Lake Roosevelt Administrative History

The National Park Service Arrives at the Columbia River Reservoir

Greider immediately began to prepare for the upcoming planning work at the reservoir area. He wanted two experienced planners, one with field experience in eastern Washington. They would need office space in either Ephrata or Coulee Dam, along with drafting materials, car and boat transportation, and the periodic use of a small survey crew. He estimated that these men, who probably could not start work until the weather warmed up in March, would need ten to twelve weeks in the field, followed by another six to eight weeks to prepare Master Plans. Greider appealed to Reclamation for help in meeting these needs. [16]

Help came not from Reclamation but from the CCC, which supplied Philip W. Kearney, Associate Landscape Architect, to the Park Service for the reservoir planning project. Kearney's appointment was approved on March 7, 1941, and he began work on site shortly thereafter. Despite urgent requests for additional help during the critical early period of work, apparently none was forthcoming from Washington, D.C., so Greider himself worked with Kearney for nearly two weeks in March. By mid-April, Kearney reported that he managed to have someone, probably from Reclamation, with him nearly half the time to assist him on site. [17]

The rigors of field work were the least of Kearney's concerns during his first six months on the job. Within a few weeks of coming to Coulee Dam, he was offered another position with Defense Housing in the Public Building Administration. Herbert Maier wired Kearney from the regional office, telling him that while it was Park Service policy not to object when a defense agency requested the services of an employee, that person did not have to accept the transfer. "We feel you are doing an excellent job on land use study and would very much regret [to] see this work interrupted or delayed," he wired. "Grand Coulee Land Use Study is a major undertaking which should bring considerable professional prestige to the one making it." [18] Kearney found that the proffered work would require an eventual transfer to Washington, D.C., and he decided to stay with the Park Service. "I hope that you will be successful in gaining me some stability in your department — at the desired grade," Kearney wrote to Greider. [19] He missed his family, who evidently lived in Seattle, and upon completion of the field work, he received permission to work on the final plans and drawings in Seattle. The regional office reminded him, however, that his official headquarters remained in Grand Coulee and thus he would receive no travel or per diem for this move. Within a few weeks of his return to Seattle, Kearney lost his job when the regional office terminated all CCC personnel. Kearney took the news "with a feeling of disappointment" that he was unable to have the satisfaction of finishing the job, and he forwarded his work to the San Francisco office for completion. [20]

Bust of President Franklin D. Roosevelt at the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Visitor Arrival Center at Grand Coulee Dam, September 1957. The lake was named after the president following his death in 1945. Photo courtesy of Grant County Historical Society and Museum, BOR Collection (P 222 17 39522).

The Park Service hired Kearney back in less than two weeks, but he approached the appointment with justifiable caution. Although he wanted to finish the project, he placed the welfare of his family first and noted that "the spring and summer was a distinct hardship for all of us." He refused to return to Coulee Dam, since that meant separation from his family, but he said that if the Park Service would let him complete the drawings in Seattle, he would be "willing to take the chance on the future but otherwise it is no dice." He had found the assignment interesting and appreciated the good treatment he received from Reclamation, but "the NPS has certainly kicked me around with very little consideration," Kearney wrote to Greider. [21] He was about to sign on with the Army Corps of Engineers when he received a wire from the Park Service confirming his appointment. "Now I will continue to hope that the NPS will need my services so that the career that I have chosen will continue uninterrupted." [22]

During the spring and summer months of 1941, Kearney immersed himself in field work, getting to know the reservoir area well. His work was hampered by the difficult conditions he encountered. The water level was up to only 1,208 feet by late June, nearly inundating Kettle Falls and flooding the flats above Gifford and Inchelium. "For the first time the area assumes the character of a lake rather than a river," Kearney noted in his weekly report. Despite this rising water, it was still eighty feet below full pool, and Kearney was forced to examine potential swimming beaches and boat ramps at areas not yet touched by the lake's waters. [24]

The Committee on Problem No. 26 met in Olympia in May 1941 and listened to Kearney's report on his preliminary work at the reservoir. He discussed approaches to the reservoir, with the dam as the primary access point and the confluence of the Spokane and Columbia rivers as a secondary point. A new state highway ran north along the reservoir from this confluence, and he suggested that if Spokane interests developed a parkway from Riverside State Park to the mouth of the Spokane, it would bring tourists and boost recreational development on the reservoir. Kearney had concentrated his work on the three areas where there was enough federally owned land suitable for recreation: the dam, confluence of the Spokane and Columbia, and Kettle Falls. He recommended boat docks for all three areas but suggested that the most extensive development should occur at the confluence site due to its potential size and proximity to the Spokane urban population. In addition to the three major sites, he identified other sites suitable for picnicking, camping, boating, and summer home development. [25]

The potential for industrial development was considered part of the reservoir development from the beginning, so in addition to recreation sites, Kearney identified three primary areas for industrial use. The first extended from Spring Canyon to Plum and included four thousand acres acquired by the Columbia City Development Company. The second embraced the mouth of Hawk Creek where Lincoln Lumber Company operated its mill. The third encompassed the shore at the original Kettle Falls town site where up to two sawmills could be accommodated. "If proper land use principles are observed, industrial and recreational development in this district need not conflict," noted Kearney. [26] In an earlier report, however, he had cautioned that careful planning for industrial use was critical to ensure that "the industries do not make the area uninhabitable for those who are sensitive to their environment." [27] In addition to these three sites and the area north of Marcus, Kearney suggested that many industries would use the reservoir waters for transportation, necessitating coordination with recreational water use. After hearing Kearney's report, the committee decided not to make regulations for industrial use, but it stressed the need for standards to protect both public health and aesthetic values. After discussion, the members voted to designate fifteen miles of the south shore, starting at the dam, as primarily for industrial development. [28]

The committee also took up the matter of administration of the reservoir area. Reclamation reported many inquiries from individuals wanting to set up businesses on the lake, and the agency pushed for swift resolution of the question of future development and administration for the area. The committee considered several potential managers, including a private group ("not desirable"), Washington State Parks (no funding or personnel), Reclamation (also no funding or personnel to take on recreation in addition to irrigation), and a Columbia River Authority (not in existence). In the end, they reached the foregone conclusion: "The National Park Service has authority, has experience, personnel, has or can get funds, and its qualifications for the job are quite superior." Committee members saw other advantages to having the Park Service take over administration of the reservoir. Because the three agencies in charge of the area - the Park Service, Reclamation, and the Office of Indian Affairs (OIA, predecessor to the Bureau of Indian Affairs) - all were part of the Department of the Interior, they "could work out an agreement within a matter of a few days if the situation required it." The committee asked the Park Service to assume responsibility for the recreational development and administration of the Columbia River Reservoir Area, including developing Master Plans, constructing public facilities, supervising private development, cooperating with other governmental agencies, and providing funding for these responsibilities. In addition, the committee urged the Park Service to form an advisory committee to include representatives from the Problem No. 26 Committee. [29]

Reclamation was justifiably concerned about administration of the area as it continued to issue temporary licenses for both private and commercial use of the shore lands. Frank A. Banks recognized that such unplanned development was undesirable and could interfere with future public use. More worrisome were potential problems with commercial interests who spent money on private development and might later feel that they had vested rights in the land. Banks believed that if the Park Service refused to undertake development and administration of the reservoir, Reclamation needed to act quickly to find another agency to do the job. If necessary, he said that Reclamation could ask the Park Service to loan qualified advisors to the project. [30]

Instead, Reclamation offered limited support for Kearney's mapping and field surveys during the summer of 1941. The Park Service provided even less assistance. Aside from a brief two-day visit in early July from Thomas Vint, National Park Service Chief of Planning from Washington, D.C., and Ernest A. Davidson, Regional Chief of Planning, Kearney was basically on his own as the sole Park Service representative in the reservoir area. He ended his field work in late July. Following the interruptions in his employment, Kearney evidently finished the Land Use Study plans during the fall of 1941 in Seattle. The completed study was ready for review by the end of that year. After the success of the plans for the Columbia River Reservoir, the Park Service hoped to reassign the team of Kearney and Greider to work on the Central Valley Project in California, particularly the Shasta and Friant (Millerton) dam reservoirs. The men were not transferred, however. [31]

The Park Service did not immediately take over administrative responsibilities at the reservoir. The agency attempted to reach accord with Reclamation and the OIA, with representatives of all three signing an agreement in September 1941 (Greider signed for the Park Service). It never went into effect, however, because National Park Service Director Newton Drury wanted to wait for completed studies and a decision on the national significance of the reservoir. Reclamation was anxious to have the Park Service take charge of recreational development, however, so the two agencies signed a memorandum of agreement in July 1942 to have the Park Service assume general administrative and planning functions for the Columbia River Reservoir. Reclamation designated up to $10,000 to cover expenses for the first year, and the two agencies renewed this agreement annually until the Tri-Party Agreement was signed by Reclamation, Park Service, and OIA in 1946. [32]

While Park Service personnel proceeded with plans for recreational development at the new reservoir, agency officials continued to question the national significance of the proposed recreation area. Director Drury was hesitant to commit the Park Service to full involvement until he had a chance to visit the area and form his own opinion about its significance. If it were determined nationally significant, Drury hoped that Congress would recognize it with legislative authority. On the other hand, if it were determined less significant, the Park Service would not be the appropriate administrative agency. [33]

Not everyone within the Park Service agreed that the agency should take over the new reservoir area. In 1940, Regional Landscape Architect Ernest A. Davidson, who had lived in the Inland Northwest for thirty-one years, urged that the agency approach the new area with "great caution." Since the region had so many natural lakes, still largely undeveloped, he believed that campers and boaters would prefer scenic areas, like Lake Chelan, to the hot artificial lake behind Grand Coulee Dam. Greider refuted these claims, but within a year Davidson characterized part of the preliminary report on Problem No. 26, which compared the reservoir with other popular areas, as "propaganda . . . , incomplete or possibly one-sided." [34] Other Park Service officials urged civility and perspective. Raymond E. Hoyt, Chief of the Recreation Planning Division, decried the "unfortunate memorandum to Mr. Greider . . . which . . . tends to break down Service unity and the respect we should cherish for fellow workers opinions." After all, Hoyt reminded, "we are preparing a land use study and not an investigation of a potential national park." [35] Ironically, within a few years Davidson was sent to Coulee Dam to help with preliminary recreation planning. [36]

The release of Hoyt and Greider's report, "A Study of Land Use for Recreation Development of the Columbia River Reservoir Area above the Grand Coulee Dam, Washington," spurred further debate over the issue of national significance. The recreation area was definitely popular; in 1940, only Yellowstone National Park drew more visitors than Grand Coulee Dam, which attracted 325,000 tourists (100,000 more than Mount Rainier). Boulder Dam's 225,000 visitors in 1938 mushroomed to 800,000 three years later, the greatest growth for any recreation area in the west. One Park Service official believed that Grand Coulee Dam would continue to attract national tourists, but the small strip of federal land around the reservoir would attract regional residents only. "It is highly improbable that the so-called recreational resources of the Columbia Reservoir Area are of national significance," he concluded. [37] Drury, who became National Park Service Director in 1940, remained skeptical as well, partly because he thought the Park Service would need to acquire more land there in the future. "We had better try to define 'national significance,'" he cautioned late one night. "Don't let's fool ourselves about 'attendance' at Boulder Dam National Recreation Area." [38] Drury took a conservative approach to expansion of the National Park System. He believed in the concept of parks as the "crown jewels" of the country. "I was not particularly an advocate of adding areas of lesser caliber to the National Park System," he later recalled. [39]

The Director did not visit the area until July 1942 when he and Regional Director Owen A. Tomlinson were shown around the reservoir by Frank A. Banks and Phil Kearney. Drury was impressed with the beauty of the lake but remained concerned about the limited amount of public land. While the Director assured the group that he was keeping an open mind about the area, Banks later remarked to Kearney that "if this had been true he would not have been at such pains to remark on it." [40] Soon after the visit, Park Service officials edited a Reclamation press release about the Problem No. 26 report to "avoid any inference that the National Park Service is to be the permanent administrative agency for recreation on the Area," because Drury had not yet discussed the idea with Reclamation Commissioner Page. [41]

Kearney continued with his work on Master Plans during 1942. Reclamation assisted by providing detailed topographical drawings, while Park Service Regional Engineer Robert D. Waterhouse spent ten days in March helping Kearney with field examinations of potential recreation sites. The engineer recommended several months of intensive surveying to get data sufficient to meet Park Service standards. Because of this, Kearney realized that he would not be able to complete Master Plans that year and proposed doing less time-consuming preliminary plans instead. This would allow him time to advise Reclamation on boating permits, thus relieving pressure on that agency. [42]

The ten areas proposed for development were Rattlesnake Canyon near the dam (Crescent Bay), Spring Canyon, south approach to Keller Ferry, Hawk Creek, Fort Spokane, Gerome, Hunters, Kettle Falls, Barstow, and Sheep Creek. Kearney reported that some people from Spokane hoped that the old fort would be preserved as an historical site. He estimated that the brick buildings there needed just a small amount of work to "preserve them for all times," but he recommended removing some of the frame structures since they were not "of sufficient interest to warrant the great amount of work necessary for their preservation." Waterhouse found Kettle Falls a difficult area to design due to nearby houses, a new sawmill, the railroad, and abandoned roads. He and Kearney finally settled on an area for recreation "as far away from the commercial areas and the mess as possible." [44]

Prior to July 1942, Reclamation handled all permits for private development around the reservoir. The agency took a favorable stance toward industry and was fairly lenient in permitting businesses in the area. "You have to look out," Kearney found, since "private interests that mean business seem mighty attractive to the Bureau people." [45] For instance, a man under permit built a house at Fort Spokane where he planned to use some of the old WPA "shacks" for business operations. Kearney complained that the above-ground gasoline tanks there were unsightly. He was also concerned about a proposed magnesium smelter at Spring Canyon, even though Frank A. Banks assured him that they would find a site other than Hunters for loading ore. Developments at Kettle Falls were even more troubling since a sawmill had opened in a central location and loggers had cut timber around the bridges and mission site. When Kearney protested logging of federal lands, it "brought only mild surprise," but he hoped that the order to cease would be effective. Additional logging was going on between Hunters and the mouth of the Colville River, apparently on government lands. [46] Kearney predicted further problems and expressed his regret to Greider. "This is too bad as everyone here seemed quite willing to cooperate but cannot be expected to hold out indefinitely." [47]

Park Service operations at the reservoir were threatened by more distant events as well. Apparently Greider faced a potential call to service in the Air Corps on "short notice." Kearney worried that his colleague might be losing interest in the reservoir recreation project "with weightier things" on his mind, and he reassured him that the war might be over sooner than expected. [48] Later he mused about the war:

It still seems like fiddling — working on this job while things are in such a turmoil the world over but there is no place that I can see myself to better advantage wither [sic] for my personal welfare or for the good of the country. The situation seems to grow more and more confounding. I hope that the powers that be have a Master Plan. There is little evidence of the formulation of one in looking over the past events. [49]

Despite the turmoil of World War II, Park Service work at the reservoir area achieved a modicum of stability in 1942. Kearney moved with his family to Mason City in March. Funding became more predictable after the July 1942 interbureau agreement was signed providing the Park Service with $10,000 in Reclamation project funds to handle development and administration of the recreation area. After three years of working on preliminary plans for the reservoir, Claude Greider finally moved to the area at the end of the year, starting work as the Recreation Planner on December 26, 1942. Within a few months, the initial office staff was completed with the addition of Frances Fleischauer as clerk-typist. Greider reported to the regional office that Reclamation expected the Park Service "to assume rather broad authority" for planning and administration of the reservoir area, without depending on Reclamation staff. It believed that the area would be an important national recreation area (NRA), and Greider predicted, "Undoubtedly the best efforts of the Service will be put to the test over the next few years on this project." [50]

View of Fort Spokane and the new bridge, 1942. The frame buildings near the bridge were removed before the Park Service gained administrative control of the property in 1960. The guardhouse, at right, remains. Photo courtesy of National Park Service, Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area (LARO 3058).

One test occurred in 1943 when Park Service and OIA officials disagreed over an issue at Sanpoil Bay. The Park Service identified the area near the old Keller town site as having good potential for recreational development. When Lincoln Lumber Company began using the site as a log dump in 1943, the Park Service, backed by the Colville Indian Agency, ordered the company to move its operations a short distance to the mouth of Manila Creek. Within a short time, however, the Colville Agency reneged, saying that the Keller site had greater value as a log dump than a campground. The Park Service, backed by Reclamation, stood firm, and the OIA joined the fray. Greider reiterated the Park Service policy of favoring industrial uses such as logging in areas where these interests were paramount. But, he continued, "It would not be considered in the best public interest to use valuable potential recreational sites for logging purposes when other sites of lesser recreational importance are available." The Park Service worried "that the loggers as a group have amply demonstrated that they have little if any regard for aesthetic or recreational values of the reservoir area." [51]

The disagreement soon escalated from a log dump to Indian rights. The OIA wanted to resolve the question of paramount use in one-quarter of the reservoir and wanted to take over management of freeboard lands (between high water and the 1,310 elevation) on the reservations. Greider suggested that the agency resented being left out of the interagency agreement between the Park Service and Reclamation. F. A. Gross, Superintendent of the Colville Agency, was less antagonistic than the OIA representative toward the Park Service operations, but he stood firm in what he viewed as best for the Indians. In particular, he did not want to restrict the potential development of the reservation timber resources, which he saw as the keystone of the Colville economy. He believed that unless the Indian Service or the tribes themselves spoke up for their interests, they would

be shoved into the background by more aggressive white interests along the reservoir shore. . . . When the Park Service officials speak of "the public interest" we fear that in their mind's eye they see primarily the motoring and boating public, the picnickers and the swimmers. [52]

Greider also stood firm in defense of the recreation area, and he told Lincoln Lumber Company that its use of the Sanpoil site would expire with its permit at the end of the year. It is unclear how the situation was finally resolved, but under the Tri-Party Agreement signed in 1946, the OIA specifically retained the right to issue and administer permits for log dumps within the Indian Zones at sites selected in consultation with the Park Service. The agreement likewise allowed the Park Service, in consultation with the OIA, to designate sites suitable for recreation in the Indian Zones. [53]