Two Reviews of False Architect: The Mary Colter Hoax by Fred Shaw

 

Two Reviews of False Architect: The Mary Colter Hoax by Fred Shaw

                                      Rust Camp (today's Phantom Ranch) 1907 NPS image

The first review of Fred Shaw's book False Architect is by Haley Johnson. Haley is Past President of the Grand Canyon Historical Society. In 2021 she presented a discussion of some of the facts showing Coulter was a designer, not an architect. You can see her presentation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHTQk82QPys

Johnson wrote the following review on the False Architect Amazon page:

Amazing how we think we know everything about a time before many of us were born yet new technology is constantly allowing us to uncover long hidden secrets. I have gone through dozens of Shaw's sources, most which are all available to the public, and I am surprised how easy it is to find what he found! Even without a direct link (which he DOES provide) it was simple to find many of the newspaper articles.

I absolutely love that ZANE GREY basically called Colter unbalanced.! Love this read, fascinating history. I for one am absolutely open to changes in History. We weren't there, we only have evidence to read. I love to learn more and dig more into what was or could have been. We are learning new things all the time thanks to advances in technology.

If what Shaw has found is actual fact nothing needs to change except it's another page in the history of Colter and these amazing buildings associated with her.

An interpretive Ranger could easily interpret Mary Colter as we have been doing for as long as any of us can remember and then at the end of the program can add in this new evidence and let the audience come to their own conclusion. it can open up discussion, it's a facilitated dialogue opportunity.

This can be a new experience and a new learning opportunity for all of us it doesn't have to mean Mary Colter is bad or that we should all hate her 🤷🏽‍♀️ whatever happened back then for Colter to have gotten in the books as she did is amazing! She's still going to be a powerful historic figure no matter what.

Fred Shaw uncovered this fascinating evidence and has recently uncovered even more, why push against it when we can all dig deeper into it and try to learn more?

You can read Johnson’s and other reviews here: https://www.amazon.com/False-Architect-Mary-Colter-Hoax-ebook/dp/B07CJRX2F5/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

 

The second review of Fred Shaw's False Architect is by Doug Sherman. Doug is a retired Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the College of Lake County, Illinois. His review was originally posted September 19, 2018 at https://www.facebook.com/groups/GrandCanyonHistory. You can read more about Doug here: https://www.blurb.ca/user/Dougsherman

Review of Fred Shaw's False Architect by Doug Sherman

I am a former geology professor and a professional photographer who has spent hundreds of hours teaching field courses and photographing the Grand Canyon. Like everyone else, I thought Mary Colter was the architect of many of the buildings at the Grand Canyon. After all, that is what the literature available from the Grand Canyon Natural History Association and the National Park Service purports. So, when a friend suggested that I read this book I was more than intrigued to see what the author had to say.

As a scientist, I approach things from a skeptical point of view. I always check to see if sources are viable and if there is any bias in the evaluation of information presented or in the way it was assembled. It is apparent, based on the information presented in this book, that the previous literature describing Mary Colter as the architect of numerous buildings at the Grand Canyon and elsewhere along the Santa Fe Railroad system violated these fundamental principles. Few if any primary sources were used by authors of the previous literature and much of the information utilized in those books was provided to the writers by either people Colter had befriended, by Colter herself, from other books whose authors didn’t do proper research, or from her grossly embellished autobiography.

Fred Shaw did not set out to refute Mary Colter’s claims. He only decided to investigate her based on contradictions he discovered while doing research for a book on Louis Curtis, a prominent architect who worked for Fred Harvey and the Santa Fe Railroad during that same time.

He began by researching Mary Colter’s early history including where she lived, her educational background, and her job background. Most importantly, he discovered that she had no architectural training whatsoever. In fact, the California School of Design, which she attended for three years after high school, offered no architectural classes. Her courses there consisted of drawing and fine arts.

Although Colter claimed in her autobiography that she taught architecture courses while employed at Stout Manual Training School in Menomonie, WI and Mechanic Arts High School in St. Paul, MN, Shaw provides definitive proof that the former school did not offer architecture classes and that at the latter her duties were teaching literature and drawing classes. These lies might be considered unimportant embellishments used to impress her friends and family. However, Shaw proves this was only the beginning of a life of deceit on a grand scale.

After she was hired by Fred Harvey to be a decorator during the heyday of construction at Grand Canyon National Park and along the Santa Fe Railroad the depth of her prevarication increased. This position gave her access to the blueprints/plans for these structures and because these plans were the property of the Fred Harvey and Santa Fe architectural departments they did not contain the names of the actual architects. As a result, Mary Colter wrote her initials M. E. J. C. on many of the plans thus, claiming them as her own or she simply asserted to others that she was the architect. She didn’t expect that someone as astute in investigative techniques as Fred Shaw would eventually uncover the truth.

Shaw compared the writing of Colter on those plans with the writing on the legends of those plans and that of known architects working for the Santa Fe Railroad and Fred Harvey at those times. By doing this he discerned who the actual architects were. In addition, by reviewing the known works of these architects it was apparent that distinctive elements they had used before were incorporated into many of these buildings which Colter claimed to be her own.

Colter also blatantly usurped an idea originating with Louisa Wetherill that Navajo Sand Paintings should be used to decorate the walls of El Navajo Hotel in Gallup, NM. An article crediting Colter with the idea appeared in the New Mexico Times Tribune. None other than Zane Grey wrote a letter to the editor of that paper asking that the article be retracted and that Wetherill, who had shared her idea with Colter, be given the proper credit. Grey knew the truth because he had been friends with Wetherill for many years and had seen the correspondence between the two affirming his allegation.

Based on the information presented in this book, it is well past time to give the actual architects of the buildings along the Santa Fe Railway system and at the Grand Canyon their rightful due. Shaw proves conclusively that Colter was not the architect of any of the buildings at the Grand Canyon or along the Santa Fe Railway system.

Shaw’s exhaustive research yields the following results:

Louis S. Curtiss: El Ortiz Hotel, Lamy, NM; Phantom Ranch buildings (First Phase), Grand Canyon National Park; El Navajo Hotel, Gallup, NM; Santa Fe San Diego Station, San Diego, CA; Hermits Rest, Grand Canyon National Park; Lookout Studio, Grand Canyon National Park; Indian Gardens (proposed), Grand Canyon National Park.

Robert J. Raney: Desert View Watch Tower, Grand Canyon National Park; Bright Angel Lodge, Grand Canyon National Park; La Posada Hotel, Winslow, AZ; Auto Camp Lodge, Grand Canyon National Park; Phantom Ranch buildings (Second Phase), Grand Canyon National Park; Fred Harvey facilities at Chicago Union Station, Chicago, IL.

Charles F. Whittlesey: The Alvarado Hotel, Albuquerque, NM; Santa Fe ticket office in Los Angeles, CA; Santa Fe Depots in Bakersfield, CA, Trinidad, CO, and Raton, NM; El Tovar Hotel, Grand Canyon National Park.

W.H. Mohr: Hopi House, Grand Canyon National Park (Initial drawings by Mohr refined by Charles F. Whittlesey).

John Gaw Meem: The La Fonda Hotel Addition, Santa Fe, NM (with help from Robert Raney)

The chapter speculating why Colter made these false claims is unnecessary. The evidence gathered over a three- and one-half year period, which is contained in the end notes of the book, conclusively proves that she was not the architect of record for these buildings.

Fred Shaw should receive kudos for his tenacity and courage in completing this monumental work. Correcting the illegitimate claims of Mary Colter that have stood for six decades was not an easy task.

Doug Sherman is a retired professor of geology, nationally recognized photographer and Cottonwood, AZ, resident.

 

National Park Jurisdiction Along the Hualapai Reservation

 

 National Park Jurisdiction Along the Hualapai Reservation

By Jeff Ingram

Jeff Ingram helped craft legislation passed in 1975 to enlarge Grand Canyon National Park and the Havasupai Reservation. West of the Havasupai Reservation, the 1975 Act strove to take no lands from the Hualapai Ration. Jeff still ponders the effects of the legislation to this day. The following was recently written by Jeff after receiving some questions about the boundary of the Park.

Let’s see what we know. The Hualapai claimed the riverbed out to the middle of the river. The history of the 1975 Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act includes the desire of the principal sponsor to 1. unify administration and jurisdiction over river traffic in the Park Service at GCNP, and 2. to have nothing in the Act that would take Hualapai land without their agreement. The Act aimed to resolve any ambiguity in the 1883 Executive Order, and thus placed the Park boundary on the south bank, running along adjacent to the Hualapai boundary. Later on, (1976/1997), the Interior Solicitors said their opinion on the Hualapai claim was that “no”, the boundary did not go to the middle of the river; and in their opinion the 1883 Executive Order set the boundary at the high water level along the river.

 

It is my opinion that reconciling any ambiguity raised by the two desires of the sponsor means that “high water level” must be construed to favor the Hualapai and thus take none of the south bank above the high-water level as marked by the usual diurnal rise and fall of the river caused by normal operation of Glen Canyon dam. This point is reinforced because that is the high-water level at the time the Park boundary was set by the 1975 Act, as the sponsor knew. This construction is further reinforced by Hualapai-controlled riverside activities such as the Whitmore helispot and use of Diamond Creek beach. The sponsors, I am sure, would have been strongly negative about the Park Service asserting jurisdiction over the south bank to that extent. 

 

We are left then with river traffic use of rocks and trees along the shore to tie up and scout the river ahead being a legitimate use for river traffic. Beyond that, lunch stops (which can include moving away from the river, up the beach), overnight camps, hiking etc., are all to be construed as taking place on Hualapai land and therefore are under their jurisdiction. This, of course, also includes the Whitmore helispot and Diamond Creek beach. That is, if the Hualapai wish river travelers to secure a permit and to pay for the privilege for stops of the latter sorts, it is their right as the landowners (sovereigns) to do so. I firmly believe this would be the opinion of the sponsors of the legislation, based on my memory of conversations, meetings, and actions with them and their staffs in the 1972-5 period of the legislative history. 

 

While it is true that referring to the high-water level in 1883 can be defended in some strict sense of the law, such an interpretation runs counter to the 1975 Act and the 1883 Executive Order when they are construed in favor of the Hualapai. Bluntly put, to insist on an 1883 high water line would be theft of the Hualapai’s land, given the history. It is enough to deny their claim out into the river; we need not then turn around and advance beyond the river’s edge to stake any larger claim to their territory.

I was reinforced in this point by something I came across, traced back across the centuries to the Institutes of Justinian in the 6th century:

 

The public use of the banks of a river, as of the river itself, is part of the law of nations; consequently every one is entitled to bring his vessel to the bank, and fasten cables to the trees growing there, and use it as a resting place for the cargo, as freely as he may navigate the river itself. But the ownership of the bank is in the owner of the adjoining land, and consequently so too is the ownership of the trees which grow upon it. 

 

No one therefore is forbidden access to the sea¬shore, provided he abstains from injury to houses, monuments, and buildings generally; for these are not, like the sea itself, subject to the law of nations.

 

This may sound antiquarian, but the principle of it has lasted.

 

The administration of Grand Canyon National Park would be well advised to follow the intent of the 1975 Act and previous initiatives of Park administrators and seek to work with the Hualapai for harmonious and pro-environmental oversight of use of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon.

The Ugly

Yup. It's The Ugly

While some may wish it wetren't so and others may try to hid it, there is Ugly in and around the Grand Canyon. It's a part of the Canyon, just like everything else.

The Ugly Behind The Grand Canyon Historical Society
A sad but true journey into recent actions of the board of directors.

When A Board Goes Rogue
Most historians want to get all sides to every story because understanding the many sides of past events gives us a stronger understanding of what really happened.

History and Policy for the Left Bank of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon

 

Jeff Ingram helped craft legislation passed in 1975 to enlarge Grand Canyon National Park and the Havasupai Reservation. West of the Havasupai Reservation, the 1975 Act strove to take no lands from the Hualapai Ration. Jeff still ponders the effects of the legislation to this day.   

 

To sum it up, Ingram notes "The common sense course for river runners then is this: Following up on any advice that river runners may legally carry on any recreational activities on the Hualapai shore between water’s edge and any high-water-mark puts those visitors at peril of Hualapai police and legal action if they do not have a permit from the Tribe. Furthermore, and very important: the National Park Service will not aid or support such river runners in such trespass, no matter what the bureaucrats or their lawyers claim about any high water line."

COMMON SENSE ON THE RIVER – AND OFF IT

History and Policy for the Left Bank of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon

Jeffrey Ingram December 24, 2018

 

Introduction

 

The Grand Canyon’s lands east and south of the Colorado River have four major landlords. From the Canyon’s beginning at the Paria junction to the Grand Wash Cliffs 277 miles downstream, they are the Navajo Nation, the National Park Service (NPS), the Havasupai Tribe, and the Hualapai Tribe, ending again with NPS, an agency of the federal Department of the Interior.

 

Since the matters I will be discussing involve the prickly matter of sovereignty, it is necessary to recognize that in an important sense the Navajo, Havasupai, and Hualapai have sovereignty over their lands, though it is of course a jurisdiction and ownership granted by and resting on the foundation of, the overall national sovereign, the United States of America.

 

For those involved in the protection and presentation of the Grand Canyon as a natural and environmental icon of world-wide recognition and concern, as well as for those interested in exploiting the Canyon for their own short-term financial gain, recent years have seen intense debate over actions that are inextricable from questions about sovereignty, and thus inevitably, the boundaries that separate one landlord’s jurisdiction from another’s.

 

I have written at length about boundary matters in my on-line history blog, “Celebrating the Grand Canyon”, at gcfutures.blogspot.com, under the headings for Boundaries, Havasupai, Hualapai, Navajo, & The Park. A century-and-a-half (and of course many centuries further in the past) of political history have proven the Canyon to be a center of charged affairs; charged with emotion, yes, but more significantly, charged with importance for the question of how humanity conducts itself in and for the world.

A major example of such an affair – recently, and I hope finally, happily concluded – was the question centered on Navajo land at the junction of the Little Colorado and Colorado Rivers: Should the Navajo Nation approve a tacky, greedy proposition for building a mass-industrial tourist site that would irreparably damage this extraordinary part of the Grand Canyon and be contrary to the benefit of the Navajo people, solely for the enrichment of a few non-Navajo speculators? While the question was presented in the arena of Navajo Nation government, clearly it struck home in the hearts and minds of people, not just in the rest of the United States, but across the world. And threaded throughout this struggle were the intricacies of how this vital tract of Grand Canyon heartland came under Navajo jurisdiction, decision-making, sovereignty.

 

A minor example is the quiet acquisition by the Havasupai of National Park land that includes Beaver Falls on Havasu Creek. At present, paralyzed by a lack of agency leadership and coherence, the National Park Service at the Park has taken no action to protect public access to these Falls, allowing the Havasupai to either exclude the visiting public or charge them a not-insignificant fee.

 

The Colorado River Boundary at the Hualapai Reservation and Grand Canyon National Park.

This matter has been in contention most sharply since the enactment of the Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act of 1975. I have reviewed much of this question in several of my blog entries.

Recently, the Hualapai have announced their intention of being more active in issuing permits and collecting fees for use of their lands on the left bank to camp, stop for meals and attractions, hike, and other such activities. It is not at all clear how this intention will be carried out, but it has resulted in discussion among some who raft the river as to the legitimacy and extent of the Hualapai’s jurisdiction.

 

In particular, the issue is raised by John Vrymoed in his paper “Colorado River Historic High Water Level within the Grand Canyon”, 8 December 2018. From the beginning, Vrymoed makes clear his discussion is based on his acceptance of pronouncements by Interior Department and NPS officials (the “U.S.Government” in his words) that the boundary of the National Park north of the Hualapai Reservation along the Colorado was set at the historic high water mark. The bulk of Vrymoed’s paper is a wonderful exploration of the Colorado’s activity as regards its flows in flood and regular times. It is certainly worth a read for anyone interested in the ins & outs of hydraulics.

 

However this exposition is irrelevant as to boundary matters, and Hualapai and NPS jurisdiction.

Based on a historically false premise, Vrymoed’s conclusions and advice are contrary to the interests of the public, river users, NPS, and the Hualapai.

 

Some Untangling of the Law and Opinions

 

There are two controlling sovereign decisions. The first established the Hualapai Indian Reservation in 1883. The second extended the Grand Canyon National Park Boundary in 1975. The first was a Presidential action, an executive order by President Chester Arthur on 4 January 1883. The second was an Act of Congress, signed by President Gerald Ford on 3 January 1975.

 

Here’s what’s crucial: There are these two, and only two, such decisions. There are no other formal adjudications or other actions fixing or settling the boundary. There are opinions, claims, a fair amount of bluster, and, fortunately, some relevant historical facts. In dealing with these (what I called the “swamp” on the river), my goal has been to present, in a legal, and as important, a common sensical, way, guidance for the Park visitor. Naturally, I believe that my presence and participation in the 1972-5 legislative effort that produced the 1975 Act is relevant. As an advocate (lobbyist) for the Grand Canyon, representing and working with organizations that sought to further protect it, I was involved in the decisions that set the boundary.

 

The Hualapai

 

The Hualapai are justifiably proud of the effort they started and persisted in from the 1920’s into the 1940’s to gain title to their reservation, by defeating claims from the Santa Fe railroad. Their success is a credit to their own determination. That determination also showed in their multi-faceted efforts over the decades to develop the resources of their reservation for tribal benefit, one of which was to bring the construction of a dam at the Bridge Canyon site, a goal they worked for, off and on, from the 1930’s into the 1970’s. During much of this period, they also pursued an Indian Claims Commission action to obtain compensation for aboriginal lands not included in the reservation. My point in this diversion is that the record shows they shaped their ICC claim in alignment with their desire for benefits from the dam – a desire that led them, all of a sudden in the 1950’s, to discover and proclaim that their reservation went to the middle of the river.

 

Did it? That answer starts with the President’s order. The reservation line started “at a point on the Colorado River” then south, east, and north, finishing by going “north thirty miles to the Colorado River; thence along said river to the place of beginning”. (Vrymoed leaves out a crucial phrase in his quote of the order.) “To” and “along” – that’s it. Nothing about middles or water marks, high or low. But consider this:

Lieutenant Palfrey of the Engineers Office, who wrote the Reservation description and drew the line on the map and signed it, went down Peach Spring Canyon, then Diamond Creek to the river. So he stood there, or sat on his horse, and looked at the river. It was June. Did he look out and fasten on the middle of the river as necessary for Hualapai prosperity? Did he look up and about, to discover how high the river might come?

 

I don’t think so. I think he just thought of the river flowing along as a nice boundary line to mark off all those acres running south from there, thousands of acres where the Hualapai had lived for generations. And so he said the line would run from then around and on up to the river, then back along it. Along its edge. He could have said “middle” or “high water”, if he wanted; but it sufficed to describe a line “to and along” the water’s edge – a good marker for the survey that was to come.

 

And that was good enough -- until 70 years later when the Hualapai and their lawyers thought they could get a better dam deal by claiming to the middle. Ok, claim away. But that claim has always been just that – lawyer’s arguing in a brief, never approved, never adjudicated in court.

 

The Park Service and their lawyers

 

Merle Stitt, Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent in the 1970’s, was a nice guy, most of the time. He was also an agency man, a bureaucrat. I tried, when the 1975 Park expansion bill was signed, to tell him what Congress had done and why (see my blog post dated 2 Oct 2011). This was necessary since NPS was not a major player in the legislative effort.

 

However, unbeknownst to me, and for reasons I never learned, when the Hualapai and their lawyers came to visit him in 1975, Stitt asserted that the Park boundary went to the “historic high water line”, an unjustified statement that immediately caused an uproar as the Hualapai rushed around trying to get this repudiated by, particularly, Senator Goldwater, the Park bill’s initiator. The best they could get was a reminder that the Park Act stated it did not take any land “held in trust for any Indian tribe or nation”. Unless that tribe or nation approved – Ha. Ha. Ha.

 

Of course, this begged the question given the situation that their land went “to and along” the river, not to the middle, and they wanted NPS to accept that. Didn’t happen. Indeed, Stitt, backed up later by departmental lawyers’ opinions, had way over-reached, climbing the Canyon walls to attach his new boundary way up high. Which, of course, is just the point. The Park would never want to, be bothered to, or dare, to establish a boundary ON the land, its cliffs, canyons, etc., no matter what it might CLAIM. (Two claims don’t make a Right, either.) That would be quite a border wall. So Stitt’s assertion -– I was told by another NPS official that it was just a business-as-usual assumption —, was contrary to the Park Act’s intent and just bureaucratic chest-beating. Not the only time NPS ignored its laws.

 

What Congress Did

 

In late 1972, the hottest issue over the Canyon was the runaway, environmentally destructive, business of commercial motor-rafting. Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, a long-time user and lover of the Grand Canyon was getting ready to push legislation to, among other goals, change the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) boundaries, consolidate units, and prevent any more dam talk. Alerted to the river situation, he added relevant items to his list. To start things off, he called a river-Park meeting of interested parties at his home in December, including officials and advocates. He was emphatic about his desire to consolidate control over river traffic in one agency, namely NPS. He wanted a single set of rules and procedures, and an end to anything-goes rafting. (Almost entirely commercial boats; NPS had been discouraging non-commercial, DIY, private river-runners for years.) But note that: river traffic. coupled with his other ideas was Goldwater’s assurance to the Hualapai and Navajo that none of their land would be taken without their approval.

 

As it turned out, Goldwater was not well served by his chief bill-drafter. Consequently, as advocates of a Park as appropriate to the Canyon as possible, we worked more closely with Congressman Morris Udall in crafting a better bill. Any ambiguity in the new Park boundary along the Hualapai Reservation was resolved by placing the river boundary “on the south bank” without qualification. (There had been other proposals previously, such as dealing with the riverbed.) Congressional intent was emphasized that the “entire” river, “all of its water surface”, should be studied for wilderness. (NPS did, two years later, propose the river be included in Grand Canyon Wilderness.) The entire stretch of the Colorado in the Park would be under NPS administration.

 

Never did we imagine, in consolidating river jurisdiction under GCNP, that a clueless Superintendent would then start over-reaching, and claim to the historic high water mark. There is a further consideration here, for those of us with a bit of sense. Glen Canyon dam had been regulating river flow for a decade. Had the subject come up during congressional consideration, that regulated flow – today’s diurnal up & down -- certainly would have been the river regime considered. No way would NPS have been given Hualapai land just because now and again it had been flooded. What Superintendent will assert jurisdiction over the Diamond Creek landing?

 

Congress did not intend such agency over-reach into a more distant past. Just as Congress settled any ambiguity about the Hualapai claim to a mythical river middle, beyond “to and along” the river. The point was to leave the Hualapai with their land, and to hand regulation of river traffic completely to NPS.

 

Can Common Sense Prevail?

 

Contrary to their attorney’s advice, in the 1990’s the Hualapai appealed to the Interior Solicitor to reconsider the 1976 regional solicitor’s opinion on the middle of the river question. No dice. Perhaps that had some influence on a later more hopeful development. NPS and the Hualapai decided in 2000 to work together on matters affecting river running. They set up regular meetings of the officials concerned, with the explicit understanding that there was a dispute over the boundary, but they would commit themselves to “mutual management” of an “Area of Cooperation” that went from mile 164.5 to Pearce Ferry and across the river from high water mark to high water mark. (Which is to say, they agreed to ignore what Congress had intended on either issue, so maybe no rights do make a wrong.) The meetings were successful for several years, but ended after a change in Hualapai government. An ambiguous answer to the question above.

 

The Hualapai don’t own the water. The Park doesn’t own any of the Hualapai bank, mile 164.5 to 273.3. That’s what Congress intended and approved in the 1975 Act. And the simple formula to carry out that intention is the wet-foot/dry-foot doctrine: If you are on a boat on the Colorado in the Park (Paria junction to Grand Wash Cliffs), and you put your foot over and it lands in water, you are under NPS jurisdiction. However, if you put your feet over along the Hualapai bank and they don’t splash, the Hualapai government is the one to worry about. (By the way, the same is true along the Navajo boundary, which also comes down to the river – but so far, they don’t seem to care.)

 

The common sense course for river runners then is this:

 

Following up on any advice that river runners may legally carry on any recreational activities on the Hualapai shore between water’s edge and any high-water-mark puts those visitors at peril of Hualapai police and legal action if they do not have a permit from the Tribe.

 

Furthermore, and very important: the National Park Service will not aid or support such river runners in such trespass, no matter what the bureaucrats or their lawyers claim about any high water line.

The stretch of the Colorado along the Hualapai Reservation from the river middle to the maximal high water line should never be the scene of legal trouble for any river runner using common sense and following the “wet foot / dry foot” doctrine.