umors are running wild about a possible lawsuit contesting drug testing of guides, and Grand Canyon River Guides’ possible involvement in such. Here are the facts. The board and officers of Grand Canyon River Guides have a long history of agreeing on most things. Once in a great while an issue comes up that causes a stir, however, and the drug testing issue has caused a lot of red faces, bulging veins and loud voices. Although most (not all) personally feel that a drug testing with probable cause (incident, performance, accusations) is acceptable, they (most of them) feel suspicionless searches (pre-employment, random) are unconstitutional and wrong.
But the question of whether this is an issue that Grand Canyon River Guides should be involved in is not easily answered. In meeting after meeting when the issue came to a vote, the nays had it, often unanimously. The reason being, primarily, that entering into such a lawsuit, right or wrong, is not in keeping with our bylaws and stated goals. Neither is being a union. So this organization is not going to take part in a lawsuit.
There may be a lawsuit however. Four guides, of their own volition, are working with an attorney on a constitutional rights case. Timing is uncertain, but they hope to bring it to court in the near future. We've asked them for a brief statement on what their case is about and have asked Superintendent Rob Arnberger why he feels the current drug testing policy is appropriate.

The drug testing requirements agreed to by the river concessioners pursuant to the recent river contract process represents a reasonable requirement. River running upon one of the West’s wildest rivers is inherently a hazardous occupation. That is why all the operators stress safety and boatman experience levels before a guide is allowed the significant responsibility of assuming the care of clients who pay for the privilege of a trip. The liability issues are severe for both operators and the government. Bus drivers, heavy equipment operators, train engineers are but a few of the occupations in and out of government that involve significant liability exposure—often, because these people are responsible for hundreds of others under their care. To make a case that drug testing for boat operators is unreasonable flies in the face of logic. The operators are already required a high level of training, of competence, and specific operational protocols to assure the safety of the clients. To assure that the boat operator is not impaired by drugs or alcohol, by poor judgement, by lack of experience, must be an affirmative responsibility of both the government and the concessioner.
We have undertaken a reasonable approach to this requirement, simply by requiring that each company have an appropriate and reasonable program in place and to certify such. We do not intend to ask for names of offenders, or those in some form of rehab. We only ask a company to have a reasonable program and to certify such. We will work with the companies to assure the program is reasonable and appropriate, reflective of acceptable industry standards. This approach is not unduly invasive and is reasonable.
To make claims that there is no drug use going on, or inappropriate use of alcohol is not reflective of reality. You know it does, occasionally, and so do we. There have been incidents reported to us. It is time to match the seriousness of the boatmen’s responsibility to clients with reasonable and conventional standards of conduct and safety. There is no intent to infringe on constitutional rights, and I believe the reasonable program we have required meets the same test. Running the river is a privilege, not a right. Responsibility for clients places a heavier burden upon the concessioner and the boat operator. The client has a higher expectation of the government licensed operator to be safe and drug free. We believe the requirements are needed and are reasonable.

The Plaintiffs

Let’s start out by saying that professional guides should not work while impaired by drugs, alcohol, mental instability or any other cause. Consequently we do not oppose drug, alcohol or competence testing based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Our case is not about drugs.
It’s about The Bill of Rights, specifically the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution which assures: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things seized.”
Outfitters are now being pressured by the NPS to conduct suspicionless drug testing of their crew. This requirement isn’t based on any defined problem. Even guides who have proven their commitment to safety by long standing, dedicated service to their profession are being forced to undergo an insulting and invasive bodily search. Should they refuse such a test, they will be considered to have failed—guilty until proven innocent.
It is not only our right, but our responsibility as American citizens, to question an invasive governmental action which clearly undermines our Constitutional rights. If we do nothing, we can only expect these rights to be further eroded.
It’s pretty simple, really—guilty until proven innocent, a suspicionless search of your body and seizure of your urine. Our case merely requests that the National Park Service require drug testing only in cases where reasonable suspicion exists.
Suspicionless searches: they’re not just a bad idea. They’re against the law.