PIPE SPRING Cultures at a Crossroads: An Administrative History

The Opposition Rallies

While Solicitor Finney's opinion had somewhat of a bright side for the Park Service (it would get a salaried position), it was viewed strictly as bad news by white residents of the area and others as far away as Salt Lake City. Leonard Heaton was caught smack in the middle of this mess and could hardly be expected to remain neutral. On the one hand, he was a Department of Interior official (and thanks to the water dispute, soon to be a paid one). On the other hand, he had strong allegiance to his family and heritage, and to area ranchers. On June 10, 1931, Leonard Heaton wrote Pinkley that there was opposition to the Solicitor's opinion, men who "expressed themselves to the fact that the Indian Department would not get the water without hearing from them. They are asking that I send them all the material that I have regarding the matter and they will take the case to Senator Smoot and [Senator] King of Utah." [710] Heaton wrote in the same letter that his father, Charles C. Heaton, had been to Salt Lake City to garner the support of powerful men there. [711] At the end of this uncharacteristically short but highly charged letter, Heaton signed his full name, "Charles Leonard Heaton." In previous (as well as later) correspondence, Heaton always signed his correspondence, "C. Leonard Heaton" or "Leonard Heaton." The use of his entire name in this instance suggests he may have been feeling a particular allegiance to the Heaton family as sides prepared to mount for the anticipated battle over water at Pipe Spring.

Even though the cattlemen had been assured their one-third rights to Pipe Spring (just as the Indians had been assured their one-third rights at Moccasin Spring many years earlier), it appears that they deeply distrusted the intentions of the Indian Service, perhaps fearing they would lose their rights to Pipe Spring water. After all, in the negotiations of June 1924 whereby Charles C. Heaton agreed to deed over Pipe Spring to the federal government, the cattlemen believed the Park Service would be in control of water at Pipe Spring. The Solicitor's opinion now created the very real possibility that the Indian Service would be calling the shots on the use of this precious resource. It is no wonder then, given the history of mutual distrust over the division of water in Moccasin, that a number of local white ranchers and others loudly protested the Solicitor's opinion.

The uncertainty of his economic future must have also been agonizing to Leonard Heaton. In early January 1932, Heaton asked Superintendent Pinkley about the status of the water situation. If the Indian Service was to get the water he had been using, could he at least raise a garden of about one-half acre? In addition to the 220 chickens and 20 x 40-foot house he already had, could he get 300 or 400 more hens and erect a second 20 x 40-foot chicken house? (Possibly Heaton was thinking of going into the egg business, if he was not already engaged in it. One family could hardly eat the eggs of 660 chickens!) [712] Pinkley wrote back saying that he

...had word from the Washington office just lately that we were likely to get the salary there raised to $1,200 per year so it would be worth someone's while to stay there without having to raise a living out of the soil to keep from starving to death. This is not an absolute certainty yet, but I feel pretty safe about it...

I think it would be all right to build the extra chicken house if you put it where it will not be an eye-sore from the road and if you want to continue on the place with this $1,200 salary which will start on July 1. Can you make ends meet on that basis? [713]

On January 19, 1932, Director Albright informed the Office of Indian Affairs that if the custodian's position was funded the Park Service would be in a position to release the water previously used by Heaton, permitting it to be used by the Indians. The filling of the position of laborer (GS-4) at $1,200 was approved by President Herbert Hoover on June 18, 1932, authority No. 98. [714] Beginning July 1, 1932, Heaton became a salaried employee.

Local sentiment over the water issue at Pipe Spring continued to simmer into the summer of 1932. During a hot, dry May, about 3,000 cattle were watering at Pipe Spring, Heaton reported, "and if there is no storm before long there will be a lot more." [715] A major controversy over the issue of cattle permits was taking place during this time. [716] Up until 1932, a conglomerate of non-Indian cattlemen had been grazing on 6,000 acres of Indian land under three-year permits issued by the reservation. The southwestern section on which permits were issued was known as Pasture 2 (also known as the "calf pasture") located west of the Pipe Spring fort. A 10-year drought and the onset of the Great Depression had resulted in poor grazing and extensive cattle losses. In August 1932 the cattlemen petitioned the Office of Indian Affairs through Arizona Senator Carl Hayden that their permits be renewed at half the rate and that an outstanding debt of $600 to the reservation be cancelled. The petition was signed by five members of the Heaton family, two affinal Esplins, three affinal Lambs, and various Maces and Judds. The Commissioner replied to Hayden in October that he had no authority to cancel the debt, but if it were paid he would consider a reduction in the new permit fee if cattlemen would agree to lower carrying capacities and "provided the Kaibab Indians agree to such action." [717] The outcome of this request will be discussed a little later on.

In August 1932 Office of Indian Affairs Acting Commissioner B. S. Garber wrote to Director Albright pointing out that since Albright's last communication of January 19, his office had assumed that the custodian's position had been funded. Garber then dropped the other shoe: he asked to know when the Park Service would release surplus water to Farrow, "over and above the amount required for domestic use, for the irrigation of the Indian lands." [718] On August 30 Associate Director Cammerer sent a letter to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs releasing the surplus water "which you permitted the Custodian of Pipe Spring National Monument to use." [719] On the same date, he forwarded copies of this letter to both Pinkley and Heaton and informed them that the surplus water had been released by the Park Service to the Indian Service. [720] There is no record of any discussion or arguments made in favor of the Park Service retaining water for resource purposes.

57. Sketch map showing location of pasture No. 2 (" calf pasture"), 1921
(National Archives, Record Group 75).
(click on image for an enlargement in a new window - ~50K)

The dispute at Pipe Spring over water use was hardly settled. It would take more than a year of negotiations between the stockmen, National Park Service, and Kaibab Indian Reservation officials over use and distribution of water from Pipe Spring before a mutual agreement was reached. Men at the highest levels of power in the State of Utah rallied to defend the water of Pipe Spring from the Indian Service. (Obviously, some considered the old fort was finally under the anticipated Indian attack for which it had originally been built!) On September 23, 1932, Apostle George A. Smith (who would succeed Heber J. Grant as Church President in 1945) instructed Senator Reed Smoot to lodge a protest with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs over the water issue. [721] On October 4 Senator Smoot protested to Commissioner Rhoads of the Office of Indian Affairs that the monument needed its water "for the beautifying of the grounds." [722] Rhoads responded to Smoot's suggestion that the Indian Service utilize Two Mile Wash for additional water:

That matter has already been carefully considered by our engineers with the result that it does not appear feasible for the Indian Service for the reason that the sides of the wash are almost perpendicular, and to get the water out by gravity is practically out of the question. It would require a dam of considerable proportions and of material that would resist the elements, which would be expensive beyond practicability...

We regret that the conditions are such as to make it necessary for this Office to insist upon the use of the water from the spring for the Indian lands. [723]

Smoot sent a copy of Rhoads' reply back to George A. Smith, writing, "I regret that the reply is unfavorable but know of nothing further than can be done in the matter." [724] Smith later forwarded copies of Rhoads' and Smoot's letters to Charles C. Heaton, writing,

I regret exceedingly that this complication has occurred but if Senator Smoot knows of no way to remedy it, I am sure I do not. I have given the Senator all the information that you gave me but he evidently concludes that there is nothing he can do in the matter.

I am sorry that the department has taken the attitude it has on this very important matter and hope that there may be something develop in the future to improve the situation. I am closing the incident as far as I am concerned at the present time.

It does occur to me that you might take this matter up with your Arizona Senator and the new administration and in that way have it reopened. [725]

In early October Leonard Heaton wrote directly to Director Albright, expressing his surprise that the water had been turned over to the Indian Service. Although the proclamation had left decisions about water use in the hands of the Secretary of the Interior, he protested, "... as yet I have not read of any action taken by him on this matter." [726] Heaton interpreted the Solicitor's opinion of 1931 as meaning that the apportioning of water would be determined according to prior use, thus the monument had the right to keep as much as had been used "ever since 1863." He continued:

Maybe I am over stepping but as Custodian I am working for the best of the Monument as I see it. If all the water is taken from the Monument and not allowed to water the meadow and trees it will be a matter of a year or so till most of the trees and meadow will be dead. I can't quite bring myself to the idea that those men that purchased Pipe Spring and gave it to the Government meant that the water should go the Indians, but rather that it should be used in making the place more attractive to the public. I am sure that this is what the late Mr. Mather had in mind in having it as a monument. It is also the wishes of the local people that are interested in this place. [727]

Director Albright responded to Heaton's letter by explaining that Solicitor Finney's opinion did not preclude Heaton from using water for domestic use "and as may be required for the benefit of visitors to the monument including that necessary for the preservation of trees and shrubbery." [728] He requested that Heaton submit a report "at as early a date as possible" describing the water situation at the monument, providing maps showing the trees and shrubbery and estimating the amount of water required to maintain them.

Heaton complied with Albright's request by letter of November 7, 1932. He pointed out to the director that even though one-third of the water at Pipe Spring had been reserved for cattlemen, no division had ever been made of the monument's water. Now that the Indian Service was claiming part of the water at Pipe Spring, Heaton believed the cattlemen would demand that a formal division be made to ensure that they received their share. Heaton reported that about 12 acres of land were being irrigated on the monument. Should he cease irrigating, he wrote, much of the land "will turn to sand dunes if nothing is put on it, and the rest will go to thistles and cockleburs. I suggest we get something growing on it as planting it back to its native state of brush and cedar if we can't keep the water to make further improvements in trees and meadows for the benefit of the public and tourists." [729] Heaton protested the Indians getting more water, "as they have not been making use of the water that is on the reservation. About two and one-half miles to the east there is a stream of water that is larger than all the water combined at Pipe Springs. It seems to me that there was a selfish motive connected with the writing of the proclamation." [730]

Included with Heaton's letter was a detailed, hand-drawn sketch map depicting - in addition to the historic buildings - the springs, irrigated areas, irrigation ditches, location and types of some of the trees, and other landscape features (see figure 58). Heaton wrote Albright, "There is more trees and brush on the place by about three times but they are located as indicated on the map, and all are along the irrigation ditches.... It will also be seen that the meadow is about one-third of all the land irrigated." [731]

In addition to the earlier fort ponds, the map shows the two meadow ponds, surrounded by meadow. Heaton's small corral and barnyard are shown immediately northwest of the meadow ponds. To the west and south of these ponds and meadow, extending to the monument boundary, was a large expanse of irrigated land. All that remained of the historic cattle corrals at Pipe Spring were the two cattle corrals located at the southwest corner of the monument. In addition to the meadow areas, much of the land directly south of the fort and its ponds was irrigated. Only the areas directly east of the fort were characterized by Heaton as "brush land." Heaton labeled the unirrigated areas as "wash" areas, suggesting that periodic flooding made cultivation there impractical. The location of irrigation ditches is shown on this map as well as the location and identification of trees by type. The location of the old monument road (previously the Kaibab Wagon Road) is shown on this map and should be noted, as it would soon be relocated. The small building shown just south of the west end of the fort ponds labeled "house" represents the Heatons' store which was not removed until 1935.

58. Sketch map of Pipe Spring landscape, 1932
(Drawn by Leonard Heaton, courtesy National Archives Record Group 79).
(click on image for an enlargement in a new window - ~75K)

What is obvious from Heaton's sketch map is that much of the monument landscape was being heavily irrigated and cultivated by the early 1930s. Prior to the creation of the monument, such a landscape would have been highly incompatible with the site's use as a stock watering and corral site for thousands of cattle. Once cattle were no longer watered on the monument and most corrals and fencing were removed, a whole new world of possibilities opened up for the landscape. Heaton only did what any other self-respecting farmer would have done under the circumstances: he irrigated and cultivated the land. Given the number of years the ground had been trod on by large herds of cattle, it seems rather remarkable he could loosen the soil enough around Pipe Spring to permit plant growth, but this he accomplished within only a few years. In this regard, Heaton merely exemplified the tenacity and resourcefulness for which Latter-day Saint settlers in the arid West have long been famous.

Heaton's efforts were at least partly aided and abetted by Park Service overseers who viewed the increased vegetation as making the monument more inviting to tourists. After all, additional trees created shade for campers and picnickers and lush green meadows added visual appeal to the site. Fruit trees have an extremely strong association with the traditional Mormon landscape and would have appealed to the aesthetics and sentiments of many visitors. Besides, the cattlemen seemed content with their share of monument water derived from tunnel spring. Until the Office of Indian Affairs forced them to, the National Park Service simply had no reason to question or limit Heaton's activities with regard to water use at the monument.

The effect of Heaton's increased agricultural activity was that it certainly boosted the amount of water required to maintain the monument's landscape. Yet it must be stated that no documentation has surfaced to indicate that the motivation of either Heaton or the Park Service, which sanctioned his activities, arose from a desire to artificially inflate water requirements and/or usage on the monument. At the time Heaton was undertaking his landscaping activities, he believed the Indians were not entitled to any of Pipe Spring's water, regardless of what the proclamation said. This being the case, why would he need to take action to circumvent their getting it? Given the benefit of the doubt, Heaton appears to have acted as he did in order to provide support for his immediate family and to perform a service to the Park Service, sincerely believing these agricultural activities enhanced the monument's landscape for visitors.

In early December 1932, Associate Director Arno B. Cammerer acted on Heaton's November 7 report on the Pipe Spring water situation. He wrote Commissioner Rhoads stating that the Park Service interpreted Solicitor Finney's opinion as meaning that only waters used by the custodian for his personal farming operations were to be turned over to the Indian Service, and that no objection had been made by the Solicitor to the continued use of water required for "benefit of travelers, including that required for the maintenance of the landscape features at the Monument and for the domestic purposes of the Custodian." [732] He reported that Heaton claimed if the cattlemen demanded their full one-third of the monument's water there would not be enough remaining to meet the needs of tourists and travelers or to maintain the landscape features. Cammerer made the following request of Rhoads:

Under the circumstances, it would appear advisable that the surplus waters of Pipe Springs be left available for the use of the traveling public, including that required for the maintenance of the landscape features at Pipe Springs National Monument and for the Custodian's domestic purposes so far as practicable and until absolutely necessary to draw on it for the Indians. Accordingly, this Service would respectfully request that nothing be done to impair the Pipe Springs National Monument by the diversion of any of the waters from the springs within the monument area for other uses. [733]

On December 27, 1932, Assistant Commissioner Scattergood wrote Director Albright in response to Cammerer's letter opining that, at the time of the monument's establishment, it was "evidently intended" that the surplus water overflowing from the two fort ponds "should be permitted to go to the Indians for their use as stipulated in the proclamation." [734] He pointed out that water taken from the fort ponds would not affect the water taken by cattlemen from the tunnel (tunnel spring). The Indian Service interpreted Cammerer's earlier letter of August 30 as meaning that the Indian Service would get all the water impounded by the meadow ponds as well as overflow from the fort ponds. It was the opinion of its supervising engineer that seepage from the fort ponds would be adequate to maintain the trees and shrubbery surrounding the fort and grounds immediately adjacent to it. Scattergood was opposed to any Park Service plans to enlarge the landscape or maintain vegetation beyond the immediate fort area for this "would hardly be consistent to require the Indians to sacrifice the water for such purposes, which water they are very badly in need of in order to grow the garden crops for their subsistence." [735] Scattergood informed Albright that Dr. Farrow had already purchased pipe to convey the surplus water from the spring to Indian lands and contemplated employing Indian labor to perform the work of laying the pipeline and constructing the reservoir "in the near future." He asserted that the Indian Service could make no further concession of the Indians' water rights "which are recognized in the Presidential Proclamation and are so essential for their subsistence." [736]

The year thus ended with the Office of Indian Affairs insisting that all surplus water at Pipe Spring be turned over to the Kaibab Paiute. But exactly what constituted "surplus" water? That question would take more time, investigations, and negotiations to address.