PIPE SPRING Cultures at a Crossroads: An Administrative History

Water Issues

The spring and summer of 1956 were particularly dry seasons. In April 1956 Heaton reported, "Brinkerhoff [a local stockman] is hauling water for his cattle as his ponds are dried up." [1818] That July hot and dry weather conditions required Heaton to keep water running into irrigation ditches almost constantly to preserve the monument's trees and meadow. [1819]

As part of the federal claims to waters of the Lower Colorado River (the Arizona v. California case mentioned in Part VIII), the Park Service's chief of lands sent an inquiry about water usage to Pipe Spring National Monument. [1820] Heaton reported that the water his family used was unmetered: "The water is taken directly from the spring and no restrictions are made to its use." [1821] Heaton was using the old Army connection installed above the division weir for the family's domestic water supply, although Indian Service officials had protested this arrangement in March 1942 (see Part VI). Heaton also stated that about 5 acres were being irrigated, broken down as follows: 2 acres of meadow, 2.5 acres of trees (including the campground), and .5 acres of garden. On May 29, 1956, the Park Service made a partial statement of claims. It stated that Pipe Spring obtained its water through Kanab Creek, a tributary to Lake Mead. [1822]

During 1956, in connection with federal claims in the Arizona v. California case, Zion officials (on behalf of Chief A. van V. Dunn, Water Resources Section) asked Heaton more questions about Pipe Spring water. He reported that the flow of Pipe Spring "has remained a steady flow year in and year out, never a change regardless of the weather conditions..." [1823] Before 1925, all water was confined to the area within 200 yards of the spring itself for stock watering and irrigation of the meadow and orchard. [1824] For about 10 years prior to 1934, water was run into a stock pond just west of the monument. Since the 1934 tri-partite division, spring flow had not left the monument except for the water piped to the stockmen's and Indians' reservoirs, Heaton stated.

A water rights docket was assembled for Pipe Spring National Monument in 1957 as a basis for water claims in Arizona v. California. Chief Dunn informed Regional Director Miller in April 1957 that the Park Service and Indian Service were making an effort to present consistent Departmental claims in the case. "This may also reopen the question of whether the Park Service should file and appropriation application," Dunn wrote. [1825]

In April 1958 Heaton received a telegram from the WODC, asking for measurements of the spring flow. He informed the office that none had been taken since May 1934 when Park Service Engineer A. E. Cowell and Indian Service Engineer N. A. Hall took measurements. Another official gathering data for the Arizona v. California case spent 90 minutes in June querying Heaton by phone about irrigation at Pipe Springs, Moccasin, Short Creek, and other places on the Arizona Strip. A hearing on the Arizona v. California case was scheduled for May 2, 1958, in San Francisco, California, about the time the Park Service was to provide its testimony. Chief Dunn was chosen to be the chief witness, assisted by Regional Chief of Lands, John E. Kell. [1826]

In March 1959 Kell called the WODC chief's attention to the monument's general development plan and early agreements made about the division of Pipe Spring water. He recommended that planning and design take into account the one-third flow of the springs allowed to the Park Service, although he was uncertain how it was being measured. He intended to send Civil Engineer William E. ("Bill") Fields (regional office) to check on the matter "at the first opportunity." [1827] That month, Chief Dunn wrote Hugh Miller regarding Kells' concern about monument development and water limitations. Dunn wrote,

The method of distribution to stockmen has never been explained, but wasteful overflow of watering troughs would be contrary to water laws. I also believe that only about one family uses the Indian quota. That use may also be wasteful, but I believe the Indian rights would be paramount.

I believe that the division of water [in 1933] was made on no sound analysis of beneficial use or future needs. I believe the NPS development is now restricted by the one-third quota, but the Secretary has the authority to negotiate new agreements and issue new regulations. It might be well justified to make a map of the complete water system and uses and analysis of water uses by each party when convenient, to determine whether there is a waste of water. Such an investigation should be made for factual data, without stirring up the other water claimants. [1828]

No record has been located to indicate such an investigation was made at the time or in the years just following the recommendation.

No correspondence on Pipe Spring water issues was located for the early 1960s. [1829] Neither are there references to any disputes in Heaton's journal or reports for the period. It seems to have been a rare time when there were no water problems, other than pipelines of the stockmen or the Indians getting occasionally clogged up and requiring attention. The Bureau of Indian Affairs requested a number of water tests. Superintendent Herman E. O'Harra, Hopi Agency, had the water analyzed from Pipe Spring in April 1961. The laboratory results showed it good for irrigation. [1830] Apparently some surface crusting had been observed on the reservation land being irrigated by Pipe Spring water, which led to a concern about the water. Along with the test results, a program was suggested to increase the organic matter of the surface soil to reduce the crusting. The water from a new tribal well was analyzed in November 1961 and found to be too high in salt content for human use. For the same reason, its usefulness for agriculture was limited. [1831]

In December 1963, shortly after Heaton retired, Superintendent Oberhansley paid a visit to Tribal Chairman Vernon Jake to discuss the water division at the monument and the protection of archeological sites on the reservation.