Chapter ThreeIronic Golden Years -

From an administrative perspective, staffing and base fund-ing remained at late-s levels through , as if therehad been no stock market crash and deepening financialcollapse. Permanent employees in consisted of thesuperintendent, an assistant superintendent, chief ranger,assistant chief ranger, six rangers, two permanent natural-ists, and half a dozen clerks. Tillotson hired eleven seasonalrangers and naturalists, as well as day-wage laborers as vari-ous projects required. By , at the depression’s depthsand immediately before the onset of New Deal programs,permanent staff numbered between forty-two and forty-four, a slight increase over , consisting of the superin-tendent, assistant superintendent, chief ranger, two assistantchief rangers, and six rangers among the “protection” ranks,two naturalists, a clerical staff of six, and sixteen workerswithin the engineering department. While visitationdeclined each year from , in to , in ,easing administrative demands, base appropriationsremained at late s amounts, ranging from $, to

$, annually. Normal road and trail funds diminished,causing several new projects to be delayed, but deficits wereoffset by modest emergency funds of the HooverAdministration that allowed those projects already inprogress to continue unabated.

The park fared even better after mid-, as work-reliefand emergency funding programs of the RooseveltAdministration supplied all the workers that managerscould reasonably employ and all the money they couldspend for the remainder of the decade. Tillotson wrote in that

from a purely mercenary point ofview the park[will] gain more in the form ofphysical improve -ments by the National Recovery Act than wouldhave transpired for a number ofyears—in someinstances not at all—under a normal trend ofpark affairs.

The s at Grand Canyon National Park witnessed a seamless progression of building pro-grams begun in the mid-s. The two decades were linked as well by persistence with earlierefforts to enhance visitors’experiences and protect the landscape through educational programs,bound-ary extensions, and the elimination of private and state inholdings. The continuity seems odd at firstglance, as it accompanied the deepest economic depression the nation has yet endured. This cyclicalmalady of world capitalism might have resulted in reduced federal spending, a return to traditional extraction of

resources, or a nonstructural approach to park management. Instead, it triggered federal subsidies in the form of

emergency building funds and a ready supply of desperate low-wage laborers.Under Miner Tillotson,one of the better park

superintendents by NPS standards,a mature administration took full and efficient advantage of national economic woes to

complete structural improvements that,given World War and subsequent financial scrimping, might never have been built.

In contrast to the misery of national unemployment,homelessness,dust bowls,and bread lines,financial circumstances com-

bined with a visitational respite to produce a few golden years at many of the West’s national parks,including Grand Canyon.

His insight proved correct. While NPS base appropriationsservicewide rose from $. million in to $ million in, Congress injected another $ million during thesame years into emergency relief projects within the parksand monuments. Of the handful of work-relief agenciescreated to spend this money, the Public WorksAdministration (PWA)and CivilianConservation Corps(CCC) figured mostprominently at GrandCanyon.

Administrators considered PWA workers, who labored forprivate contractors on dozens of projects like the EastApproach Road and West Rim Drive, to be bonuses sincethey did not require park service management.The quasi-military CCC, on the other hand, relied on NPS managersto select camp sites within the park, supply equipment andtransportation, assign rangers, engineers, and landscapearchitects for technical planning and supervision, and per-form associated clerical duties in order to benefit from theworkers and funds. The first two contingents arrived on

May , when Company under command of Capt.L.C. Dill settled in at a former contractor’s camp nearAvenue A (Apache Street), and Company under Capt.W.O. Poindexter occupied the former Cape Royal Roadconstruction camp at Neal Spring. From mid-

until the last enlistee left in mid-, six perma-nent camps labeled NP-A- through NP-A- wereestablished at Grand Canyon National Park. Onany given day for near ly a decade, two to threecompanies numbering - young men salliedforth from these camps to undertake construction,maintenance, conservation, and educational pro-jects of every sort other than management andmajor road construction.

The park’s concessioners fared worse than theiradministrative partners in light of customer downturns andan understandable trend among visitors to economize.Smaller operators offering low-cost goods and services withminimal investments lost volume but remained slightlyprofitable. However, with rail travel down 30 percent in, the Fred Harvey Company posted “big losses” that

only got bigger in and . Capital outlays by theUtah Parks Company in - that had been gambled onthe immediate promise of North Rim tourism could nothave been made at a worse time.The $, loss of theGrand Canyon Lodge to fire in September only sharp-ened their financial problems. Recognizing the importanceof their private partners, administrators responded quicklyby acceding to the postponement or cancellation of plannedcapital investments and taking a more flexible posture con-cerning rates, the extent of services, and hours ofoperation.

Beyond immediate assistance, the nation’s comptrollergeneral ruled in April that the NPS could renegotiateconcession agreements before their expiration. At GrandCanyon, administrators chose to relieve financial burdens ofthe Fred Harvey Company by executing a new twenty-yearcontract, effective January , that required payment of. percent of profitsafter allowing percent for capitalinvestment. Contractually, nothing could be done for theUtah Parks Company whose agreement already stipulated afranchise fee based on profits and included the capitalinvestment clause. Still, the company’s pact allowedlosses to be carried forward, and the difficult depressionyears ensured that it would never pay franchise fees.Verkamp’s store remained profitable through the s andbegan to pay a percentage of earnings when John Verkampsigned his first ten-year contract in January . EmeryKolb, who appeared unaffected by the depression, contin-ued to pay percent of gross receipts for the remainder ofthe decade. Babbitt Brothers Trading Company wrote let-ters to NPS managers and Arizona’s congressmen com-plaining of financial hardship in hopes of securing a newcontract based on profitability, but could convince no oneto renegotiate since their income statements remained inthe black.

Concessioners’ financial difficulties and plummeting vis-itation played decisive roles in arresting early plans todecentralize Grand Canyon’s facilities and services. In

park managers agreed to a five-year, $. million Santa FeRailroad building program that would have replaced the ElTovar and Bright Angel Hotels with a grand hotel in the

a n a dm i n i st rat i ve h istory of gr and c a nyon nati ona l pa r k

Figure 14.Uniformed per-sonnel,ca.1934.Left toright,top:Dale S.King,Arthur L.Brown,JosephBryan, Ranger Lund, ElliotBetts,Ranger Sturgill.Middle:Louis Schellbach,James P. Brooks,Miner R.Tillotson,Edwin D. McKee,Perry Brown.Bottom:Ranger Hawkins, RussellGrater, Ranger Disher,Hubert R. Lauzon,AlbertTurner. GRCA 1077.

Figure 13.Park rangers R.Redburn and George Collinsin front ofthe new adminis-

tration building (today’sranger operations),September

1931.Collins was an avid,capable photographer whorecorded many ofthe con-

struction projects taking placein the early 1930s.

GRCA 64.

same location and added a“subsidiary” hotel at DesertView, a “development” withinHavasu Canyon, and lesserfacilities at Bass Camp. At thesame time, the Utah ParksCompany seriously considereda hotel complex at Cape Royalsimilar to their Grand CanyonLodge.These remote

overnight facilities would have required more roads thanalready scheduled and ancillary developments that mayhave approached the dimensions of Grand Canyon Village.Worsening financial conditions derailed these intentions.The park service had the money, manpower, and willing-ness to proceed, but given the already entrenched NPS-concession relationship, it made little sense if their partnerscould not follow up with tourist services.

The Great Depression ended immediate thoughts ofdecentralization but by no means inhibited structuralenhancements within the central corridor. The Utah ParksCompany continued to improve the state-of-the-art waterand power system it had built on the North Rim in -. Given fewer than , annual North Rim visitors inthose years, this half-mil-lion-dollar project repre-sented a remarkableinvestment.The system,which still satisfies waterand power needs at BrightAngel Point, tapped theplentiful flow of RoaringSprings to power waterthrough a . inch pipenearly , vertical feetto a ,-gallon watertank at the rim.Thehydroelectric plant builtbeside Bright Angel

Creek included two -horsepower turbines that deliveredthree-phase, sixty-cycle current at , volts three quartersof a mile up to the pump house below the springs. Here itwas stepped up to , volts for transmission, thenstepped down to and volts for administrative andconcessioner use. Construction required a ,-foot-longtemporary tramway to supply materials and machinery tothe base of Roaring Springs, and a ,-foot-long, red-wood-stave penstock down to the power plant.

The Utah Parks Company’s effort probably inspired theSanta Fe Railroad to get on with a resolution to the moreserious water problem at Grand Canyon Village.Appropriating the ample springs at Indian Garden for rim-side use had been considered since , but the railroadthought it economically unfeasible until alarming trends inwater consumption and experience gained from theRoaring Springs system prompted construction to begin in. Completed in August , the new system consistedof a pumping plant with two sets of two turbine pumps,together capable of delivering eighty-five gallons perminute (gpm) from a ,-gallon concrete reservoirthrough , feet of six-inch pipe against a static head of, vertical feet. Some of its more sophisticated featuresincluded remote operation from the village power plant,auxiliary pumps at lower springs that fed the upstreamreservoir, a photoelectric cell that automatically divertedsilty water before reaching the pumps, thermostats thatwarned plant operators to start idle pumps to keep pipesfrom freezing, water softeners, and chlorinators. Despiteconservation measures, consumption during the srequired the Santa Fe Railroad to upgrade the pump houseto one set of eighty-gpm and two sets of -gpm pumps.The improved system delivered water to rimside tankstotaling one million gallons, eliminated the steady stream ofwater trains, and reduced rates from $. to $. per, gallons.

c h a pte r thr ee i roni c g ol de n ye a r s : -

Figure 16.Aerial view oftheSouth Rim,facing east,1932.Kolb Studio is at center left,the Brown Building andBright Angel Hotel tent cab-ins at center top, and the postoffice (former CameronHotel) in the center.Thisphotograph was taken threeyears before demolition oftheBright Angel Hotel and tentcabins,construction oftheBright Angel Lodge andwood-frame cabins,andreconstruction ofthe HermitRim Road.The power house,laundry building,and waste-water settling ponds are visi-ble at upper right.GRCA 9543;Fred HarveyCompany photo.

Figure 15.October 1936view ofthe North Rim camp

for Civilian ConservationCorps Company 818,which

worked on road, trail,andlandscape projects at the rimduring summers and on the

Colorado River, Clear Creek,and North Kaibab Trails,

and at Phantom Ranch dur-ing winters,1933-38.

GRCA 294.

Aside from water and hydroelectric projects, concession-ers expanded, improved, and maintained other utilities andservices to meet demands of visitors whose numberincreased each year from , in to , in .At Grand Canyon Village, the Santa Fe Railroad bore theexpense of producing, metering, and delivering electricity;pumping, distributing, and metering fresh water; improvingthe reclamation system as well as treating, metering, anddistributing reclaimed water; extending and maintainingsewer and fire-suppression lines; and building homes for itskey personnel within the residential area west of CenterRoad. It also spent tens of thousands of dollars on seasonalemployee quarters, including men’s and women’s dormito-ries in and , respectively, and nearly one milliondollars in capital improvements during - on utilitiesalone, excluding labor costs. At the North Rim, the UtahParks Company built a ,-square-foot building in

atop the ashes of the original lodge to function as a tem-porarily business office, post office, curio store, and enter-tainment center. They also built more cabins and by

had finished a motor lodge with housekeeping cabins andcafeteria (named the Grand Canyon Inn) beside the NPScampground, an “industrial” complex consisting of a servicestation, garage, and utility buildings, and an employee dor-mitory. They opened the new Grand Canyon Lodge in July and fifteen-bedroom men’s and women’s dormitories inNovember of the same year. Aside from these investments,the Utah Parks Company extended water, sewer, and elec-trical lines to its developed areas and supplied most utilitiesto NPS administrative buildings free of charge.

Superintendent Tillotson characterized the year asthe “biggest building construction program in the history ofthe park,” alluding to concessioner investments but also tothe number of NPS structures built or begun in that year.He could well have made the same claim in succeedingyears as emergency resources poured into the park andefforts were efficiently guided by the administration’s firstall-inclusive master plans. Prompted by the depression’sonset and the Employment Stabilization Act, HoraceAlbright had ordered superintendents to develop six-yearplans encompassing parks’ “entire development scheme” toinclude road and trail systems, general layouts of all tourist,parking, and administrative areas, utility plans, relocationand rearrangement of buildings, and other aspects of con-struction. Grand Canyon’s plan, begun in and revisedperiodically as money and manpower arrived, retained the village blueprint as an integral component. With com-pletion of the new administration building in , NPSlaborers renovated the earlier () office into a largersuperintendent’s residence and museum of natural history.The park’s first hospital was completed in ear ly and aten-year contract let to Dr. B.G. Carson. In the Del

E. Webb Construction Company finished a new post officeand postal quarters and CCC crews built a new communitybuilding. In CCC and PWA workmen completed athree-room school with an auditorium southeast of theFred Harvey Garage. Other NPS buildings erected withinthe village during the s included several dozen laborers’cabins and permanent-personnel bungalows in the residen-tial area east of Center Road, a gasoline station and oilhouse beside the central warehouse, and a few minor utilitystructures.

Administrators continuedlimited development outsidethe village as they had since, finishing natural historyexhibits at Yavapai Point in- and the MacCurdyWayside Museum ofArcheology at Tusayan Ruin in . CCC recruitscleaned up the tiny community called Supai Camp west ofRowe Well Road in and , demolishing shacks andbuilding fourteen- by twenty-foot, two-room cabins tohouse Havasupais with regular village jobs. Caretakers’ cab-ins and utility buildings sprouted annually at IndianGarden and at the mouth of Bright Angel Creek. NPSlaborers strung a cable across the river at the latter locationin to acquire driftwood fuel for Phantom Ranch.

Construction at Bright Angel Point on the North Rim alsoproceeded apace at the NPS “industrial-residential” area,where employees’ quarters and a bunkhouse, mess hall, oilshack, equipment shed, and ranger cabin were added in and .

Other than substantial water, power, and building pro-jects undertaken by the Utah Parks Company, Santa FeRailroad, and NPS civilian contractors, most of GrandCanyon’s physical infrastructure during the s cameabout through emergency relief funds and labor. CCC

a n a dm i n i strat i ve history of gra nd c a ny on nati ona l pa r k

Figure 17.Twenty 10,000-gallon tankers deliver waterfrom the Chino Valley toSouth Rim storage tanks,1961.The Santa Fe suppliedwater in this manner from1901 until the late 1960s—daily until 1932 and asneeded thereafter.GRCA 3605.

forces built and/or maintained nearly all administrativebuildings in these years and strung the park’s new, two-wire, transcanyon telephone line in . They extendedsewer, water, steam, and electrical lines to reach all publicbuildings at Grand Canyon Village, Bright Angel Point,and Desert View, and during the late s relocated over-head utilities underground.They built, expanded, rehabili-tated, and maintained village residences, laborers’ cabins,and housekeeping units, as well as mess halls, paint andmachine shops, mule and equipment sheds, the first villagejail, the second community center, and cabins at SupaiCamp. In addition to new construction, they furtheredadministrators’ goals to beautify developed areas by razingmany old structures, removing debris, obliterating old roadand trail alignments, and reseeding or replanting previouslydisturbed areas.

■ ■ ■

Entrance roads and all scenic drives envisioned in butone were completed by , but administrators were farfrom finished directing traffic to and through the nationalpark.The village plan relied upon a south entranceroad (completed in ) to separate concessioner housingfrom NPS residential and service districts and a village looproad that would separate the tourist zone along the rimfrom the railroad’s industrial zone south of the tracks.Theloop would also enable a smoother passage around andthrough the tourist and administrative zones. A wagon roadof sorts followed the desired path prior to . Contractorsbegan to realign and upgrade it to automotive standards in by continuing the new South Entrance Road to meetwith the new East Rim Drive at the Fred Harvey Garage.In - the park road crew reconstruct-ed and realigned the wagon path south ofthe mule barns to facilitate passage fromthe South Entrance Road to the newheadquarters campground and MotorLodge, and continued the new road northacross the tracks to end at Hermit RimRoad.

The final segment of the village loopwas rebuilt as the eastern leg of West RimDrive, a $, emergency-works pro-ject completed by the G.R. Daley, Vinsonand Pringle Company of Phoenix in . Beginning at theFred Harvey Garage, the ,-foot-long village segmentwas built immediately above the railroad tracks as athrough road, bypassing the earlier alignment of HermitRim Road that is used today as a service driveway on thesouth edge of the El Tovar. From a point just below ColterHall, the new road was built atop Hermit Rim Road to thewest end of the village where road crews rubbed shoulders

with workmen completing the Bright Angel Lodge. WestRim Drive’s scenic segment ascended Hopi Hill in reducedgrades, then curved sharply north to snugly parallel the rim,providing access to new overlooks at Trailview I, TrailviewII, and Maricopa Point. After making a wide detour aroundthe Orphan Mine, the new alignment rejoined the old atHopi Point and continued to the Great Mohave Wall (theAbyss) where it again left the rim until reaching HermitsRest. West Rim Drive was the last major inner-park roadconstructed at Grand Canyon. NPS engineers and land-scape architects designed it as a compromise between high-speed highways like East Rim Drive and slower-going,meandering byways like the Hermit Road it replaced.

The village plan also delineated several curvilinearresidential and service streets south of the industrial andadministrative zones. Construction began with NPS andconcessioner forces grubbing and rough-grading Avenue A(Apache Street) in , then going to work on Avenue B(Boulder Street) and Avenue C (southwest of the recre-ational field) until all three streets were finished in .After May , CCC Company enlistees built Tontoand Juniper Streets to NPS residences and service build-ings; regraded and surfaced Avenues A, B, and C; builtmost of their masonry features; prepared residential sites;and laid utilities to individual homes. Bungalows, cabins,and utility buildings went up along these service and resi-dential streets, beginning with Avenue A, from

through the s as funds became available.

National work-relief programs also benefited regionalapproach highways. Grading and subgrading of the long-anticipated South Approach Road began the day after thecounty ceded the Bright Angel Trail to the park, but

bridges, surfacing, and fin-ishing touches were com-pleted with men andmoney of the first emer-gency employment acts of

-. The fifty-three-mile-long highway began severalmiles east of the old road and town of Williams at theNational Old Trails Highway, wound its way through vol-canic hills beyond Red Lake, then made a beeline acrossthe Coconino Plateau to meet the South Entrance Road atMoqui Lodge, cutting travel time from Williams fromnearly a full day to less than two hours. Although desig-nated Arizona State Route No. soon after completion,

c h a pte r thr ee i roni c g ol de n ye a r s : -

Figure 18.CivilianConserv ation Corps recruitsconstructing today’s wall andwalkway across from the FredHarvey Company garage,September 1937,followingcompletion ofWest RimDrive. GRCA 336.

Superintendent Tillotson had an embarrassing time con-vincing the Arizona Road Commission to assume mainte-nance. After meeting with commissioners in Phoenix inFebruary , he wrote that the

Highway Department continued to hold, as they havealways held, that our checking station is a “toll gate”andthey state that it is their unalterable policy not to build ormaintain roads leading to a “toll gate.” I explained ingreat detail the manner in which the one dollar entrancefee is charged, what the camper gets in the way offreecampground service, etc.,and although they conceded thatthe auto visitor got his dollar’s worth,they continued toinsist that...we were charging a “toll” and operating a “tollgate.”

No doubt the state brought up the irony of the park’s longbattle to eliminate the Bright Angel Trail toll, only toimpose its own fee of an equal amount, but Tillotson man-aged to iron out the disagreement by May when thestate assumed maintenance of the South Rim’s first auto-motive approach highway.

Plans to build a new East Approach Road fromCameron originated with the Santa Fe Railroad’s ire atmaintaining the Navahopi Road.The railroad spent $,

to build the latter in and another $, forimprovements by , when percent of visitors used it toreach the South Rim.The existing road and proposed pathof a replacement ran through lands administered by theNational Park Service, State of Arizona, U.S. ForestService, and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Officials ofeach refused to spend a dime on the concessioner’s road,but did ante up $, in to survey a .-mile-longautomotive highway across difficult terrain connecting thePainted Desert to the Coconino Plateau. SuperintendentTillotson personally worked harder making this road hap-pen than any other, garnering varied agencies’ support,arguing its financial benefit to each (particularly to resi-dents of the Navajo Reservation), and finding funds forconstruction in years when the NPS juggled a dozen suchprojects throughout the West. He was assisted by a

amendment to the National Park Approach Roads Act thatallowed the Department of the Interior to build roads andbridges to national parks on the “seven-percent system” (

percent matching federal funds) if the distance from thenearest public road was thirty miles or less and if per-cent of the land traversed was managed by a public agency.The latter condition was made to order, and Tillotson cir-cumvented the former requirement by cannily arguing thatthe final . miles of the proposed highway actual ly ranwithin park boundaries and therefore constituted an“entrance” road.

Although the forest service, BIA, and state wereambivalent at best to the eastern approach, they gave per-mission for construction, which began with funds appropri-ated in Fiscal Year . During the next four years, BPRengineers, NPS landscape architects, and private contractorscompleted the highway in nine related phases costing

$,,. As the only “mountain road” within orapproaching the park, rising from an elevation of , feetat Cameron to , feet at Desert View, the sinuous high-way completed in offered majestic vistas comparable tothose obtained from canyon overlooks. A walk today alongthe original alignment down Waterloo Hill reveals theintent of NPS Landscape Architect Thomas Carpenter toafford the best panoramas. National Park Service architectsalso designed or approved plans for the extant Dead IndianCanyon Bridge, completed in but later bypassed by ahighway realignment. Although the park erected another“toll gate” at Desert View in , the state assumed main-tenance for the entire approach as far as the park boundaryin . It immediately became a segment of the half-loopState Highway —an important link in regional touristtravel, convenient connection between South and NorthRims, and entryway to the park’s South Rim that was dri-ven by near ly , visitors in .

On the North Rim, concessioner improvements atBright Angel Point were closely tied not only to the immi-nent promise of a North Entrance Road within the park(completed in ), but to certain knowledge that stateroad agencies with federal money and expertise planned toconstruct automotive highways throughout southwesternUtah and northwestern Arizona. The Bureau of PublicRoads and U.S. Forest Service built the North ApproachRoad (replacing the old Grand Canyon Highway) fromJacob Lake in the early s, then rebuilt it in - tothe approximate alignment of today’s State Highway .

While the Utah Road Commission fulfilled its promise tobuild highways linking Zion, Bryce, and Cedar Breaks tothe Arizona Strip, the Arizona Road Commission under-took construction of Navajo Bridge spanning MarbleCanyon. Its completion in January prompted the com-missioners to replace the old Mormon emigrant road withU.S. Highway in a thirteen-year-long series of uninter-

a n a dm i n i st rat i ve h istory of gr and c a nyon nati ona l pa r k

Figure 19.The bridge span-ning Dead Indian Canyonalong the original EastApproach Road fromCameron,ca.1935. Today’sapproach road from Cameronwas rebuilt to the north (left)ofthis bridge in the 1960s,although the bridge stillstands.GRCA 2920.

rupted projects that connected Kanab to U.S. east ofFlagstaff just prior to the outbreak of World War II.

In support of Navajo Bridge and U.S.

Superintendent Eakin wrote in that “the tourist cropnever fails and we should cultivate this crop in order tosecure the greatest yield possible.” By GrandCanyon’s administrators could delight in the fulfillment ofEakin’s dream as all regional, approach, and inner-parkroads had been rebuilt to exacting federal standards, com-pleting the intricate highway network originally envisionedby Stephen Mather. Reconstruction of U.S. from Gallupto Needles in the s facilitated transcontinental access tothe Grand Canyon region.The South Approach Road fromWilliams and East Approach Road from Cameron, in com-bination with the South Entrance Road, East Rim Drive,and the East Entrance Road, ensured that motorists alongthe southern edge of the National Park-to-Park Highwaywould visit Grand Canyon National Park.These roadsjoined with U.S. to open a new circle tour connectingthe canyon with Wupatki National Monument, the PaintedDesert, and national forests of the southwestern Colorado

Plateau. New highways reach-ing Utah’s southwesternnational parks and monu-ments joined U.S. from

Kanab to Jacob Lake, the North Approach Road (StateHighway ), and the North Entrance Road to capture theNorth Rim in another popular circle tour promoted by theUnion Pacific Railroad since . Sixty years later, withonly minor realignments and replacement of U.S. byInterstate , these highways still form the backbone ofregional travel.

The s also witnessed completion of the park’s inner-canyon trail system. Reconstruction of the pre-park corridorhad been advanced during - with the building of theSouth Kaibab Trail and Kaibab Suspension Bridge andrealignment of the North Kaibab and Bright Angel Trails,but additional flexibility was achieved with completion of

the Colorado River Trail in . CCC Company , sta-tioned at Camp NP--A (Bright Angel Campground) dur-ing winter months, began construction in December

with experienced foremen and hard-rock miners guidingenlistees in techniques perfected on the South Kaibab Trail.Although only two miles in length and relatively level, thework proved anything but simple. Inexperienced youthsfound themselves wielding jackhammers while danglingfrom granite cliffs to plant powder charges that frequentlyplaced crews below in jeopardy of landslides. Difficultiesworking the granite of the Inner Gorge added to the dan-ger and the project ’s duration, but safety measures limitedserious injuries to only three. Completion coincided withimprovements to the Bright Angel Trail, thereafter afford-ing a popular south side loop when combined with theSouth Kaibab Trail and an alternate path from PhantomRanch to Indian Garden.

While three CCC crews concentrated each winter onthe river trail, others of Company worked on NorthKaibab spur trails to upper Ribbon Falls and Clear Creek.A.T. Sevey, with the assistance of Lloyd Davis and HarryMoulton, supervised construction of the nine-mile-longClear Creek Trail. Beginning at a point just north ofPhantom Ranch in November , the young recruitsmoved up the solid schist with compressors, jackhammers,and , pounds of black powder, building trail as theyblasted their way up to and across the relatively level TontoPlatform. Rangers stocked Clear Creek with rainbow trouteven before the trail ’s completion in April .Advertisements in promoted mule trips from PhantomRanch, “excellent trout fishing,” and visits to Indian ruinsbeside the now easily accessed side canyon.

During their three-year stint at Camp NP--A,Company and others working along the central corridorwere supplied by the U.S. Army’s th Pack Train, headquar-tered at Ft. Huachuca, Arizona, but stationed at Yaki Pointyear-round.The train consisted of army as well as civilianpackers, fifty pack mules, and ten saddle stock divided intosections of twenty mules and four packers each. Packerswere responsible for making one trip per day, five days perweek, hauling coal, mail, and foodstuffs averaging six thou-sand pounds. In winter, when snow drifted as high as fivefeet on the upper trail, men preceded the pack animals toclear the way. In the event of landslides blocking the uppertrail, the train descended the Bright Angel, Tonto, andlower South Kaibab Trails to reach the river. In three yearsof operation,“the th,” as proud and disciplined as the menthey supported, never missed a scheduled delivery.

The centralization of tourist services was advanced inAugust when the park service authorized abandon-ment of the Hermit Trail and Hermit Camp. Permissioncame from the NPS Washington office but seems puzzling,

c h a pte r thr ee i ronic g ol de n ye a r s : -

Figure 20.A 1937 CivilianConservation Corps crew

rounding slopes along WestRim Drive. GRCA 281.

given construction of West Rim Drive a few years later, theengineering excellence of the trail and four associated resthouses, and the camp’s profitability at a time when theSanta Fe Railroad and Fred Harvey Company were losingmoney on overall operations. Nevertheless, in , andwithout recompense, the concessioner abandoned the trail,camp, tram, and other developments that had cost morethan $,. In the park service ordered the railroadto dismantle and salvage what it could, and on a cold win-ter night village residents gathered at the rim to watch thespectacle of the torch applied to what remained.

Park managers briefly deviated from centralist planswith minor developments near Swamp Point and ThunderRiver in the mid-s and s. Since they had alreadybegun to consider park expansion to the west and were sen-sitive to criticisms that they had never opened the park’snorthwest lands to recreational use, administrators under-took a few projects aimed at limited access, including thebridle path to Swamp Point and the Muav Saddle snow-shoe cabin in . In -, coincident with develop-ment of a private hunting camp at Big Saddle, Ed Lawsand several other rangers built a rough trail from the rim atIndian Hollow down to Thunder Springs. Laws retained aninterest in the area as a backcountry ranger through the

s, occasionally making his way down to the springs toplant trout. It was only in October that the park ser-vice hired a crew of Arizona Strip residents to finish thetrail from the springs to Tapeats Creek. After argumentsover the creation of Grand Canyon National Monumentabated, administrators once again abandoned the area tocattlemen and a trickle of adventurous tourists led by post-season hunting-camp guides.

■ ■ ■

Fortuitous emergency funds and cheap labor accounted forthe completion of park infrastructure envisioned in thes but did not ensure that consumers, feeling the pinchof the Great Depression, would continue to buy thescenery. As it turned out, the National Park System did notsuffer as greatly as private enterprise.The depression struckharder at the poor than those of the middle and upper-middle economic classes who, by the s, had supplantedthe wealthy as the parks’ principal clientele. Although belt-tightening might preclude expensive trips, a suppositionsupported by the headlong decline in rail travel and hotelpatrons, Americans by owned thirty million automo-biles and, with cheap gasoline and camping equipment, didnot need to forego vacations entirely. NPS administrators

a n a dm i n i strat i ve history of gra nd c a ny on nati ona l pa r k

Figure 21.Map ofGrand Canyon National Park road system pre-1940.Prior to 1919 allroads approaching and alongside Grand Canyon had been built or worn by cattlemen,pio-neer entrepreneurs,and the Santa Fe Railroad for horse-drawn conveyances. With creationofthe national park,the federal government undertook reconstruction ofthese roads toautomotive standards,relying on the expertise ofthe Bureau ofPublic Roads (today’sFederal Highway Administration). A:North Approach Road, 1937. B: Original align-ment ofthe Point Sublime Road, 1924-25,never rebuilt to full automotive standards,but

maintained. C: North Entrance Road, 1931. D:Cape Royal Road and Point Imperialspur, 1931. E:East Approach Road, 1935. F:East Rim Drive, 1931. G:SouthApproach Road, 1932. H:South Entrance Road, 1928. I: West Rim Drive, 1935. J:Road to Topocoba Hilltop and Havasupai Point,built by Bill Bass and others beginning inthe 1880s;never rebuilt to full automotive standards but occasionally realigned and main-tained by the park service and forest service.

and concessioners astutely analyzed the depressed economy,improved upon marketing strategies, and enhanced thepark experience according to reduced consumer demands.

Success in selling the economic value of parks toCongress and presidents since the s was evidenced byfederal money invested in park infrastructure during thedepressed s, but Horace Albright found additionalarguments for continuing federal support. Recognizingsocial unrest during this period of economic decline, hewrote that “in a time of anxiety and restlessness [the parks]were immensely useful to large numbers of our people” andwere “a strong influence for stabilization and good citizen-ship.” He observed that many people were extending theirstays because “simple camp life offers [greater] economythat oftentimes can be found at home.” Albright made itclear that this new use of the parks, “particularly to peoplein financial difficulty, gave us unusual satisfaction.”Although it cannot be known how many of the depression’sdispossessed took up residence at Grand Canyon NationalPark while searching for work, NPS policy allowed unlim-ited campground stays for the price of admission, andMiner Tillotson expressed his personal satisfaction atemploying an average - day laborers during summermonths prior to .

The National Park Service, though it welcomed thenew class of visitors, did not market the parks as retreatsfor the homeless; rather,it continued with itspartners to promotewestern travel to themiddle class. Successfularrangements were madewith chambers of com-merce and other tourismoffices to distribute parkliterature printed by theDepartment of the

Interior. Mather’s NPS travel division did not materializeuntil , but the railroads’ Bureau of Service continued tosolicit tourist travel from around the world. Given globaleconomic conditions, it was unnecessary to highlight theSee America First campaign, which, nonetheless, continuedas a marketing undercurrent appealing to citizens’ patrio-tism as well as their pocketbooks. NPS directors encour-aged new editions of the National Parks Portfolio, a boundcollection of Western landscape art that had helped securea National Park Service in the s.The Department of

the Interior published voluminous circulars of generalinformation for the major parks including Grand Canyon,and the park service continued to issue press releases anddiligently respond to individual requests for information.As one of the better known jewels of the park system,Grand Canyon naturally benefited from these national pro-motions.

Local administrators also answered all inquiries ofpotential visitors and maintained contacts with chambers ofcommerce and tourism offices in the gateway communities,but concentrated on enhancing, or “adding value,” to thevisitor’s experience while leaving most regional advertisingto their concession partners.Roads, trails, convenient trafficflow, and aesthetic constructions, of course, were all part ofthe strategy to attract and please as well as accommodatecustomers. Recognizing that the depression increased theratio of motorists over rail arrivals and stimulated visitors’interest in cheaper, motorist-friendly accommodations,managers persisted with their policy to develop camp-grounds and roadside picnic areas according to demand,adding primitive campgrounds at Point Sublime and CapeRoyal and a picnic area at Shoshone Point in .

Throughout the decade, CCC crews added sites, utilitylines, parking spaces, and walkways to campgrounds atBright Angel Point, Desert View, and Grand CanyonVillage. NPS landscape architects in designed twoattractive housekeeping cabins—a two-bedroom withkitchen separated by wood partitions and a one-bedroomwith kitchen and optional partition—that would hence-forth be added by concessioners at park motor lodges andgain in popularity as moderately priced alternatives tocamp sites and hotel rooms.

While administrators left most services to concession-ers, they considered education within their purview and animportant park enhancement. Since assuming his director-ship, Stephen Mather had been keenly interested in theparks as classrooms for the humanities and natural sciencesand as laboratories for scientific investigations, delegatingthe latter responsibility to the nation’s scientists but takingan aggressive posture toward visitor education.The LeConte Memorial Lectures and Nature Guide Service atYosemite, ethnological and archaeological lectures at GrandCanyon, campfire talks at Yellowstone, a museum at MesaVerde, and natural history publications at a number ofwestern parks had all appeared by . Each of these areasof public education flourished in the succeeding decade.

At Grand Canyon, as at other western parks, rangers wereexpected to be conversant in the natural sciences and toimpart their knowledge to curious visitors on demand.Formal attention to education began in , when moneydonated by the Brooklyn Daily Eaglefunded the park’s firstmuseum: an information room consisting of natural history

c h a pte r thr ee i roni c g ol de n ye a r s : -

Figure 22.Off-duty CivilianConservation Corps recruits

meet Harvey Girls,1936.GRCA 12148;photo by

Ernest Lee Burns.

exhibits and a referencelibrary within the old admin-istration building. In the fol-lowing year, the nature guideservice begun at Yosemiteand Yellowstone reached

Grand Canyon on an experimental basis and was formallyadopted in . In the same year, the park began to dis-tribute a monthly periodical called Nature Notes,and for thefirst time assigned a ranger to conduct nature hikes,present campfire talks, and collect natural histor yexhibits. In the observation station at YavapaiPoint was completed, and the park’s first ranger-natu-ralist, Glen E. Sturdevant, began daily lectures withthe help of two summer seasonals.

The National Park Service took public educationto a higher level with a formal survey of educationalopportunities and creation of the NPS Branch ofResearch and Education under Harold C. Bryant in. In its first year, the new branch hired additionalranger-naturalists and furthered their training at theUniversity of California at Berkeley, added educationalactivities to the first formal master plans, and acceleratedmuseum construction. It also developed a wide range ofprograms consisting of guided hikes and automobile cara-vans, lecture series, exhibits and signs along nature trails,and training of concessioner guides to better interpret parkresources. At Grand Canyon in the same year, seven per-manent and seasonal ranger-naturalists staffed museums atYavapai Point, the old administration building, and withinGrand Canyon Lodge; initiated evening programs at theNorth Rim; guided nature hikes and auto caravans alongboth rims; conducted daily lectures and nightly campfiretalks; and enlarged natural history collections and exhibits.Administrators continued to expand facilities,exhibits, andprograms, reporting , educational contacts in ,, in , and , in . These numbers multi-

plied as economic conditions improved after .

In March park residents organized the GrandCanyon Natural History Association (GCNHA, today’sGrand Canyon Association) to help offset decreased NPSappropriations for visitor education, interpretation, andresearch. Although the organization’s immediate goal wasto continue publication of Nature Notes(discontinued in), aspirations of the first executive secretary, EddieMcKee, and charter members matched the objectives ofthose who had created the Branch of Research andEducation two years earlier. In GCNHA’s first year theassociation’s members began to build the park’s nascentmuseum collection, research library, and scientific publica-tions through wildlife observations, bird-banding programs,specimen collections, collecting books, subscribing to schol-arly journals, granting funds for research, and publishingand selling natural history monographs. By the outbreak ofWorld War II, the GCNHA had also funded the park’sfirst botanist (Rose Collom), mycologist (Inez Haring), andhistorical researcher (Edwin Austin); supplied a part-timelibrarian and clerk-typist for the interpretive program; pur-chased shop and laboratory equipment; and taken on theformidable task of answering public inquiries for parkinformation.

Along with educational programs that helped sell theparks during the depression, NPS officials paid closerattention than ever to pricing. Congressional arguments ofthe s had led to legislative approval of modest entrancefees (automobile permits), but to a prohibition of camp-ground fees. With the economy’s slump, Congress contin-ued to argue the nature of fees while Horace Albrightequivocated. He acknowledged in that those whoentered the parks and stayed in concessioner accommoda-tions had a right to complain about those who paid thesame amount then stayed at free campgrounds, yet wrotelater in the year that the NPS “should seek primarily thebenefit and enjoyment of the people rather than financialgain and such enjoyment should be free to the people with-out vexatious admission charges and other fees.”

Arguments for and against federal charges persisted

a n a dm i n i str at i ve hi story o f gra nd c a nyon nati ona l pa r k

Figure 23.Early naturalists(left to right) Fred Wright,

Eddie McKee, Vernon Bailey,and Glen Sturdevant at

Grand Canyon,1929.GRCA 17577.

Figure 24.Pauline “Polly”Mead Patraw (1904-),firstwoman ranger-naturalist atGCNP. Polly may haveworked for the NPS at theNorth Rim as early as 1927while earning her M.S.inbotany from the University ofChicago.She is dressed here inthe standard NPS uniform,but with a “more feminine”Fred Harvey courier hat cho-sen by Miner Tillotson.GRCA 176.

through the s, yet policy at Grand Canyon remainedunchanged.The one dollar admission for motorists, nocharge for others, entitled visitors to road and trail usage,unlimited campground stays and amenities, and attendanceat all educational facilities and programs.

Major concessioners suffered financially through themid-s despite NPS efforts to ease their losses, yetadjusted well enough with centralized investments, vigorousmarketing, and affordable pricing. By the Fred HarveyCompany’s tourist facilities had been concentrated atGrand Canyon Village, Hermits Rest, Hermit Camp,Desert View, and Phantom Ranch. In the ensuing decade,major changes outside the village entailed abandonment ofHermit Camp, improvements at Phantom Ranch includinga swimming pool built by CCC crews in , completionof the Watchtower at Desert View with its first-floor curioshop in , and construction of a one-pump gasoline sta-tion at Desert View in . Rimside overnight facilitiesand formal dining services remained in the village.TheSanta Fe Railroad continued to add cabins at the MotorLodge where it also opened a cafeteria with inexpensivemeals in and completed the Bright Angel Lodge inJune that replaced the old Bright Angel Hotel andadjacent tent cabins.The new lodge included a central ser-vices building with restaurant, curio shop, and entertain-ment rooms; a renovated and expanded Buckey O’NeillCabin; a reconverted dormitory immediately to the west(today’s Powell Lodge) that became seventeen-room andtwenty-five-room guest houses; and new, all-wood cabins.Conversion of the El Tovar music room into four suites in represented the only new, higher-priced accommoda-tions.

Advertising to a regional audience consisted of theNational Park Service’s annual circulars of general informa-tion, which emphasized park rules, facilities, and services,and an annual series of Santa Fe Railroad brochures detail-ing railroad timetables, tourist facilities, services, guidedtrips, and rates. Both types of marketing literature brieflysold the beauty of Grand Canyon but focused primarily onthe convenience afforded by roads, trails, overlooks, utili-ties, lodging, restaurants, and similar amenities. Ratesremained at or below s levels, the most significantallowance to hard times being the introduction of theEuropean Plan (rooms without meals) when, in the priordecade, rooms and most cabins had been available only onthe American Plan. In one could stay at the El Tovar,American plan, for $.; at a Bright Angel cottage for$.-.; in a housekeeping cabin for $.; in a tentcabin at Hermit Camp for $., American plan; orPhantom Ranch for $., American plan. Meals at the ElTovar ranged from $.-.. Automotive services likestorage ($.), wash ($.), repair ($.-./hour), and

towing ($./hour) were available, as were guided tripsranging from $.-. for a mule ride to Plateau Point to$. for a -mile automotive trip to Moenkopi. By a room at the El Tovar could be had for only $.,with three meals adding another $.. A room at theBright Angel Lodge rented for $.-., with cafeteriameals as low as forty-five cents. A housekeeping cabin cost$.-., with a ten percent discount for stays of four daysor more. A Phantom Ranch cabin went for $.,American plan. Guided trips by trail or road also remainedat or slightly lower than rates with a variety of muletours available for $. per day. The all-day adventure toMoenkopi had been reduced to $., including lunch.

The Union Pacific Railroad proved no less demandingthan the Santa Fe Railroad in pressing for improved roadsduring the s, and it was equally aggressive in selling thescenic wonders of southwestern Utah, the Arizona Strip,and its facilities at Bright Angel Point.The Union Pacific’spassenger agent, Douglas White, ran into some oppositionwhen arguing for improved regional access, illustrated byUtah Governor Simon Bamberger’s response to his andHorace Albright ’s lobbying in the late s: “Doug Vite, Ibuild no more roads to rocks!” But despite such difficul-ties, the Union Pacific, with NPS assistance, BPR expertise,and the Utah Road Commission’s cooperation, managed tocoerce and cajole construction of modern highways amongsouthern Utah’s parks during the s and s. It alsobuilt a rail spur from Lund to Cedar City in specifical-ly to stage its tourism ventures.

Strategically, from the s until the s, the UnionPacific Railroad tied North Rim investments, advertising,and pricing into what it had named its “circle tourismroute.”This Stephen Mather concept included, with a fewvariations, Cedar City, Zion and Bryce National Parks,Cedar Breaks and Pipe Springs National Monuments, andother scenic attractions along its -mile path.Investments at Bright Angel Point followed more than$ million that the railroad had poured into Zion andBryce in -. Like the Fred Harvey Company, the UtahParks Company profited from the National Parks Portfolio,See America First campaigns and publications, and othernational promotions, and advertised heavily on its own.Thecircle tour and parks it touched also received considerableexposure in the tourism periodical, the Union PacificMagazine. In the railroad added its “Red Book,” aglossy annual similar to Santa Fe Railroad brochures cele-brating the route and detailing its facilities, services, tours,and prices.

In circle tour schedules offered by the Parrybrothers included six packages beginning at the railroad’sEl Escalante Hotel in Cedar City, including an all-expense-paid, two-day excursion to Zion and Grand Canyon’s

c h a pte r thr ee i ronic g ol de n ye a r s : -

North Rim and an all-expense-paid, five-day tour of theentire circle for $.. By the cost of the latter triphad been reduced to $.. In the same year, visitors notassociated with multi-day packaged tours could rent aGrand Canyon Lodge deluxe cabin for $. and standardcabin for $., American plan, or choose the latter with-out meals for $.. Overflow tents were available for $.

and meals ranged from $. to $.. Guided auto-stagetrips were offered along newly reconstructed roads fromBright Angel Point to PointImperial ($.), CapeRoyal ($.), or bothscenic overlooks ($.).Regular guided trail tripsran to Point McKinnon($.) on the west (todayknown as Widforss Point)and to Natchi Point ($.)and Point Imperial ($.)on the east. Saddle horsesrented for $. per day,and the concessioner wouldoutfit visitors for adventures along the rim for as little as$. per day in groups of seven or more. By lesscostly housekeeping cabins had been built at the GrandCanyon Inn, while prices for lodge cabins had been dis-counted and services unbundled. Deluxe cabins dropped to$. per day or $. for three persons, standard cabins to$., and housekeeping cabins (sleeping three) to $..Cheap cafeteria meals had been introduced, and guestscould opt to buy their own groceries at the store adjacent tothe housekeeping complex.The railroad had reduced theprice of the all-expense-paid circle tour (extended to sixdays) to $.. Sightseeing rides to Cape Royal, whichincluded Point Imperial and stops at Farview and VistaEncantada, had been reduced to $., while the cost ofguided saddle trips and stock rental remained the same.

Advertising, reduced prices, better roads, and improvedeconomic conditions after combined to generate aneven steeper spurt in visitation than had been experiencedin the s. Concessioners added affordable accommoda-tions each year and administrators responded with new andexpanded campgrounds, but the boom outpaced infrastruc-ture as had visitation upturns of the mid-s and late-s. In summer Superintendent Tillotson began torecognize that South Rim accommodations of all typeswere full by early evening, and on July of that year, a newone-day record was set when , people entered the park.Additional records were set with , arrivals in August (, on August) and on July when ,

showed up in , automobiles. Clearly the village andpark roads had once again begun to clog.

INITIAL BOUNDARIES AND INHOLDINGS

Physical boundaries for national parks and monumentshave usually been drawn from the political agendas of con-gressmen,land managers, and an assortment of private sec-tor allies. Prior to World War II, NPS administratorsfought tooth and nail to carve new parks and expand exist-ing ones from lands managed typically by U.S. ForestService administrators, who battled equally hard to retainthe forests for traditional economic uses. Both agencies

masked their bureaucratic struggles with ostensibly logical,high-minded arguments for one agency’s management overthe other’s. Forest administrators relied principally on utili-tarian aspects of conservationism. As aggressive newcomers,NPS managers proved somewhat more creative, buildingcredibility for the economic value of western tourism,which aided in the creation of new parks, but more oftenciting the protection of game animals, inclusion of out-standing facets of local scenery, and efficient managementof administrative units to fight for enlarged boundaries.

Determining the original boundaries of Grand CanyonNational Park involved a smattering of each of these politi-cal, economic, and administrative arguments. BenjaminHarrison’s Senate Bill , introduced in , identified anarbitrary, ,-square-mile rectangle extending fifty-sixmiles from the Little Colorado River to the vicinity ofHavasu Canyon and sixty-nine miles north and south toenvelop much of the Coconino and Kaibab Plateaus.Harrison’s inclusion of valuable timber and grazing landsaccounted in large part for northern Arizona’s early resis-tance to park designation. Resistance persisted into thes as interest groups like the American Scenic andHistoric Preservation Society countered no-park advocatesby suggesting a preserve that would extend from Lees Ferryto the Arizona-Nevada border, encompassing the entirecanyon as well as the Coconino, Kaibab, and DixieNational Forests, , square miles in all. Adjudicatedboundaries,however, were owed to land managers, especial-ly the forest service, which delineated the original ,-square-mile national monument in , then negotiated

a n a dm i n i strat i ve his tory o f gra nd ca ny on nati ona l pa r k

Figure 25.The temporaryranger staffof1939.Left toright: Shirley Allen,FrankBynam,Charles Hurst,PerryBrown (Chief Ranger),GlenHarmon,Ralph White, JohnCarlock,Harold Barrow,Freddie Gillum.Seasonal and“temporary” rangers madetheir appearance at GrandCanyon in the mid-1920sand have been hired everyyear since to meet demands ofthe peak summer season.GRCA 1223.

with the Department of the Interior to formulate bound-aries for a national park. Chief Forester Henry S. Graves,though generally in favor of a park, argued with theDepartment of the Interior ’s E.C. Finney throughout - and with Stephen Mather thereafter to exclude grazingand timber lands and USFS administrative sites along bothrims, resulting in Henry Ashurst’s bill that settled on a totalof square miles (, acres). Understandably, therewas little debate with the new park’s east-west extent, theforest service conjuring no economic value for a mile-deepcanyon and easily accepting the breadth proposed byHarrison thirty-three years earlier. But irregular north andsouth boundaries drawn primarily along sectional linestightly squeezed both rims, reflecting political victories forthe forest service and local extractive users.

The park had no sooner been created than Matherrenewed his arguments to expand boundaries, contendingthat additions were necessary on the North Rim to protectthe Kaibab deer herd, to include springs necessary fortourist developments, and to provide for new roads. In

Superintendent Crosby argued the necessity of bringingeast-west roads beside the South Rim within park bound-aries to create an identifiable straight line separatinghunters in the adjacent forest from park developments. Inthe same year, Mather asked U.S. Geological Survey engi-neer R.T. Evans, who was mapping the park, to recom-mend new boundaries. Evans’s report to the President’sCommittee on Outdoor Recreation in March suggest-ed a northern boundary that would include scenic featuresand deer habitat in the Tapeats Basin, Indian Hollow, andthe Big Saddle area to the west; part of Dry Park and all ofVT Park to facilitate administration and road construction;and the East Rim, Pagump Valley, South Canyon, and thir-teen miles of Marble Canyon for its tourism potential anddeer range. At the South Rim, Evans suggested only mod-est expansion, arguing for a straighter boundary about amile south of the existing line to facilitate administration,road building, and maintenance; to more effectively fencecattle out; to increase the deer range; and to afford aboundary facade of virgin ponderosa pine forest.

The forest service preempted Evans’s suggestions withits own report to the president’s committee in April ,advocating the addition of , acres to the park’s north-ern boundary but opposing other extensions. Forest man-agers maintained that the park should be only as large asrequired to “provide for public use and enjoyment of thecanyon,” that the Kaibab Plateau was not of national parkcaliber, and that its best use lay in a nonexistent, butpromising, million-dollar-per-year lumber industry. Theyalso argued that jurisdiction over the Kaibab deer herdshould not be split between the two agencies and that resi-dents of the Arizona Strip had been led to believe that the

park would not seriously impinge upon grazing lands.Theforest service agreed to redraw lines at the South Rim butenlisted the aid of Senator Hayden, representing CoconinoCounty’s cattle and timber interests, to limit changes toslight administrative adjustments. A compromise brokeredby Hayden resulted in new boundaries that included repre-sentative portions of the Kaibab forest, lands north ofBright Angel Point as far as Little Park, the mouth ofHavasu Canyon, and eight sections at the park’s southeastcorner to facilitate a road to Cape Solitude. It rejectedadditions desired for wildlife habitat and scenic views, how-ever, and removed Beaver Canyon and the area north andeast of the Little Colorado River confluence from the park.All in all, House Bill , enacted on February ,added a net fif ty-one square miles to the national park,bringing the total land area to , square miles (,

acres).

In and Chief Field Naturalist Vernon Baileyof the U.S. Biological Survey resurrected debates to expandboundaries to add range for regional mule deer, mountainsheep, antelope, and buffalo. Writing at NPS request,Bailey couched his pleas in terms of saving what remainedof the region’s native vegetation and wildlife, advocating theaddition of square miles of ponderosa pine and pinyon-juniper forest at the South Rim as well as substantial por-tions of House Rock Valley and the Kaibab Plateau. Basedon Bailey’s conclusions, the NPS lobbied for an additionaltwo to ten miles southward and five to fifteen miles north-ward, a total of square miles, arguing that “everynational park should be and is a game preserve.”These rec-ommendations went nowhere. Bailey’s superiors and USFSadministrators disagreed with the presumption that parksshould be complete game preser ves, arguing that the prece-dent would require park expansions throughout the West.Sportsmen feared that hunting would be curtailed, and onecan safely surmise that local cattlemen and lumber compa-nies protested as they had in every prior effort to create andexpand the park. Arguments favoring the parks as naturalpreserves had been raised but had not yet acquired thevitality necessary to overcome politically drawnboundaries.

Debates surrounding creation of Grand CanyonNational Monument in and its reduction in size in further elucidate early NPS philosophy concerningpark creation and expansion. In , when ArizonaGovernor George H. Dern visited the Toroweap Valley andsuggested that its scenic wonders be preserved for recre-ational use, it would have been difficult to locate a moreremote area in the United States.The land remained unas-signed public domain and certainly did not appear ontourists’ itineraries. E. T. Scoyen, superintendent of ZionNational Park, visited the area in and hailed its scenic

c h a pt e r thr ee i roni c g ol de n ye a r s : -

wonders, but the NPS did not consider adding any part ofit to the park until President Hoover forced the issue in when he added lower Grand Canyon to a tract with-drawn to facilitate creation of Hoover Dam and its reser-voir.

In May a party composed of Miner Tillotson; PatPatraw, superintendent at Zion; Roger Toll, superintendentat Yellowstone; L.C. Crampton, special attorney to thesecretary of the interior; and highway engineer W.R.F.Wallace visited the canyon portion of Hoover’s ,-square-mile withdrawal to assess recreational opportunitiesand suggest disposition. Toll’s report revealed the group’santipathy for the larger area, based on the region’s lack of“national interest” and their assessment that the lowercanyon’s scenery was of the “same type” existing in GrandCanyon National Park. The party agreed that the entirelower canyon would make a suitable park addition, but itwas not necessary and most of it was “not readily accessibleand would be expensive to make accessible.” Still, they sug-gested that square miles consisting of the ToroweapValley and a segment south of the river from the existingpark boundary to the Hualapai Reservation would be worthpreserving. Because the Bureau of Reclamation planned tobuild a -foot-high dam and power plant at BridgeCanyon, creating a seventy-eight-mile-long reservoir thatwould flood the river as far upstream as Havasu Canyon,and because the NPS abhorred such water projects withinthe National Park System (but supported them elsewhere),the group recommended a national monument rather thanpark expansion. But Toll also wrote that should the stateoppose the additions, “it would seem to be in the publicinterest to cancel the withdrawal of this portion of thearea.”

Following Toll’s report, Tillotson delineated specificboundaries to include the Toroweap Valley and south sideof the river but exclude most patented lands and cattlerange to the north. Horace Albright defended the bound-aries as they allowed automotive access, once a road couldbe built, to Grand Canyon’s Esplanade with easily accessi-ble views of the Inner Gorge. He also favored inclusion ofnearby volcanic cones beside the rim and lava flows exposedalong the river, geologic features not present within thepark. So defined, Conrad Wirth forwarded Toll’s,Tillotson’s, and Albright’s recommendations to PresidentHoover, who proclaimed the .-square mile (,-acre) Grand Canyon National Monument on December. The monument would remain a separate NPS unitunder park supervision until .

Creation of the national monument revealed NPSambivalence toward creating parks or adjusting boundariesif the land in question did not promise tourist access. Theensuing decade offered proof of the agency’s willingness to

protect such areas only in proportion to visitation. ArizonaStrip cattlemen were a bit tardy in raising objections to themonument’s creation, but afterward enlisted the aid of theArizona Cattle Growers Association and Carl Hayden toabolish it. After eight years of on-and-off deliberations,Tillotson, who never showed great enthusiasm for themonument, negotiated the return of a three-mile stripalong the northern boundary and upper Toroweap Valley(, acres) to the U.S. Grazing Service.This was effectedby President Roosevelt’s proclamation of April . Inthe following year, NPS administrators expressed their will-ingness to change the designation of what remained to“national recreation area” to accommodate “the new usesand values which the Bridge Canyon developments wouldbring about.”

Administrators were unconcerned for monumentboundary reductions and prospects for a dam, power plant,and reservoir along the river because they expected fewvisitors and planned little construction of their own. Mostdevelopments of the s were, in fact, effected by asurplus of men and funds afforded by emergency worksprograms. They built and maintained drift fences, cisterns,game tanks, and a telephone line from Fredonia prior to, and worked annually to improve these minimalfeatures through . Olds Brothers of Winslow, Arizona,completed today’s ranger station, combination barn/garage,and water catchment system under contract in August. Rangers from the South Rim occasionally made thelong trip around the canyon to inspect the monument, not-ing appalling range conditions and the ineffectiveness ofpartial drift fences oft-vandalized by local cattlemen. Noconcession was ever awarded for visitor services, and noranger took up residence until William and GertrudeBowen reported for work in October 1940. John Riffeyreplaced Bowen and began an illustrious thirty-eight-yearcareer as caretaker in 1942. No services of any kind wereoffered (then or now) other than information gladly givenby Riffey, a small undeveloped campground, and occasionalmaintenance of the sixty-two-mile dirt road from PipeSprings. Funds for administration, protection, maintenance,repairs, and equipment in totaled $. Only nineteentourists visited the monument in May and June , andannual visitation did not top , until the s.

The National Park Service considered the eradication ofprivate lands and rights-of-way within its units of higherpriority than boundary extensions, since they struck at theheart of management control. In order to obtain revenuefrom concessions, manage physical developments, preventobnoxious or destructive uses, harmonize structures withnatural environments, enforce rules and regulations, andgenerally clean up developed areas, administrators believedthat they had to eliminate these interests that were

a n a dm i n i s trat i ve h istory of gr a nd c a nyon nati ona l pa r k

protected to some extent by each park’s enabling act.Congress passed many laws during the s and s toexchange private for public lands to the benefit ofindividual parks and sometimes reduced boundaries toeliminate concentrated groups of inholdings. Generic legis-lation toward this end began with the Sundry Civil Act ofJune , allowing the secretary of the interior to acceptgifts of land, rights-of-way, buildings, and money thatcould be used to purchase properties and rights. Securingtitle to private inholdings moved up to number eight on thedirector’s list of priorities in , but by the parks stillenclosed more than , acres of private and state landsservicewide, about percent of the system’s total area. In Congress adopted a specific policy to eliminate inhold-ings, and in it authorized the power of condemnation(the “taking” of private lands) and a fund of $ million tomatch private donations to purchase properties.Appropriations for this fund peaked at $. million in ,then abruptly dropped to nothing for , another casualtyof the national depression.

Grand Canyon National Park’s enabling act in mostways resembled those of other western parks. Sections Twothrough Nine granted the secretary of the interior broadlatitude in allowing varied uses and grandfathered particularrights in place at the time of creation. Circumscribed inter-ests of the Havasupai people were protected, as were “anyvalid existing claim, location, or entry...whether for home-stead, mineral, right of way, or any other purpose whatsoev-er.” The act also acknowledged Coconino County’s right tothe Bright Angel Trail and permitted the secretary toauthorize irrigation and reclamation projects, easements forrailroads, and the development of mineral resources.During the s-s, NPS administrators in WashingtonD.C.fought successfully to preclude new railroad rights-of-way as well as private irrigation and reclamation proposalsfrom Grand Canyon, while local managers concentrated ongathering data to invalidate mining claims, acquire patentedlands, and limit the commercial use of private parcels.

In interests not altogether under control of theNational Park Service at Grand Canyon, in approximateorder of priority, consisted of Ralph Cameron’s invalid min-ing claims; the Bright Angel Trail; mineral claims or home-steads patented by Dan Hogan, Sanford Rowe, Pete Berry,and John Hance; unpatented but valid mining claims heldby W.I. Johnson, George McCormick, and William Bass;two unpatented homestead entries totaling acres in theprocess of reconveyance to the federal government; stateschool sections totaling about , acres; and the linearrights-of-way and depot grounds of the Grand CanyonRailway. Since administrators considered the railroad afinancial and philosophical ally in the order ly developmentof Grand Canyon Village, their control of about thirty acres

in the heart of the village caused little trepidation.The rail-road held these lands, in fact, until , long after passen-ger trains had ceased to roll into Grand Canyon Depot.

School lands comprised the largest inholdings, butadministrators did not consider this a threat since the statecould not develop them and proved amenable to trades forpublic lands elsewhere.

The National Park Service and General Land Officeworked aggressively to invalidate all bogus and unpatentedmining properties within the park during the s. GeorgeMcCormick’s claims near the Little Colorado River wereabandoned by . Ralph Cameron’s had been discredit-ed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Ralph H.Cameron et al vs.United Stateson April , and although Camerondefied the court for the following few years and resistedefforts of the U.S. Attorney General to dispossess his care-takers in , his interests evaporated after his senatorialdefeat in . Without Cameron’s goading, the countyyielded its trail rights two years later. Administrators took agentler approach to the Bass family, Stephen Mather con-vincing the Santa Fe Land Development Company to buyout the aging pioneer and his wife Ada in . The prop-erties passed to the government by donation immediatelyfollowing railroad divestitures in December .

In their quest to acquire valid mining claims andpatented lands, park officials generally exercised a great dealof patience and used most legal, persuasive, and coercivemeans at their disposal. Johnson’s claims within HavasuCanyon were actually desirable adjacent lands that the parkwould acquire through purchase in . John Hance’spatented parcels south of the river and homestead besidethe rim had passed to James Thurber and Lyman Tolfree in and to Martin Buggeln in . Buggeln had become apotent force among private residents at the South Rim bythe time the park service arrived, and he was an impedi-ment to development thereafter as his homestead andrefusal to grant a right-of-way delayed construction of EastRim Drive. He also ran cattle on the inholding andadjacent forest lands until his death in when hiswidow, Eva Moss Buggeln, initiated negotiations to sell theproperty. The park service took out an option in andeffected the purchase in , eliminating the last rimsideinholding east of Grand Canyon Village. Hance sold hispatented asbestos claims along the north side of the river,totaling . acres, to the Hance Asbestos MiningCompany in , and administrators did not learn of theirexistence until . Subsequently the property came intopossession of the Hearst family. Limited mining activitytook place at these claims into the s; thereafter, ownersoccasionally revealed resort or residential plans for theinholding that is accessible only by trail, raft, and, since thes, by helicopter. Known as the Hearst Tract today, it

ch a p te r t hr ee i ro nic g ol de n ye a r s : -

remains the only private inholding within the park’s origi-nal boundaries.

While administrators feared Buggeln’s development ofan independent tourist business, they found it easy to sup-press his plans with a few well-placed threats. WilliamRandolph Hearst ’s acquisition of Pete Berry’s and theCanyon Copper Company’s patented lands in , totaling. acres, posed a much greater threat, as the newspapermagnate clearly had the political clout to disregard informalpressure and the capital to develop anything he wished.Hearst did taunt the NPS with rumors of grand develop-mental schemes but generally cooperated with authorities,agreeing to exchange . acres at Grandview Point for .acres elsewhere in , and occasionally discussed the gif tor sale of his lands to the government. Cooperation van-ished, however, when Hearst ’s attorneys once againbroached the subject of a sale and the NPS responded witha Declaration of Taking in September . Park officialssustained criticism from the regional press, chambers ofcommerce, local residents, and the county board of supervi-sors for employing condemnation, the only time it has doneso in park history, and for offering only $, for theprime real estate. Hearst’s appraisers estimated its value at$,, and his lawyers fought for the higher figure untilOctober , when federal judge David W. Ling orderedthe payment of $,. The taking, however, was legallyeffected in July .

Administrators might well have taken the sameapproach to acquiring Sanford Rowe’s and Ed Hamilton’sproperties at Rowe Well and Dan Hogan’s Orphan Minehad they the same tourist visibility as Grandview Point.Many visitors to the South Rim did pass Hamilton’s motorcamp until completion of the South Approach Road, but inthe s administrators were just as happy that he stayedin business to accommodate growing numbers of visitors.After Hamilton and a succession of owners, lessees,and managers including Jack and Gladys Harbin, WalterWilkes, and the Barrington Brothers added a motel, dancehall, bowling alley, and saloon to create an alternative tomore staid village services and a favored “watering hole” forresidents.The park service kept a wary eye on the RoweWell properties throughout the s and s, but did notcome up with the sale price, $,, until .

Given its subsequent history, later administrators mightwell have wished that Miner Tillotson had offered morethan $, to buy Dan Hogan’s -acre Orphan Mine in. There seemed no reason to suggest that it was worthmore until , when Hogan began to develop the site fortourism. He called his initial developments the GrandCanyon Trading Post, and over time it unfolded along linessimilar to Rowe Well with cabins, store, and a saloon.World War II ended Hogan’s modest business, but in

he sold the property to Madeleine Jacobs,who reopenedthe facility as the Kachina Lodge. Jacobs then leased theproperty in to Will Rogers, Jr. and John Bonnell, whorenamed it Rogers’ Place. Rogers left the following year andthe facilities were purchased by James D. Barrington andrenamed the Kachina Lodge by . Barrington and hisbrother operated the facility (in renamed the GrandCanyon Inn) until . As if uncontrolled rimside touristfacilities were not enough, the site—highly visible from thePowell Memorial—witnessed some of the most intensiveuranium mining in the Southwest during -. An,-foot-long cable tram added in did nothing toimprove the eyesore. In , when the mine’s operator,Western Equities, threatened to build an -room grandhotel that would spill “down the side of the precipitous clifflike a concrete waterfall,” Congress stepped in with a lawprohibiting tourist operations after and mining after, when the property passed to the United States.Mining ended earlier, in , only because of a declininguranium market and prohibitive costs to ship ore.

■ ■ ■

From today’s perspective, it is easy enough to criticize parkadministrators’ consistent management philosophy of -, their anthropocentric motivations and priorities, theiremphasis on mass marketing, services, and structures aimedat attracting ever more visitors. But from the viewpoint ofearly twentieth-century NPS managers and their myriadallies, as well as those who continue to believe that nationalparks are principally for the people’s enjoyment, they didnearly everything right. Some visitors and businessmenwould have appreciated still more developments at BassCamp and Grandview, at Cape Royal, and at the heads ofthe Thunder River and North Bass Trails. Admittedly,remote areas were saved primarily through concessioners’economic equations influenced by the depression, but cen-tralization also resulted in part from the notion that mostof the park should remain undeveloped, if only to protectgame animals—a hazy, incomplete, yet emerging sense ofthe value of wild ecosystems. By construction had sub-sided along the rims and central corridor with the comple-tion of planned administrative, concessioner, utility, andresidential buildings, as well as approach and inner-parkhighways, scenic drives, and inner-canyon trails. A calm,comfortable, economical interlude prevailed for the severalhundred thousand who visited each year for the followingdecade. Reveling in the resort atmosphere of easy access,ample accommodations, breathtaking scenery, and profit,no one cared to consider the ephemeral nature of such anexperience, given the inevitable outcome of managing thepark as an inexhaustible scenic commodity.

a n a dm i n i st rat i ve h istory of gr and c a nyon nati ona l pa r k