PIPE SPRING Cultures at a Crossroads: An Administrative History

Utah and the Arizona Strip: Ethnographic and Historical Background

The Pipe Spring "Compromise"

Shortly after Dr. Edgar A. Farrow was appointed superintendent of the Kaibab Agency in 1917, he became concerned about the manner in which the Heatons were using the main spring at Moccasin. He particularly objected to the two-inch pipe installed by the Heatons which had for years been diverting water from the main spring to property owned by the Heatons prior to its reaching the measurement weir. In 1918, in anticipation of legal action that the Agency might take against the Heatons to protect the Indians' share of Moccasin Spring water, Farrow began trying to track down the history of the Indians' water and land rights in Moccasin. He wrote Jonathan Heaton an innocent-sounding letter, stating that his objective was to gather data "relative to matters pertaining to the reservation," which would be useful to future superintendents: "...To this end I am asking you to advise me in detail as to your knowledge of the rights of the Indians in the water of Moccasin Spring, how they obtained such rights, when and from whom if possible." [284]

17. Map of Kaibab Reservation, Arizona, 1921
(Courtesy National Archives, Record Group 75).

In response to Farrow's request, Jonathan Heaton's brief response is cited in full:

In answer to your ____ [indecipherable] to the Indians share of the water at Moccasin, will say that the old Kannan Cattle Company bought 1/3 of the Sand Spring water with about 11 acres of land af. [from] Lewis Allen. Then the Mormon Church bought it af. [from] the Kannan Co. and gave it to the Kane Co. Indians without any remuneration.

A man by the name of James Maxwell was the first white settler at Moccasin. [285]

["Kannan" should be spelled "Canaan" Cattle Company. "James Maxwell" should be William B. Maxwell.]

Farrow forwarded a copy of Heaton's handwritten reply to the Office of Indian Affairs with a letter detailing his concerns. He was convinced the Heatons were cheating the Indians of their water, not only by the two-inch diversion pipe above the weir, but by occasionally obstructing the workings of the weir, both of which jeopardized the Indians' water supply. Upon receipt of his letter, the Office of Indian Affairs searched their files in attempt to document the use of Moccasin Spring. One piece of information they sent Farrow was an excerpt from the 1911 report made by Special Agent Creel, cited earlier. While sending this and other information to Farrow, Assistant Commissioner E. B. Meritt stated, "Nothing in the nature of a deed or other evidence of title under which the Indians acquired their share of the flow of Moccasin Springs as a gift from elders of the Mormon Church, is in evidence here." [286] Meritt then offered a rationale for why his office had not pursued the oft-recommended purchase of the Heatons' two-thirds rights to Moccasin Spring:

For your information it may be said that ever since Inspector Chubbuck's visit to this locality there has been more or less consideration given to the acquisition from the Heatons of the so-called Moccasin Ranch and their interest in Moccasin Springs, but the valuation placed thereon has been more than it was thought the property was reasonably worth. It is understood that the Heatons themselves have only 'squatters' rights, arising through occupancy, the lands being unsurveyed preventing them from acquiring absolute title thereto. Interference with the flow of water to which the Indians are entitled may be a move on the part of the Heatons to cause the Government to acquire their rights in order to avoid further difficulty. These latter suggestions are offered solely for your information and, of course, are to be regarded as confidential. [287]

Farrow responded with a suggestion to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, one which - had it been carried out - would have had a direct and immediate impact on Pipe Spring:

My proposal is as follows: That we offer to Mr. Heaton a compromise in the shape of allowing him to continue with his two-inch pipe at the Sand Spring provided he will in exchange lay a one-inch pipe from Pipe Spring to a point in the so-called Pipe Pasture, known also as the West Pasture, giving to the Government a perpetual title to the capacity of this pipe, the pipe together with the right of way to be furnished by Mr. Heaton and to become the property of the United States without remuneration...

An arrangement of this kind would result in a solution of the water problem in the West Pasture, which after the expiration of the present permit (June 1, 1919) could be used either as a bull pasture or allowed to grow up for winter range. I am convinced that this arrangement would eventually be of more advantage to the reservation and the Indians than the elimination of the two-inch pipe at Moccasin and at the same time it suggests an opportunity for the Heaton corporation to give the reservation value received for what they are undoubtedly obtaining more than their due without interrupting their present arrangement.

I am submitting this proposition to the office for approval before taking the matter up with Mr. Heaton.

In this connection I would say that in my letter of July 16... [in which] I discussed the title to Pipe Spring and referred the matter to your office for investigation and am of the opinion that before any action is taken on the plan proposed in this letter that we determine definitely whether Mr. Heaton's title has any special value. If, however, we found that his title might be invalid and we could at the same time prevail upon him to agree to our proposition and actually lay the proposed pipe, we could immediately place a filing on the amount of water thus appropriated and in this manner establish for the United States an unquestionable title. [288]

Farrow included a sketch map with his letter that showed the Pipe Spring water would have to be piped approximately 1,320 feet. It is worth noting his reference to plans for the "west pasture." He did not plan on renewing the cattlemen's permit to graze their cattle on this desirable piece of land.

Assistant Commissioner E. B. Meritt responded to Farrow's suggestion with a letter that reveals the highly complicated legal aspects of the issues that pertained to both Moccasin and Pipe Spring. Most of Meritt's letter is quoted below:

The office has your letter of August 23 wherein you suggest as a possible solution of the 'Moccasin two-inch pipe problem' that 'we offer to Mr. Heaton a compromise in the shape of allowing him to continue with his two-inch pipe at the Sand Spring provided he will in exchange lay a one-inch pipe from Pipe Spring to a point in the so-called Pipe Pasture, etc.'

It is presumed that you suggest the use of a one-inch pipe in order to obtain an amount of water equal to one-half of that which Mr. Heaton obtains [at Moccasin Spring], the Indians' share in this water being one-third and Mr. Heaton's share being two-thirds. In this connection your attention is invited to the fact that a one-inch pipe will not carry one-half the water that a two-inch pipe will carry. In order to carry one-half the water that will flow through a two-inch pipe under given conditions, a one and one-half inch pipe must be employed.

Since it appears that Mr. Heaton has only 'squatter's rights' to the land which he occupies and as the title of the water used by the Indians is unsettled, it would seem to be inadvisable to take any steps which might complicate the situation; therefore, your proposal to trade, so to speak, the Indians' rights in Sand Spring for the right in Pipe Spring would seem inadvisable. This does not take into consideration that Mr. Heaton's title to Pipe Spring has not been definitely determined. If his title to this Spring should be invalid we would then have in return for the exchange only the value of the pipe laid by Mr. Heaton from Pipe Spring as proposed; furthermore, additional complications in regard to the water might develop.

Until such time as the land and water rights can be definitely fixed, some means of procuring for the Indians an actual one-third of the waters of Moccasin, or Sand Spring, should be developed... [289]

The following spring, Farrow took up the matter of the two-inch pipe with one of Jonathan Heaton's sons, Charles C. Heaton. Heaton told Farrow the history of the weir's installation by George Sears in 1907 and assured him that the water diverted by the family's disputed two-inch pipe had been taken into consideration when the measuring weir was installed below it. Farrow felt unqualified to make the measurements in order to verify the truth of Heaton's statement. [290] Meanwhile, he continued to pursue information about the Heatons' claims. In April 1919 he wrote the Mohave County Recorder to inquire if water filings had ever been recorded on either Moccasin or Pipe Spring, stating "I am attempting to fix the legal and moral rights of settlers." [291]

The above correspondence between Farrow and the Office of Indian Affairs illustrates that because the Heatons had not yet established their legal claims to Moccasin or Pipe Spring, the Agency feared negotiating with the family on the Indians' behalf with regards to either property. Any deal that the Agency made with the Heatons might later strengthen the Heatons' claims of ownership by being viewed as tacit acknowledgement of their ownership. This would in turn weaken the Agency's own position against those very claims. Consequently, no action was taken by the Agency to negotiate with the Heatons to either obtain access to Pipe Spring water or to purchase the Heatons' claimed two-thirds water rights at Moccasin. Instead, they focused their efforts on protecting the Indians' share of water from Moccasin Spring, one of the few claims in the region that was contested by absolutely no one. Farrow protested any actions taken by the Heatons that he perceived to be detrimental to the interests of the Kaibab Paiute. In September 1919 he filed a protest with the Secretary of State of Arizona over a new problem that arose in August:

I am enclosing herewith a formal protest which is self-explanatory except that it does not explain the rights and title to the water of the springs in question.

Several years ago - perhaps thirty or more - one-third of the outflow of Moccasin Springs was purchased from the squatters and given to the Indians. Since that time the squatters right to the property on which the springs are situated has come into the possession of Jonathan Heaton and sons. These people have at various times constructed a dirt dam between the outflow of the main springs and the weir constructed by the Government for the division of the water. These dams have according to the opinion of expert water men, inhibited the flow of the springs (and this fact has been proven by demonstration) and through breaking down have been a constant menace to the water supply of the Indians who use this water for culinary purposes as well as irrigation. As the Indian Camp is situated in a position that makes water unobtainable except that which comes from these springs, any obstruction of the flow is a serious matter.

Not being familiar with the law covering such cases and being unable for the moment to obtain expert legal opinion, I am entering this protest at the moment when last dam (constructed early in August, 1919) has broken down and polluted the water and obstructed the pipes. It is my intention to ask the Indian Office to enter suit for protection of the rights of the Indians and this protest is formally made as a basis of such suit.

I would consider it a favor if you would refer this document to the proper department and advise me with whom I should communicate. [292]

No response to Farrow's letter has been located. Less than two years later, in January 1921, Farrow reported to the Office of Indian Affairs that the Heatons were attempting to increase their water supply by constructing a new tunnel. He feared an imminent threat to the main spring's water supply:

The water supply of the Indians here could easily be reduced to such an extent as to destroy their fields if not to the limit of making the removal of the camp a necessity for want of water.

Inasmuch as the final settlement of the Heaton titles promises to be in the near future it seems necessary that some steps be taken to remove the menace that must always hang on the slender thread of the honesty of the owners of the Heaton ranch...

I suggest that steps be taken to tie up the land titles at Moccasin till the water is absolutely safeguarded. [293]

Two weeks later, Farrow reported to the Office of Indian Affairs that the Heatons had commenced blasting the new tunnel "just north of the old one above Jonathan Heaton's house." He maintained that the Heatons' continuing efforts to develop new water sources in Moccasin were having a negative impact on the Indians' portion of water: "The Indians insist that the water discharged into their reservoir has materially decreased in the last few years," he reported. [294] As additional proof of a reduction in water available to the Indians, he stated that he had been forced to eliminate three acres from fields and gardens irrigated on reservation lands since his arrival in 1917. He feared that if the Heatons' pending homestead claims were patented,

...and we have not safeguarded our water supply, a few blasts might easily leave us high and dry with no potable water of sufficient quantity to supply the Indians nearer than the Cottonwood farm, a matter of approximately 11 miles from the [Indian] school.

In this connection I wish to refer to Pipe Spring. Correspondence forwarded to me by the Office, which was had between the Director of Lands and the Register of Phoenix, indicated that the Valentine Scrip which had been the basis of tentative title on the part of the Pipe Springs Land & Livestock Company (Heatons) had been rejected; that appeal to the Secretary of Interior must be made within thirty days. To this date I have been unable to obtain any definite data as to the possible outcome of this claim, but have been unofficially advised that Governor Campbell of Arizona has been interested in the matter and has promised to support the claimants. If the spring and 40 acres surrounding it at Pipe had been in the hands of an actual settler who could make claim under the homestead rights and who had by his own efforts developed it, used it to advantage, and created himself a home, it would seem that at least a moral right to a title should be conceded; however, this spring has for years been in the hands of a corporation and this corporation has received many times the original cost from use; they have made no developments and I know positively that a portion of the water from this spring has been sold to the local cattlemen contingent on being able to deliver a marketable title. This sale has been made within the last year and money or value have actually changed hands as part of the option... [295]

Three important points are worth noting about Farrow's above statements. The first is that he questioned whether Pipe Spring's historical use as a cattle ranch, administered by a series of corporations, didn't disqualify its claimants from filing on it under homestead laws. Second, his reference to Arizona Governor Thomas E. Campbell's support of Heaton's case is important. Third and last, Farrow's letter of February 2, 1921, provides the earliest reference to the Heaton family's sale of one-third water rights at Pipe Spring to cattlemen.

The preceding documentation has been cited at length in order to convey the serious nature of the conflict that existed between the Heaton family of Moccasin and the Kaibab Indian Reservation's Agent and physician, Dr. Farrow. Such conflict appeared to escalate during the first few years after the reservation's formal establishment in 1917, which happened also to coincide with Farrow's arrival. [296] Issues related to competition for land and water would continue to impact relations between the Heatons and the Kaibab Paiute for years to come. Beginning in 1923, a third party would enter the fray: the National Park Service.