Guadalupe Mountains An Administrative History

Joe Pool and H. R. 3100

A freshman Congressman-at-Large from Texas, Joe Pool, took the next step toward the creation of Guadalupe Mountains National Park. Though a newly elected congressman, Pool previously had served three terms in the Texas legislature. He resided in Dallas but had family ties to Carlsbad, New Mexico, and was no stranger to West Texas. During his campaign in West Texas, he became interested in the Guadalupe Mountains. Conversations with many people in the area convinced him that the southern part of the Guadalupes should be preserved as a national park. In January 1963, without consulting Hunter, Biggs, the Park Service, or the Interior Department, Pool introduced H.R. 3100. The bill called for the Secretary of the Interior to study the Guadalupe Mountain Ranch to determine its appropriateness as a national park. Pool was as surprised to learn that just such a study had been completed nearly two years earlier as the affected individuals and agencies were to learn of Pool's interest in sponsoring a park bill. Secretary Udall commended Pool's plan and agreed to have the area investigation report of 1962 updated. [1]

Hunter, Pratt, and the Congressmen

Although Hunter was pleased by the interest that Pool's bill generated in his property, he faced the probability of purchase by the federal government realistically. He wrote to Wallace Pratt soon after Pool's announcement to thank Pratt for the geological report he had prepared for the Guadalupe Mountain Ranch and to express his feelings about the park project. He anticipated that Congressional approval of the park would take a long time, particularly if an appropriation bill was involved. He also acknowledged that purchase of his property by a benefactor, who would donate the property to the federal government, would undoubtedly speed approval by Congress. Hunter intimated to Pratt, however, that he could not hold his property off the market until Congress authorized the park. [2]

Pratt sympathized with Hunter's position and advised him to accept any reasonable offer he received. [3] He also passed on some information to Hunter regarding a gas test in a well east of Carlsbad. He interpreted the test results to mean that certain areas of the Guadalupe Mountain Ranch might contain gas-producing formations. He ended his letter to Hunter emphatically: "Retain part of your mineral rights!" [4]

During the spring and summer of 1963 Biggs and Hunter stepped up their efforts to gain support for the park idea. At least once a month they entertained members of chambers of commerce from western and central Texas and southern New Mexico, newspaper people, travel writers, and Texas and New Mexico politicians at the ranch. Visits lasted two days and involved trail rides into the back country as well as short hikes into the more accessible areas. Hunter provided food, horses, and other necessary accommodations for his guests. [5]

In early August 1963, Ed Foreman, Congressman from Odessa, added his support to the park movement. He and Pool both agreed that private acquisition of the ranch with the intent to donate it to the federal government was more desirable than depending on an appropriation from Congress. Foreman approached national organizations while Pool negotiated with local groups. [6]

At the same time that Foreman and Pool joined forces, Glenn Biggs's diplomatic skills came into play. He met with Ralph Yarborough, the senior Senator from Texas, who apparently was miffed because the legislative efforts were proceeding without his input. Biggs reminded Yarborough of Pool's failure to notify anyone involved before he introduced the legislation. Biggs also pointed out that when he had been in Washington in March he had tried unsuccessfully to meet with Yarborough to discuss the legislation. Since that time Biggs had also tried to keep Yarborough up to date on local support by sending news clippings and copies of resolutions for his file. [7] The meeting with Yarborough was only one of many such situations that Biggs handled to keep the park project going and to garner support from as many individuals as possible.

The Committee of Five

John Ben Shepperd was another pivotal person in the campaign to establish Guadalupe Mountains National Park. Sheppard formerly had served as Secretary of State and Attorney General of the State of Texas; in 1963 he was president of the Texas State Historical Survey Committee. In September 1963 he notified the county chairmen of the Survey Committee in the Permian and Trans-Pecos areas of his support for the creation of the park in the Guadalupes. He asked the county committees to consider drawing up resolutions in support of the park. [8] Shepperd also participated in the U. S. Highway 180 Association, a group organized to promote cooperation among the cities along U.S. 180 in West Texas and southern New Mexico. J.C. Hunter, Jr. and Glenn Biggs appeared before the association and asked them to lend their support and guidance to the movement to establish the park in the Guadalupes. From among the people present at that meeting, five emerged who spearheaded the support group which came to be called the Committee of Five: John Ben Shepperd; Tom Brown, from Artesia, New Mexico, who was National Democratic Committeeman for the State of New Mexico; Adair Gossett, the mayor of Carlsbad; Louis Whitlock, director of the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce; and Glenn Biggs. [9]

Political One-Upmanship

Secretary Udall planned to release the updated version of the Guadalupe Mountain Ranch area investigation at the meeting of the Advisory Board on National Parks, to be held at Big Bend National Park on November 3, 1963. The Advisory Board was a group of private citizens that advised the Secretary of the Interior regarding national parks and monuments. Among the board members in 1963 were a university president emeritus, a naturalist-writer, a museum director, a labor union president, the owner of a major carpet manufacturing company, the president of the National Geographic Society, and the chairman of the National Conference of State Parks. Prior to their meeting in Big Bend, the Advisory Board had spent two weeks touring national parks. The Guadalupe Mountain Ranch was the last item on their itinerary before the meeting at Big Bend. [10]

On November 1, 1963, Hunter accompanied the Advisory Board, headed by Harold P. Fabian, as well as Park Service Director Conrad Wirth and Associate Director George Hartzog, on a tour of McKittrick Canyon and the foothills of the Guadalupes. An old friend of the park, Ben Thompson, who by then had become an Assistant Director of the Park Service, was among the visitors to the ranch. The officials were particularly impressed by what they saw during their tour, perhaps because their visit coincided with the height of the fall colors. [11]

At this point Senator Yarborough took his turn at political one-upmanship. On November 7, without official notification about the Advisory Board's recommendation, the Senator introduced S. 2296 to create Guadalupe Mountains National Park. That same day Yarborough inserted in the Congressional Record five articles about the Guadalupe Mountains and fourteen resolutions favoring the park that had been submitted by organizations and agencies from Texas and New Mexico. Two weeks later Yarborough announced that the Advisory Board had formally recommended that the Guadalupe Mountain Peak area be made a national park. The same day, Pool announced that he would introduce a bill recommending a 77,959-acre park. Still smarting from Yarborough's early start, Pool called his bill the "official Interior Department measure resulting from its formal study." He introduced his bill, H.R. 9312, on December 2. [12] On December 4 Yarborough amended his bill to delineate the boundaries of the proposed park. After Yarborough added the metes and bounds description of the park to his bill, the two park bills were virtually identical.

Gaining Support for the Park

During the early months of 1964 Glenn Biggs began gathering evidence of support for the park project. He contacted Dan Ponder, a prominent El Paso businessman, asking him to solicit statements of support from Texas Governor John Connally and New Mexico Governor Jack Campbell. [13] Secretary Udall also wrote to Connally because he wanted to be certain that national park status did not conflict with any plans the State of Texas had for the Guadalupe Peak area. [14] Connally's response to Udall cleared the way for a national park. He advised that Texas was not in a position to undertake such a large-scale project. [15]

Governor Campbell's letter to Ponder was terse but useful. He stated simply that he knew of no opposition to the park among the residents of New Mexico, and in fact, he had received quite a bit of correspondence in favor of the park. [16]

Congressional hearings about the proposed park were scheduled for April 1964, and the Texas support group worked quickly to ready the witnesses who would testify. At the last moment, the hearings were cancelled because of prolonged debate in the civil rights hearings that were taking place. Although Glenn Biggs activated his network of influential people to seek Yarborough's help in getting the hearings rescheduled, the 88th Congress took no action on the Guadalupe park proposal. [17]

In 1964, Thomas Morris, Congressman from New Mexico, chaired the House Subcommittee on National Parks. In July of that year, he visited McKittrick Canyon with a number of Carlsbad civic leaders. Morris, however, was slower than the Texas Congressional delegation to throw his support to the park project. After his visit he told reporters that the Department of the Interior had not issued an official report on the proposed park, something his committee needed in order to consider the proposal. He also expressed concern about acquiring the mineral rights to Hunter's property: they belonged primarily to the State of Texas, not to Hunter. Morris also pointed out to news people that national park status would close the land to hunting, fishing, grazing, timber cutting, or mineral prospecting. [18]

Biggs was concerned with Morris's attitude toward the project and worked with his connections in New Mexico to gain the firm support of Morris. After Morris visited the canyon, Biggs also wrote to Joe Pool and expressed his hope that the Texas delegation would not pick up the suggestion made by Morris that to preserve the uses precluded by park status the ranch should become a national recreation area rather than a national park. [19]

During the spring and summer of 1964, support for the park increased. Many articles about the proposed park appeared in publications all over Texas. More organizations adopted resolutions in favor of the project. Pool and Yarborough both inserted representative samples of this material into the Congressional Record. [20]

On December 13, 1964, Secretary Udall expressed strong support for the park proposal after he visited McKittrick Canyon and other parts of Hunter's ranch. A number of officials from the Interior Department, staff members from Carlsbad Caverns, and newspaper people accompanied Udall on the ground and aerial tour. Afterward, Udall revived an old idea and talked about building a parkway between Carlsbad Caverns and the new park. He reported that once the bill was through Congress and the park was established, a superintendent would be named and an appropriation would be acquired. Estimating that the park would be available for public use within four years from establishment, Udall expected all facilities could be completed within seven to ten years. [21]

At the opening of the 89th Congress, in January 1965, both Yarborough and Pool reintroduced their bills, which contained identical provisions but were worded slightly differently. In a show of support for the proposal, Congressman Richard White of El Paso also introduced a bill identical to Pool's. Although the reason for the action is not clear, Pool's bill was dropped and White's bill, H.R. 698, persisted. The House committee may have preferred to retain the bill proposed by the Congressman who represented the district in which the park was located.

J.C. Hunter, Jr., owner of the Guadalupe Mountain Ranch. Glenn Biggs, Real Estate Broker who represented Hunter. Congressman Joe Pool who proposed legislation to investigate the possibility of establishing a park in the southern Guadalupe Mountains. Senator Ralph Yarborough, who initiated park legislation in the Senate and was instrumental in obtaining funds to purchase Hunter's ranch.

Figure 12. Key figures in the legislative process to authorize Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

The Congressional Hearings, 1965

Anticipating the scheduling of the Congressional committee hearings, supporters of the Texas park once again began preparing testimony and recruiting witnesses. They asked Hunter to prepare justifications for the price of his property and the profit he would make. They also asked him to explain the commission Biggs would receive. Hunter outlined the answers to those questions in a letter to Jim Bowmer, an attorney in Temple, Texas, who was a park supporter. He justified the $20.84 per acre offering price on the basis of the commercial, speculative, and recreational values of the ranch lands. He believed that the appraisers for the federal government and the appraisers he employed would have no problem agreeing on a fair market value for the ranch. As for justifying the profit he would receive, Hunter believed that the best route would be to calculate how much he might have received on the money if he had invested it in something other than the ranch. He agreed with those who were anticipating the questions of the committeemen regarding Biggs's commission: it was a matter to be dealt with head-on and matter-of-factly. Biggs would receive five percent of the sales price of the ranch for the services he had rendered to Hunter. [22]

By June 1965 the hearings still had not been scheduled. On June 9, a group of politically powerful Texans and New Mexicans met in El Paso to make plans to get the hearing process moving. After the meeting, Tom Diamond, chairman of the El Paso County Democratic Party, wrote letters to all of his connections in Washington, D.C. Apparently his promptings worked. The hearing before the House Subcommittee was set for July 20; the Senate Subcommittee hearing would be July 21. Biggs then began the feverish work of soliciting more witnesses, making travel and room arrangements for those who agreed to go, and briefing the witnesses on protocol and points of emphasis. [23]

Stanley Cain, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, prepared reports on the proposed park for each of the committees. The reports made some recommendations for changes to the bills, primarily in the area of mineral rights acquisition. Cain made it clear that the Department wanted "unconditional authority to acquire the mineral estate in order that it may prevent any mineral development that would conflict with the public enjoyment of the park." He also pointed out that the speculative nature of the existing oil and gas leases on the Hunter property might make it desirable to wait until speculation decreased to acquire the mineral rights. [24] Cain also suggested eliminating survey ambiguities by replacing the metes and bounds description of the bill with a map on which the boundaries had been drawn. The map he proposed added 240 acres to protect the area at Pine Springs, which contained the ruins of the Butterfield stagestop, and two sections on the western boundary of the park, which would be acquired by exchange. Finally, Cain's report deleted the section of the bill that called for the construction of an access road from Highway 62/180 to the park boundary. If such a road were needed, the Department believed it should be constructed by the State of Texas under the federal-aid highway system. [25]

More than fifteen persons from Texas went to Washington to support the Guadalupe Mountains National Park bill in the committee hearings. Among those attending were Ben Barnes, speaker of the Texas House of Representatives; Jim Bowmer, attorney and close friend of Supreme Court Associate Justice William O. Douglas; C.W. Brown, Texas Democratic committeeman; E.W. Cook, county judge of Winkler County; Mrs. L. E. Dudley, representative for the Texas Federation of Women's Clubs and a member of the State Historic Survey Committee; Beeman Fisher, president of Texas Electric Service Company and president of the Permian Basin Chamber of Commerce; Henry Hutson, mayor of Carlsbad; Dr. Rupert N. Richardson, president emeritus of Hardin-Simmons University; John Ben Shepperd, president of the State Historic Survey Committee; and Glenn Biggs. [26]

On July 20 the Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs conducted the first of its hearings. Most of the discussion focused on the value of the mineral rights to the proposed park lands. Although Interior Secretary Udall spoke in strong support of the park proposal, he apparently was unaware of the report prepared by Assistant Secretary Cain. Udall admitted that he did not know about the State of Texas's mineral rights to more than 45,000 acres of Hunter's land until the day of the hearing. He suggested that park proponents and Interior officials should meet to resolve the issue. [27]

Wallace Pratt spoke to the House Subcommittee regarding the value of the minerals on Hunter's land. He argued logically that J. C. Hunter, a prominent oilman, would never have considered selling his ranch if he believed valuable oil reserves existed there. Pratt also cited the negative results of test wells drilled in the area. His professional opinion was that there was little chance finding oil or other valuable minerals on the property. [28] No record exists to show why Pratt altered the position he had taken two years earlier when he encouraged Hunter to retain part of his mineral rights. Perhaps, after recognizing the major stumbling block acquisition of mineral rights posed to establishment of the park, he decided the park should not be traded off for the slim chance that valuable oil or gas reserves existed beneath the park lands.

Other witnesses spoke in opposition to the relinquishment of mineral rights. H. H. Markley and Tom Sealy, representing Texaco, Inc., holder of the mineral rights to more than 25,000 acres of Hunter's land, presented the other side of the mineral question to the House subcommittee. They pointed to the incomplete exploration of oil resources in the proposed park area and the proximity of the area to major oil and gas reserves. They also brought up the highly charged issue of school children being denied their rightful share of the leases, royalties, and bonuses that might be derived from oil production on the sections designated as public school lands. Congressman Richard White, the sponsor of the park bill, showed his divided allegiance during the hearing. Although he favored the park, he did not support the State of Texas relinquishing its mineral rights. He brought up Padre Island, Mount McKinley, and the Florida Everglades as exceptions to the policy of no mineral development in national parks. Committee Chairman Wayne Aspinall argued that those exceptions were made under different conditions. White was optimistic, however, that a compromise could be reached that would satisfy the Interior Department as well as his Texas constituents. [29] The House hearing closed at the end of testimony on July 20, to be reopened in February 1966, after committee members inspected the park site.

The Senate Subcommittee hearing on July 21 was abbreviated. Conflicts on the committee's agenda made it impossible to do more than accept prepared statements from the Texas witnesses who had traveled to Washington that week. Although the postponement might merely have been accidental, in view of the questions raised during the hearing on the previous day, the postponement may also have been an indication of the unwillingness of the senators to listen to any more poorly prepared testimony.

The Kelly Report

After the close of the July hearings, Secretary Udall, no doubt embarrassed by his incomplete understanding of the Guadalupe park proposal, asked John Kelly, former Assistant Secretary of the Interior from Roswell, New Mexico, to compile a report on the mineral potential of the Guadalupe Mountains. Although Kelly apparently reported orally to Udall, [30] his written report did not appear until late in March 1966, after the House Subcommittee hearings were closed. Kelly based his report on other available reports, well logs, and on consultation with officials of the Geological Survey, the Park Service, the State of Texas, and other organizations concerned with the area. Some observers expected Kelly's report to neatly resolve the mineral rights issue. The report, however, contained little information that had not been stated in other area surveys. Kelly briefly described the geology of the area and considered the potentials for development of oil and gas, ground water, saline minerals, construction materials, lime, and copper. He concluded that, other than water and construction materials, there were no valuable mineral deposits in the proposed park lands. [31]

The House Hearings, 1966

The House Subcommittee hearings reconvened on March 10, 1966, without Kelly's report. Again, the questions focused on the mineral rights issue. The dilemma of Congressmen Pool and White, created by their support of a park that required the State of Texas to make what appeared to some to be a considerable financial sacrifice, increased when Jerry Sadler, commissioner of the Texas General Land Office, stated during the hearing that Texas did not want the park if it meant giving up the State's mineral rights to the park lands. Sadler proposed the Guadalupe Mountains be designated a recreation area rather than a national park. Pool, unwilling to make any real commitment, supported Sadler's recommendation, but said if Texas would donate the mineral rights, he would also be agreeable to national park status for the area. [32]

Tom Sealy again represented the interests of Texaco at the hearing. Texaco offered to relinquish its mineral exploration rights to six sections at the mouth of McKittrick Canyon and on Guadalupe Peak until such time as policy changed to allow mineral development within national park boundaries. [33]

As a result of the lengthy hearing and consultation process, the park bill that finally reached the floor of the House late in May 1966 carried several important amendments: (1) A scenic easement would be sought for the sections belonging to Ed Hammack on the west side of the park. (2) The park could be established only after the State of Texas donated its mineral rights and all other mineral rights had been acquired through purchase or donation. Purchase options or contracts for surface rights would be contingent upon appropriations until resolution of the mineral rights question. (3) Former holders of mineral rights would be permitted to regain those rights at cost plus five percent interest per year if the federal government abandoned the park within 20 years. (4) In the first five years, park acquisition and development costs would be limited to $12,162,000. (5) The clause calling for construction of an access road outside the park boundaries would be deleted. [34]

On June 20, 1966, after brief discussion regarding the reversionary mineral rights of the State of Texas and the size of the appropriation requested, H.R. 698 passed the House floor. [35] The following day the bill was read in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

The Senate Hearings, 1966

In April 1966, anticipating the resumption of the Senate Subcommittee hearings, Alan Bible, who was Chairman of the Subcommittee, and Frank Moss and Len B. Jordan, members of the committee, visited the proposed park site, accompanied by Carlsbad Caverns Superintendent Paul Webb, Hunter, Biggs, and several other interested persons. During the tour, the party observed well-drilling taking place at the mouth of McKittrick Canyon, exploration that was permissible under the terms of the agreement of the Pratt land donation. [36] All of the senators were favorably impressed with the proposed park. Senator Bible spoke optimistically to reporters about the park bill's passage, but he also recognized the problem of acquiring the mineral rights. [37]

After a year's delay, the Senate Subcommittee hearings reopened on August 9, 1966. In spite of having had plenty of time to prepare testimony and with knowledge of the questions posed by the House Subcommittee, the expert witnesses of the day became a source of irritation to Chairman Bible. While Bible had been impressed with the proposed park lands, he still expected sound answers to the questions posed by the committee members. Stanley Cain, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, who one year earlier had signed off on the report on the proposed park, represented the Interior Department. When he was unable to respond satisfactorily to Bible's queries, Cain reported that his appearance at the hearing was a last-minute decision, because of the death of Carlsbad Caverns Superintendent Paul Webb, who had been scheduled to testify. Bible's concern, which Cain could not address, was the $1,500,000 that the Interior Department had earmarked for land acquisition for the park. Cain said that $165,000 of the amount was for improvements. He divided that amount into two parts: $24,000 for six buildings and $141,000 for "improved farm units." Under continued questioning by Bible, Cain admitted he did not know what constituted the improved units, nor had he ever been closer to the proposed park than Carlsbad and Big Bend. At that point Bible's patience ended:

We are not qualifying you as a witness on Carlsbad or Big Bend but we would like to have a qualified witness on Guadalupe, a man who has been over the grounds and knows it. We are not expert on the committee but I think each of us has seen it. [38]

Max Edwards, assistant to Udall, stepped into the fray and attempted to clarify the points Cain stumbled over. Somewhat pacified, Bible's focus then shifted to the cost of acquiring Texaco's mineral rights. He expressed concern that the $1,500,000 did not include any amount for acquisition of mineral rights. Edwards guessed that the cost for Texaco's rights would not exceed $75,000 for 25,000 acres, but he admitted that the Interior Department had made no formal estimate of the amount. Senator Clinton P. Anderson of New Mexico, another committee member, reminded Cain and Edwards of the Department's gross underestimation of land acquisition costs at Point Reyes, Cape Cod, and Padre Island. He expressed the hope that such errors would not be repeated at Guadalupe. [39]

Anderson returned to questioning Cain about farm units. Questioned directly about Hunter's land, Cain could not answer questions about wells, whether the land was under cultivation, what type of livestock was run on the property (he incorrectly assumed it was cattle), the reasoning behind the rangeland appraisals, how long Hunter had owned the land, or his cost for acquisition. [40]

The senators excused Cain from further questioning. However, they expressed again their desire to talk with someone who could explain why mineral rights could be bought for $3 per acre (Edwards's estimate) when Hunter's rangeland had been appraised at an average of $20 per acre. [41]

Texaco representatives James Pipkin and Joseph Markley were resigned to the fact that Texaco would be forced to relinquish mineral rights to the Hunter lands, either through donation or sale. They argued, however, to retain reversionary rights to the minerals in the event that government policy or park status changed. They felt the 20-year time limit imposed on reversionary rights by the House bill was unrealistic in view of the slow development of West Texas. The Texaco men also addressed the question of the value of the company's mineral rights. Markley explained the geology of the region, previous testing, and untested potential for oil and gas development. Although he suggested Edwards's estimate of $3 per acre for mineral rights was far too low, neither Pipkin nor Markley were able to suggest a more reasonable figure. [42]

After questioning the Texaco representatives, the senators agreed that there was little harm in adding Texaco's request for reversionary interests in the mineral rights to the bill. Senator Bible said, "It is so unusual to find anything governmental once created that is ever put out of business, and I would think that would probably be true of Guadalupe Mountains National Park, that once created, it is going to be there forever and a day. So I don't know that your condition would be too burdensome on the Government . . . ." [43]

On October 7, 1966, the Senate approved H. R. 698. Several amendments were added to resolve the problems confronted during the hearings: (1) All mineral rights, not just those belonging to the State of Texas, were required to be donated. (2) Reversionary rights of those donors would be respected for an unlimited period of time. (3) Land acquisition costs would be limited to $1,800,000. [44]

The House approved the Senate's changes on October 10 and on October 15, 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the bill to authorize Guadalupe Mountains National Park (see Appendix A). In summary, the bill provided that: (1) Land would be acquired as described on the map drawn by the Department of the Interior. The sections belonging to Ed and Ona Hammack would be omitted upon receipt of a scenic easement from them. (2) Acquisition of the land could be accomplished by purchase, donation, or exchange, with 4,667 acres specifically designated for exchange. (3) Contracts for purchase would be contingent upon availability of appropriated funds. Establishment of the park would occur after notification by publication in the Federal Register that title to all land had been vested in the United States and all mineral rights had been donated. (4) Mineral rights would be reconveyed to donors if the land were abandoned by the Park Service, if a national emergency required development of the mineral resources, or if mineral development outside the park boundaries drained the reserves beneath the park. (5) Funds designated for the administration of McKittrick Canyon would be transferred to Guadalupe Mountains National Park after the park was established. (6) Cost limitations would be $1,800,000 for land acquisition and $10,400,000 for development of the park.

The Texas Legislature

Soon after the opening of the Texas legislature in January 1967, Joe Christie, senator from El Paso, and Gene Hendryx, representative from Alpine, introduced companion bills providing for the conveyance of the State's mineral rights to 45,000 acres of J.C. Hunter's land to the federal government. [45] In the committee hearings that followed, Texas land commissioner Jerry Sadler maintained the position he had taken in the Congressional hearings: Texas should retain its mineral rights. Instead of a national park on the Hunter lands, Sadler advocated the creation of a state park supported by mineral leases on the park lands. The West Texas Geological Society sent the House committee a statement expressing the opposite viewpoint. The group believed that "the value of the Guadalupe Mountain area as a national park will be far greater to the people of Texas than the worth of its minerals." [46]

In late February, Texaco made a move to delay passage of the mineral rights bill. The company began drilling a well on its leased land within the proposed park boundaries, at the mouth of Pine Springs Canyon. Tom Sealy, representative of Texaco, appeared before the House to ask that their final vote be postponed for 60 days, until the well reached a level of 7,000 feet. Ostensibly, Texaco wanted to prove to the legislators that the State's mineral rights were worth more than the $5 per acre that the bill proposed to pay to the school fund for relinquishment of the rights. In actuality, a 60-day delay would have effectively killed the bill, postponing the decision until the legislature's next session in 1969. [47]

Texaco's ploy was unsuccessful; the House confirmed the Senate-passed mineral rights relinquishment bill by a vote of 132 to 10 on February 23, 1967. [48] Governor John Connally signed the bill on March 6 and formal conveyance of the deed took place on November 16, 1967. [49]

Appropriations Legislation

The legislative struggles to establish Guadalupe Mountains National Park did not end with the relinquishment of the mineral rights belonging to the State of Texas. By the end of 1967 Texaco also had donated its mineral rights, clearing the way for purchase of Hunter's land. But one stumbling block remained: funding of the $1,800,000 for land acquisition. While Guadalupe Mountains National Park was still a question in the Congressional subcommittees, the Interior Department had secured a three-year purchase option (to expire December 31, 1968) on 58,878 acres of Hunter's land. In 1967, after authorization of the park, $354,000 was appropriated for Guadalupe Mountains, of which $280,000 was earmarked for land acquisition. The Interior Department used that amount to secure some of the smaller tracts within the park boundaries. Hoping to complete land acquisition in 1968, the Interior Department requested an additional $1,446,000. Of that amount, $1,200,000 was needed to exercise the option on Hunter's land.

Representative Julia Butler Hansen of Washington chaired the House Appropriations Subcommittee. When George B. Hartzog, Jr., Director of the Park Service, appeared before the committee, Hansen voiced her objection to such a large amount of money going to one landowner: "If you think I am going to throw away money to make someone a millionaire, you are wrong." She asked Hartzog whether anyone else was apt to buy Hunter's land immediately. Hartzog admitted he knew of no immediate prospects, but he added that because there was water on the land, it was particularly valuable. He suggested that Hunter could probably sell the land for more than the $1,200,000 price guaranteed by the government's purchase option and estimated that the cost would increase ten to twenty percent if the option were not exercised. When Hansen asked Hartzog to prioritize the Department's appropriation requests, however, he placed land acquisition for Guadalupe Mountains third behind development monies for Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and Assateague National Seashore. [50]

In 1968, expenses of the Vietnam conflict and inflation compelled Congress to seek a $6,000,000,000 budget cut. In response to that demand, Hansen's Appropriations Subcommittee refused to approve the $30,000,000 that the Interior Department had requested for park acquisition funds; $1,200,000 for Guadalupe Mountains was part of that package. The Senate, however, still had not acted on the appropriations bill. Senator Yarborough appealed to members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee and persuaded them to approve $200,000 for land acquisition for Guadalupe Mountains. Although the appropriation was small, Yarborough hoped it would be enough to secure a purchase contract on Hunter's land. The House agreed to the appropriation in a conference report. [51]

Yarborough was not content, however, with the token appropriation. After studying a 1968 amendment to the Land and Water Conservation Act that gave the Interior Department power to use its general funds for authorized park lands, Yarborough approached Secretary Udall with his plan. He proposed to use $1,020,000 of Department funds to complete the purchase of land for Guadalupe Mountains. With Udall's approval, the plan did not require further action by the full Congress, only review and approval by the appropriation committees of both houses of Congress. Congressman Richard White worked with the House committee while Yarborough worked with the Senate committee. [52] In January, President Lyndon Johnson recommended the expenditure to Congress in his budget message. Congress approved final funding in September 1969. [53]

Establishment of Guadalupe Mountains National Park

After the federal government acquired all of the land within the authorized boundaries of the new park, and after the mineral rights had been donated, a notice, prepared by the Park Service and dated September 30, 1972, appeared in the Federal Register on October 6, 1972, announcing the establishment of Guadalupe Mountains National Park. The September 30 date was chosen to coincide with the park's dedication ceremony. [54]

The McKittrick Canyon Access Road

In January 1975, Congressman Richard White introduced H. R. 1747, amending Section 2 of the 1966 Act that created Guadalupe Mountains National Park. The amendment provided for an exchange of land so that an access road to McKittrick Canyon could be built on Park Service land. When White defended the amendment before the House in December 1975, he pointed out that visitors had to use a privately owned ranch road to reach McKittrick Canyon. The owner of the road, Mrs. Fletcher Pratt, whose late husband was the son of Wallace Pratt, had limited public access to four cars on weekdays and 10 cars per day on weekends. White explained that visitors had to use the private road because engineers had determined that the land the Park Service originally intended to be used for the access road was too rough and was subject to flash floods. Mrs. Pratt had agreed to exchange her property for the right-of-way originally donated by the Pratt family. White informed the House members that the cost for the transaction was estimated to be $3,750. [55]

In June 1975 the Senate had passed S. 313, an identical bill to White's H. R. 1747. After hearing White's testimony, the House passed H.R. 1747, suspended the rules requiring committee consideration of S. 313, amended the Senate bill by using the wording of the House bill, and passed the Senate bill. The Senate concurred on the amendment on December 17, 1975. [56] The bill became Public Law 94-174 on December 23, 1975.

Wilderness Designation and Development Ceiling Increase

The Wilderness Act of 1964 required the Secretary of the Interior to review roadless areas of 5,000 acres or more within national parks and recommend whether such lands should be added to the National Wilderness Preservation System. In 1970, as the master planning process for Guadalupe Mountains began, the designation of wilderness areas within the park became a hotly debated issue.

By the time of the Master Plan hearings in November 1971, most of the battle was over. The real debate had begun on March 17, 1970, when a large group of interested persons met with the Park Service to voice their opinions about the park's proposed master plan and wilderness proposal. The wilderness proponents hoped that the park would not be developed in any way. Joseph Leach, regional chairman of the Sierra Club from El Paso, spoke for his organization, asking that the park be left entirely unchanged, with no roads to provide access for campers and trailers. Leach saw no harm, however, in the tramway which the Park Service proposed to build through Pine Springs Canyon. [57]

Clare Cranston of the U. S. Geological Services expressed a more development-oriented viewpoint, suggesting keeping people out of Guadalupe Mountains would be "discrimination of the worst kind . . . . against the bulk of our population." He asked a Sierra Club representative, "Do you mean that 10 years from now I will not be allowed to visit the park just because I would be physically unable to walk in?" Milo Conrad of the New Mexico Mountain Club responded, "Go in while you're young." [58]

R. W. Lee, an El Paso newspaper editor, attended the meeting. Viewing the heated arguments objectively, he told his readers that the overriding concern of everyone present was that the park should not be developed to such a point that preservation of its wilderness state, which they all seemed to value, would become impossible. [59]

In May the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce sent a letter to the master planning team for Guadalupe Mountains, expressing its belief that the majority of the travelling public would be barred from the park if it became a designated wilderness. The Chamber preferred to see development similar to that at Carlsbad Caverns. [60]

The stand of the Chamber drew a spate of letters to the editor of the Carlsbad newspaper in support of the wilderness designation. Also during this time, the National Speleological Society prepared its own proposal for the designation of 156,000 acres of wilderness in portions of Guadalupe Mountains and Carlsbad Caverns, and Lincoln National Forest, and submitted it to the National Park Service, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. [61]

The Carlsbad Current-Argus provided a forum for opinions about the park throughout the next year. The newspaper did a commendable job of presenting both sides of the issue and printing in-depth articles about the park and the planning process. The educational campaign carried out by the Current-Argus no doubt contributed to the spirit of compromise that led the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce to reverse its earlier opinion and announce in October 1971 its support for the Master Plan and Wilderness Proposal as developed by the Park Service. The membership of Superintendent Donald Dayton in the Chamber of Commerce and his active efforts to establish good relations with that organization and other civic groups also aided in obtaining the final support of the Chamber. [62]

Thus, the November 1971 hearings were not as heated as they might have been. Most speakers approved the Master Plan generally although they took exception to specific parts of it. Most attention was directed to the Pine Springs Canyon Tramway Proposal, not the Wilderness Proposal. [63]

In October 1972, President Richard M. Nixon submitted to Congress the Wilderness Proposal for Guadalupe Mountains National Park. The proposal recommended 46,850 acres of the 77,500-acre park be designated as wilderness and managed accordingly. [64] Six years later, as a part Title IV of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-625), the Guadalupe Mountains Wilderness became official (see Appendix A).

Another section of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 also affected Guadalupe Mountains. During the first five years after official establishment of the park, $7,462,000 of the park's $10,362,000 development ceiling had been spent, but little permanent development had taken place. While visitor facilities had been built, a visitor center, headquarters complex, employee housing, and roads and trails remained to be constructed. Most of the available funds had been spent on planning, setting up temporary administrative and public-use facilities, exploring for water sources, developing temporary water sources for the facilities, and stabilizing historic structures and ruins. The Interior Department requested the development ceiling be raised to $24,715,000. Guadalupe Mountains, however, was unique among the twenty-nine areas of the Park Service that were seeking increases in their development ceilings. The ceilings for the twenty-eight other areas were based on needs through 1981 only. The ceiling for Guadalupe Mountains covered the estimated cost of all future development. [65] On November 10, 1978, Title I of the National Parks and Recreation Act raised the development ceiling for the park to $24,715,000 (see Appendix A).

Legislation in 1987

In 1987 a Congressional "add-on" to the annual omnibus appropriation bill for the National Park Service included $3,650,000 for construction of the visitor center and operational headquarters facility for Guadalupe Mountains National Park. Texas Congressman Ron Coleman, who had succeeded Richard White as the Representative from the 16th District, sponsored the add-on legislation. In 1987 Coleman also indicated his willingness to sponsor legislation to add about 10,000 acres to the park. The boundary expansion would incorporate into the park the most significant portion of the red and white sand dunes immediately west of the park boundary. [66]

A Perspective on the Legislative History

When considering the legislative history of other parks, the supporters of Guadalupe Mountains National Park did not encounter unusual obstacles. Congress had wrestled with the issue of the value of such resources as minerals or timber many times in the past, such as when they authorized Isle Royale National Park , the Everglades National Park, Olympic National Park, and Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Recreation Area. During the 1940s and 1950s, formal establishment of Cape Hatteras and the Everglades were stalled for as long as twenty years while state governments negotiated the values of mineral rights and surface rights so that they could purchase the designated parklands and donate them to the national park system. By the 1960s, when Guadalupe Mountains was authorized, Congress had established the precedent of appropriating money to acquire privately held lands for park use. Considering that acquisition of the surface rights to Guadalupe Mountains National Park depended on the whims of Congressional appropriations committees at a time when the nation faced other strong financial commitments, the acquisition process took a relatively short period of time. [67]

Like all other parks, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, was created and developed by political action. The establishment of Guadalupe Mountains National Park required the sustained efforts of many politically adept and powerful people. Without the combined work of Pool, Foreman, Yarborough, and White, the park would not have been authorized. Private citizens used their political influence to get the Congressional hearings scheduled. Later, after authorization of the park, Yarborough's push for a different way to finance land acquisition, combined with White's support in the House, undoubtedly shortened the time required for that phase of park development. Finally, in 1987, the aggressive work of Ron Coleman brought about funding for the park's visitor center and operations headquarters, a project that had been financially stymied for a decade.