David H. DeJong. Stealing the Gila: The Pima Agricultural Economy and Water Deprivation, 1848-1921. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2009. 272 pp. $49.95, cloth, ISBN 978-0-8165-2798-4.

Reviewed by Denise Holladay Damico

Published on H-Water (March, 2012)

Commissioned by John Broich (Case Western Reserve University)

Stealing the Gila, as its title suggests, docu‐ DeJong makes the case that the Pima were ments the ways in which non-Native individuals poised to efectively operate and compete in the and groups, together with local, state, and federal market economy of the nineteenth-century United government ofces and policies, usurped the wa‐ States. They used the waters of the Gila for subsis‐ ters of the in central Arizona. David H. tence agriculture, growing corn, melons, beans, DeJong traces the ways in which the Pima (called and squash, prior to the Spanish arrival in mod‐ in their own language the “Akimel O’odham,” or ern-day Arizona. The Spanish introduced winter “river people”) adapted to Spanish and, later, wheat, which required more water to grow than American incursions by developing a thriving corn, but which the Pima traded for cloth, metal agriculturally based economy, selling wheat and goods, and other items, successfully entering into other products to traders and travelers. By the the market economy, a process that was aided by late nineteenth century, however, more and more the ways in which the Pima and Spanish allied to‐ non-Natives settled in southern Arizona; these gether against the Apache. The U.S.- War newcomers, aided by American policy and policy‐ (1846-48) brought U.S. government to Pima terri‐ makers, took more and more water. Eventually, tories, and the saw forty the Pima became impoverished; some scraped a thousand gold seekers travel through Pima lands. living through subsistence farming and others DeJong draws on various memoirs of the forty- had to leave the reservation to fnd work. The niners to portray the Pima as savvy participants book concludes in the late 1920s, with the Pima in the market economy, using their reputation as continually demanding, but not receiving, ade‐ “Good Samaritans of the desert” to trade in both quate assistance from the federal government in goods and agricultural products with these travel‐ recovering their water rights. ers (p. 23). H-Net Reviews

The year 1855 saw the Pima villages brought During the Hayes administration, the U.S. govern‐ under U.S. administration and a new head chief, ment expanded the reservation to include four Antonio Azul (son of the former chief, Antonio additional miles of the . Culo Azul). Throughout the nineteenth and early The period 1870 to 1910 saw a tremendous in‐ twentieth centuries, Azul and other Pima continu‐ crease in the non-Native population of Arizona, ally expressed their concerns about the protection including many who encroached on Pima land of their land and water rights to U.S. government and “refuse[d] the Indians the use of water” (p. representatives. Congress voted to recognize the 91). In 1886, the Florence Canal, constructed by a Pima Reservation under an amendment to the private company, diverted almost all of the Gila 1859 Indian Appropriation Act; as was so often River’s fow upstream from the Pima Reservation. the case, the survey of the reservation was contro‐ By the 1880s, the Pima, who once had participated versial, as various interests used money and polit‐ in the market economy by selling grain to Span‐ ical clout to keep as much land and water rights ish, Mexican, and American settlers and travelers, out of the reservation as possible. relied on grain imported to their reservation, During the Civil War, both Confederate and mostly by the U.S. Indian agent. The national Union forces in the Southwest (at diferent times) press began covering the story, the result of ef‐ relied on trade with the Pima for grain. Gold was forts by the National Irrigation Association, which also discovered in western Arizona at this time, advocated for federal subsidies for reclamation. bringing new non-Native communities to the The Pima survived by selling mesquite, ultimately area; Apache groups escalated their raids on the almost destroying a sixty-fve-mile mesquite Pima and on these new communities. The Pima, bosque (forest). Pima leaders petitioned the U.S. together with the Maricopa, worked with the U.S. government; Chief Antonio Azul, along with Army to fght the Tonto and Pinal Apaches. By the twelve other leaders, wrote “We have had very end of the Civil War, according to DeJong, the poor or no crops for the past three years ... be‐ Pima’s grain trade thrived. However, “the Pima’s cause we have no water.... Many of our people success initiated the beginning of their downfall” have not enough to eat and to wear and don’t as more and more miners came to Arizona and, know what to do for a living.” Another spokesper‐ eventually, began farming--competing with the son noted that some “of the older Indians who Pima for the very water that had helped them suc‐ were once self-supporting are now drawing ra‐ cessfully grow grain for the market (pp. 68-69). By tions” (pp. 107-108). By 1904, the Pima were “de‐ 1868, more grain was being produced by non-Na‐ pendent on federal assistance.” The drought and tive people than by the Pima. upstream diversions had “deepened the river’s Though the Pima insisted that the U.S. govern‐ channel, rendering the Pima irrigation system ob‐ ment fulfll its obligation to protect their water solete and unusable” (pp. 108-109). rights throughout the latter decades of the nine‐ In 1902, Congress passed the National Recla‐ teenth century, this did not occur. In 1869, some mation Act; DeJong notes that “in a microcosm, Pima “openly resisted the settlers who en‐ powerful economic and speculative forces in the croached on their ancestral land above the reser‐ Salt River valley were pitted against the survival vation,” and others left the reservation, claiming of local Indian tribes.” Though lobbyists had pre‐ well-watered “felds of Mexican settlers” nearby viously used the plight of the Pima to advocate for (p. 72). Drought in the early 1870s exacerbated the passage of the act, now others lobbied for its these issues, and led the Pima to pressure local use in favor of commercial interests, including U.S. ofcials for an extension of their reservation. proposals to use the Salt River waters to construct

2 H-Net Reviews power plants. The project would also pump tion of resources (i.e., water) to favor the aggres‐ groundwater from underneath the Pima Reserva‐ sive non-Indian few” (p. 174). tion for the Indians to use; however, non-Indian The general outlines of this story will be fa‐ farmers would get more water than the Pima. In miliar to most readers of H-Water. The book 1911, Antonito Azul wrote “An Appeal for Justice” draws on extensive archival research, and, pre‐ to the “People of the ,” noting that sumably, DeJong’s experience and knowledge as the political machinations of Phoenix developers project manager of the Pima-Maricopa Irrigation “decided upon ... the Salt River Valley instead of Project. It should be useful to those interested in the Gila River Valley” for the frst reclamation the details of how, precisely, federal policymakers project, and appealing to Congress and the Ameri‐ and others stripped the Pima of their water rights. can people to “come to our aid” (pp. 121-122). As DeJong might have further feshed out the signif‐ DeJong notes, “the government continued to as‐ cance of this story by providing additional con‐ sume that benefcial use of the water by non-Indi‐ text, such as information on the Gila River and the ans had preempted Pima rights” (p. 127). Allot‐ Pima in more recent decades, or by relating his ments were fnally made from 1914 to 1920, but research to broader trends involving the inter‐ “the allotment act was manipulated, in light of the locking Anglo-American conquests of peoples and National Reclamation Act initiating a race to put nature in the West at the time. For example, he all arable land under irrigation, by speculators, might have connected the nonarable nature of the who then asserted rights to the water from the Pima’s allotments and their subsequent transition Salt River valley” (p. 131). Instead of farming the to wage labor to similar events for other Native land themselves, Pima had to lease their land to tribes and even Hispanos in the Southwest, such other, non-Native farmers. Many Pima were as that documented by Sarah Deutsch in No Sepa‐ forced into wage labor, often working on lands rate Refuge: Culture, Class, and Gender on an An‐ that had belonged to their ancestors. glo-Hispanic Frontier in the American Southwest, In 1916, a congressional decree “prioritized 1880-1940 (1987). Another way to broaden the Pima water rights for 35,000 acres of land” (p. book, contextually, might have been to expand the 154). Four years later, “politically involved and discussion of the legal history of water and west‐ enfranchised” non-Native farmers in the valley ern Native tribes beyond the book’s introduction, aligned with the Pima to pressure Congress for explaining how the various laws and policies that the Florence-Casa Grande Project, which was in‐ DeJong documents in detail throughout the book tended to protect Pima water rights but which ac‐ ft into that history. tually benefted the non-Native farmers. Here De‐ DeJong asserts that his work is novel in that Jong takes Congress to task for failing to efective‐ his portrayal of the Pima as ready, willing, and ly safeguard Pima water rights. The book’s conclu‐ able to work within western economies, and of sion continues along these same lines, making the their success at doing so throughout the period of case that “by failing to protect Pima water and in‐ Spanish and Mexican rule, and during the early volvement in the national economy, the United decades after the U.S.-Mexico War and the Gads‐ States undermined its own policy of pastoralizing den Purchase (1853), is contrary to “convenient the Indians and missed the opportunity to demon‐ scholarly assumptions” (p. 175). I am not certain strate its commitment to the policies defned by that scholars, at least those of Native American Congress” (p. 178). Instead, federal policies en‐ history or Native American studies, continue to couraged “the seizure, development, and exploita‐ make those assumptions. Few historians of the American West will be surprised to hear that the

3 H-Net Reviews answer to the title of his introduction, “A West of Jefersonian Farmers?” was a resounding “no.” The Gila River, despite its place in the book’s sub‐ title, fades in and out of the narrative; further dis‐ cussion of the cultural meanings of the river, and water generally, to the Pima might have provided an added dimension to the book. Having read similar sources regarding Pueblo Indians in New Mexico, I am well aware of how difcult it can be to recapture Native voices. Some do appear here, particularly those of the Azuls. Further discussion of the ways in which these men in particular utilized the tools available to them, and shaped their message for their audi‐ ences of policymakers and the educated public in the East, would have been interesting. Whereas Native voices tend to disappear, many individual Anglo policymakers and ofcials are quoted throughout the book. DeJong might have explored the complex interaction of ideology and econom‐ ics that informed those policymakers’ and of‐ cials’ reports a bit further. For example, chapter 8 features a lengthy discussion of a survey done in 1914 that “quantifed Pima irrigated lands in an efort to protect their water" (p. 135). The chapter in many ways simply summarizes and replicates the original survey, without analyzing it. However, DeJong’s practical expertise as lead‐ er of the Pima-Maricopa Irrigation Project is un‐ deniable. His research will surely help the Pima in ongoing water disputes. The book also provides a useful, specifc account of how this Native group’s participation in the market economy diminished due to U.S. policy. His documentation of the Pima’s shift to subsistence and away from the market economy is detailed and convincing. This book will be useful to those interested in understand‐ ing how, exactly, Native peoples of the Southwest lost their water rights to the fusion of U.S. policy, policymakers, and capitalists.

4 H-Net Reviews

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-water

Citation: Denise Holladay Damico. Review of DeJong, David H. Stealing the Gila: The Pima Agricultural Economy and Water Deprivation, 1848-1921. H-Water, H-Net Reviews. March, 2012.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=31292

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

5