PIPE SPRING Cultures at a Crossroads: An Administrative History

Monument Development Planning, 1933

Frank Pinkley did not submit Rose's September report to Director Cammerer for almost another month. (It was not sent to Kittredge and Heaton until mid-December.) Meanwhile, Park Service officials were busy developing plans for Pipe Spring National Monument. On September 27, 1933, Harry Langley visited the monument again, only this time with Chief Landscape Architect Thomas C. Vint and Zion's Superintendent Patraw. They brought with them development plans drawn up by Langley since his earlier trip. Discussions between the men included proposed developments as well as the ongoing water dispute between the Park Service, cattlemen, and Indians. Heaton later reported to Pinkley: "Mr. Vint left instructions to set trees all over the place, saying that, ‘You can't plant too many trees in this country,' and especially where the proposed campgrounds are to be, or any place that they will not have to be moved when the proposed plans are put into effect." [815] This comment appears to have been marked for deletion when the monthly report was prepared for the director, probably because of the sensitivity of the water issue at that particular time.

Langley filed a trip report for Pipe Spring to the Branch of Plans and Designs on December 20, 1933. It covered his three trips of August 27, September 15, and September 27, 1933, all made for the purpose of studying existing conditions and planning future developments. Langley recommended relocating the approach road south of the ponds; planting ground cover in the area of the fort to improve the appearance and reduce dust nuisance; moving the custodian's residence out of the fort and constructing a residence "in the area of the south," preferably of local sandstone; furnishing the fort; planting trees to improve the general appearance of the area as well as to provide shade and a ground cover to reduce the dust problems; developing a small campground southeast of the fort which required planting shade trees; removing "unsightly pit toilets" and constructing a comfort station in the new campground. Langley had no objections to the fences Heaton had erected to contain his animals and the "small amount of farming" that he was doing at Pipe Spring. He did ask Heaton to move his animal sheds from their site next to the meadow to a place where they would less visible. Langley thought the store should also be moved, provided there was enough travel to justify keeping one at the monument. Heaton was told he could leave the old cattle corrals in place at the monument's southwest corner, since they were part of the history of the place.

While President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal programs may have contributed to increased development activity at Pipe Spring during the fall of 1933, the water controversy was at least as, if not more, important in driving the Park Service to develop the monument. Roosevelt's public works programs would soon make labor and funds available to carry out some of the plans scoped out at Pipe Spring during this period of turmoil over water. (The public works programs of the Great Depression are covered in Part V.)

During the month of October, Dr. Farrow and Mr. Lenzie met with local cattlemen Heber J. Meeks and Charles C. Heaton in attempt to resolve the water dispute. (Meeks was president of the committee of cattlemen who had one-third share of Pipe Spring water). Meeks and Heaton asked if the water supplied by tunnel spring would be sufficient to supply the cattlemen's needs, since it was thought to equal one-third of the water at the monument. Using Rose's measurements, Leonard Heaton told them it delivered only one-sixth of the monument's water, an amount the Indian agents questioned. Then, according to Heaton's later report, Farrow stated, "That if the two ponds were left in the meadow and a forest of trees planted as that man Rose wants, the purpose of the monument would be defeated and I won't stand for them planting any trees." [816] To this, Heaton added his reaction: "Say, that just made me boil and I wondered if Dr. Farrow knew who was running this monument, he [sic] or the Park Service." In the same monthly report, Heaton wrote, "The past week I have been getting the water out on the campground and preparing it for the planting of the trees this fall..." [817] It appears that Farrow's threat merely served to goad Heaton into planting more trees. That October Heaton also removed half of the big elm trees that were leaning against the fort (presumably on its west elevation). This was done because the trees were threatening the fort's wall.

In late November 1933, Heaton reported that he had spent most of the month "...moving the garage and other buildings that I had by the meadow, making irrigation ditches for the campground trees and in the meadow so that it all could be watered with less waste. Have had some work done on the house and grounds this month. Expect to set out about 75 trees Saturday in different parts of the monument." [818] There was no doubt in the mind of Leonard Heaton exactly who was running Pipe Spring National Monument!