insult when the list of costs included the Lake Havasu pumping plants and the Granite Reef aqueduct, but not a $ for that "tunnel and main canal" from Bridge's reservoir.

Only in the 1951 bills do we get 1) a dam not more than 1877 feet" (from "of" to "not less than" to "not more than"; Victory! for the Park; yes??), and 2) a related system of main conduits and canals, including a main canal and pumping plants for diverting and carrying Colorado River water from Lake Havasu". Deleted from even a mention, the tunnel bubble from Bridge reservoir has evaporated, leaving behind it the concept of linkage as still central. Possibly, people still thought of the dam as providing power to pump the water out of the Colorado, and certainly, Reclamation intended that power revenues would be used to help pay for the waterworks. And though, later on, optimum operation of the dam would preclude its power being planned for pumping water -- thus breaking even that link --, revenue generation would remain, and become the fatal Achilles heel,--as the legislation's purposes put it, the dam was for the "sale of electrical energy as a means of making the project herein authorized a self-supporting and financially solvent undertaking".

The purposes from first bill to 1951 Senate passage were "first", river regulation, navigation, & flood control; second, for irrigation and domestic water uses; third, for power.  

S433, 1947, added "a dam on the Gila River in New Mexico"; later on, this was specified as Hooker dam, which would have flooded the Gila back into the Gila Wilderness. An unneeded water-waster, it has never been built, but remained in CAP legislation through enactment in 1968, an indicator of Arizona's affection for its sister state.

After the Do-Nothing Republican 80th Congress, McFarland and Hayden got serious in 1949. Glen Canyon damsite was protected and reserved for the upper basin. As far back as 1946, in response to Los Angeles' attempt to link Glen and Bridge, Reclamation claimed it was in favor of building them together, and conscious of the silt problem, planned to go after Glen. In fact, Reclamation did some work in 1947, particularly in trying to determine the sequencing of Glen and a dam in Marble Canyon. In 1949, Reclamation was having trouble coordinating its upper and lower basin offices over Glen, the Boulder City office going so far as to say that Salt Lake City's work was of no value to it, and disputing over high Marble could be before there was significant head loss at Glen. In any case, work had to be suspended due to lack of funds. Glen Canyon dam is not mentioned in the 1946-7 bills. 

Section 14, written by the Interior Dep't, was added to the S75 version reported from the Committee by McFarland on 3 Aug 1949. It is the longest section, and dealt with Indians, at Hualapai instigation, as I wrote in my 8/8/10 entry. There is no mention of a specific tribe. In response to continued dissatisfaction expressed by Hualapai lawyers, more changes were made before S75 was reintroduced in 1951 and passed by the Senate. The section first gave the U.S. tribal lands as needed for the project, unless the tribe agreed to sell. Next, and the section of most bother, the Secretary was to determine compensation, in money, property, or rights to electric energy. To this 1949 amendment was added the right for the Indians to sue for more money if they were dissatisfied. The Secretary was empowered to decide in some cases how to dispose of the compensation, and in the case of cemeteries, to relocate the graves. 

GCNP River boundary 26: corrections

After reviewing the Park boundaries, I found I needed to fix 6 of my TIF river boundary maps to thicken the Park boundary (I used my brush stroke red2 at size 20) where necessary and make certain corrections.

Here is a list of the maps affected (The N & S indicate which half of the prinitable JPG version the correction would be on when the printables are redone, if ever.):

34-35 N vtsw: thicken  (36113a2)

35-37N wpse; thicken  (36113a3)

41-42N trav: add NP line on Shivwits  (35113g4)

45-47N dvls: thicken (Twin pt)   (35113h6)

49-50N cmbf: remove incorrect NP line up in corner  (36113a8)

50- S snpw: NP line was wrong; had to be moved to 2 miles north, then east.  (36113b8)

I also went into the JPEG list of half maps set up for printing and deleted the uncorrected ones. Replace only if necessary, since that require tilting and cropping the TIF maps.

I also removed all working copies of the tif group, so there is only one full correct set on my computer (and backed up, too)

As of Sep 2010, GCNP Boundary: Summary, including questions (added to, 9/24)

This entry will list each boundary segment by letter, name, boundary sharer, and entry date(s) -- all in 2010 --; then summarize any relevant comments, and in particular, describe any open questions, ambiguities I found, possible disputes, and a brief comment if the boundary might be changed to bring about a more complete GCNP. I use abbreviations for two comments I find apply to several items:
Natural-Line Ambiguity Ameliorated By Friendly Sharers(NLAABFS);
Needs Congressional Correction (NCC)

Introductory entries were made July 12-14. Here are the official map and the segment index map, which better shows the boundary sharers.

A Start and The Colorado River Navajo, Hualapai   Jul 16

  Congress placed the entire water surface from the Paria to the Grand Wash Cliffs in the Park; some bureaucrats, lawyers, and others want to ignore the law.

  Also, the point is introduced here, in connection with the Paria junction, that placing boundaries on natural features, whether in words or on maps, inevitably leads to varying ambiguity on the ground. This is countered by the sharers being friendly  and cooperative; thus obviating the need for fencing, should that even be possible. This is the doctrine of natural-line ambiguity ameliorated by friendly sharers(NLAABFS), which applies with greater or less force on almost every segment.

B Marble Canyon east         Navajo                     Jul 18-23

  My definite view is that the Park boundary comes to the left bank, that the Navajo boundary comes down to the water's edge, and the wet-foot/dry-foot doctrine applies. The U. S. gov't (NPS) never demonstrated the amount of national interest necessary to justify use of the qualifying clause in the 1934 Navajo boundary Act.

C Ancient relic Navajo       Jul 24

  A matter of historically based amusement, that shifting from latitude/longitude to legal section lines (from unsurveyed to surveyed) may have scraped some Park into Navajo land. No matter, the boundary is now well defined.

D NPS Village and rim Kaibab NF         Sep 1, 10

  Is it acceptable that a 320-acre error by map drafters becomes the law? Apparently.

  One assumes that the NPS and FS were partners in setting the line that was only defined with reference to a road survey, and that there is no disagreement. 

E Havasupai Havasupai         Sep 5

 All quiet on this front, in spite of NLAABFS, and oddities in some of the line descriptions.

F Hualapai Hualapai         Sep 6

 Congress put the river surface, to the south bank, in the Park. The Hualapai have claimed to the river centerline; NPS to a highwater line. Both are wrong, as I will argue fully in a later entry.

G West end, the wattle Hual,BLM,LMNRA       Sep 9

 An unthought-through addition, I blush to say, that needs congressional correction (NCC). There is NLAABFS along the fluctuating shoreline of Lake Mead, where the wet-foot/dry-foot doctrine rules. For the time being, G is being correctly defined on maps.

H,I West end & Shivwits LMNRA, BLM         Sep 9

 As with G, H was carelessly defined, NCC, has NLAABFS, and is as correctly drawn as matters.

I Shivwits LMNRA, BLM         Sep 12

 Clear enough in principle, but resulting in mapping differences over odd details, though probably made irrelevant by NLAABFS. 

NCC to include plateau top.

J Andrus-Parashant, Whitmore LMNRA         Sep 13

 In spite of its weird history, the line is well-defined by the "Boundary on Canyon Rim" notation on the Act map after dropping from the Shivwits rim. The canyon rims are fairly obvious, and NLAABFS. Incorrect maps do exist, however, as traps for the unwary.  

NCC to fill out Esplanade and incised canyons.

K GCNMonument #2 LMNRA, BLM, KNF      Sep 16

 The boundary has been contested but stable for 70 years, except for the Coconino Plateau going to the Havasupai. It is now a combination of section lines and NLAABFS. Does upper Toroweap Valley NCC?

L, M Kanab Canyon, Rim Kaibab NF         Sep 17, 19

 Primarily there is NLAABFS with the usual discrepancies in details between different maps. The Act map's notation "Boundary on Canyon Rim" is more puzzling than useful here. 

The argument, however, would not usefully be over different interpretations of the map lines, but how to add the rest of Kanab to the Park, NCC

N Kaibab Plateau Forest KNF         Sep 20

 A long-settled matter; partially NLAABFS.

O P Marble Canyon west KNF, BLM, Glen NRA   Sep 20

 Boundary on the rim including side canyons as shown on Act map;  NLAABFS.

GCNP Boundary: O, P Marble Canyon west: KNF, BLM

These two Segments define the west boundary of the Park along Marble Canyon; O is shared with Kaibab National Forest, P with BLM lands in House Rock Valley. Here is the official map:

The map instruction puts the boundary in both Segments on the Canyon rim. 

GCNP Boundary: N Kaibab Forest Park

There are those who hate the idea of a loggable tree being in a National Park. Or a shootable deer. And thats the story of the Kaibab Plateau's magnificent forest and animal populations. Just as in Kanab's story, the first idea was a Park for the Canyon, but instead the Forest came first, and when the Park did struggle to get born, the Forest Service and its utilitarian friends had the upper hand. Here is the original GC Forest Reserve in red, and the 1908 GCNM marked by green diagonals.

You can see what a deep cut was made in the northern boundary to put the boundary on the rim, and thus most trees in the Forest. And notice too, on the eastern end, Segment O, Marble Canyon, and how its boundary was pushed downstream. 

First anniversary review

September 20 is the first anniversary of this blog. Since I have pontificated at several points about what I am trying to do, I will skip any sermon here and just note that I have about 110 entries. 

What I thought might be worthwhile would be to group entries into categories, to make locating themes and historical lines easier, and remind myself of what I have worked on. The categories are more or less alphabetical; I have grouped what are sometimes called "Indians" together. If there is a - between two dates, then all the entries in that range are on that subject. (2) indicates there are two entries on that date. 

I am continuing on the Park boundary segments until they are done (another week or so), although there is much more to say about most of the topics listed.

ABC's: Basic considerations     2009 Sep 26

Archeohistory (pre whitefolks) 2009 Sep 26

Boundary segments, Park 2010 Jul 12 - 24, Sep 1 - 17 (continuing)

Boundary mapping, River 2010 Feb 7 - Mar 7, Apr 4, 30, May 11, 19

Dams 2009 Sep 22

2010 Apr 4 - 30, May 2 - 7, 16, 17, 29 - Jul 6, Aug 2, 8

GC, the National Park 2009 Sep 20, 22, Nov 1, Dec 2(2), 3, 5(2) - 28

2010 Jan 7, 18(2), 22 - 31, Mar 20, 21

Havasupai 2009 Sep 21(2)

2010 Jan 5, 6, Feb 8

Hualapai   2009 Sep 27

Southern Paiute 2009 Sep 29, Oct 20

Maps & reflections 2009 Sep 28, Oct 23 (3), Dec 3,

Miners 2009 Oct 2, 4, Nov 30

GCNP Boundary: L & M: Kanb Canyon is a Forest; updated 9/20/10

Lets start with a joke. The map below is from the current Kaibab National Forest map centered on Kanab Canyon. The light green is KNF, with the darker green the Wilderness established within KNF. The light orange-tan is BLM, with the darker orange BLM's share of the Kanab Creek Wilderness. The light brown at the bottom is the current National Park, including the Colorado River.

The red line is the boundary of the first GCNMonument set up by Roosevelt in 1908. An earlier post showed how the Forest out of which the GCNM was carved was much more generous in recognizing Kanab's features than the Monument. But it got much worse when the Forest Service and some local stockmen bent Arizona's legislators' ears about the great grazing country that would be lost if the boundary from GCNM were not pared down even further. And so the 1919 GCNP line swept all of Kanab and most of the Tapeats drainage right out of the Park (The 1919, 1927, and 1927 lines are my approximations; see below). It kept in the National Forest all the magnificent redwoods and dougfir and cedar that fill Kanab from rim to rim, making them available --- oops, sorry, thats the NORTHwest. Well, it is true there are trees here and there in Kanab, fine candidates for a Forest Service Scraggly Trees National Forest. And it is true some horses and cows did wander around, messing up the creek, doing in the vegetation, and mooing at the rock art -- until the Forest Service realized grazing was even a bigger joke than the timber.

Anyway, the next chapter was in 1927 when NPS managed to re-coup a bit, squeezing Thunder River and the Tapeats Ampitheatre out of the Forest Service's grasp (blue line).