Mesa Verde Administrative History

A. Boundary adjustment

As originally established, Mesa Verde National Park was set aside for the purpose of preserving the prehistoric cliff dwellings. Unfortunately, the park contained about 42,000 acres of land which included almost none of the ruins it was supposed to preserve. Its southern boundary was located at a point just north of the present park headquarters, leaving the main ruins on Ute lands. Mrs. Virginia McClurg, of the Cliff Dwellers Association, compared the boundary blunder "with that of a play of Hamlet with the royal Dane left out." [1]

To bring the crucial ruins to the park area, the Brooks-Leupp Amendment was added to the park bill. This Amendment provided that all prehistoric ruins that were located within five miles of the boundaries of the park, on Indian lands and on lands not alienated by patents from the ownership of the federal government, were placed under the custody of the Secretary of the Interior, and "shall be administered by the same service that is established for the custodianship of the park." [2] With the Amendment, more than 175,000 acres of land came under the administrative jurisdiction of the park.

In the winter of 1906 the Secretary of the Interior called for an archeological survey of the Mesa Verde to determine what cliff dwellings and ruins situated on Ute Indian deeded lands should be embraced in the park and what should be the boundaries and acreage; the survey was to be made by the Smithsonian Institution. According to the Denver Post of August 11, 1907, the survey group consisted of Professor Edgar L. Hewett, Director of American Archeology, Archeological Institute of America; Dr. A. J. Fynn of Denver; Messrs. Morley, Kidder and Fletcher of Harvard University as assistant archeologists; and Jesse Nusbaum, Colorado State Normal School, photographer. Nusbaum was just beginning a distinguished career in the field of archeology. The report prepared by this survey group provided the basic information needed for exchanging, with the Southern Ute Indians, any of their reservation lands on which most of the largest and best known cliff dwellings were located, for other lands of their selection. [3]

In 1908 the Ute Indians expressed the desire to secure the Ute Mountain tract, situated at the far end of the Montezuma National Forest. They were willing to relinquish, for inclusion in the park, the portion of the 5-mile strip surrounding the park and lying within the Southern Indian Reservation. The Ute Mountain contained no merchantable timber; it was isolated from the remainder of the forest and was expensive to administer. For this reason the Supervisor of the National Forest recommended the elimination of the entire Ute Mountain division. The land within the 5-mile strip was rough, arid, and of little benefit to the Indians, and practically inaccessible from the west side of the reservation where most of them lived; this tract contained the largest and most important cliff dwellings, which could be easily administered to far greater advantage by their inclusion within the park proper. This strip which the Indians were willing to relinquish was worth something for pasture, but it was not used by the Indians for that purpose. They favored the Ute Mountain country which was of easy access to all and was much used as summer range. [4]

Acting under authority of the Act of March 3, 1903, and Departmental instructions of April 20, 1911, Mr. F. H. Abbott, Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and Mr. James McLaughlin, United States Indian Inspector, entered into an agreement with the Wiminuche baud of Southern Ute Indians, on May 10, 1911. This agreement, to be effective and binding when ratified by the Indians of that part of their reservation including and covering ruins and prehistoric remains in lieu of certain unappropriated public lands specifically described in the agreement. The lands to be received by the Indians were temporarily withdrawn from all forms of settlement, entry, sale or other disposition. [5]

In July the Assistant Secretary announced that it was the intention of the Department to request Congress, in the event that part of the Indian lands proposed to be included in the park were added to it, to enact a law rescinding the jurisdiction of the Department over the 5-mile strip surrounding the park. [6] Prior to that the superintendent of Mesa Verde had recommended that all lands of the 5-mile strip, lying to the north and west of the park boundary, be released from the jurisdiction of the park, since this area contained no ruins of importance, and "geographically was no essential part of the park;" that portion of the strip east of Mancos Canyon be permanently attached to the park and incorporated in it. Later on the superintendent recommended the release of jurisdiction over all the 5-mile strip, except on the south, because it was difficult to police it properly. [7]

According to the agreement with the Wiminuche, the government would obtain 12,760 acres on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation and agree to give the Indians a tract lying west and within the park boundary containing about 6,000 acres and a second tract lying just south of the Ute Mountain, containing about 19,000 acres. [8]

The agreement was submitted to Congress in 1912 for ratification, but there were some unexpected delays. [9] Sometime after the agreement with the Indians was signed, the proposed land addition was surveyed by the Geological Survey and the proposed southern boundary was found to be still too far to the north, slightly north of Balcony House. [10] Therefore, the legislation was amended and resubmitted on January 22, 1913, adding an additional 1,320 acres of land to the southern boundary, to make a total of 14,520 acres; the Indians received a total of 30,240 acres. By the Act of Congress approved on June 20, 1913, the boundaries of the park were so changed as to include an aggregate area of 76.51 square miles, or 48,966.4 acres. [11]

B. Concession law

Another defect of the act setting aside Mesa Verde National Park was that it did not grant authority to the Secretary for the leasing of sites for buildings or for providing accommodation facilities or other permits in or through the park. Portions of the park and the 5-mile strip consisted of fair grazing lands and coal deposits to be worth developing.

On March 25, 1908, Rep. Warren A. Haggoth introduced in the House of Representatives a bill prepared by the Department to amend the park bill; a similar bill was introduced in the Senate by Rep. Guggenheim on April 15. [12]

As originally passed by the Senate,, the Guggenheim bill contained provisions authorizing the Secretary, upon terms and conditions fixed by him, to grant leases and permits for' the use of the lands in the park "for the development of the resources thereof." To make the idea more palatable to conservationists, the bill had a provision authorizing the Secretary to use the proceeds of the leases and franchises in the administration, protection, and improvement of the park, including the construction of roads. These provisions were similar to those relating to Yellowstone National Park. Thus framed, the bill would have materially aided the government in the administration of the park. It was broad enough to cover rights of way, coal mining, grazing, and the like, in addition to facilities for accommodation of visitors.

But leases for mining coal came up for discussion in the debates on the Guggenheim bill. There was some local demand for the opening of coal mines which had been in operation before the mining claims were invalidated by the reservation of the lands for park purposes. [13] Representative Mondell of Wyoming explained that the park contained the only coal reserves for the general area and that a mine or two near the ruins would not hurt the park. [14] Rep. Taylor of Colorado noted that the town of Cortéz, the seat of Montezuma County, and all the main portion of the county had no railroad. For many years, he said, the inhabitants of the town and the farmers of Montezuma Valley had obtained their coal from five or six small openings just north of the Southern Ute Indian Reservation and within that county. By the park bill, all the workable coal veins or deposits in the country were incorporated in the park; that the Secretary had decided that neither by the park act nor by the general law had he any authority to allow the people to further procure coal for domestic use from any of those deposits within the park. The result was that they were compelled to purchase coal from outside—Hesperus or Durango—and have it shipped to the nearest railroad point and then hauled from 10 to 20 miles, making it very expensive and a great hardship upon the people of that county ever since the establishment of the park. [15]

When the Guggenheim bill was finally reported from the House Committee on Public Lands, it was so amended as to confine the granting of leases and permits to lands to be used for the mining of coal for local consumption in Montezuma County. On the floor of the House it was further amended by striking out that portion authorizing the use of the funds in the management of the park and providing that the money should be covered into the Treasury. As thus amended the bill passed both Houses of Congress. Upon the recommendation of the Secretary, President Taft vetoed it. In part, the Secretary had informed the President:

If the bill in its present condition should become law it will in no way assist, but, on the contrary, would undoubtedly impede this department in the administration of the park, as probably the entire appropriation ... of the park, would be required to investigate applications for coal leases and permits and to supervise work under such leases and permits, thus diverting the appropriation from the purpose for which it was intended.

As the bill stands, it is a radical departure from other park legislation in that it requires moneys derived from privileges of the park to be covered directly into the Treasury and this department deprived of the use thereof, whereas the revenues received from permits and leases in other parks are available for the improvement and protection thereof. [16]

Again, on May 5, 1910, Senator Guggenheim introduced a bill to authorize concession leases and permit mining, the revenues to go to the park for improvement and not into the United States Treasury. This bill passed the Senate, but got no further. [17] Other efforts to permit mining and to make park revenues available for improvement likewise failed. [18] On June 25, 1910, however, an amendment to the urgency act authorized the Secretary to grant leases and permits for the use of the land or development of the park resources, but the revenues had to be turned into the Treasury. This amendment, therefore, became the basic law that permitted grazing and mining operations in the park, and the concession for visitor facilities and services, like lodging, camping and transportation. [19]