Canyon de Chelly Administrative History

Erosion Control and Protection

Erosion control and overall protection of the ruins and physical environment have always been a major concern in the development and growth of Canyon de Chelly National Monument. The work that Morris did at White House has already been discussed. Recommendations made by the Hamilton Reconnaissance Report in 1932 indicated that several of the ruins, especially Antelope House and White House, were in need of repairs due to wash erosion during previous flood periods. The estimates for repair work at Antelope and White houses were $1,350 and $600 respectively. [136]

Hamilton also advised the use of fencing and other protective devices. "Navajo farms," Hamilton believed, "should be protected by breakwaters when needed," and he suggested building several diversion dams. [137]

Commenting on this report, Demaray stated that "some definite steps should be taken in the very near future to put in the erosion protection recommended by Engineer Hamilton." [138] Furthermore, he believed that all Indian workers should be supervised by a white foreman. [139] John Merriam also concurred with Hamilton's recommendations. "The plans for protection of the ruins," stated Merriam, "interest me greatly. Everything possible must be done to protect the ruins and at the same time to maintain naturalness of the region." [140]

Work was also done in 1932 by Park Service Naturalist McKee whose study of the formations at Canyon del Muerto was being financed by Merriam of the Carnegie Institute. [141] McKee studied the Coconino formation at del Muerto and reported on sandstone formations at del Muerto and de Chelly. [142]

Erosion control was a main subject of the meeting held at Canyon de Chelly in April 1934. The group advised against using basket dams or rock revetments because of their tendency to settle into riverbeds. They advised using woven wire fences with cottonwood posts and "a liberal amount of bush to facilitate silting up back of the fence." Two double lines of fences were considered necessary to protect planted vegetation against grazing sheep and goats. [143] Between the fences willows, cottonwood trees, grasses, and other native growth were to be planted in order to "make a permanent barrier which will not only prevent erosion, but will also cause a natural deposition of silt back of the barrier, thus reclaiming a large farm area." [144]

A survey of the existing vegetation in Canyon de Chelly indicated the following: box elder, cottonwood, willow, gooseberry, greasewood, apple trees, wild olive, hackberry, and walnut willows. Again it was suggested that this work be done by Indians under the direction of a white foreman. [145] On April 28, 1934, the Navajos at Canyon de Chelly approved projects to improve their "park." [146] No opposition was expected from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. [147]

Chief Engineer Kittredge was concerned, however, about the areas between the two fences. Because most of it (about 50 feet) was sand, he felt the Indians would not complain about grazing rights being taken from them. [148] The Soil Erosion Service decided against the double fence idea and decided to have the Indians remove their stock from the canyon for 3 years. [149]

Kittredge took issue with this plan. He believed that 3 years or even 10 years might not be enough time to provide a better grazing area. The Indians would be justified, believed Kittredge, in complaining about broken promises and this would be extremely embarassing. [150] He concluded that

the whole problem of protection of the river banks against over-grazing is so easily and simply handled by the placing of the vegetation between fences that I can see no reason for laying ourselves open to broken promises and loss of confidence in us by the Indians by trying to make promises covering problems regarding which we have no surety. A fifty-foot strip of vegetation between fences and fully protected and encouraged by the use of Indian labor will be an example of what can be accomplished. It should have a far reaching influence upon the further development of the Indians' private holdings, and one which will encourage among the Indians the spirit of protection and restoration. [151]

This dispute over jurisdiction stemmed from the fact that the Park Service wanted erosion work financed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, because they, not the Park Service, controlled the land. H. G. Calkins, Regional Director of the Soil Erosion Service, finally recognized that the Park Service was to control the work in the canyon, but only on this job. Future work would require a restatement of authority. [152] The controversy seemed to continue, as evidenced by letters sent by Commissioner Collier stressing hopes for the Soil Erosion Service's "taking over" erosion work at de Chelly. [153] Kittredge restated that the Park Service should be the controlling organization within a Park Service area. [154] It was then suggested that the solicitor's opinion on the matter be requested, but this was rejected because the Soil Erosion Service was "working under direct instructions from Assistant Secretary Chapman to continue their work within the National Monument without regard to the National Park Service except where their protection work is in the immediate vicinity of Ruins when they shall secure the advance approval of the National Park Service to this work." [155]

The plan for a double fence never materialized, but the Erosion Service plan of having the Indians relinquish grazing rights for 3 years did. Kittredge's fears that this would not be enough time for revegetation were realized, so the Erosion Service devised two new plans of action: he first was to use a double fence; the second involved pursuading the Navajos to completely abandon grazing in Canyon de Chelly and converting it into "strictly a farming area." [156] Kittredge, delighted that the Erosion Service finally saw the need for double fencing, supported both plans. He still feared that the Park Service would appear in a bad light because of the Erosion Service's promise to the Indians and suggested that the Navajos be allowed to return their stock to the valley immediately "in order to maintain our standing with the Indians." [157]

Pinkley supported both the farming plan and the double fencing plan, stating that "the ideal solution of the problem would be to exclude grazing from the canyon permanently and restrict it to farming operations." [158] Pinkley felt, however, that the Park Service would be considered the culprits by the Navajos even though "the Park Service is not responsible for any action taken by the Soil Conservation Service." Thus, he suggested that the double fencing be utilized to solve the problem. [159]

In 1936 another problem arose concerning the introduction of exotic plants into the canyon—a violation of Park Service regulations. The Erosion Service planted Australian tamarisks, willows, and cottonwoods, and the Indian Service was selling fruit trees (apple, plum, and peach) to the Indians. Other plantings included grapevines, Chinese elms, and mulberry trees. Pinkley was concerned about the original terms of the proclamation, which declared that "Navajo occupation was not to be disturbed." [160] He was worried that a "serious conflict would result if this office were asked to apply the general policy toward exotics to Canyon de Chelly," and hoped that the Park Service Director would "investigate all of the circumstances before taking any action to interfere with the plans of the Indian Service agronomists and the Soil Conservation experts in the de Chelly area." [161]

Replying to Pinkley's request, Demaray stated that the planting of fruit trees by the Navajos was well within their rights. Furthermore, Demaray said

common sense dictates that there should be no interference in the plan to furnish better environment for the Indians, even though it happens to violate a rule which has been found valuable in most park and monument areas. [162]

Another conflict in Park Service rules arose over poisoning of rodents and grasshoppers. The Navajos requested that this protection be offered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and were impatient at the delay because many Navajos had begun farming activities. Budlong advised that the Park Service sanction this program even though it violated Service rules. [163]

Pinkley agreed with Budlong and suggested that no action be taken to prevent this work. He believed that

our policy at Canyon de Chelly National Monument is that we are there to protect the ruins and guard and guide visitors, and for no other purpose. We have turned over the problems of handling the Indians, their farming operations, and their stock operations to the Navajo Service. [164]

This decision of the Park Service not to interfere with planting or poisoning, even though it violated their rules, was followed. The only reported loss of stock was a Navajo's team of horses, who had been fed poisoned grain by a son who had been away and did not know that the grain was poisoned. The Park Service, of course, was not responsible for this loss. [165]

On April 10, 1937, a "Cooperative Agreement Between The Director of The National Park Service and The Commissioner of Indian Affairs For The Prevention and Suppression of Fires Occurring Along The Boundaries of Adjoining Indian Reservations and National Parks" was approved. It contained thirteen provisions:

1. That the details of cooperation in fire protection between field units will be worked out by officials of the Indian Service and the National Park Service.

2. That field officers taking official action under authority of this agreement will remain under the jurisdiction of their respective Bureaus.

3. That primary control by lookouts for a given area will be provided by the Park Service and the Indian Service as far as possible without regard to boundary lines and Bureau jurisdiction.

4. That primary lookouts maintained by the Indian Service will be furnished with fire-control maps of adjoining national park areas by the National Park Service, and primary lookouts maintained by the Park Service will be furnished with fire-control maps of adjoining Indian Reservations by the Indian Service.

5. The field officers of the Indian Service will be supplied with copies of fire plans and maps of adjoining national parks and will in turn supply National Park officers with copies of fire plans and maps covering adjoining Indian reservations.

6. That telephone or short-wave radio communication will be established between national parks and adjoining Indian reservations.

7. That fires occurring on Indian reservations and discovered by National Park officers will be reported promptly by them to the Indian Service. Forest officers of the Indian Service will take similar action with respect to fires discovered on national parks.

8. That National Park officers will render assistance to Indian Service officers in fire fighting upon request from such officers in all cases where such action will not leave national park lands unduly exposed to fire danger. Officers of the Indian Service will reciprocate in like manner. All facilities available will be used where necessary by either or both agencies to suppress fires along the adjacent boundaries. In the event of a fire on the Indian Service side of the boundary the first officer, whether Indian Service or Park Service, to reach the fire will take charge. Should a Park Service officer take charge, he will be relieved by an Indian Service officer as soon as the Indian Service is in a position to take over the fire. The same system will apply in case of a fire on the Park Service side of the boundary with the Indian Service officer turning the fire over to the Park Service as soon as the Park Service is in a position to take charge of the fire.

9. That the National Park Service will reimburse the Indian Service for all expenses incurred in extinguishing fires occurring or existing on lands under the protection of the National Park Service. The Indian Service will reimburse the National Park Service for all expenses incurred by the National Park Service in fighting fires outside areas protected by the National Park Service and occurring or existing on Indian lands. In either case, the expense thus incurred shall not exceed $1,000 prior to turning the control of the fire over to the Service on whose lands the fire is located. Reimbursements will be made under the authority of Section 601 of the Act of June 30, 1932 (47 Stat., 417).

10. That in case of a fire spreading from Indian Service lands into National Park Service lands, or vice versa, all expenses incurred by each agency will be prorated in accordance with the area burned on the lands within the confines of each protection agency. Necessary reimbursements will be made on this basis.

11. That the above agreement does not include reimbursement for the services of the Civilian Conservation Corps or year-long employees used in combating fires, but does include reimbursement for the services of all seasonal and per diem employees where such services are paid from forest fire fighting funds for the National Park Service or from "Supression of Forest Fires," "Administration of Indian Forests," or "Expenses, Sale of Timber" funds for the Indian Service. It also includes all other expenses paid from the above-mentioned funds in the process of suppression. All equipment will be assembled and inventoried immediately following each fire and suitable reimbursement made on the basis outlined in the preceding paragraph.

12. That subsidiary field agreements executed under authority hereof between field officers of the National Park Service and the Indian Service shall receive the approval of the Director of the National Park Service and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.

13. That this cooperative agreement shall continue in force and effect until terminated by written notice by either party, provided that the notice of termination of the agreement must be given between the dates of November 1 of any year and April 30 of the following year; and that such termination of agreement shall meet with the approval of the Secretary of Interior. [166]

A few days later, a request for field glasses at de Chelly for use in fire prevention and forest protection was submitted to Pinkley. Pinkley replied that at present he could not supply the request but would try to fulfill the need as the year progressed. [167]

A supplement to the 1937 agreement on fire prevention and supression was submitted in 1941 by E. Reeseman Fryer, general superintendent of the Navajo Indian Reservation, and Charles D. Wyatt, custodian at de Chelly. It contained five points.

1. That the lookouts and other employees of the Navajo Service shall report any fire on National Monument lands to the Navajo Service Fire Dispatcher at Window Rock, Arizona. Any such fire thus reported to the Dispatcher shall be reported by him as soon as possible to the Monument Custodian. Likewise, fires discovered by National Monument employees, regardless of what lands they may originate on, shall be reported to the Navajo Service Fire Dispatcher.

2. That any fire threatening lands adjacent to the common boundary between Monument and Reservation shall be reported to both the Monument Custodian and the Forest Officer in charge of protection for the Reservation as soon as possible after it becomes evident that adjoining lands are threatened.

3. That initial control action on any fire threatening lands adjacent to the common boundary shall be taken by the Service most likely to reach the fire first. Such fire discovered from the field shall be attacked promptly by the discovering employee.

4. That in the event of fires on Monument lands, not likely to threaten the Reservation, the Navajo Service shall furnish all assistance requested by the Park Service to the extent that such assistance will not unduly expose Reservation forests to fire danger. In the event of Reservation fires not threatening Monument land, the Navajo Service may request supervisory assistance to be furnished to the extent that the Monument is not unduly exposed to fire hazards.

5. That this subsidiary field agreement shall continue in force until terminated. It may be terminated by either party, provided that written notice of termination shall be given between the dates of November 1, of any year and April 30, of the following year, and provided further that such termination shall meet with the approval of the Director of the National Park Service and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. [168]

After studying the agreement, D. E. Murphy of the Bureau of Indian Affairs believed that several alterations were necessary. He wanted it clarified that "the specific agreement is drawn pursuant to the general agreement and that the provisions of the general agreement are made a part of the specific agreement." [169] Also, he believed that section 5 had to conform to section 13 of the general agreement and that section 2 should be expressed differently and more precisely. In closing, Murphy stated that "your [Fryer's] further consideration of the agreement with the Custodian for the National Park Service will be appreciated and it is believed will result in a very satisfactory agreement." [170]

As the year 1939 ended, erosion control projects were being discussed for the 1940-41 program at de Chelly. [171] Two erosion projects were begun in 1940, at the mouth of de Chelly and at White House Ruin. [172]

At the mouth of de Chelly preventive measures were taken to keep the canyon's flood waters from reaching the Thunderbird Ranch. [173] At White House, rail posts, steel cable, rail tetrahedrons, and diagonal fences were installed. [174] During the following year, projects included stabilization work at White House and Antelope House and rebuilding of a dike to restrain the Rio de Chelly. [175]