GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS An Administrative History

CHAPTER V: MINERAL RIGHTS AND LAND ACQUISITION (continued)

Acquisition of Smaller Tracts within the Park Boundaries

After the Hunter acquisition was complete, eight landowners held a total of 4,574 acres within the park boundaries. The hopes of Kornelis and Cameron for a quick and easy exchange for equal amounts of land outside the park boundaries were not fulfilled. Although three landowners were offered a land exchange, only one accepted.

As early as January 1964, the Park Service had begun inquiring about the small landowners involved in the proposed park. In response to a request from Robert Barrel of the Southwest Regional Office, Glenn Biggs outlined the situation with six of the landowners, using information provided by Noel Kincaid:

1. The Ed Hammack property, Sections 7 and 17, Public School Land (PSL) Block 121, contained three wells, the only water source for Hammack's ranching operation. Biggs recommended that these sections not be included in the proposed park.

2. The F. G. Barrett property, the east half of Section 6, Block 65, Township 1, Culberson County was leased to Walter Glover. It contained a water source that provided water to other sections leased or owned by Glover.

3. The Walter Glover property, approximately 86 acres, located in the northeast corner of Section 44, Block 65, Township 1, Culberson County contained two wells, which provided water for domestic as well as livestock use. The property also contained parts of the Butterfield stage station, which once stood at Pine Springs; the Glovers' residence; and a combination country store and cafe that they had operated since 1928.

4. The Southwest National Bank Trust of El Paso owned Section 21, Block 121, PSL, Culberson County. Biggs suggested a trade might be made for land in either of two nearby sections that were adjacent to other property owned by the Trust.

5. The Six-Bar Ranch owned Sections 11, 14, and 23 in PSL Block 121. A contract existed between J. C. Hunter, Jr., and the Six-Bar Ranch stating that at the conclusion of existing oil and gas leases, the Six Bar would exchange its sections for Sections 32, 42, and 44, Block 65, Township 2, Culberson County, which Hunter owned.

6. Biggs reported that one other half-section remained in private hands, the east half of Section 5, PSL Block 121. He said J. F. Walcott and Misses Pearl and Joe Cole owned the land. Because the tract was unfenced and Hunter had used a large portion of it for many years, Biggs expected a trade would be acceptable. [11]

In May 1964, Norman B. Herkenham, Regional Chief of National Park Systems Studies, visited some of the landowners Biggs had identified. In a memorandum written after his visit, Herkenham stated: "For the record, although it hardly requires emphasis, this visit was much overdue, and there has been considerable time for misapprehension and suspicion to breed in the minds of the people concerned." [12]

Herkenham found the land situation to be as Biggs had represented it. He was so impressed with the adamancy of the Hammacks' and the Glovers' refusals to sell their property that he recommended those sections be deleted from the park proposal. He felt the landowners' response stemmed partly from a general attitude that "if it helps Hunter in any way, we are against it," but he also felt that contacts made by Biggs and Kincaid with the Hammacks and Glovers had exacerbated the situation. In his trip report Herkenham wrote, "The principal hostility of the local people seems to be directed chiefly toward Mr. Glenn Biggs. . . . Mr. Biggs has made himself extremely unpopular through his aggressive dealings and attempts to option the property of the smaller landowners, both in the past and now, in connection with the park proposal." Herkenham doubted whether Hunter was aware of all of the actions of his representatives. [13]

Herkenham did not meet with F. G. Barrett, but the Glovers told him that Barrett's attitude would be similar to theirs. Herkenham realized that the Glovers probably had more interest in Barrett's land than Barrett did, since they leased the property. Because the scenic value of Barrett's half-section was important, Herkenham was reluctant to suggest that it be excluded from the park. [14]

Joseph F. Irwin of the Southwest National Bank Trust in El Paso represented the individuals who owned Section 21, PSL Block 121. He told Herkenham that the investors were already aware of the effect of the proposed park on their property. Irwin indicated that he knew of no overt resistance to including the section of land in the park, but the owners clearly expected any transfer of property to be financially advantageous to them. He thought an exchange might be possible. [15]

Herkenham did not contact representatives of either the Walcott/Cole or the Six-Bar Ranch interests during his visit. He reported, however, that he expected no problem with the acquisition of either tract. The agreement between Hunter and the Six- Bar Ranch would accomplish what the Park Service needed, and Herkenham believed an exchange with the Walcott/Cole interest would be "no serious problem." [16]

In 1970, when officials of the Park Service began full negotiations with the small landowners, the exchanges that had been anticipated were, in most cases, refused. The Federal Government was forced to purchase the Cole tract ($6,404), the Southwest National Bank Trust tract ($12,000), and the Barrett tract ($10,206). The exchange with the Six-Bar Ranch took place as planned, but the federal government paid an additional $5,400 to the Six-Bar to equalize land values. A quarter-section tract (Section 45, Block 65, Township 1, Culberson County) belonging to the Texas Pacific Land Trust, which neither Biggs nor Herkenham had mentioned, was exchanged for three-eighths of Section 30, Township 2, Block 65, Culberson County, but the Texas Pacific Land Trust retained a 60-foot right-of-way easement across their original section. [17]

The Hammack Exclusion and Easement

Early in 1964, Ona and Ed Hammack learned from Biggs and Kincaid that two sections of their ranch had been included in the proposed park. Biggs and Kincaid agreed that the land had no scenic value and was essential to the Hammack's ranching operation because it contained their primary water source. Acting on the advice of Biggs, the Hammacks wrote to Senator Yarborough to ask that their land be excluded from the park. They said that depriving them of the use of Section 17 would destroy their ranching operation. [18]

After hearing from the Hammacks, Yarborough expressed to the Park Service his concern for his constituents. Herkenham met with the Hammacks during his trip to Texas in May 1964 and discussed possible alternatives with them, including acquisition by the Federal Government that left water rights and life tenancy with them, or exchange for sections outside the park. Since neither possibility appealed to the Hammacks, Herkenham and Daniel Beard, Regional Director of the Southwest Region, concurred in recommending to Park Service Director George Hartzog, Jr., that Sections 7 and 17 be excluded from the park proposal. [19]

In June 1964, the Acting Assistant Director of the Park Service, C. Gordon Fredine, wrote to Senator Yarborough, reiterating the field assessments that found the Hammack property not essential to the development of the park and assuring Yarborough that the Hammack's property would not be acquired without their permission. Fredine hoped that this promise would remove the Hammack's objections to the park. [20]

Nearly two years later, in spite of recommendations and promises, the question of how the Hammack land would be handled was still not settled. In February 1966 Senator Yarborough discussed the situation with Park Service Director Hartzog. In a letter to confirm the points made during their conversation, Hartzog listed the sequence of acquisition procedures which would be utilized for the park lands, including the Hammacks': (1) purchase based on fair market values; (2) less than fee interest, such as a scenic easement, if such an interest met the needs of the park; (3) purchase with reserved use and occupancy by the owner for a specified period; and (4) acquisition by right of eminent domain. Hartzog emphasized that condemnation would only be used as a last resort. [21]

Both the House and the Senate subcommittees amended the park legislation to allow for omission of the Hammack sections from the park. Instead of the federal government having a fee interest in the Hammack's land, the legislation allowed a scenic easement, committing the Hammacks and successive owners to obtaining Park Service approval for any construction on Sections 7 and 17. [22]

Late in November 1967, after the major mineral rights donations were complete, the Park Service began final negotiations with the Hammacks to acquire the scenic easement that park legislation allowed. On June 14, 1968, for the sum of one dollar, the Hammacks conveyed a perpetual scenic easement, following the language of the legislation, to the federal government. The final clause of the easement granted the Secretary of the Interior or his representative the authority to allow deviations from the covenant as long as the deviations did not interfere with the purposes of the easement. [23]

The Hammacks accepted the easement for a number of years, but in 1976 they asked for a concession to allow construction on one of the sections. The Park Service approved their plans. In 1978, aware of the fact that Ed Hammack had a terminal illness and that both of the Hammacks were concerned that the easement clouded the title to their property, Donald Dayton, the Superintendent of Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains, asked the Regional Director to consider removing the easement restrictions entirely. Dayton recommended the removal for two reasons: 1) the easement had been unnecessary in the first place, and 2) it would be a good public relations move. [24] However, when the Solicitor General determined that legislation would be necessary to remove the restrictions, the subject was dropped. [25] Ona Hammack died on May 31, 1984, and Ed Hammack died March 26, 1985. Since the deaths of the Hammacks, the heirs have expressed no concern about the easement restrictions. [26]

CONTINUE >>>