Whitefolk: Havasupai Tormentors or Saviors?

Time out from history for a bit of speculation.

Friends of the Havasupai have often castigated whitefolk,-- their actions, aggression, and agencies-- for first banishing them to a small plot in a side canyon of the Grand Canyon, and then thwarting them for almost a century in regaining possession of only a small fraction of the land they used to occupy that runs from the Hualapai lands past Moenkopi and over toward the Hopi villages, as well as from the Canyon down south to the great east-west corridor that famed US 66 ran through.

In prospect, however, if not in fact, the Havasupai story, left to itself without whitefolk intervention and "protection", might well have been an even sadder episode of the XXth century. Consider:

Near-contemporaneously with the arrival and explorations of the Spaniards from the south, and their establishment along the Rio Grande, the Dine' -- the name "Navajo", "Navaho" is in much wider use-- were moving into the American southwest -- northern New Mexico, eastern Arizona, and lands bordering these areas. Early adopters of the ungulates, the Navajo were mobile and aggressive, riding their horses and bringing their sheep from the 1500's on such that by the 1700's, they were well-established near and surrounding the Hopi villages, coming up against the "Grand Canyon front". 

PL93-620 R1. March 1973: The Havasupai Flank Attack Begins: Introduction and Scene 1

To ease into the turbulence of this dispute, here is some background.

First, photos taken at the time that I found in my files. Martin Litton flew over and provided two views of the village of Supai, here showing its setting along the bottom of Havasu Canyon, cut into the Esplanade, itself one of the sweeping features of this part of the Grand Canyon; the upper rim is off toward the clouds.

Next, a view directly down over houses and fields:

PL93-620 R: The Havasupai Reservation Enlargement Act of 1975: Setting The Scene

Telling the story of Public Law 93-620 so far, through 1973 to the start of 1974, has been seemingly spinning out a single more-or-less coherent narrative thread. And truly, it would be possible to maintain this thread all the way through the final act of Presidential approval in January 1975. The legislation was conceived of and pushed as creating a Park more descriptive of the extent of the Canyon itself, although the range of opinion on the most accurate description was not just wide, but had been evolving over several years; well, over the decades, in truth. 

  This Park-centered narrative did continue through 1974, brought to a mangled conclusion in the final events. That narrative, responding throughout to our determination to "complete" the Park --and the push back by those who disagreed with us--, does have, as I say, its own coherence; it is a stand-alone story.

But that story is not the story of Public Law 93-620.

It is an ironic, to-be-remarked-upon, coincidence, though coincidence it is, that the history of the Canyon's Park began in the early 1880's, at the same historical moment that that other whitefolk creation, an Indian Reservation for the Havasupai, was brought into being and American history. Others, and I, have related the history of the increasing entanglement  of that Reservation and that Park, a history that makes clear why, on the one hand, legislation to enlarge a Park was necessarily also legislation to enlarge an Indian Reservation, and on the other, why the fight over the latter was so full of anger and seemingly irreconcilable positions. 

Which, I have to remark, is only to be expected in our advocacy-organized, invective-inviting, political system. 

PL93-620 Q. Nov-Dec 1973: Turning Our Way

After the hearing, with our back-home group intact, we visited with Udall, speaking both as Canyon advocates and constituents. His first tack was that we should consult with his principal aide Bracy. Knowing already how Bracy reacted to our desire to make the bill more Canyon-friendly, McComb objected on the ground that Bracy was too political, which Udall correctly interpreted as meaning we thought Bracy was overprotective of Udall. His value was to indicate problems; Udall would then make decisions on what course to take. So we should be giving him options, and he could choose what to offer and what someone else may have to handle. Rodack assured him we would push our large park ideas, and Udall went so far as to offer this course: after discussion with Bracy he would talk to friendly Representatives like Ruppe, Mink, Seiberling, Kastenmeier, O'Hara, Dellenback. Then he would be in Tucson for the holidays. He offered the thoughts that Goldwater would not run again and that Steiger was erratic. 

We visited Steiger, and listened to the strong moral, human-value case he made for the Havasupai claims. The Forest Service was an obstacle, he opined, but would be run down by the Goldwater "train". And even though he had heard from cattlemen, and would be alone in the committee, he was going to be tough fighting for the Havasupai, and thought we would lose politically. He was clear that the Park was the obstacle. The land would be protected if repatriated to the Havasupai; there would not be any "hot dog stands". McComb suggested it was a matter of management, but Steiger scoffed at the notion that we would jeopardize the bill because of the Havasupai issue.

After some had made their planes, others of us spent the next day visiting committee members' offices. Representative Tom Foley remained a steady opponent of repatriating the lands to the Havasupai. There were 13 other visits, some perfunctory hellos, others with sharp questions. We found good friends, and also more who were anti-transfer. In only a couple of offices did we get to talk only to an aide. Overall, the Havasupai were the principal issue, and that was true in our talks with committee staff as well. 

Though relating them will not complicate this story, administrative matters did take up NPS and our time, primarily the river management issue, with meetings continuing. Master planning and Village development work were also on-going, and there was continuing pressure from the Tusayan development south of the Park to get access to water from the Park, which neither the state nor NPS were willing to allow. The Grand Canyon's political landscape is always a busy place.

PL93-620 P. Nov 1973: House Hearings

The House Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation held its hearing on Grand Canyon National Park bills (HR1882, HR5900, S1296) on 12 November 1973, Roy Taylor of North Carolina in the chair. The witness list, 25 in all, started with Udall and Steiger, then NPS and the Forest Service, the Havasupai, and the Hualapai with the Az Power Authority. There followed a mix of Canyon advocates (10) and loggers (4). Interesting omission: No one from the Az Wildlife Federation (hunters) had signed up. More important, I do not have a copy of the printed hearing record, if it exists, but only the transcript, which does not have material submitted for the record like reports, bills, statements. It does contain what people actually said. Worst of all, it is a very poor, often unreadable, xerox copy.

   According to the transcript, the witnesses differed slightly from the list. Udall was in a strip mining mark-up. NPS featured an associate director with Chapman and Stitt; The Havasupai sent Lee Marshall and Steve Hirst; the Hualapai, chairman Mahone and counsel Marks. That was in the morning. The afternoon crowded in 8 Canyon advocates, 4 loggers, and 2 from the pro-dam APA. Because there was floor action on the Alaska Pipeline and eulogies for Congressman Saylor, the hearing had to be short, and statements limited to about 4 minutes. 

Udall absent, the hearing started with a Canyon skeptic. Steiger made clear he was no co-sponsor, though he understood how important the legislation was to Senator Goldwater. He then praised Goldwater's Emerson for his paper on the Bridge Canyon damsite, and promised to further protect the Hualapai-APA interest. So there we are, the first testimony on protecting the Grand Canyon is about protecting the f---g damsite. Thanks, Sam, for your many years of fine service in Wrecklaiming Arizona. (The blue are my personal comments.) Steiger's next point was in line with his previous actions in favor of expansion of the Havasupai reservation. Here, he came down in favor of the Havasupai "in opposition to the interests of the cattle growers" (please remember that statement), as well as those of the Forest Service and conservationists. In an exchange with Taylor, Steiger came out against the Havasupai study, saying boundaries for a larger reservation were already delineated and a study would be "just a cop out". Asked about the zone of influence, he cited its vagueness and administrative problems for the Forest Service, as well as timber interest opposition. There followed a confused colloquy about grazing tenure (which the change in language in the Senate had been intended to clarify), with Taylor thinking it was all about "Indian grazing rights". This gave Steiger the chance to champion both the Hualapai & their dam site right and the Havasupai. He then went on to describe the latter's grazing permit on the plateau and how dry the area was. Taylor, still acting as if Steiger were responsible for the bill, asked about the lack of condemnation power (already fixed in the Senate), but neither had information on any private land that would be involved. Taylor then put Goldwater's statement in the record. 

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.