PIPE SPRING Cultures at a Crossroads: An Administrative History

The Indian Service Looks Toward Pipe Spring

Assistant Commissioner E. B. Meritt reported to Secretary Hubert Work in August 1926 that "the Indians do very little farming, owing to their lack of water, and have very little stock. They gain their livelihood principally by day labor." [688] The economic well being and health of the Kaibab Paiute heavily depended on access to a safe and sufficient supply of water. A number of earlier surveys on the Kaibab Indian Reservation had been made with a view to improving the water supply for irrigation (Means, 1911; Dietz, 1914; Engle, 1924) but nothing feasible was reported. [689] Aside from Moccasin Spring and Pipe Spring, there were a number of other springs on the reservation, but these were used only for stock watering as they were small and not permanent. The washes were only an occasional source of water for cattle. While they carried water after storms, they were dry most of the year. A suggestion had been made in at least one of the early reports that investigations of underground water supplies be conducted, but even if a source could be located, its development would entail considerable expense. Increasingly, it became obvious to the Indian Service that a less costly solution would be to use Pipe Spring water, as already provided for in the monument proclamation. At the same time the Indian Service cast its eyes at Pipe Spring as a promising new source of water, the monument caretaker was busily impounding much of it in two new reservoirs (the upper and lower meadow ponds) and greatly expanding his agricultural and landscaping activities.

Heaton's flurry of activity in farming, irrigating, and tree planting on the new monument had not for one moment escaped the attention of Dr. Farrow. The reservation's superintendent looked upon Leonard Heaton's actions as a deliberate move to deprive Indians of their rights to Pipe Spring water. He wanted and believed the reservation was entitled to any monument surplus water to irrigate the gardens of the Kaibab Paiute. Yet the clause that Commissioner Burke had insisted be inserted into the 1923 monument proclamation left too much room for conflicting interpretation. By the late 1920s, it was becoming apparent that the water provision for the Indians needed to be spelled out in much clearer terms.

In June 1929 Supervising Engineer L. M. Holt of the Indian Irrigation Service visited the Kaibab Indian Reservation to measure the flow of water from Pipe Spring. [690] The engineer then recommended to his superiors in Washington that the Office of Indian Affairs and the National Park Service jointly develop regulations governing the use of water at Pipe Spring. Assistant Commissioner J. Henry Scattergood requested a conference for the purpose of formulating definite regulations. [691] Associate Director Arno B. Cammerer replied that the Park Service was agreeable to the meeting but asked that the Indian Service furnish its suggestions in advance so that they might be considered by local field officers prior to the conference. [692] Commissioner Rhoads replied in a letter to Director Horace M. Albright, explaining that the engineer had been sent to Pipe Spring due to the difference of opinion between Farrow and Heaton over the division and use of the water. Rhoads wrote,

As we understand it, there is nothing in the President's proclamation to indicate that this water was to be used by the National Park Service for irrigation purposes, and it does appear that the language shows clearly an intention to allow the Indians the use of surplus water for irrigation and other purposes. It is reported that the Caretaker of the National Monument has conveyed water from the springs through two small reservoirs and uses it for irrigating his garden. It is further reported that there are indications that he intends to construct another reservoir to impound more of the water, evidently to be used for irrigation.

...The total flow of the springs was found to be only 33.56 gallons per minute, from which there would still remain after depletion by evaporation from the surface of the pools and by the use of the Caretaker for domestic purposes a sufficient amount to irrigate several acres of garden, which would add greatly to the food supply of these Indians...

It was with a view to preparing definite regulations primarily on this feature that a conference with your service was suggested. [693]

The reference to Heaton's plans to construct a new reservoir is important for it would have alarmed Farrow sufficiently to request that Washington send an engineer to Pipe Spring. This may have been the trigger that led to the eruption of problems in 1929. John Collier probably was also behind the Indian Service's new push for a share of Pipe Spring water.

In response to Rhoads' letter, Assistant Director Arthur E. Demaray directed Superintendent Frank Pinkley to prepare a report detailing local conditions and the monument's water needs, along with his recommendations on regulations, so that the director's office could prepare for the proposed conference. Pinkley wrote back expressing his views in strong terms. He pointed out that the Office of Indian Affairs was basing its demand on the clause in the proclamation, not on water rights legally established under controlling Arizona state law. He wrote:

If they could have shown prior use of water or some such valid ownership, they would have most certainly have put it in [the proclamation] at that time. This arouses a pretty strong assumption that they knew they did not have a legal title to the water and so built this clause in the proclamation on which they could make a demand at a later date. That time has now come.

So far as I know, the water law of Arizona covers that National Monument and under the Arizona law the water goes with the land, cannot be sold or transferred apart from the land, and the right to it is established by prior use.

What prior use of the waters of Pipe Spring for irrigation on behalf of the Indians can the Indian Service show? If they could show prior usage they most certainly would not be putting their claim on this clause in the proclamation and letting the real legal right drop into the background. I know of no usage by modern Indians for irrigation. On the other hand, the water has been used for irrigation by the owners of the land now included in the monument for some time in the '80s, if the old timers have reported correctly to me. Under the Arizona laws if the Park Service were a private corporation owning that land I don't believe the Indian Service would have a leg to stand on in bringing suit to take the water over our boundaries and give it to the Indians. They must admit this to themselves or they would not base their demand on the fact that they can take it for use in one Service because the title lies in another Service and both Services belong to the Government. [694]

Pinkley thought the Office of Indian Affairs was playing with words in the proclamation and that under no circumstances did it need to be spelled out exactly how the monument would use the water. Disagreement was on the word "surplus." Referring to Commissioner Rhoads, Pinkley continued,

In other words he is going to allow us to use enough water to supply the needs of only one family and he takes the remainder for the Indians! And this is done on the basis of the clause, which says the Indians shall have the privilege of using waters from Pipe Spring. Maybe we overlooked something when we didn't put a clause in that proclamation allowing the Park Service the privilege of using some of the waters too. If they take the irrigation water after 40 years or so of use on the land, they will be back next year after the drinking water and tell us to catch rainwater for our Custodian! [695]

Pinkley argued that since Heaton was receiving virtually no pay for his services (only a nominal salary of $1 per month), he should be allowed to grow his own crops. Pinkley asserted that no change regarding water use should be made prior to the monument hiring a paid custodian. He wanted to make clear

...that the right and title to the spring rests with the monument but that we will let the Indians use not to exceed half of the flow of the spring out of which they will have to furnish half the stock water when and as needed. If they put that to good use and we find that we can spare any more in future years after we see how this monument develops, we may give them an additional percentage.

It might be well to write into any agreement that they are to take their share of the water at a point to be determined by us. The whole spring might as well run out into the pools and be enjoyed by our visitors and the water divided after that at an inconspicuous point chosen by our landscape experts. [696]

Pinkley had no objections to a time-division of the water if the director cared to go that route, and suggested various methods of distribution. [697] Notice Pinkley's caveat above, "If they put that to good use...." What this appears to have meant from the Park Service point of view was that the Indians needed to demonstrate that any water released to them from Pipe Spring would be used for agriculture (either stock raising or gardening) with a minimum of waste. While a cultural bias was inherent in this demand, it also reflected the reality that water was a scarce and precious resource.

Nothing was done immediately to resolve the situation. For the time being, Heaton continued using water as he had in the past. On occasion, Heaton received requests from local ranchers for water from Pipe Spring. When this happened, he consulted with Superintendent Pinkley for permission, as he did in April 1931 when Lloyd Sorenson of Hurricane asked to water his sheep on the monument for four weeks or until rains filled his own tanks. [698] Pinkley replied to Heaton's request,

There will be no objection from our Park Service standpoint if there is none from the Indian Service.... We will make no charge for the water but he ought not to be allowed to use it longer than is absolutely necessary. We don't want to set up any general practice of having these men depend on us for water, but we are willing to help them out in a neighborly way if they are caught in a jam. [699]

Pipe Spring National Monument had goodwill aplenty, but when it came to water, there just didn't seem to be enough to go 'round.