How the Forest Service Saved Grand Canyon

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

How the Forest Service Saved Grand Canyon In the 1960s, a proposal to build two hydroelectric dams in Grand Canyon that would have flooded the natural wonder was greeted with a huge outcry of opposition. There might not have been anything to protect if not for the actions of an unlikely hero, Forest Service Chief Henry Graves, a half-century earlier. How the Forest Service Saved Grand Canyon etween 1963 and 1968, the Sierra Club battled the Bureau of Reclamation over a plan to build hydroelectric dams downstream from the Grand Canyon National B Park and National Monument. The idea that water would back up through the national monument and into the national park galvanized a nation and spurred the growth of the environmental movement. The plan erally protected lands to various bureaus for administrative over- was scuttled—by both the Sierra Club’s massive public relations sight. After President Theodore Roosevelt declared Grand Canyon campaign and the unraveling of a political compromise among a national monument in 1908, it was given over to the U.S. Forest the seven states of the Colorado River basin—and the Grand Service, perhaps the most utilitarian of federal agencies. The Canyon has remained free of hydroelectric dams.1 But that was agency, established in 1905 to protect watersheds and to ensure not the first time that developers had tried to turn the canyon the efficient use of the nation’s timber resources, not to preserve into a lake. At the beginning of the 20th century, a threat of at landscapes because of their scenic value, already managed land least equal magnitude arose and was averted—not by conserva- on either side of the canyon as national forests. tionists, but by a committed utilitarian forester. Gifford Pinchot, a leading utilitarian conservationist and close Before the National Park Service’s establishment in 1916, the adviser to President Roosevelt, served as the Forest Service’s first federal government distributed monuments, parks, and other fed- chief. After Pinchot’s dismissal in 1910, his protégé and like-minded BY BYRON E. PEARSON 4 FOREST HISTORY TODAY | SPRING 2012 fellow forester Henry S. Graves the myth that “rain follows the succeeded him. Historians have plow,” thousands of hopeful farm- characterized Graves as being inter- ers poured into the virtually ested only in carrying out Pinchot’s uncharted Southwest, an area so conservation policies and having dry that for years it had been des- little interest or sympathy for ignated on maps as the Great preservation. As evidence, they American Desert. Fearing a disaster point to the Hetch Hetchy contro- of biblical proportions, Powell, versy, in which Pinchot and Graves who had been exploring the region supported construction of a dam since 1868, published his Report in a remote corner of Yosemite on the Arid Region of the United National Park to supply water for States in 1878 and attempted to San Francisco. Neither man saw implement it as national policy the need for a parks bureau when he became the director of because they believed that purpose USGS in 1881.4 of the national parks and monu- Powell advocated replacing the ments aligned well with that of the Homestead Act and other private- national forests.2 Other environ- landownership laws developed in mental historians have argued that the humid East with settlement the Department of the Interior has policies designed for the West’s arid generally held to a more preserva- environment. Specifically, Powell tion-oriented philosophy than has proposed a system of grazing and the Forest Service, that this was irrigation districts with irrigation certainly true at the turn of the farms of no more than 80 acres 20th century, and that any Forest and pasturage farms of four sec- Service designs upon national tions. Powell’s most revolutionary parks and monuments were bound WIKIMEDIA COMMONS idea was to replace the rapidly to be detrimental to the cause of Havasu Falls in Cataract Canyon, the site of the Johnson-Baum emerging western water law doc- preservation. In his history of the dam proposal. Havasupai Falls is one of the most visited and trine of prior appropriation, which National Park Service, Ronald photographed places in the American West. allows claimants to divert water Foresta goes even further and great distances away from rivers argues that Graves actually constituted a greater threat to the and streams, with statutes tying water rights to land within the implementation of a centralized preservation effort than did watershed. Water usage and regulation policy would be determined Pinchot because the former favored allowing some recreation in locally rather than at the state or federal levels. However, Powell the forest reserves—a major argument for creating national parks— also believed that the federal government should assess the water while Pinchot’s unyielding utilitarian attitude did not.3 resources of the West, and he initiated a comprehensive irrigation However, such arguments fail to consider the individual per- survey he hoped would guide settlement and water planning at sonalities in both the Forest Service and the Interior Department the local level. Although Powell did not advocate for centralized and the differing perceptions of the meaning of the Hetch Hetchy federal water development, the very idea that the federal govern- precedent and its applicability to water development in national ment should catalog and guide western settlement and water parks and monuments. Indeed, this article will contend that but development and usage at all elicited strident protests from western for the actions of Chief Forester Graves, in all likelihood a massive politicians, cattle interests, real estate speculators, and government hydroelectric dam would have been constructed in the heart of bureaucracies. Though the intensity of the opposition drove Powell what is now Grand Canyon National Park in the early 20th cen- from his position at USGS in 1894, he spent the rest of his life vig- tury—and with the approval of Interior and most of the early orously opposing uncontrolled western expansion. Powell’s survey, supporters of the National Park Service. thought incomplete, identified 147 potential reservoir sites through- This dispute over the development of the Colorado River out the American West. None were located in the Grand Canyon within Grand Canyon, like the better-publicized dam controversy of the Colorado.5 of the 1960s, must be placed in the larger context of late-19th- Powell died in 1902. With centralized planning out of the pic- century water development and, in particular, the evolving ideas ture, individuals, promoters, and corporations tried to construct that would give rise to federally sponsored irrigation and power irrigation works to bring water to potentially rich western farm- generation. The roots of the debate can be traced to John Wesley land. However, most sites where water could easily be diverted Powell, the famous Colorado River explorer and U.S. Geological onto prospective farmland had been settled by the late 1880s, and Survey (USGS) director who became the first advocate of a sys- millions of acres of fertile soil lay uncultivated because farmers temic national approach to land settlement and the development and small irrigation districts lacked the resources to construct of the west’s water resources. large-scale water projects. As a result, several western states, including California and Colorado, attempted to construct irri- WESTERN WATER DEVELOPMENT gation works; most of these efforts ended in failure. During the 1870s, western migration reached beyond the 98th The lower Colorado River bisects one of the most arid places meridian. Lured by the promise of cheap land and spurred on by in the American West. Though the soil is fertile, the region’s FOREST HISTORY TODAY | SPRING 2012 5 meager rainfall, just 2.4 inches a year, prevented the development private western water developers had viewed the Grand Canyon of a viable agricultural industry on either side of the Arizona- as an ideal place to construct hydroelectric and water storage proj- California border. Charles Rockwood, an eastern visionary, sought ects even before Congress passed the Newlands Act, and they to irrigate these potentially rich farmlands with water from the continued to argue for dams on the Colorado in the first two Colorado by building a canal from the river to California’s Imperial decades of the 20th century. Stating that the “supply of water in Valley. This project, the first attempt to divert water from the the Colorado is an unfailing one and sooner or later it will be the main stream of the Colorado on a large scale, resulted in one of source of all great irrigation enterprises in Arizona,” in 1893 the the most spectacular failures of private irrigation in the history Salt Lake City Tribune advocated the construction of a steel-framed of western reclamation. dam in the Grand Canyon at the same time that Utah was attempt- Rockwood and his partner George Chaffey constructed a canal ing to wrest all land north of the Colorado River from Arizona that delivered water to the Imperial Valley in 1901. They soon Territory. Although Utah’s attempted land grab did not succeed, discovered why the river had been nicknamed Big Red, for the this dam proposal is noteworthy because it was conceived as a canal soon filled with silt. Undaunted, they dug another—with hydroelectric project rather than for water storage and was thus the same result. Still determined to bring the Imperial Valley into a precursor of future Bureau of Reclamation policy.11 David cultivation, they constructed a temporary channel while the first Babbitt, of Flagstaff, formed the Grand Canyon Electric Power canal was being cleared of silt during the spring rainy season of Company in 1902 and initiated the construction of another private 1905.
Recommended publications
  • Havasu Canyon Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Report June, 2010
    Havasu Canyon Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Report June, 2010 Prepared by: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service University of Arizona, Water Resources Research Center In cooperation with: Coconino Natural Resource Conservation District Arizona Department of Agriculture Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Arizona Department of Water Resources Arizona Game & Fish Department Arizona State Land Department USDA Forest Service USDA Bureau of Land Management Released by: Sharon Megdal David L. McKay Director State Conservationist University of Arizona United States Department of Agriculture Water Resources Research Center Natural Resources Conservation Service Principle Investigators: Dino DeSimone – NRCS, Phoenix Keith Larson – NRCS, Phoenix Kristine Uhlman – Water Resources Research Center Terry Sprouse – Water Resources Research Center Phil Guertin – School of Natural Resources The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disa bility, po litica l be lie fs, sexua l or ien ta tion, an d mar ita l or fam ily s ta tus. (No t a ll prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C., 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity provider and employer. Havasu Canyon Watershed serve as a platform for conservation 15010004 program delivery, provide useful 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit information for development of NRCS Rapid Watershed Assessment and Conservation District business plans, and lay a foundation for future cooperative watershed planning.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Canyon
    ALT ALT To 389 To 389 To Jacob Lake, 89 To 89 K and South Rim a n a b Unpaved roads are impassable when wet. C Road closed r KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST e in winter e K k L EA O N R O O B K NY O A E U C C N T E N C 67 I A H M N UT E Y SO N K O O A N House Rock Y N N A Buffalo Ranch B A KANAB PLATEAU C C E A L To St. George, Utah N B Y Kaibab Lodge R Mount Trumbull O A N KAIBAB M 8028ft De Motte C 2447m (USFS) O er GR C o Riv AN T PLATEAU K HUNDRED AND FIFTY MIL lorad ITE ap S NAVAJO E Co N eat C A s C Y RR C N O OW ree S k M INDIAN GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK B T Steamboat U Great Thumb Point Mountain C RESERVATION K 6749ft 7422ft U GREAT THUMB 2057m 2262m P Chikapanagi Point MESA C North Rim A 5889ft E N G Entrance Station 1795m M Y 1880ft FOSSIL R 8824ft O Mount Sinyala O U 573m G A k TUCKUP N 5434ft BAY Stanton Point e 2690m V re POINT 1656m 6311ft E U C SB T A C k 1924m I E e C N AT A e The Dome POINT A PL N r o L Y Holy Grail l 5486ft R EL Point Imperial C o Tuweep G W O Temple r 1672m PO N Nankoweap a p d H E o wea Mesa A L nko o V a Mooney D m N 6242ft A ID Mount Emma S Falls u 1903m U M n 7698ft i Havasu Falls h 2346m k TOROWEAP er C Navajo Falls GORGE S e v A Vista e i ITE r Kwagunt R VALLEY R N N Supai Falls A Encantada C iv o Y R nt Butte W d u e a O G g lor Supai 2159ft Unpaved roads are North Rim wa 6377ft r o N K h C Reservations required.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary
    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This Draft Environmental Assessment/Initial Study (EA/IS) evaluates the potential environmental impacts that may be associated with the Hetch Hetchy Communication System Upgrade Project (the “Proposed Action”) by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agency San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) in cooperation with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) co-lead agencies United States Department of Interior National Park Service (NPS), and the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS). The Purpose and Need, Project Objectives, and Proposed Action are described in Section 1.0 of this document. An EA/IS is intended to provide an objective, impartial source of information to be used by the lead agency and members of the public in their consideration of the project. The EA/IS itself does not determine whether or not the project will be approved, but only serves as an informational document in the planning and decision-making process. This joint environmental document was developed to meet the requirements of both NEPA and CEQA. This document contains a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration (PMND) and an initial study (IS) prepared in accordance with the CEQA, Public Resources Code §21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) §15000 et seq. The purpose of this EA/IS is: (1) to determine whether implementation of the project would result in potentially significant effects to the environment, and (2) to incorporate mitigation measures into the project design, as necessary, to eliminate the project’s significant or potentially significant effects or reduce them to a point where they are clearly less than significant.
    [Show full text]
  • Letter Regarding Request for Reconsideration-Heneghan (PDF)
    ~} • i • t KEVIN R. HENEGHAN ~..~ PARTNER DIRECT DIAL (415) 995-5801 DIRECT FAX (415) 995-3411 E-MAIL [email protected] August 6, 2012 Members, Ballot Simplification Committee Department of Elections City and County of San Francisco 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 48 San Francisco, CA 94102 Re: Comments on Request for Reconsideration of Approved Digest for "Water and Environment Plan" Dear Members of the Ballot Simplification Committee: On behalf of Save Hetch Hetchy, we would like to thank each of you for your thoughtful consideration of the ballot digest at last week's hearing. We write in opposition to the request for reconsideration filed by Spreck Rosekrans and Lance Olson. In short, we believe that the digest approved by the Ballot Simplification Committee( "BSC") correctly describes that the purpose of this measure is to develop a plan to drain the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and we urge the BSC to reject the request for reconsideration. The request for reconsideration urges the Ballot Simplification Committee to amend the digest to use "...end the use of Hetch Hetchy Reservoir..." rather than "...drain the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir..." when discussing the two-phase plan proposed by the initiative. The BSC should not accept this invitation to use euphemistic language when plain language will suffice and should maintain the use of "drain" which clearly conveys the purpose of the initiative. It is worth pointing out that Restore Hetch Hetchy( "RHH"), the nonprofit organization which has placed the measure on the ballot, regularly uses the term "drain" to describe the goal of RHH and its initiative.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco and Hetch Hetchy Valley Gabriel L
    __________________________________________________________________ The Forbidden Water: San Francisco and Hetch Hetchy Valley Gabriel L. Mansfield Gabriel Mansfield is a sophomore history major from Onarga, Illinois. He wrote this paper for Dr. Lynne Curry’s HIS 2500: Historical Writing and Research Methods. After graduation Mr. Mansfield wishes to pursue a career in academic librarianship and double as “Duke Silver” at local jazz clubs. _____________________________________________________________________________ Northwest of the Yosemite Valley, Half Dome, and other iconic landmarks at Yosemite National Park in Northeastern California is a small valley known as Hetch Hetchy. This was a quiet spot that Sierra Club founder, nature lover, and preservationist John Muir described as “a grand landscape garden, [and] one of Nature’s rarest and most precious mountain temples.”1 At the beginning of the 20th Century, this beautiful expanse drew the attention of the city of San Francisco, which planned to dam the area to create a reservoir to use as a water source. Unfortunately for San Franciscans, this would not be an easy journey because of the stiff opposition to the city’s plan. This resistance would primarily be spearheaded by Muir, whose actions would ultimately not be enough to quell the city’s desire for this new water source. In late 1913, Congress would grant the city permission to begin building a reservoir in Hetch Hetchy Valley. Some of the few instrumental people in this effort to build the dam included: chief forester and conservationist Gifford Pinchot, and James Phelan, the mayor of San Francisco and a dam supporter from the time when the application was first submitted.
    [Show full text]
  • Reason Foundation • 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 400 • Los Angeles, CA 90034 Hetchy Watershed
    he history and current dynamics of the seventh largest be argued that they in fact make a “profit” on reselling Hetch Tmulti-utility system in the United States, San Fran- Hetchy water. The word “profit,” for a municipal agency, cisco’s Hetch Hetchy system, are complex to say the least. of course, is definitional and arguable, but relatively high- Many players are involved, including, but not limited to, salaries, secure jobs, lots of time and money to lobby Sacra- city, regional, state, and federal politicians; state and federal mento, plus many benefits cannot be discounted to zero. courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States; This is not good policy in the best interests of San Fran- and any number of multilevel governmental jurisdictions. cisco and its citizens and the takeover can only be turned Currently, the city of San Francisco has control over the back by vigorous leadership from the mayor to restore the operation of the Hetch Hetchy water and power system, but effectiveness of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commis- within the political sphere suburban interests have orches- sion (SFPUC), a city department that oversees the Hetch trated a well-organized effort to transfer this authority from Hetchy water and power system. Furthermore, the Hetch the city to a multi-headed public agency—BAWSCA—some- Hetchy power system should be reorganized to function as a what like the Metropolitan Water District of Southern competitive service directly to San Francisco households and California. Obviously, this can only be an overview of a very businesses. complicated situation. A Brief History of Hetch Hetchy Under this transfer of authority, San Francisco would become just one of 30 retail services with the whole- The ramifications of the Hetch Hetchy dilemma are sale water and power system governed by the recently rooted in its history.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
    3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.1 INTRODUCTION This section presents the analysis topics included in the Hetch Hetchy Communication System Upgrade Environmental Assessment/Initial Study (EA/IS). Topics were selected based on federal and state laws and regulations, Executive Orders, National Park Service (NPS) Management Policies, United States Forest Service (USFS) Policies, and concerns expressed by the public, NPS and USFS staff, or other agencies during scoping and comment periods. Twenty separate resource topics are discussed in detail in this section. This section also provides a discussion of four topics that were dismissed from further analysis. To conduct an environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the “baseline” or “affected environment” must first be described. This section provides information on the existing natural, cultural, and social conditions relevant to the Proposed Action. The planning context is also presented in Section 1.9.3. The information provided on existing conditions forms the basis for considering the potential impacts, or environmental consequences of the Proposed Action, and mitigation measures, if needed. The major elements of the impact analysis under NEPA, including specific National Park Service requirements that are common to all resource topic areas are described. Following this introduction, an analysis of impacts within each resource area is provided, starting at Section 3.8. Within the resource sections, NEPA/National Park Service/US Forest Service analysis is presented first for the Proposed Action, followed by the analysis for each of the project alternatives under consideration. A discussion of cumulative impacts is provided within each resource topic.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Highways
    CUMULATIVE INDEX· ARIZONA HIGHWAYS VOLUME 1, 1925 through VOLU~IE 27, 1951 ARTICLES appearing in ARIZONA HIGHWAYS from volume 1 in 1925 through volume 27 in 1951 are indexed here under author and subject. Indexing is similar to that found in READERS' GurnE TO PERIODICAL LITERATURE; each article is listed under the heading or headings most closely indicating the general subject matter. This is not a detailed analytical index to contents of articles. The user will find, for instance, those articles which deal with Katchinas, but not the names of various Katchinas discussed in the articles. Very general headings such as DESCRIPTION have been used only where more specific headings were not possible. A series of tall tales which appeared during early years of the magazine have been listed under that heading. Portraits have been indexed wherever there was a clear likeness. Group por­ traits have been incJuded when likenesses were clear and recognizable. There is a special index to color illustrations which have been an outstanding feature of ARIZONA HrGHWAYS for the past 10 years. Generally each picture has been listed under a single subject, the one which in the fallible judgment of the compiler, seemed most appropriate. It is hoped this will be of use to teachers and armchair travelers. ♦ COMPILED BY DONALD M. POWELL Reference Librarian UNIYERSITY OF ARIZONA SPONSORED BY PUBLISHED BY ARIZONA STATE ARIZONA TRADE BINDERY LIBRARY 311 West ;\lonroe ASSOCIATION PHOE:-IIX, ARIZONA $1.00 PER CoPY - ADD 10c FOR PosTAGE CDllYt'lth 1952 r>r a.ld \J ':'owe.I ]JuL 'JjJUlluL /Jt .,) ,)·• ..:-·'' tl!uv,JUL ;J{iq.JwD.ljlL and engineering equipment, asphalt, Rickenbacker THE first issue of ARIZONA HIGHWAYS appeared in cars, Cactus bacon and Armour's Star Hams.
    [Show full text]
  • SRPD Opens Its Property and Evidence Bureau in Ribbon Cutting Ceremony
    ACTION NEWS SRPMIC Recreational Services Starts Swim Team page 10 THE SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER www.oodhamnews.org AUGUST 1, 2019 CHANGE SERVICE REQUEST CHANGE SERVICE AZ 85256 Scottsdale, 10005 E. Osborn Road ACTION NEWS O'ODHAM SRPD Opens its Property and Evidence Bureau in Ribbon Cutting Ceremony Permit No. 319 Scottsdale, AZ Scottsdale, PRESORTED STANDARD U.S. Postage PAID (L-R) Commander Jonathan Gann, SRPD Property and Evidence Bureau Manager Dawn Richards, SRPMIC Vice-President Ricardo Leonard, SRPD Chief of Police Karl Auerbach and David Dallas of MayDall Construction participate in the SRPD Property and Evidence Bureau Ribbon Cutting. BY RICHIE CORRALES Council member Wi-bwa Grey was secured to finally get the police officers.” O’odham Action News [email protected] and a welcome from SRPD new facility built. The facility will be the Com- Chief Karl Auerbach and SRP- “Today would not be possible munity’s safe, state-of-the-art Keeping the The Salt River Police Depart- MIC Vice-President Ricardo without contributions, efforts storage facility and will have Community Safe ment opened its new Prop- Leonard. and teamwork,” said Chief Au- storage capacity for years to page 8 erty and Evidence Bureau in a Leonard recalled what the old erbach. “The SRPD Evidence come to ensure the SRPD meets ribbon-cutting ceremony on the police property and evidence Bureau building will provide industry standards and prac- morning of July 12. building was like and how it better service to the Community tices. The event started off with a wasn’t as secure as they would and better working conditions Shortly after the welcome prayer from Salt River Pima- have liked.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Market Prices ~ Prints, Sculpture, Originals
    Issue TITLE Price, Low SIZE Retail, ISSUE LO High HI TITLE Retail (December SIZE ISSUE LO2014) HI TITLE SIZE ISSUE LO HI CURRENT MARKET PRICES ~ PRINTS, SCULPTURE, ORIGINALS Prints, Graphics, & Giclées Prices do not reflect shifts below a print's original issue price TITLE SIZE ISSUE LO HI TITLE SIZE ISSUE LO HI TITLE SIZE ISSUE LO HI ABBETT, ROBERT AMIDON, SUSAN ATKINSON, MICHAEL BIG GUY SETTER & GROUS 125 553 671 CATHEDRAL ST PAUL CE 125 409 497 GRANNYS LOVING HAND AP 420 510 BOBWHITES & POINTER 50 152 190 COMO PARK CONSERVAT AP 21X29 158 198 GRANNYS LOVING HANDS 385 467 CODY BLACK LAB 95 152 190 COMO PARK CONSERVATORY 21X29 125 125 125 ICE BLUE DIPTYCH 125 262 315 CROSSING SPLIT ROCK 125 125 150 COMO PARK GOLF SKI 21X15 100 100 120 INSPIRATION ARCHES 185 185 185 ABBOTT, LEN COMO PARK PAVILLION 125 698 848 INSPIRATION ARCHES AP 152 190 CHORUS 292 351 GOVERNORS MANSION 99 124 LETTERS FROM GRANDMA 65 152 190 ACHEFF, WILLIAM GOVERNORS MANSION AP 136 170 LONG WAY HOME 148 185 ACOMA 23X18 200 200 200 LAKE HARRIET 24X18 125 125 125 MARIAS HANDS SR 24X18 861 1060 STILL LIFE 64 80 LITTLE FRENCH CHURC AP 21X15 110 138 MONUMENT CANYON SR 33X45 490 595 ADAMS, GAIL LITTLE FRENCH CHURCH 21X15 100 100 100 MOONLIT CANYON 165 165 165 DOUBLE SOLITUDE AP 275 275 315 LORING PARK HARMON AP 29X21 158 198 MOUNTAIN LAKE 18X24 175 258 310 SLEEPIN BEAUTY 225 225 225 MINN STATE CAPITOL 21X16 187 225 ON WALDEN 150 150 150 ADAMS, HERMON MT OLIVET CHURCH 158 198 ON WALDEN AP 94 118 ARIZONA RANGER 120 1072 1320 NICOLLET AVE AP 20X25 78 98 OSTUNI 29X22 150 150 183
    [Show full text]
  • Flagstaff Visitor Study 2017-2018
    Acknowledgements The authors would like to recognize all the people who helped to make this study possible. First, thanks go to the Flagstaff Convention & Visitors Bureau, which has been an advocate of tourism research to inform its marketing and promotion efforts. In particular, we want to thank Trace Ward, Flagstaff CVB Director, and Lori Pappas, Marketing and Public Relations Manager, for their support and participation in the project. Without the support of everyone at the CVB, this critical market research project would not have been possible. Thanks also go to Kari Roberg, Research Manager and Colleen Floyd, Director of Research at the Arizona Office of Tourism without whose help this project would also not have been possible. We want to acknowledge the help of many individuals in the Flagstaff tourism community who were key to the success of this project, including: • Little America Hotel – Susan Jennings • Flagstaff Visitor Center – Anna Good • Museum of Northern Arizona – Suzanne Shenton • Flagstaff Extreme – Rachel Buzzard • Lowell Observatory – Molly Baker • Best Western Pony Soldier Inn & Suites – Scott Grams and Mark Ross • Residence Inn by Marriott Downtown – Misty Medina • DoubleTree by Hilton Flagstaff – Belen Mendez • GreenTree Inn – Frank Benitez • The Weatherford – Klaudia Ness The dedicated staff at these locations contacted visitors, asked them to complete the survey, and collected responses. It was through their efforts that this project achieved the sample sizes needed. Finally, we extend a special thank you to all those who visited Flagstaff and agreed to share information about their experiences. Without their willingness to participate in the survey process, this report simply would not have been possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Floods, Droughts, and Lawsuits: a Brief History of California Water Policy
    1Floods, Droughts, and Lawsuits: A Brief History of California Water Policy MPI/GETTY IMAGES The history of California in the twentieth century is the story of a state inventing itself with water. William L. Kahrl, Water and Power, 1982 California’s water system might have been invented by a Soviet bureaucrat on an LSD trip. Peter Passell, “Economic Scene: Greening California,” New York Times, 1991 California has always faced water management challenges and always will. The state’s arid and semiarid climate, its ambitious and evolving economy, and its continually growing population have combined to make shortages and conflicting demands the norm. Over the past two centuries, California has tried to adapt to these challenges through major changes in water manage- ment. Institutions, laws, and technologies are now radically different from those brought by early settlers coming to California from more humid parts of the United States. These adaptations, and the political, economic, technologic, and social changes that spurred them on, have both alleviated and exacerbated the current conflicts in water management. This chapter summarizes the forces and events that shaped water man- agement in California, leading to today’s complex array of policies, laws, and infrastructure. These legacies form the foundation of California’s contemporary water system and will both guide and constrain the state’s future water choices.1 1. Much of the description in this chapter is derived from Norris Hundley Jr.’s outstanding book, The Great Thirst: Californians and Water: A History (Hundley 2001), Robert Kelley’s seminal history of floods in the Central Valley, Battling the Inland Sea (Kelley 1989), and Donald Pisani’s influential study of the rise of irrigated agriculture in California, From the Family Farm to Agribusiness: The Irrigation Crusade in California (Pisani 1984).
    [Show full text]