PIPE SPRING Cultures at a Crossroads: An Administrative History

1933

President Franklin D. Roosevelt's election in November 1932 was soon followed in March 1933 by the appointment of Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes. Historian John Ise described Ickes as an "honest, honorable man and a devoted public servant, but a crusty, crabbed 'curmudgeon'....not an easy man to get along with." [737] Confident that the Park Service was in good hands, Horace Albright tendered his resignation on July 17, 1933, but continued to provide active and constructive leadership in the conservation movement throughout the remainder of his life. His successor was Arno B. Cammerer, who assumed office on August 10, 1933.

>The year 1933 was a pivotal one in the history of Pipe Spring National Monument with regard to decisions made and actions taken affecting the use and distribution of water. In early January of that year, Cammerer forwarded Leonard Heaton a copy of Scattergood's letter of December 27, 1932, informing him that Farrow would soon install a pipeline. Given the position of the Indian Service, wrote Cammerer, "there does not appear to be anything further we can do to forestall the use of water from Pipe Springs by the Indians after that Service has installed the necessary pipeline for that purpose." [738] Heaton then sent a lengthy letter to Superintendent Pinkley on January 11 "to show that there are some facts that have not been considered" in the water matter at Pipe Spring. [739] Heaton wrote,

As you know my Father and his brothers owned Pipe Springs before it was made a National Monument. In about 1920 or 1923 there was a law suit on between the Heatons and the Kaibab Indian Reservation, with Dr. E. A. Farrow supt. over the water and rights here. In this suit the Indians were allowed the place by [the] Sect. of Interior, but the Heatons appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where they won the case by getting the water and forty acres of land. Before they had the deeds all straightened out it was made a National Monument.

Dr. Farrow, knowing that he had now lost the water by the Supreme Court's decision, saw an opening whereby he could get the water if he could get the CLAUSE put in to the proclamation setting aside Pipe Springs as a Monument, which was done. [740]

It is obvious from this statement that Heaton himself had a poor grasp of the facts, since these statements are completely untrue. The issue never went to the Supreme Court, Charles C. Heaton had just threatened to take it there rather than lose the Pipe Spring tract and water to the Indians. Still, it is important to know that the monument's Custodian believed these assertions to be the facts, although how he obtained these impressions is unknown. It is apparent that there was strong, negative feeling on the part of the Heatons about the water use clause that Commissioner Burke had had inserted at the last minute into the proclamation. To some extent, the family (and perhaps others in Utah who had supported the monument's creation) felt betrayed, as this provision had never been put forth by Mather as a condition for having the site made a national monument. Heaton's words imply that the Office of Indian Affairs had somehow tricked Mather (as well as the Heatons). Heaton wrote,

In going over the letters to Charles C. Heaton from Mr. Stephen T. Mather, he never once mentioned the possibility of the Indians getting part of the water. From the statements that I heard made here by Mr. Mather and others, when they were on their way with Mr. Gray to the Grand Canyon Lodge opening, [I believe] that they did not know that the Indians were to get any water at all and did not know of the part of the proclamation giving them the water. They seemed surprised to learn of the fact. [741]

The occasion Heaton is referring to, the dedication of Grand Canyon Lodge, took place on September 14, 1928. Of course, Mather was aware of the clause inserted into the proclamation, but not at the time of his discussions with the Heaton family. He knew of it just before the signing of the proclamation.

Heaton's heated letter to Pinkley continued with a series of questions: Why didn't the Indian Service demand their water as soon as the Park Service had a clear title instead of waiting until 1930? Why, if the Park Service could keep the Indian Service from getting the water for 10 years, could they do nothing now? "It seems to me that there is a 'nigger' in the woods that is being kept covered up and needs to be seen," Heaton stated. [742] He vehemently refuted the Indian Service's supervising engineer's contention (referenced in the Scattergood letter) that seepage from the fort ponds was adequate to sustain monument trees and shrubbery. "I am wondering... if he has a knowledge of the nature of the soils and the lay of the land, also the action of water in seeping in sandy soils and uphill. For there are trees and the meadow that will never -world without end - get water from those two ponds which he refers to, by seepage." [743] Heaton argued that the Indian Service could develop Two Mile Wash. (This is a proposal the Indian Service maintained was not feasible year after year. Nevertheless, Heaton continued to beat this dead horse over the years, time and time again.) Heaton suggested to Pinkley that Park Service and Indian Service officials investigate the water problem, "together with the local men." He urged, "Have this investigation here before anything further is done by either party." [744]

Heaton wrote a second, hand-written letter to Pinkley on the same date, January 11, 1933. The letter was more of a private nature, "matters that I don't care to have made public unless you think they would help to preserve the water for the Monument." Heaton wrote:

When Dr. Farrow first came here, he and the Heatons did not get started off together and they have been fighting over water and land ever since, and now there is more trouble coming up over the water at Moccasin. Soon after Farrow came he made the statements that he would have the Heatons out of Moccasin in six months or so, and that he would have the water at Pipe for the Indians, so that brought about the lawsuit as mentioned in the other letter.

I have withheld writing this way because I don't want to make more trouble than necessary but things have gone on till I am ready to fight to a good finish to see that justice is done. I know and anybody else does that Farrow is after the water and to show the Heatons that he can get the water. I might say in all the cases that he has brought against the Heatons, he has lost.

The above is the starting and bottom of the whole affair and not that the Indians need the water....

There are going to be several problems come up when the Indians get the water, such as the fish in the ponds, watering of livestock from the spring and several others if Dr. Farrow carries out his fast policies here as he did at Moccasin..Gosh, it will be like having an eyetooth pulled to see the water go and the meadow and trees left to die. [745]

The impact of the Great Depression was being felt all over the country by this time, particularly in unemployment. In February 1933 Commissioner Rhoads wrote to Director Albright that Dr. Farrow had reported there was no prospect of work (i.e., day labor) for the reservation Indians and that they needed to produce as much foodstuff as possible on their lands. Consequently, stated Rhoads, "it is essential that they be permitted to use the surplus water from Pipe Springs as soon as the irrigation season begins." [746] Rhoads asked Albright to instruct Leonard Heaton "to release the water for the use of the Indians" in conformity with Director Cammerer's earlier directive of August 30, 1932. On February 24 Albright sent a telegram to Heaton stating, "Indian Service desires early transfer surplus water from Pipe Springs to Indians. Please make arrangements for this purpose immediately." [747] Albright then informed Rhoads that the action had been taken.

The day he received Albright's telegram directing him to release water to the Indians, Heaton wrote two letters, one to Superintendent Pinkley and the other to Dr. Farrow. To the latter he stated curtly that "...as soon as I hear from Superintendent Pinkley of the Southwestern Monuments regarding the outlet of the water, I will be ready to turn the water over to [the Indians.]" [748] In his letter to Pinkley, Heaton asked where the outlet should go and what type of headgate the Indian Service should use? He also informed Pinkley that he planned to talk with Farrow about three points when Farrow came to get the water. First, he would inform him that "surplus" water was what remained after meeting the needs of "the meadow and other plant life on the monument when it was set aside." [749] Second, the Tribe would be allowed to use the ponds by the fort as their storage ponds but Heaton wanted the water level kept from overflowing so as to prevent the road and campgrounds from getting muddy. Third, Heaton wanted to work out a way with Farrow that he could use some of the water for his family garden and domestic needs. Heaton must have been dreading the encounter with Farrow. In ending his letter to Pinkley he wrote, "I suggest, since you have not been up here for over three years, that you come up and help in settling this water problem..." [750]

The new Secretary of the Interior, Harold L. Ickes, assumed office on March 4, 1933. Pinkley replied to Heaton's above letter on March 11. He told Heaton that while he was of the opinion that Arizona water law should govern the usage and appropriation of water at Pipe Spring, when he brought the matter up for discussion in Washington he had been overruled. Thus, he wrote Heaton,

...we can do nothing but follow out the orders of our superior officers. We will have to deliver the water to the Indian Service and then try to get the Director to come to Pipe and go into the legality of the original usage and the rights we acquired when we acquired the title. Like you, I am inclined to think we may hear of trouble about the division of the water with the cattlemen, but there again, we can do nothing until we have proof that they are being injured.

I do not think the Indian Service has any idea of putting the two old ponds out of use and they will probably want to take their water some place below that. You will let them choose their place for the headgate. Our best play right now is not to fight the Indian Service, but obey the decision of the Secretary of the Interior and find out what use and how much use the Indian Service is going to make of the water when it is turned over to them.

I plan to come up there as soon as I can this spring and we can then go over the details... [751]

About the time that Pinkley wrote his letter to Heaton, a Mr. Lindquist (an inspector for the reservation) and Dr. Farrow visited Pipe Spring to make preparations for installing the new headgate and pipeline. Heaton wrote Pinkley that he hoped to get the Indian Service to allow him to use the fort ponds 4 out of every 12 days for irrigating the meadow and trees. Meanwhile, knowing he could no longer use Pipe Spring water to irrigate a garden, he had not made preparations for one. As area farmers began their spring plowing and seeding, Heaton wrote dejectedly, "It seems something is missing here this year, not having the fields plowed and preparing to plant some kind of crops." [752] He brightened at the thought that Pinkley and his Assistant Superintendent Robert H. (Bob) Rose would soon be visiting the monument. As he closed his monthly report for March, Heaton wrote, "Your visit cannot be any too soon to suit me." [753]

Heaton informed Farrow by letter at the end of March 1933 that he could proceed with putting in the Indians' pipeline, taking the water from the top of the ponds, as the two men had previously discussed. The water was to come from the southeast corner of the east pond. [754] He then wrote Pinkley that his plans were to let the Indians use the two fort ponds as their storage and "take only the water that is not required for the watering of the meadow and trees." [755]

In order to eliminate any possible misunderstanding about the use of the waters at Pipe Spring between the Park Service and the Indians, Commissioner Rhoads issued the following regulations on April 3, 1933:

1) The National Park Service will retain the two reservoirs constructed prior to Presidential Proclamation of May 31, 1923, and use such water from these springs and/or the said reservoirs as may be necessary for domestic and stock watering purposes including that necessary for the accommodation of travelers and tourists.

2) The Indians of the Kaibab Reservation shall be permitted to use for domestic, stock watering, and irrigation purposes all water from these springs except such above described use by the NPS and their rights to such use shall not be interfered with. The Indians in connection with such use of the water as herein defined are hereby authorized to construct, operate, and maintain a pipeline or lines to convey same to their point of use. [756]

Later correspondence indicates that Rhoads submitted the draft regulations to Albright on April 3 and obtained the director's concurrence with the provisions. [757] Rhoads then transmitted the regulations on the same date to Dr. Farrow. The Indian Service began work on the new pipeline at Pipe Spring on April 5 and completed installation on April 7. [758] The work was performed by eight Indians under the supervision of a Mr. Hanrion, who presumably worked for Farrow. Heaton reported, "It starts from the south side of the east pond and runs in a southeasterly direction to the Indian land where they intend to do some farming." [759] The reservoir with its four-foot dam was located about 1,000 feet southeast of the fort ponds, just outside the monument boundary. (See Thomas C. Parker's sketch map of June 1933, figure 59, or a December 1933 sketch map, figure 65, later in this section.) The first water ran through the Indians' pipeline on April 19. On the same day, Farrow wrote Commissioner Rhoads that the pipeline was completed and the Indians' reservoir ready for the water. Farrow stated that Leonard Heaton wanted to tap the pond reservoirs with a four-inch pipeline and take a turn using the water once in every nine days. In Farrow's opinion, this would practically defeat the purpose of the Indians' pipeline. He expressed the difficulty in knowing what constituted "surplus" water. In Farrow's view, a reasonable concession to Heaton was to provide him with whatever water was needed for culinary use and possibly enough for Heaton's cows and chickens. "I request that a conference be had with the Director of Parks and that a definite understanding be had and that I be advised as to the results," Farrow wrote. [760]

Heaton received a copy of Farrow's letter. Sensing his intentions had been misrepresented, he wrote Director Albright explaining he wanted to run a four-inch pipeline from the west outlet ditch to water the trees and shrubbery east of the ponds, not tap directly into the reservoir itself. With regard to taking turns, he had wanted it to be worked out so that about every third or fourth time the reservoirs were filled, the Indian Service and Park Service would alternate taking water from them. He then suggested a rather complicated method of watering "turns" based on hours of use. [761]

Meanwhile, Heaton reported for the month of April that "Albert Frank and Ray Mose, two young Indians with their wives, have moved here and are making their home just south of the Monument. They are going to do some farming with the water that comes from Pipe Springs." [762] Frank Pinkley held off until mid-April before sending Albright a transcription of the contents of Leonard Heaton's first letter of January 11 (referred to earlier) in which Heaton related "the facts" of the Pipe Spring water controversy (Pinkley did not include or mention excerpts from Heaton's second letter). Pinkley pointed out that although Heaton's statements were "tinged with some personal feelings... there is still enough to cause some reflection." [763] He asked if it would be possible to have Assistant Director George A. Moskey (who was also an attorney) brief the file letters to see how much could be dug up about "the old water fight" at Pipe Spring. Pinkley then put forth his own view in the controversy:

I have always had a distinct impression that the Arizona Water Right Law ought to obtain [sic] in the settlement of who owns the water at Pipe Spring, but nobody else seems to have been interested in that angle. It seems to me that the Indian Service wrote the phrase protecting any rights of the Indians into the proclamation and then afterward pointed to it as evidence that the Indians had some rights and this claim was allowed by the Secretary of the Interior, sort of on the basis that if the Indians hadn't had any rights the phrase would have never been put in the proclamation. My personal opinion is that we have given up water to which we had a legal right if the case were tried under the Arizona water laws and I would like to see one of the lawyers sent out to Pipe Spring this summer to gather the evidence and see if we have not a case to go to court with and get a final adjudication on. [764]

This information from Pinkley gave Albright pause to reconsider the regulations just issued by Rhoads with his concurrence. Albright then appeared to backpedal. On April 27, 1933, the director wrote the commissioner about the regulations, stating that he believed "in general they are satisfactory." Albright continued,

I am fearful, however, that the matter of saving enough water to the National Park Service for the preservation of the vegetation and trees at the monument headquarters is not covered sufficiently to avoid future misunderstanding. It seems to me that this problem is deserving of a more thorough investigation and understanding and I feel that your Service would not wish any unnecessary action taken that would cause the monument area which is not planted to go back to a barren desert. This is quite an oasis in the desert and every effort should be taken to further the development of this growth. To do this would require a modification of the proposed letter, which would incorporate some irrigation by the Monument Custodian...

May I suggest that before these regulations are finally decided one of our engineers in the vicinity go over the matter on the ground with your superintendent and make careful measurements of the spring flow and report on the possibilities of a fair adjustment of water, and a method of piping and control? This can be arranged for at once and a report secured within the next few weeks. [765]

In the meantime, Assistant Director Demaray contacted Zion National Park Superintendent Preston P. Patraw at to ask for his assistance, pending the Commissioner's approval of the above Park Service proposal.

At this point, however, Rhoads was no longer in charge of the Office of Indian Affairs. Beginning in May 1933 the new commissioner was John Collier. Collier seems to have regarded Albright's request for a conference to discuss the water matter as just another Park Service stalling tactic. Collier considered Albright's request, then appears to have denied it in the following response:

...on account of the careful investigations and reports that have been made in connection with this matter and the further fact that the Indians are even now in need of the water for irrigation, it is not believed further delay should occur. Our contention is that the Indians are entitled to all of the water of these springs with the exception of that necessary for domestic and stock watering purposes in connection with the operation of the National Monument, and that while the preservation and further development of trees and vegetation planted at the Monument are, of course, very desirable yet the use by the Indians of this water for growing subsistence is of much greater importance. [766]

Commissioner Collier referenced the April 3, 1933, regulations, pointing out they had been jointly agreed upon, while stating "I believe that the division of the water as therein contemplated is as much of a concession as the Indian Service can make." [767] The lines were clearly being drawn in Arizona's desert sand for an interdepartmental battle over water. In anticipation of a legal challenge, within a few months Collier had his staff outline legal arguments for Kaibab Paiute water rights at Pipe Spring. In addition to falling back on Solicitor Finney's 1931 decision, the Indian Service interpreted the "all prior valid claims" language in Harding's proclamation to mean protection of an Indian prior water right as of at least October 16, 1907. (The cattlemen and Park Service, on the other hand, interpreted "all prior valid claims" as applying only to white settlers' claims.) Collier argued that the stockmen's agreement of June 9, 1924, had not been officially approved by the Secretary of the Interior, even though the Park Service and Indian Service had agreed to it, thus lacked legal status. [768]

At about the same time Pinkley was asking Director Albright for legal assistance on the water issue and the Indian Service was tapping into the Pipe Spring water supply, the fate of an earlier request by cattlemen was being decided by Kaibab Paiute men. As mentioned earlier, in August 1932 Commissioner Rhoads had received a request by cattlemen who grazed on reservation land and watered their stock at Pipe Spring that their permits be renewed at half the rate and that an outstanding debt of $600 to the reservation be cancelled. Rhoads had left the decision up to the reservation's Indians. This may have been the first time the Kaibab Paiute were directly consulted about an issue of this kind. Farrow put the cattlemen's request before a general council of Kaibab Paiute men in the spring of 1933. By a majority vote, the men rejected the proposal. On May 15 several cattlemen appealed to Utah Senator William King to have the decision overturned, stating,

Prior to the creation of the Kaibab Indian Reservation the cattlemen had water, corrals, and pastures capable of handling 5,000 cattle.... To deprive the cattlemen of this pasture leaves them without facilities for handling their cattle and no place to go. Again Pipe Springs is the only fresh waster on this part of the desert, and in hot weather and during drought periods it is the salvation of the cattlemen and cattle industry here. We must have access to these waters. [769]

Should their permits not be renewed, the cattlemen asked King to arrange for a three-quarter- mile-wide right-of-way that would allow them access across reservation land to Pipe Spring. Further negotiations resulted in the Kaibab Paiute agreeing to allow three-year permits on Pasture 2 but only with the understanding it was the final agreement and that a permanent solution to the problem would be reached before expiration of the permits. The cattlemen quibbled over the price of the permits and the compromise fell through during the summer of 1933.

Meanwhile, soon after the Kaibab Paiute general council voted not to renew the cattlemen's leases, local tensions quickly escalated and a direct confrontation took place. Heaton wrote in his monthly report for May: "The most interesting topic of the day in this section is the fight between the cattlemen and the Indian Department as to the rights of the cattlemen to one-third of the waters of Pipe Spring. The Indian Department has closed the cattle away from the water and are claiming that the cattlemen have no right whatever to any water." [770] Indeed, on May 23, 1933, Farrow prevented the cattlemen's stock from using Pipe Spring water. In immediate response, the cattlemen sent telegrams to Washington demanding an investigation. They also defiantly told Farrow they would water their livestock at Pipe Spring when the cattle became thirsty. Heaton informed Director Albright of this situation on May 26 and added that the cattlemen were going to demand their one-third of Pipe Spring water, "which means that all of the water will have to be measured and division pipes put in for the Park Service, Indian Service, and cattlemen." [771] In a separate letter of the same date, Heaton informed Director Albright that he had worked out his own method of distributing surplus water to the Indians, emphasizing his conviction that the needs of the Park Service and the cattlemen should be fully satisfied before any water was given to the Indians.

By coincidence, on that same day, May 26, 1933, Associate Director Cammerer wrote Heaton that Park Service officials had met with an official from the Office of Indian Affairs to discuss the proposed regulations of Pipe Spring's water (those drafted on April 3 by Rhoads). Both offices agreed to submit the regulations to Heaton and to Farrow "in order that the same may be thrashed out on the ground and either individual or joint reports submitted to the two Services for final adjustment and agreement here in Washington." [772] Cammerer informed Heaton that the Park Service desired

...to conserve every bit of this water that is possible and to reserve for use at the monument the minimum required in its satisfactory administration. However, we would not care to reach an agreement or to approve regulations that would through lack of sufficient specification prevent us from getting sufficient water to properly administer the monument for the benefit of the public.

In this connection we understand that the Indian Service now has its pipeline installed and ready to connect. Therefore, pending the approval of regulations regarding the division of these waters it is not desired to delay the diversion of the waters for the benefit of the Indians and our previous instructions to you to release the waters should be followed. [773]

In his monthly report to Pinkley, Heaton reported, "The water question is still on the firing lines and it appears as long as it is left up to Dr. Farrow and myself it will not be settled as we cannot seem to get together on just what water belongs to the Monument and what is surplus." [774]

On May 30, 1933, the cattlemen and Custodian Heaton met with Dr. Farrow and a Mr. Lenzie (another Indian Service official) at Pipe Spring to discuss the water issue. [775] On June 1 Farrow met Assistant Superintendent and Engineer Thomas C. Parker at Zion National Park then the two men drove to Pipe Spring together. During the drive down, Farrow made it clear that he did not care to get into a discussion over water rights with Heaton. Parker spent only one-half hour at the monument. [776] From talking separately to both Farrow and Heaton, Parker learned of the "very bad feelings" between the two men. He asked Heaton to come to Zion the following day to meet with him and Superintendent Patraw to discuss the water problem. Heaton brought with him several letters that indicated that the conflict between local ranchers and Farrow over water was long-standing. After reviewing the monument's correspondence relative to the government's purchase of Pipe Spring, Parker concluded the ranchers were using Heaton to further their ends. Heaton told Parker that "the only reason his father had sold Pipe Springs to the Government was to keep the water for the cattlemen as he was afraid that the Indian Service would get Pipe Springs." [777]

In his June 6, 1933, report to the director, Parker did his best to explain the Pipe Spring situation and why "certain changes in the management of Pipe Springs" were necessary. Parker made the following observations:

1) that the Heatons were working against the Indians through Custodian Heaton;
2) that Heaton had been allowed by the Park Service to fence off a section of the monument (about 2.5 acres) in order to pasture livestock and poultry. The buildings associated with these animals, wrote Parker, "resulted in a very unsightly condition which is far below park standards;"
3) that if Pipe Spring National Monument was brought up to park standards there would not be need for a great deal of water "as the watering of the meadow by overflow from the pools would be the only need outside of that of travelers, which is not great;"
4) that cattlemen had at least a moral right, if not a legal one, to overflow water from the springs; and
5) that the Indians should be entitled to all the surplus water of the springs and that the Park Service should administer the waters with due regard for the Indians' needs by "very economical use" of water at the monument.

Parker estimated the flow of Pipe Spring was approximately 75 gallons per minute. (This estimate was much too high; it may have been based on misinformation given him by Leonard Heaton.) He recommended four actions to the director:

1) that all rights of the springs and pools be retained;
2) that three pipelines be installed, with one going to the meadow, one to the stockmen, and one to the Indians;
3) that, until a further study could be made on monument needs, the overflow be divided equally among the three parties (to be considered a non-binding arrangement); and
4) that the tunnel through which spring water flowed should be cleaned out and water properly piped, ensuring that the stockmen received their share of water.

"This would give more water to the Indians and need in no way infringe on the needs of the monument," wrote Parker. [778]

59. Sketch map of Pipe Spring National Monument, June 1933
(Drawn by Thomas C. Parker, courtesy National Archives, Record Group 79).
(click on image for an enlargement in a new window - ~44K)

Parker also recommended that an engineer make a topographic map and that a landscape architect inspect the ground. Once it was determined how to bring the monument up to Park Service standards, Parker thought the question of water distribution would be easy to handle. Parker included a rough sketch in his report to the director, shown in figure 59.

Finally, Parker wrote in his report, "In conclusion I wish to state that the monument at present is a disgrace to our Service and I have gone over the matter with Superintendent Patraw and request him to visit the monument, and I believe that you will find that the problem is not one of engineering and simple water measurement, but of an administrative nature." [779]

Heaton also reported to Associate Director Cammerer on the June 2, 1933, meeting he had with Assistant Superintendent Parker and Superintendent Patraw. It was concluded at this meeting, said Heaton, that Park Service engineers and landscape architects needed to be involved in making development plans for Pipe Spring prior to the Park Service agreeing to the proposed water regulations. No consideration had been given to the needs for development of a public campground and restrooms, Heaton argued, thus Park Service future needs had not been given consideration by the Indian Service.

Heaton also prepared a letter to Dr. Farrow on June 2 informing him that until a definite agreement over water could be worked out (subject to the recommendations of Park Service engineers and landscape architects), he planned to use Pipe Spring water three of every twelve days, and turn the other nine days over to the Indians. [780] Farrow decided not to fight Heaton about his method of distribution, and to bide his time until his superiors took more definite action. Instead, Farrow informed Heaton that for the nine days they were allowed access to the ponds, the Indian Service would take their water from the bottom of the pond reservoirs, otherwise they would have to wait two days for them to refill after Heaton drained them to water monument vegetation. "The Indians have growing gardens and this seems to be the only way to protect them," Farrow informed Heaton. [781] Heaton protested to Farrow that he only lowered the ponds about 16 inches each day of use, that the ponds refilled in 24 hours, and that the Indians would get their full nine days' worth of water. He objected to the water being taken from the bottom of the ponds. He then copied his letter to Director Albright, along with a copy of Farrow's letter, informing him of the distribution method he was using. Heaton added, "I trust that some of our landscape men and engineers can be sent to this Monument and lay out plans for its future development." [782]

In July 1933 Heaton wrote Superintendent Pinkley and asked, "Is there any chance of a park landscape man getting in here this summer or fall to make plans for the future development or will it be left up to me to decide what to do?" [783] He also requested additional metal signs for the monument. Pinkley replied that Landscape Architect Harry Langley (based at Grand Canyon National Park), would be there in the fall "to look things over" and that he (Pinkley) and Assistant Superintendent Bob Rose would also try to visit. [784] "One of us ought to have been in before this but first one thing and then another has happened to prevent it," wrote Pinkley. [785]

In early August 1933, Park Service Chief Engineer Frank A. Kittredge wrote Assistant Superintendent Parker at Zion National Park to inquire about the status of the water dispute at Pipe Spring. Parker sent Kittredge a copy of his June 6 report informing him that, "I have never received an answer or any further instructions [from the director] since sending this report in." [786] Meanwhile, cattlemen and visitors alike were hounding Leonard Heaton over the use of water at Pipe Spring. In mid-August Heaton wrote the Park Service's new Director Arno B. Cammerer on behalf of the cattlemen asking "if something could not be done so that they could get the one-third of the waters of Pipe Springs that they own and has been acknowledged by the Park Service and the Indian Service under date of June 9, 1924." [787] "It appears on the surface," he wrote, "that the Indian Service is trying to take the water from the cattlemen, and they have appealed to me to ask the Park Service to set the division of these waters." [788] The cattlemen planned to gather their steers in five weeks and wanted the water by then, which would have been in late September. While the cattlemen had been getting their water from tunnel spring, Heaton wasn't sure this was the full one-third they were entitled to. He proposed that accurate measurements be taken, that the cattlemen and Indian Service be given their share of water from the fort ponds, and that the tunnel water and "enough water from the ponds" be used for watering the monument. Water for domestic use by the Heatons and by the traveling public should be taken out prior to any division, Heaton believed. "I trust that this water question will soon be settled as I am getting raked over the coals by the cattlemen, Indians, and local people and some [of] our tourists about the water and the way it is being handled by the Park Service." [789]

Associate Director Demaray forwarded a copy of Heaton's letter to Commissioner Collier in late August, soliciting the Indians Service's views on the matter. In late August Demaray also forwarded a copy of Parker's June 6 report to Pinkley at Southwestern National Monuments. He asked for Pinkley's assessment of the situation and for his "definite recommendations," especially with regard to whether Leonard Heaton should be retained as acting custodian. [790] A copy of Parker's report was not sent to Heaton, probably because it was scathingly critical of him and the monument's appearance. [791]

Meanwhile, Harry Langley again visited the monument on August 29, 1933. In addition to reviewing the text and approving the placement of the Utah Pioneer Trails and Landmarks Association's plaque on the fort, he secured the necessary data for preparation of drawings for monument development purposes. [792] (The plaque was discussed in Part III.) Heaton assisted Langley in making measurements of the buildings and offered suggestions for improvements of the monument.

In response to Demaray's request for a report on the Pipe Spring situation, Pinkley sent a six-page letter to Director Cammerer in early September. It is apparent in his reply that Pinkley took offense at Parker's more critical comments about the monument made in his report of June 6. Parker's implication that firing Heaton would solve the monument's problems particularly incensed Pinkley, who wrote,

Does Mr. Parker know that Heaton is not Custodian at Pipe Spring, but is a $1,200 laborer with 15 percent off that under the present economy rules? Will Mr. Parker or the Washington office guarantee to replace Mr. Heaton with one of the fine, upstanding type of young executive men who are up to the Park Service standards, who will come out there and run Pipe Spring National Monument for $1,020 net per year? Give me the address of two or three of them and I will throw in with you and agree to change men at Pipe. There isn't any sense in firing him to put another local man in his place; that won't get you any place. The solution to that is to raise the salary to Park Service standards (and I mean a different thing from the park standard mentioned by Mr. Parker) and put in a man drawn from the Civil Service list at $1,860. I have been trying to do that for four or five years, thus far without success. Will the Washington office try to get the job re-allocated? [793]

Pinkley said that Parker's estimate of the flow of Pipe Springs was two and one-half times the real amount. The Indian Service's Supervising Engineer had measured the flow in September 1929 and recorded the discharge as 33.56 gallons per minute, not the estimated 75 gallons per minute that Parker reported. Pinkley then addressed each of Parker's recommendations, one by one. Parker's recommendation that the Park Service "retain all rights to the monument springs and pools" implied that the monument had legal rights to the water, and in this matter Pinkley and Heaton believed they did. He bridled at Parker's implication, however, that the land had been sold to the federal government in a less than honorable fashion. If the Park Service had any water rights, Pinkley asserted, they must have come with the transfer of the land. This being the case, could anyone blame the cattlemen for fighting to maintain control of water that allowed them to run their cattle on the public domain? Why did Parker treat Charles C. Heaton's sale of the property to preserve the cattlemen's access to water as something wrong? Pinkley wrote,

If you were a Heaton and were running cattle on the open range and owned a spring that it looked like the Indian Service was going to plaster a law suit on and you would have to fight it through to the United States Supreme Court to get what you thought was justice, and you didn't like to look three or four thousand dollars worth of lawyer's costs in the face, what would you do if our beloved Chief, Stephen T. Mather, came along and offered to buy your place and promised that the cattlemen, of whom you were one, would not be cut off from the water they had used since some time in the sixties? Well, I agree with you, I would sell out too, and I wouldn't consider that I had done a crooked thing in doing so. Would you? [794]

Next, Pinkley regarded Parker's method of dividing and distributing water three ways as

...a wasteful way of handling the water. Eleven gallons per minute is applying water to a meadow with a sort of an eyedropper. The proper and economical way to apply that water would be to make a time division of it. Let the whole head accumulate in the ponds. Then open the gates in the ditch and let it go to the Indians for a certain number of hours with a rush..... This is what Heaton meant in his letters in June when he was talking of his taking the water three days and giving it to the Indians nine days. [795]

As for Parker's suggestion that the water be divided three ways, Pinkley wanted to know, had Farrow agreed to this arrangement? From the correspondence that Pinkley had seen going back and forth between Heaton and Farrow, it appeared that Farrow wasn't even satisfied with the nine out of twelve days that Heaton was then giving him, which amounted to three-fourths of the water from Pipe Spring. Judging from Farrow's April 19 letter to the Commissioner, countered Pinkley, it seemed that Farrow considered "ninety-nine and a fraction percent of the water to the Indians would be about right." [796] As for Parker's fourth suggestion regarding tunnel spring, Pinkley cautioned that no work should be done before a qualified geologist had determined the source of water for the tunnel and how its use would impact the main spring. The same was true of the water seep by the west cabin, which Parker had not mentioned, wrote Pinkley. He agreed with Parker that the monument needed a topographic map, that unsightly structures need to be removed, landscaping done, etc., "but," Pinkley stated, "until we get something besides cigar bands to use for money up there, those things will just have to wait." [797] Even if the monument had a topographic map and the recommendations of a landscape architect, how would that make the distribution of the monument's water easier to handle, he queried?

Pinkley wrote of his high opinion of both the Heatons and of Dr. Farrow and stated,

I hold no brief for either the Heatons or Dr. Farrow.... My brief is for the Park Service. I think we own the Pipe Spring National Monument and the water thereupon except for such water as may have had prior rights acquired by usage, or such as was promised by Mr. Mather in taking over the property. I am sorry for Dr. Farrow's Indians, but if the President had wanted them to have 99 percent of the water of our spring, so far as I am concerned, he had better have stated his intention to that effect in the proclamation. They are welcome to ‘surplus' water but they are not welcome to say how much water is surplus; some place in our organization we ought to have some engineers and landscapers who can do that for us. [798]

Finally, Pinkley recommended to Director Cammerer that first, if the position could be reallocated to the Civil Service as a park ranger or custodian, that Heaton be replaced with a man picked from the eligible list. ("This naturally involves an increased allotment," he added.) Second, the Park Service should try to hold on to the rights to the water as well as the land, except such rights as might have been acquired by prior usage of the water on the part of the cattlemen. Third, the water should be divided into three equal portions on a time basis. Fourth and last, nothing should be done to open the tunnel or any other seep until the present water situation was cleared up, and even then approached only after expert geological examination.

At the request of Pinkley, Assistant Superintendent Bob Rose visited the monument September 12-17, 1933, to conduct an accurate water resources survey and geological reconnaissance. He was accompanied by his wife. A chicken supper was held for the Roses in Moccasin the evening of September 15, attended by most of the community's residents. In his monthly report to Pinkley, Heaton wrote, "Tell Bob that several of the women want him to come back and sing some more songs as they thought he had one of the best voices for singing out of doors that they have ever heard. Bob and his wife surely made a good impression on the people up here..." [799] Rose's report will be described shortly. Prior to leaving the area, Rose met in Kanab for a one-hour discussion with Dr. Farrow.

On September 15 Harry Langley, Landscape Architect Harlan B. Stephenson (Zion), and a Mr. Ford (a Union Pacific official) joined Rose. The men reviewed development plans at Pipe Spring. Langley later reported that Heaton "was very pleased with all the suggestions made and is willing to rearrange certain farming operations in any manner we suggest." [800] Langley stated optimistically, "At present conditions are not as desirable as they might be, solely because of the peculiar conditions under which the Monument is operated but with a definite plan of development and the cooperation of the Custodian, I feel sure everything will work out all right." [801]

Langley reported that providing Heaton with a residence was "most important" so that the fort could be vacated and restored. He also recommended the monument road be relocated: "At present there is a road right alongside the building which should be eliminated and by changing the main road, camping facilities can be improved." [802] On September 17 Superintendent Pinkley, Zion's Superintendent Patraw, and Sanitary Engineer H. B. Hommon, U.S. Public Health Service, met with Langley at the monument and reviewed the plan of development.