# Grand Canyon - Hualapai Nation Again Attempt River Access Permit Fees



## GCPBA (Oct 22, 2009)

*GCPBA RiverNews 1/30/2019 - Hualapai Nation Again Attempt River Access Permit Fees*

It has come to GCPBA’s attention that the Hualapai Nation is, again, pursuing permit fees for being in The Grand Canyon and using the left bank between river miles 164.5 and 273.5 (Hualapai Game and Fish Public Notice, January 1, 2019). While no disrespect is meant, or intended, we disagree in the strongest terms with the tribe’s position that they have sovereignty over any land below the high water mark. 

It is GCPBA's opinion that the permit fee we all pay to Grand Canyon National Park to run the river covers camping, lunching, hiking and any other lawful activities from Lees Ferry to Lake Mead on either side of the river, at least up to the high water mark in all areas, and even higher where there are no tribal lands. 

We take this position because of the description of the Grand Canyon as written in the 1975 Enlargement Act passed by Congress. We are strongly urging The Department of Interior and GCNP staff to take immediate steps to strictly and diligently recognize, respect, and enforce the 1975 Enlargement Act boundaries as intended by Congress.

One of the issues we have with the tribe claiming jurisdiction of Grand Canyon land is maintaining the integrity of the Park as it was intended to look, and the area of land that is to be protected. Another issue is that by encroaching onto Park land it is of grave concern to many that it will set a precedent for others to make the same claims and cause the Park to be broken into a series of permit areas that would be detrimental to the experience we all desire and to the integrity of the Park itself. While the fee may seem reasonable now, at $100 per trip, just last year (June 4, 2018 ) the fee was $100 per person (see our report of this here: Hualapai Land Access Fee).

If the tribe’s claim of jurisdiction is upheld or affirmed, what is to stop the tribe from increasing that fee to $200, $300, or more per person at some time in the future? Boaters would have no way to have their voices heard on the issue before it would be enacted. 

Grand Canyon National Park belongs to all Americans and it should be available to them as a cohesive unit, unbroken and undivided, for its entire length for all to enjoy. The last thing anyone wants to see in the Grand Canyon is an increase of activity such as is happening at Quartermaster Canyon.

We would also like to take this opportunity to urge all river runners to report any contact with any tribal entity regarding permits to use the land on the left bank from river miles 164.5 and 273.5 to GCNP staff and to GCPBA. It is imperative that we document any interactions going forward so as to have a record of any Hualapai claims made on land owned by the American people.

GCPBA RiverNews is a service of Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association.

Join and Support GCPBA. Visit our website www.gcpba.org*.
*We are on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/groups/1424392787831584


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi All,

A few river runners have contacted me regarding the announcement above from the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association (GCPBA) claiming river runners need not purchase a Hualapai Tribe river camping permit.

To be clear, we at River Runners For Wilderness (www.rrfw.org) will continue to encourage all do-it-yourself river runners to abide by the Hualapai Tribe requirements for camping on their lands up to the water's edge. This includes purchasing a Hualapai Tribe river trip camping permit. Having a Tribe approved camping permit is especially important since the actual boundary between the Tribe and Grand Canyon National Park has yet to be defined in a court of law. 

The Hualapai Tribe has every right to cite a river group for trespass if that group does not have a Tribal camping permit and is found camping by the river on tribal land. The NPS will not come to the defense of a river party who finds themselves in tribal court for trespass.

It is beyond me why any nonprofit group collecting dues from members would tell those members to disregard purchasing the Hualapai Tribe river trip camping permit. To do so subjects those members to possible arrest, confiscation of river gear, and transport to tribal court.

The Hualapai Tribe has graciously reduced the per person fee from $100 per person to $100 per group, or $6.25 per person for a group of 16 people. The one-time camping fee allows multinight camping on Hualapai Tribal land adjacent to the Colorado River.

The GCPBA states they are concerned that future rate increases may occur. The answer to that is to work with the Hualapai Tribe, not fight them. The announcement also states the 1975 Grand Canyon Enlargement Act supports their claim that a Hualapai Tribe camping permit is not required, yet they fail to state where in the Act this is stated. 

Paying a camping fee to establish a river camp on the shores of a First Nation is nothing new. River runners who camp on river left while floating the San Juan River in southern Utah are required to purchase a Navajo Nation camping permit. Just because river runners have not been required to acknowledged Hualapai Tribal land in the past is no reason to continue that practice today and into the future. 

Hualapai Tribe river permits may be obtained by calling the Hualapai Nation Game and Fish Department at 928-769-2227 or 928-769-1122 or by email at [email protected]

Cordially Yours, Tom Martin 
Volunteer Council Member
River Runners For Wilderness


----------



## JHimick (May 12, 2006)

*Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act*

https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/sites/default/files/gc_Enlargement Act.pdf


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Jhimick, Thank you for posting the Act. There is much in the Act that defines the traditional use areas and boundary change as it relates to the Havasupai Nation in Havasu Canyon, but the Hualapai Tribe gets not one mention. Not one. Thank you again, Cordially yours, Tom


----------



## mikepart (Jul 7, 2009)

You guys recently posted a bogus "report" claiming that the high water mark coincides with a ridiculous flow of 860,000 cfs and you used that jacked up "report" to imply that rafters didn't need to purchase a Hualapai permit. As far as I am concerned, GCPBA has lost any reliability that I may previously have afforded it regarding issues within the Grand Canyon.


If you are willing to admit that you have sinned and attempted to mislead the river community, then perhaps you will regain some moral authority to discuss what land belongs to the Hualapai Nation and what belongs to the NPS, but until then, I will consider GCPBA as a propaganda organization that has no regard for common sense and facts.


Why am I so perturbed? I will tell you: In these times, facts have been consistently thrown to the wayside or mischaracterized to fit a person's or group's interests. Whether it's Trump, the Flat Earth Society, or GCPBA, it doesn't matter. Fake facts and fake science hurt our society. Regardless of whether you think your intentions are altruistic, you must admit that the tribe has a legitimate claim to lands on the left side of the river and those claims are most certainly not restricted to a your bogus claim that the high water mark extends 100 vertical feet from the river.


Come back to reality and restrict your claims of river runner's rights to camp on the sandy beaches and riparian vegetation on river left and 
I will support your efforts. Continue to misrepresent the facts and challenge the tribe's sovereignty and I will have nothing to do with GCPBA.


----------



## GCPBA (Oct 22, 2009)

Thank you for the comments GCPBA received regarding our January 31 report of the Hualapai Nation's ongoing intention to require Grand Canyon river runners pay for a Hualapai river access permit for an area of land along the Colorado River that they claim as theirs. This is quite a divisive issue; opinions regarding requiring a Hualapai permit in addition to a Grand Canyon National Park river permit were on both sides of it. 

Our report was too brief. We should have included more background information related to ownership claims of that land, regardless of the space it would have taken.

The issue arises from the 1975 Grand Canyon Enlargement Act and a subsequent 1976 Department of the Interior's opinion from it. It addressed the boundary between the Hualapai Nation and Grand Canyon National Park.

From the 1976 memorandum: "The Hualapai asserts that it owns at least half of the bed of the River adjacent to its upland reservation...By virtue of a (U.S. Government) Executive Order of 1883, the reservation was established at the high water level of the Colorado River." 

Today, we still have a dispute between the Hualapai and the Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS), and Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) regarding the land boundary between Colorado River miles 164.5 and 273.5. The Hualapai believe that the land along those miles at the left side of the Colorado River is theirs. 

However, they recently acknowledged to us that GCNP claims otherwise. Noncommercial river runners are told by the current GCNP noncommercial river trip regulations, "Between river miles 165 to 274 the river left side of the canyon above the historic high water line is Hualapai Tribal Land."

The Hualapai reject that claim, saying their own claim is correct, that they also own the land alongside the river.

For many years, during our meetings with the Hualapai and the NPS, GCPBA has been urging resolution of the boundary issue.

Regarding the Hualapai river access permit and fee, this has recently become an increasingly contentious issue between the Hualapai and what they claim are trespassing river runners. 

July 11, 2017, at a GCNP public meeting, the Hualapai announced an intention to charge river runners a $30 per person, per night fee for camping on river left between miles 164.5 and 273.5. GCPBA met the Hualapai and discussed with them that it was a very unrealistic situation for river runners to accurately predict before a river trip launches the days they would be that far downriver, ready to camp for the night. This would not resolve their trespassing claim.

June 4, 2018, the Hualapai changed their river access permit fee to a flat $100 per person, for camping for any number of days. At that time, this was the same fee that GCNP charged every noncommercial river runner for a Grand Canyon trip. (GCNP is now at $110 per person.) The Hualapai also announced they would be patrolling that portion of the Colorado River, but did not elaborate on how they would do this and what the consequences would be for violators.

After this, GCPBA again contacted the Hualapai to discuss their revised permit and fee intention. We didn't do so with the purpose of wanting them to eliminate their requirement for a river access permit with a fee. We did so to inform them that as the land ownership is in dispute, and with what GCNP regulations tell river runners, river runners might still choose to refuse to acquire one of their permits and pay another fee in addition to the river permit fee already paid to GCNP. River runners are told by GCNP that GCNP's noncommercial river trip permit is for camping along the entire length of the river. 

They listened and acted. January 1, 2019, the Hualapai issued another river access permit fee change, this time to $100 per trip, covering everybody on the trip for their entire time along Hualapai's claimed land along the Colorado River. We thanked them. This is a much more agreeable fee structure, one river runners would be likely to pay should they choose to, even with the land ownership in dispute.

To be clear, GCPBA recognizes that ownership of that land along the Colorado River is in dispute, but we follow GCNP's regulations and the legal opinion that the Hualapai land is above the historic high water line, not along the Colorado River. 

GCNP intends to protect the Grand Canyon in an undeveloped condition, unlike the Hualapai's Quartermaster helicopter area and their Skywalk, and a developer's recent attempt for approval to build a tourist tram on Navajo Nation land down to the river, near the Colorado River and Little Colorado River confluence. 

Every noncommercial river trip should make its own decision of whether or not they want to buy a permit from the Hualapai.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

To the GCPBA, Please stop putting river runners in harm's way. Until this border issue is settled in Federal Court (called an adjudication hearing, typically lasting years or decades), please join River Runners For Wilderness and encourage river runners to be safe and get the Hualapai Tribe camping permit. It costs a cup of designer Starbucks coffee per person for a group of 16 people for multiple nights. 

If you insist on posting more about this issue, please acknowledge you are mis-quoting and mis-attributing two key historical documents. Let's cut to the chase:

1) The GCPBA cites a 1976 National Park Service field solicitors opinion as the basis of the GCPBA claim. This is not the Tribes claim. The GCPBA quotes that 1976 NPS lawyer's opinion as stating: "By virtue of a (U.S. Government) Executive Order of 1883, the reservation was established at the high water level of the Colorado River." 

2) The 1883 document does not say what the field solicitor claims. The 1883 document states the reservation line starts “at a point on the Colorado River” then south, east, and north, finishing by going “north thirty miles to the Colorado River; thence along said river to the place of beginning”. “To” and “along” – that’s it. 

Nothing about middles or water marks, high or low. 

Jeff Ingram, who helped write the 1975 Enlargement Act, goes further. Ingram writes "But consider this: Lieutenant Palfrey of the Engineers Office, who wrote the Reservation description and drew the line on the map and signed it, went down Peach Spring Canyon, then Diamond Creek to the river. So he stood there, or sat on his horse, and looked at the river. It was June. Did he look out and fasten on the middle of the river as necessary for Hualapai prosperity? Did he look up and about, to discover how high the river might come? I don’t think so. I think he just thought of the river flowing along as a nice boundary line to mark off all those acres running south from there, thousands of acres where the Hualapai had lived for generations. And so he said the line would run from then around and on up to the river, then back along it. Along its edge. He could have said “middle” or “high water”, if he wanted; but it sufficed to describe a line “to and along” the water’s edge – a good marker for the survey that was to come."

For additional reading on NPS borders, see https://gcfutures.blogspot.com/2019/01/common-sense-on-river-and-off-it.html

Most cordially yours, Tom Martin


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

By the way, I'll try to get the Field solicitors opinion up on line for everyone to read. Till this gets adjudicated in court, get the Hualapai Tribe camping permit and have a trouble free river trip. Camping permits for river runners may be obtained by calling the Hualapai Nation Game and Fish Department at 928-769-2227 or 928-769-1122 or by email at [email protected] Happy river trails, Tom Martin


----------



## IDriverRunner (Aug 18, 2015)

Tom, thank you for that response!


----------



## waterdude (Apr 20, 2017)

Ugh. I've become increasingly disgusted by the continuing effort by the GCPBA to disrespect and undermine the sovereignty of the Hualapai Nation, now by outright encouraging trespassing to fit their baseless claims. While supposedly advocating for a community of river runners, they are rather acting as renegades with disinformation campaigns such as this and recent fallacious claims of "historic" high water marks predicated on junk science, which only otherwise serves to inflames tensions between all stakeholders. It makes me wonder why they should even be involved at all in in any discussion between the tribe or managing gov agencies, considering these hostile actions. However, I do have faith in the real community of honest, respectful river folks they will speak up and against this unethical behavior, further isolating this group of entitled mouth-breathers and their baseless propaganda. As it's been pointed out, this camping permit remains a trivial expense in the Grand scheme of things and its an important source of revenue for a First Nation that has very limited sources of economic prosperity.


----------



## johnryan (Feb 6, 2013)

Oh boy, what a mess this has become! The Hualapai want people to buy one of their permits, GCPBA brings in the damn lawyers, cites something from over 100 years ago, and says you might not really need to buy it, and Tom gets on a high horse and says to just buy it for a few bucks and be done with it and don't risk trespassing.

Can't a guy just go boating and have a beer at riverside?


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

johnryan said:


> Oh boy, what a mess this has become! The Hualapai want people to buy one of their permits, GCPBA says you may or may not really need it, and Tom gets on a high horse and says to just buy it for a few bucks and be done with it and don't risk trespassing.
> 
> Can't a guy just go boating and have a beer at riverside?


Yeah... it kinda sucks that there is so much animosity between the two major private boater groups leadership. IMHO, this is the biggest reason why its hard to get anything done in regards to private boater advocacy and why its so skewed towards the concessions companies.

All the Commercial companies are unified behind clearly written goals with plenty of money and influence to back them. Meanwhile, the two biggest non-commercial advocacy organizations disagree and fight as much or more with each other as they do with the concessions.

I can't think of a solution other then either getting rid of the leadership in both organizations (not likely) or starting a new more unified group in hopes that more people might drop their ego's and unify with each other. Both of the current organizations seem to care more about being right in their own minds then actually getting anything done.


----------



## newpc (Aug 3, 2009)

Personally its not worth the risk to be the gcpba's test case. Its $100. For a group of 16 that's $6.25 per person. For the entire trip. Let someone else play games with the tribe. For my part I don't mind paying even $500. Which seems to be a big worry that the price may go up. I don't know, that extra $20 might be the deciding factor in if I go on a 21 day trip or not....NOT!


----------



## newpc (Aug 3, 2009)

Electric-Mayhem said:


> Yeah... it kinda sucks that there is so much animosity between the two major private boater groups leadership. IMHO, this is the biggest reason why its hard to get anything done in regards to private boater advocacy and why its so skewed towards the concessions companies.


 I disagree. These are but 2 private boater groups out of hundreds. You either want the grand canyon a wilderness or you don't. You either want equitable permit distribution or you don't. You either want no motors allowed or you don't. This animosity is nothing more than a core difference of opinions. Its ok that we all don't agree, and its ok to have two vibrant, yet different, groups pursuing private boater rights. The more the merrier.


----------



## trevko (Jul 7, 2008)

newpc said:


> You either want the grand canyon a wilderness or you don't. You either want equitable permit distribution or you don't. You either want no motors allowed or you don't.


If it were only that simple and black and white. I think the issues between GCPBA and RRFW are a bit more nuanced and personality driven than that.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Most people who take trips through the Grand Canyon have little or no interest in the complications and ambiguities stirred up by some over the location of the boundaries of the National Park and the Hualapai Reservation. 

River Runners For Wilderness (RRFW) offers guidance to river runners in order that they may have a smooth, enjoyable trip as far as rules and regulations are concerned. 

RRFW accepts that the Hualapai Tribe has a legitimate claim to the left bank of the Colorado along their Reservation’s north boundary (river mile 165.2 to 273.9), and therefore advises river runners to purchase the Tribe’s permit allowing travelers to land on and use the left bank for camp stops.

At present, the Tribe prohibits travel away from the river shore, e.g., hikes up side canyons. RRFW hopes that future discussions with the Hualapai might make some of these very interesting places open to day hikes. Positive experiences by users and the Hualapai over campsite permitting in the next few years might help bring such discussions about. 

Contrariwise, conflict over and non-compliance with Hualapai permitting would contribute to a hostile attitude by the Tribe toward river runners. The worst case could involve Hualapai law enforcement actions leading to trip interruption and court action bringing an absolutely undesirable cloud over river running in that 109-mile stretch. 
____________________________________________________________________

The following technical footnote on the complications and ambiguities of the NPS-Hualapai boundary issue are from Jeff Ingram, one of the authors of the 1975 Grand Canyon Enlargement Act:

To start with, the two boundaries may not coincide, since the government actions setting them were taken independently for different purposes at different times. For those who enjoy life’s ambiguities, here are some of the actions. 

*Park:* The 1975 Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act established its boundary by use of a map with the notation along the Hualapai Reservation: “Boundary on South Bank of Colorado River (River Mile; 164.8 to 273.1)”.

The principal sponsor of that Act, Senator Barry Goldwater, wanted two results among the many purposes of his bill: 1.To respect existing rights of any “Indian tribe or nation”; 
2.To unify administration of all traffic on the river under the National Park Service at Grand Canyon National Park.

Actions and documents during congressional consideration of the bill made clear that the river meant “all the water surface from the Paria junction to the Grand Wash Cliffs”, reinforced by a wilderness study provision that included all that river surface. 

However, there was no comment on “on”; so where “on South Bank” did the boundary lie? By implication, it lay only so that the “entire water surface of the river” would be in the Park. That was all that was necessary to accomplish the legislation’s purpose.

For sure, according to other, protective, language, it could not lie anywhere that it would take the land of any “Indian tribe or nation” without the approval of such tribe or nation. Of course, this meant the Navajo as well as the Hualapai. 

Soon after the Act’s passage, Park Superintendent Stitt asserted in a meeting with the Hualapai that he interpreted the Act to mean that the Park had jurisdiction to the “historic high water mark/line”. There ensued a flurry of letters and statements between Hualapai and congressional offices, demanding clarification to the point that the Hualapai’s 25-year-old claim to the middle of the river was not affected by the Act. All that resulted was the reassurance that no Indian land had been taken and could not be without their approval--_status quo ante._

Not sated, the Park Service went to Interior’s Assistant Solicitor, Parks and Recreation, asking for a legal analysis of this boundary issue. The written result, from R.G.Mihan, field solicitor in San Francisco, is his 6 February 1976 “summary of the research and position developed by this office to the effect that by virtue of an Executive Order of 1883, the reservation was established at the high water level while the title to the bed of the River (had passed to Arizona in 1912).” The three underlined phrases are lawyerese for “in my opinion”. There had never been any court actions that looked at the Hualapai claim, so all this office-bound official in San Francisco, likely ignorant of the Colorado River and it vagaries, could do was thrash around in other people’s precedents, looking for something to hang onto. 

But please note: He wrote only: “the high water level”. Later, he wrote “the high-water mark”. The word “historic” never appears; it remained, as it still does, an invention of the Park Service.

More to the point, Mr Mihan’s “research and position” make clear his reliance on the river being navigable, which is also the point of the 1975 Act--to make this navigable water surface, this Colorado River, subject to the unified administration of the Park. Once again, as with “ON South Bank”, ambiguity is not resolved. That is, Mihan ignores the intent of the bill to apply only to the navigable water surface, although in another place, he writes that the boundary went to “and today goes to, the south bank” and “still remains on the south bank”.

It is an important part of this matter’s ambiguities that “the south bank” is nowhere mentioned in the documents dealing with the establishment of the Reservation (see below). True, the Park boundary is set on the south bank, but the 1975 Act said nothing about the Hualapai Reservation boundary. This is not merely hand-waving. The boundary of Lake Mead National Recreation Area was set by its 1964 establishment Act to include the northern *one-third *of the Reservation. However, this land grab could occur only if the Tribe agreed. Of course, it never did -- although USGS “official” quads for years showed the LMNRA boundary running deep into Hualapai land. 

Furthermore, since Senator Goldwater wanted to protect the eastern, Navajo, Marble, rim of the Grand Canyon, the Act includes that land in the Park “subject to Navajo” approval, though the Navajo had told him they never would approve. Nevertheless, to keep the ambiguities rolling, official NPS maps and others still show the Park boundary along the Navajo Reservation, not on the rivers’ banks, but up on the rim, thus enshrining another NPS fantasy. (Fortunately, the Navajo proved their stewardship when they rejected a white Phoenix schemer’s plot to enrich himself by getting approval for a soul-destroying industrial tourism disneyland overlooking and intruding down to the junction of the Colorado and Little Colorado.) 

The Hualapai and their long-time lawyer steamed and stewed over the 1976 opinion setback to their claim. Finally, but against the lawyer’s advice, the Tribe asked Interior’s Solicitor to review and reconsider, which he did in 25 November 1997. Interestingly, Solicitor Leshy again speaks of the Reservation boundary on “the south bank” in denying that it is “the thread or middle of the Colorado”--the 1976 decision had dealt with a claim to “half of the bed of the River”. And he states the 1976 conclusion is correct that “the Executive Order of January 4, 1883 did not include the bed of the Colorado River”. There seems to be an unwillingness on these lawyers’ parts to engage with that Hualapai claim, stated as going to the _haitat_ or middle, of the river, and whether that means the middle of the flowing river or, what is never mentioned in the Hualapai’s papers on this matter, the river’s bed. Maybe this is inconsequential, but the fog of ambiguity hangs thick.

Anyway, Leshy, too, talks only of the boundary being set by the proclamation language that “intended to, and did, fix the boundary at the high water mark on the south bank of the Colorado, rather than extending to the thread or middle of the River.” Again, no mention of “historic”. He spends most of his memo on looking at orders and other documents with language contemporaneous with the Hualapai establishment in order to conclude that the bed of the river was not included. 

Most important, Leshy went on to deal with Mihan’s arguments over the river being navigable, and distinguishes navigability for “Commerce Clause purposes” and “title purposes”. And then says he has no opinion about,“and there is no case adjudicating” the Colorado’s navigability. (No record of whether he ever took a river trip through the Grand Canyon.) 

Of course, it is not really a question; Powell’s 1869 trip was proof of navigability in fact. Leshy’s discussion brings out that what the 1975 Act did was assert federal power under the Commerce Clause to declare for the river, being navigable, a unified administration by NPS at Grand Canyon National Park. However, as he points out, this was not an assertion of navigability for title purposes, and therefore his conclusion is based solely on the 1883 language fixing the reservation boundary “at the high water mark”.

*Reservation:* In the years 1880-3, the U.S.Army figured large in Havasupai and Hualapai matters, establishing reservations for both. The main figures were Lt. Colonel Price, a field commander, and Lieutenant Palfrey, a technical sort. Based on archived documents, they were both deeply involved in the decisions about boundaries. Significantly, Palfrey is described as going down to the river at Diamond Creek in June 1881 when he was drafting the Reservation boundary order and drawing up (and signing) a map. No record of what he saw, but river runners will have an idea of what the river looks like, flowing along, not a drought year, not a flood. So he looked, and concluded that it would make a good boundary. 

So here is where he put into the boundary language description: 
“Beginning at a point on the Colorado River”, then south, then southeast, then east, then northeast, then north “to the Colorado River, thence along said river to the place of beginning”. 

Beginning* on *the river, then south. North *to *the river. Then *along* said river to start.

To the river and along it. No mention of high water line or river bed or middle. No historic. No south bank, or any bank. Palfrey is standing there looking at the river flowing by, and writes down “to, and along”. Any river runner today can stand as he stood and know what “to, and along” means. A boat floats by; it is on the river (NPS jurisdiction). It comes over and bumps on the shore; it is on the south bank. The rower gets out and walks around, and is not on the river, but on land (Hualapai land).

So what does “high water mark” mean? What it meant in 1881? If Palfrey had been testifying in a court case (he lived another 30 years or so)?

Or, pre-1960, what it meant based on average flow years? Or peak flow years? Or the biggest flood anybody can find evidence for?
Or what it means, with the big concrete plug upstream since the 1960’s? The water level going up and down a little every day depending on electric demand. Or boosted by those experimental floods and bug flows? 

Is the Park Service going to send an expedition, with historical hydrologists and fence builders and rock painters and sign posters, and mark off its “historic” high water line, and then police it, chasing off the Hualapai? Is this NPS Fence Force going to land at Diamond Creek, and take possession up to the, drums and horns please, Historic High Water Line?

Remember: The Hualapai boundary comes down to the river and runs along it.

The 1975 Park Act gives NPS administration over the navigable river, its water surface.

You are on your boat, the river floating it; you are under NPS care.
You are walking about, off your boat, on river left; you are guests of the Hualapai.

How simple it is.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

By the way, the Grand Canyon river concessionaires have a local trade association and two national trade associations, one for outfitters and guides and one for concessions in general, to help lobby for what they want. 

I think there is room for ten more do-it-yourself river running groups to jump into the advocacy arena. I will be honored to work side by side with those willing to follow the Organic Act of the National Park Service, who hold dear the Wilderness Act and the role commercial services are to play in wilderness. 

Personally, I will not work with do-it-yourself groups that place access in front of resource protection, sign ten year agreements with the river concessions trade association, hide that from their members, and block any attempts by others to drop the one trip per year rule in the dead of winter. 

You sure can, but I won't agree to allow the Havasupai Nation to charge river runners access to NPS land, fight to take land from the Hualapai and Navajo Nation, and say that the present river management plan for Grand Canyon is just great.

And I won't agree with any group that thinks DIY group sizes of 16 people or 8 people should be happy to watch concessions trips of 42 people motor on by to score the DIY's intended camp. I won't agree to be thrilled that 186 DIY trips and 683 commercial trips launch in the summer, where the concessions cater to 17,451 commercial passengers while 2,435 DIY boaters get to run the river during the same time period. 

Everyone has an ego, and to say the troubles between the groups are ego driven is a way to shoot messengers. This Grand Canyon river mismanagement is so much bigger than anyone's egos... 

I am most cordially yours, Tom Martin


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

newpc said:


> I disagree. These are but 2 private boater groups out of hundreds. You either want the grand canyon a wilderness or you don't. You either want equitable permit distribution or you don't. You either want no motors allowed or you don't. This animosity is nothing more than a core difference of opinions. Its ok that we all don't agree, and its ok to have two vibrant, yet different, groups pursuing private boater rights. The more the merrier.


Agree or not...but the fact that there are many small disparate and underfunded groups of private boaters trying to go up against the VERY unified front that the Concessions company's have is the number one reason why the concessions have garnered the favor of the NPS and Politicians. I'm sure there are plenty of disagreements among the owners and management at the concessions companies...but at the end of the day they come together and stand with each other when it comes to representing their interests to those who matter.

Meanwhile, the only interaction I see between RRFW and GCPBA is butting heads and arguing. I fall more towards the RRFW side in that I would love to see motorized use be reduced along with equal representation and I've never been particularly pleased to see the GCPBA side with the concessions groups as much as they do. I'm not a member and have never gone to a GCPBA meeting...but it seems like the leadership there aren't really representing the average river runners views.

While I'll admit it may have started with a difference of opinion...it has certainly grown into a much more personal argument between the leadership of both RRFW and GCPBA if the arguments I've seen online and having conversations with people involved more deeply then I am. I don't see anyone involved patching things up....so it feels like new leadership with cooler heads and more willingness to have constructive interaction is needed.

If I'm honest... while I haven't looked very hard for any other Grand Canyon specific river runner advocacy groups... the only ones I've heard of or see on a regular basis and which have a significant number of supporters are GCPBA and RRFW. I'd love to hear and support a more moderate advocacy group so if that exists they should probably do a better job speaking up and getting the word out in places where private River Runners hang out.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

Quote- At present, the Tribe prohibits travel away from the river shore, e.g., hikes up side canyons. RRFW hopes that future discussions with the Hualapai might make some of these very interesting places open to day hikes. Positive experiences by users and the Hualapai over campsite permitting in the next few years might help bring such discussions about. -Quote

That would be one very awesome outcome of building and maintaining good relations with the Hualapai nation, and would enhance the over all GC river running experience for many boaters.

I personally feel like the Hualapai and other original nations have been messed with enough in our nations past, and would prefer to work with them in a respectful manner, if at all possible, if that means yielding the benefit of the land ownership disagreement, until/ or if, it is ever resolved. 

I took out at Diamond Creek for a 25 day trip last month, and I have to say, being able to use there land to take out for our trip, opened up a ton of extra time for enjoying the rest of the Canyon. 

I was also kinda shocked just how poor Peach Springs looked on the way out. I can't really begrudge paying a $100 to camp on that side of the river, if they feel the vague 1883 document gives that strip of land to them.

Just my opinion, everyone has there own.


Matt


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

mattman said:


> Quote- At present, the Tribe prohibits travel away from the river shore, e.g., hikes up side canyons. RRFW hopes that future discussions with the Hualapai might make some of these very interesting places open to day hikes. Positive experiences by users and the Hualapai over campsite permitting in the next few years might help bring such discussions about. -Quote
> 
> That would be one very awesome outcome of building and maintaining good relations with the Hualapai nation, and would enhance the over all GC river running experience for many boaters.
> 
> ...


I agree that $100 is a small price to pay to access everything on that side of the river.

The press release the Hualapai released says "camping and sightseeing" on it but also says "no backcountry hiking". Neither is really clarified on what they mean. To me "sightseeing" would involve a certain level of being able to see attractions away from the river bank. It would be nice if there was a document that lays out the stipulations involved with getting the permit and what it allows and does not allow in the eyes of the tribe.

I've seen a lot of people say that "there is so much poverty...just give them the money" but it is not clear to me that any of the fee money would make it to the poor people you saw in Peach Springs or other towns around the reservation. I guess at the end of the day its not any of my business how this gets spent...but I'm also under no illusion that its gonna make a ton of difference to the people the worst off in the Hualapai reservation.

Edit: Someone just posted this on one of the GC facebook pages... 

_When I paid for my permit for our upcoming trip, I specifically asked the ranger if we could hike in National Canyon and he told me yes.

I was going to call before our launch and ask again, but if I understand him correctly you should be ok._

Looks like they, at least for now and according to one Ranger, are cool with people accessing side hikes from the river.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

Electric-Mayhem said:


> I agree that $100 is a small price to pay to access everything on that side of the river.
> 
> The press release the Hualapai released says "camping and sightseeing" on it but also says "no backcountry hiking". Neither is really clarified on what they mean. To me "sightseeing" would involve a certain level of being able to see attractions away from the river bank. It would be nice if there was a document that lays out the stipulations involved
> 
> ...


Good to know Electric, will definitely ask them about it if in the future, as far as there view on going up side canyon's at all. 

Wouldn't be surprised if none of the permit money makes it to places like peach springs, either. Thinking about it a little more, that permit money most likely just stays with the fish and game Department ( same as many permits in this country, I believe.)

Not any of my business what they do with $ either. Am happy to not antagonize relations, if I can help it, bout the sum of what I got to say on the matter,

Happy Boating!


----------



## rocknsnow (Jun 9, 2021)

Sounds like the fees are now per person again? Can't find any other information regarding them? Park webpage says to call a number there - no answer, left a message but have not heard back?









Hualapai Tribe raises fees for Colorado River rafters


GRAND CANYON — River runners embarking on trips down the Colorado River along the Grand Canyon’s western side will need to hand over more cash this year, after the Hualapai Tribal Council approved...




apnews.com


----------



## Nanko (Oct 20, 2020)

“Unfortunately, for many years there have been members of the public who have not respected these lands.”

...say the benefactors of the Skywalk and a bunch more unsavory stuff. I mean, I respect their right to do what they want, but the hypocrisy is just ridiculous.


----------

