S A V I N G S I P A P U N I
The Grand Canyon, despite its indisputable position as a natural wonder of the United States and the world, has a complex history riddled with environmental and social injustices. Although many U.S. National Parks “seem to symbolize freedom, beauty, and the renewal of the spirit,” the removal of American Tribes from their indigenous lands within these parks has left a mark within their communities contrary to such sentiments (McAvoy, 2002, p. 383). As explained by Marris (2013), in the last century, millions of indigenous peoples have been relocated in the name of conservation, regardless of their ecological impact. This history of imposing governmental action “often greatly influences how Indians now relate to national parks and forests, and how they relate to the governmental agencies that manage that land” (MacAvoy, 2002, p. 393). Not only in the US, but globally, conservation initiatives have historically sparked hostility as “[e]ncounters between conservationists and indigenous people are never between equals” (Dowie, 2011, p. 48). However, the Grand Canyon Escalade project, a proposed multi billion-dollar resort on the South Rim of the Canyon, may be proving this precedent inaccurate. The project, which would be built on the Navajo Nation reservation, has spurred major debate between tribes, the Park Service, conservationists, and other interest groups. Although indigenous peoples have often been considered “earth’s most important stewards,” the Escalade development draws such stewardship into question as a myriad of complex dilemmas arise (Dowie, 2011, p. 271). This paper will discuss these dilemmas by considering the historical context of the Grand Canyon National Park, and with such background, analyze the current social, environmental, religious, and economic debates regarding the proposed Escalade project.
There are several prominent Native American tribes that have historical relationships with the Grand Canyon including the Navajo, Hualapai, Havasupai, Paiute, Hopi, and Zuni. Although the Navajo, Hualapai, Havasupai, and Hopi tribes have reservation land near and in the Canyon, the rights to their indigenous lands are virtually nonexistent. Burnham (2000) explains that in 1908, Theodore Roosevelt authorized the reservation of 900 square miles of the Grand Canyon area to become a National Monument, managed by the Park Service. Although this decision was controversial, partially because it would inhibit economic development for potential interest groups, such debate did not account for the immense long-term impacts the relocation would have upon Native Americans.
For example, before the monument declaration, the Havasupai lived approximately seven miles from the central gorge of the Grand Canyon, which is now a well-known place called Havasui Falls. The members who lived there were self-sustaining, as they had been since approximately A.D. 1300 (Burnham, 2000). However, the Havasupai had already been pushed into a significantly smaller area, due to the influx of ranchers, miners, and the Atlantic-Pacific Railroad in the late 1800’s. Furthermore, hunting had become nearly impossible as a result of the federally “protected” title their land received in 1893. When the Grand Canyon monument became a national park in 1919, the Havasupai were removed completely in a fashion much like other Native American tribes in the area, and reservation alternatives were discussed (Burham, 2000). The Grand Canyon, which had been “a symbol of all that was rugged and exalted and holy in the American West,” also became a monument to social tragedy (Burham, 2000, p.76).
Despite their removal, Anglo-American influences over the Canyon’s management attempted to incorporate Native American cultural characteristics. For instance, in 1905, the “Hopi House” opened on the South Rim (Burnham, 2000). This building was intended to be a copy of a Hopi pueblo, acting as a tourist attraction. It was also suggested “some Indians dance at…Phantom Ranch or Hermit Camp, around a huge fire where the gyrations of the dancers seen from above, either by the naked eye or with spyglasses might be…drawing” (Burham, 2000, p. 87). Although this particular attraction was never realized, many others were in the hope of using the general Native American culture as a tourism experience and symbol of the Grand Canyon.
Although the park provided some employment, increasing populations of Native Americans in the area between 1910 and 1947 caused major issues. In combination with the impacts of the Great Depression, less available farming land spurred a decrease in self sufficiency within the tribes, and dependency on outside influences began to take hold (Burham, 2000). Furthermore, the Bennett Freeze, enacted in 1996, “[o]riginally conceived as a means of encouraging negotiation over an age-old land dispute between the Hopi and Navajo tribes,” prevented development, mainly on the Navajo reservation, despite the need for basic improvements (Moore, pg. 222 1993). Moore (1993) concludes that this policy stunted the potential for social and economic growth for the Hopi and Navajo tribes. McAvoy (2002) states that even in 1999, tribal unemployment in the Grand Canyon area was nearly 66%, which only added to a variety of other ongoing social issues.
However, Native Americans are now taking advantage of their rights on what land they have been granted. In an attempt to move beyond present social and economic problems, “agencies like the National Park Service, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service now must consult with tribes on actions that will impact tribal people” (McAvoy, 2002 p. 385). Keller (1999) provides one example of Native Americans extracting economic gain from their resources through the Hualapai tourist enterprise, Grand Canyon West. This organization was opened in 1987 and is operated by the Hualapai Tribe. The Grand Canyon West tour company includes a four-hour Jeep tour of several Grand Canyon features through the cultural Hualapai perspective, as well as a barbeque lunch. It is claimed by the proprietors of this organization that “the tribe has netted a million dollars in three years” (Keller pg. 147 1999). Such economic growth is hardly unappealing.
The Hualapai is not the only tribe attempting to adapt economically. Most other tribes in the area are “looking at what [they] can do with [their] portion of the Grand Canyon” (Keller, 1999, p. 147). Although such developments are an economic benefit, the social and environmental impacts must be considered. The Hualapai “got a place on the reservation where [they] are bringing tourists in by plane and bus, and that’s been very, very profitable. [They] are looking at paving the airstrip. There’ll be a terminal, a gift shop, a restaurant, even a hotel out there” (Keller, 1999, p. 147). Although resort endeavors have been largely successful economically, as more projects push into the Grand Canyon area, tensions rise between Native American’s and those who have managed the park as a natural wonder.
A recent example of such tension is the Hualapai Skywalk. This large boardwalk, extending seventy feet out from the Canyon’s Southern Rim, was completed in 2007. The controversy that surrounded the project, both between the Hualapai members themselves and other tribes, argued that it is “a disruption of sacred ground” (Cart, 2007, para. 4). However, proponents of the development argue, “it supplies much need[ed] economic profits” (Cart, 2007, para.4). Additionally, environmentalists consider the Skywalk to be a form of vandalism of a natural wonder. If the Skywalk development project were to be completed in full, the planned Grand Canyon West Resort would encompass around 9,000 acres of land along the South Rim. The Skywalk, and further proposed developments, are still surrounded by disputes both within the Hualapai Tribe and between other groups such as the Parks Service and environmentalists.
Although Native American development projects have been highly disputed, the Park Service has also had a hand in invasive projects both surrounding and within the Canyon’s walls. In 1922, Phantom Ranch was built on land previously inhabited by Native Americans (Berger, 2007). The Civilian Conservation Corps further improved Phantom Ranch during the Great Depression, providing work for those in economic turmoil. The ranch now includes several dorms and sleeping cabins for backpackers, a cafeteria, general store, and several other small buildings. “Phantom Ranch, the North Rim Lodge, and Hermits Rest are windows to the past, human-built structures that now seem as natural a part of the landscape as the rock layers and the ponderosa pines” (Berger, 2007, p. xiv). Such a perspective is not currently extended to the Hualapai Skywalk.
The Escalade Project is currently the largest source of tension surrounding the Canyon. This proposed project is being promoted and backed by the Confluence Partners LLC, which is a combination of Navajo Nation members and other outside influences. However, out of the ten partners, only four are Navajo Nation members. The most prominent Navajo of the group is Albert Hale, who currently serves in the Arizona House of Representatives. Hale also served as the Navajo Nation’s president from 1995 – 1998, but was forced to resign due to building scandal and numerous criminal charges (Kuhne, 2014). Besides Michael Nelson, an Indian and Water Law lawyer, the other partners are mainly large-scale development and resort planners, public and governmental relations consultants, or major financiers (GCE, 2012).
The Grand Canyon Escalade (GCE) official website currently states that the project would be a 420-acre eco-friendly resort including restaurants, a hotel, an amphitheater, and what is most contested, a tramway from the South Rim to the floor of the Canyon at the confluence of the Little Colorado and Colorado rivers. It is argued by the Confluence Partners and GCE that the “gondola tramway to the Canyon floor will provide a unique and unmatched ability for the casual tourist,” and that it “will have almost no impact on the Canyon experience or environment and will be one of the most environmentally friendly and green projects ever built” (Lee, 2014, n.p.). This position is ardently disputed by more than one party. Supporters also explain that, “it will create jobs…[and] generate revenues for rehabilitation” (Lee, 2014, n.p.). Although it is indisputable that the Navajo Nation of almost 300,000 members would benefit from increased job opportunities and economic growth, various opponents have questioned the direct effect such advantages Navajo Nation members would experience.
Some argue that it is the first legitimate opportunity for the Navajo Nation to access the economic benefits of the Canyon, which the Park Service has been monopolizing. According to Lamar Whitmer, the head developer of the project, the Escalade project would create 3,500 jobs, and “lay the foundations for” $65 million dollars worth of benefits for the Navajo Nation (Kuhne, 2014, para. 6). Contrary to this opinion, opponents of the project argue that such jobs would be minimum wage, and would provide very little opportunity for the majority of the Navajo Nation. Furthermore, it is argued that most generated profits would be directed toward the corporate entities of the project, mainly the Confluence Partners (Kuhne, 2014). However, in spite of these allegations, former Navajo Nation president Ben Shelly remains consistent in the idea that: “the National Park Service has been there for years…It’s our turn” (GCE, 2012, n.p.).
One of the project’s most prominent controversies being debated within the Navajo Nation is the relocation of Navajo residents living on the proposed building site. Although the Confluence Partners argue that the project would aid in repairing long-term impacts of the Bennett Freeze, which was lifted in 2009, their motivations are under scrutiny. In 2015, the Save the Confluence organization (STC), which includes members from the Navajo Nation, Hope Tribe, Zuni Tribe, and other non-native groups, argued that this project would not provide sufficient compensation and protections for the relocated residents. The Grand Canyon Trust’s (GCT) Native American program director, Tony Skrelunas, another opponent of the Confluence Partners, explained in 2014 that “we’re working with the [Navajo] chapters in the area to develop a community-based economic development plan that is culturally and environmentally appropriate.” While the need for economic growth is unquestioned, there are other options besides the Escalade Project.
As Martland (2007) proposed, such options have the potential to be more socially and environmentally appealing in regards to different design, location, scale and impact. It has been argued, although exact profit allocations have not yet been announced, that the Navajo Nation will likely not receive more than 15% of total Escalade revenue. However, the Confluence Partners and GCE deny this allegation even though money has yet to be allotted for Navajo members. Ultimately, “[s]election of the best project in complicated cases,” such as the Escalade proposal, “will be a political issue rather than an economic issue” (Martland, 2007, pg. 38).
The most divisive socio-political dilemma of the project surrounds the sacredness of the area where the tram would descend. “[O]ne of the most frequently held values associated with an American Indian land ethic, is the pervasive focus on the sacred” (McAvoy, 2002, p. 388). The Navajo and Hopi tribes have had issues concerning sacredness in the past, especially determining and respecting burial rights. According to Lee (2014), the Intertribal Compact, signed in 2006 by both the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe, aimed to provide the Hopi people permanent access to the sacred confluence of the Little Colorado and the Colorado Rivers, an area that is within Navajo territory. The Compact also provides the Navajo the same religious rights on Hopi lands. However, the Compact’s influence appears to be dwindling.
Specifically, the Compact states that “the Navajo Nation grants to the Hopi Tribe, for the use and benefit of all current and future enrolled members of the Hopi Tribe and members of their extended families, a permanent, irrevocable, prepaid, non-excusive easement, profit, license, and permit to come upon and to use the Navajo Lands for Hopi Religious Practices, including, without limitation, an easement to travel along, and visit shrines associated with, the Hopi Salt Trail…” (Kempthorne, 2006, p. 2). Herein lies the greatest controversy.
Sipapuni, which is classified under Hopi Religious Practices as a sacred spring, is found along the Salt Trail, near the confluence. Sipapuni is “the Hopi place of emergence in tribal creation stories,” although it holds meaning for Navajo members as well (Burnham, 2000, p. 277). If the tram from the South Rim to the bottom of the Canyon were to be constructed where the proposal’s blueprints illustrate, thousands of tourists would be looking directly down upon the sacred site, completely eliminating privacy. The Intertribal Compact states that if any member of either tribe has difficulties accessing their religious sites on the reservation of the other, it is the responsibility of the other to facilitate access. Furthermore, “the Landowner Tribe shall respect the privacy of persons engaging in religious practices, and shall not observe or intrude upon religious activities or impede, search, inspect, or interfere with any person traveling to or from such activities.” (Kempthorne, 2006, p. 5). This is one of the most obvious violations opponents of the Escalade project point to, in addition to the agreement that, “the Navajo Nation shall prohibit any new man-made improvement, structure, installation, or apparatus, whether placed on, under, or above the ground…to be placed or constructed within” sacred sites (Kempthorne, 2006, p. 5).
If Hopi access to the site were to be maintained, like the 2006 Compact implies, Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Hopi Cultural Preservation Office Director, explains that “the solace and relationship with the environment as you’re doing these religious ceremonies requires a lot of emotional well-being…which is what is going to be taken away with this resort” (Lee, 2014, para. 11). In addition to this concern, “[s]acred sites become part of a system of a culture’s cognitive/psychological development, where that development is tied to the history of an area and the cultural scripts of the people” (McAvoy, 2002, p.389). Such a relationship places the cultural health of those who regard the confluence area, and Sipapuni, with any level of sacredness, into jeopardy.
The Confluence Partners and GCE, although they recognize the importance of the confluence to some members of the Hopi and Navajo Tribes, determine that there is “no evidence of any sacred sites within the project boundaries or that would be negatively impacted by the project” (Faq’s, 2012, para. 2). The Partners are able to make this statement, because technically, the National Park Service has not recognized the Confluence as a sacred site of any tribe, although traditions and knowledge are often passed down solely through word of mouth. GCE does however plan on “doing outreach to all of the 12 Hopi villages’ Kikmongwi (religious leaders) on the project and invite them to participate in the Cultural Discovery Center” (GCE, 2012, n.p.). However, the Cultural Discovery Center is defined on the GCE website as “a themed cultural and historical recreation entertainment, arts, events, education, dining, and shopping experience” (GCE, 2012, n.p.).
Despite the Navajo and Hopi shared history of eviction from their indigenous lands in the Canyon, and struggles to prosper while still maintaining cultural sanctity, some level of mutual support has degraded along the way. Although “a deeper understanding of how different cultural groups attach meaning to the landscapes of the West, especially the landscapes in parks and protected areas, [creates] a better opportunity to avoid some of the conflicts that we now have… regarding land management decisions,” it appears that economic benefits have the potential to overshadow such an “understanding” (McAvoy, 2002, p. 389-390). If the Intertribal Compact of 2006 were to be ignored for the creation of the tram, a new precedent of relations both within the Navajo Nation, and between the Navajo and Hopi Tribes, would be generated. The Grand Canyon already “symbolize[s] lost land, deception, continued oppression, and the death or near death of a culture” to many (Keller, 1999, p. 390). Additional intertribal and cross tribal disputes could potentially further degrade this already culturally fragile natural symbol.
While the gaming industry accounts for a very large portion of economic profits for the Navajo Nation and other Native American Tribes, there is a need to promote the development of small businesses and entrepreneurship opportunities directly on reservations. Rather than bringing in massive development projects like Escalade, smaller enterprises would create jobs that exceed minimum wage standards. For example, there is a project that aims to become a major distributer of rain catchment systems call Navajo Rain Catcher Enterprise, Inc. This company would both produce the equipment, and distribute it to a variety of clients such as industrial agriculture, municipalities, military, and domestic water users (Executive Branch News, 2015). That being said, “the U.S. EPA needs to find a balance between economic development, progress and environmental protection that will allow the Navajo Nation to thrive in the years to come” (Executive Branch News, 2015, para. 2). However, such a compromise would likely require a complete overhaul of the Escalade development plan.
Currently, an agreement has been signed between the Navajo Nation and the Confluence Partners. However, without approval of the Navajo Tribal Council, the project cannot move forward. Furthermore, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (U.S. Department of the Interior) and the National Parks Service would likely intervene if the project proceeds.
Ultimately, there is a growing dichotomy between how the Grand Canyon is perceived. Some view it and specific places within its walls as a sacred cultural haven, while others perceive its beauty as economic potential. As neither view can exclude the other completely, cooperation and mutual respect must be implemented. “Nobody’s interests are served by letting people use cultural resources as a weapon” (Burnham, 2000, p. 257).
Works Cited
About. (2015). Save the Confluence. http://savetheconfluence.com/about/.
Berger, Todd R. (2007). It Happened at Grand Canyon. Globe Pequot.
Burnham, Philip. (2000). Indian Country, God’s Country: Native Americans And The National Parks. Island Press.
Cart, Julie. (2007). Tribe’s Canyon Skywalk Opens One Deep Divide. LA Times. http-::www.latimes.com:la-na-skywalk11feb11-story.html#page=1.webloc.
Dowie, Mark. (2011). Conservation Refugees: The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples. Cambridge, Mass.; London, England: The MIT Press.
Faq’s. (2012). Grand Canyon Escalade. http://grandcanyonescalade.com/faqs/
Kal. (2012). Master Land Use Plan. Grand Canyon Escalade.
Executive Branch News. (2015). President Shelly Says Thank You. Hozhoojí Nahatáh Baa Hanè – A Publication of the Navajo Nation, 2 edition. http-::www.navajonsn.gov:News%20Releases:OPVP:2015:feb:Hozhooji%20Nahata%20Broadsheet.pdf.webloc.
Keller, Robert H., and Michael F. Turek. (1999). American Indians and National Parks. University of Arizona Press.
Kempthorne, Dirk. (2006). Intergovernmental Compact. United States Secretary of the Inerior. http-::www.bia.gov:cs:groups:public:documents:text:idc-001890.pdf.webloc.
Kuhne, Michael. (2014). Critics Say Multi-Million Dollar Development Will Mar Grand Canyon’s Grandeur, Threaten Ecosystem. AccuWeather. http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/grand-canyon-development-criticized/31732037.
Lee, Tanya. (2014). Raging Rivers: Navajo Nation Council to Vote on Grand Canyon Escalade Project. Text. Indian Country Today Media Network. http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/04/04/raging-rivers-navajo-nation-council-vote-grand-canyon-escalade-project-154321.
Marris, Emma. (2013). Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World. New York: Bloomsbury USA.
Martland, Carl, and Adams Eric. (2007). Project Evaluation. MIT Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering. http://ocw.iti.im/courses/civil-and-environmental-engineering/1-133-masters-of-engineering-concepts-of-engineering-practice-fall-2007/lecture-notes/lec_03.pdf.
McAvoy, Leo. (2002). American Indians, Place Meanings and the Old/New West. National Recreation and Park Association, 34 (4): 383–96.
Moore, Josh D. (1993). Justice Too Long Delayed on the Navajo Reservation: The Bennett Freeze as a Case Study in Government Treatment of Native Americans. Harvard Human Rights Journal 6: 222.