Lake Roosevelt Administrative History

Dock Removal

Termination of special use permits for private docks, and their subsequent removal, soon became one of the most contentious issues at Lake Roosevelt. Problems stemmed from decades of lax policies for permits and enforcement at LARO during years when the lake seemed large enough to handle all recreational uses. The park had overlooked unpermitted docks for so long that neighbors eventually assumed that all established docks were legal. As recreational pressures mounted, LARO stopped issuing permits for private docks ca. 1983 but continued to renew permits for established, permitted docks. At the same time, park staff began to identify docks that had been constructed without a permit. In October 1985, LARO gave written notice asking owners to remove all other unpermitted docks. Naturally, many complained, often to their elected officials. The Park Service held firm, however, and gave owners the option of developing a community dock or mooring facility in place of individual docks. LARO believed this was a reasonable compromise that balanced "the needs of the general boating public with the desires of the upland park neighbors." By the mid-1980s, LARO had removed at least twenty unpermitted docks. [82]

Private dock scheduled for removal. Photo courtesy of National Park Service, Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area (LARO.HQ.PAO).

The situation heated up the next summer when some adjacent property owners refused to remove their unauthorized docks, and the Park Service decided to take action. LARO had begun negotiations with summer cabin lessees at Rickey Point as early as 1972. At that time, members agreed to remove individual docks, as their permits expired, in exchange for the right to establish a community dock to serve all the residents. By 1986, all but three of the private docks had been voluntarily removed, but the permittees for the remaining structures refused to remove them. In June of that year, LARO Superintendent Kuiper gave permission to maintenance crews to remove the remaining docks at Rickey Point. LARO crews accomplished this by burning and bulldozing, and the flames grabbed the attention of the local community, generating some temporary support for those using private docks. The subsequent uproar forced the Park Service into defending its unpopular actions. "That one didn't go so well," Kuiper later admitted. "[It] sent a message, but it was a very strong message that probably overdid it." [83]

Despite their agreeing to dock removal nearly fourteen years earlier, Rickey Point residents felt unfairly singled out for enforcement and wondered why their docks were removed while residents across the lake at Sherman Creek were allowed to keep their docks. LARO Ranger Robert Appling explained that Sherman Creek had no place suitable for a community dock while Rickey Point did. Nonetheless, owners were not appeased because the site at Rickey Point where the Park Service suggested building a community dock was shallow, and prolonged drawdowns for the past couple of years had kept it high and dry. Kuiper met with Rickey Point residents later that summer and apologized for the dock burnings, admitting that the situation could have been handled more tactfully. He reiterated that the docks removed had no permits. Furthermore, residents had been given plenty of notice and had been offered permits for mooring buoys but none had taken the Park Service up on the offer. LARO officials felt that action was needed to dispel the local notion that the Park Service threatened action but never followed through. [84]

LARO officials responded rapidly to the negative publicity. By late summer Assistant Superintendent Kelly Cash had drafted a policy to deal with similar situations in the future. It maintained the importance of removing unpermitted docks when owners refused but stipulated that burning was "an inappropriate means of disposal." Before removing any dock in the future, crews first had to notify the Chief Ranger and Facility Manager to determine how to remove it and where to store the structure. Then, Park Service personnel would remove the dock and take it to storage where it would be held for sixty days. During this period, the owner would have a chance to reclaim it for the costs incurred by the park; if not reclaimed, a special board would determine its disposition. LARO officials admitted that the Rickey Point debacle had turned into an emotional issue, and they worked hard to rebuild support within the community. They also kept their congressional delegation informed, providing background information and explaining LARO's policy; Kuiper met in Spokane with staff from the offices of both Foley and Gorton, and Cash wrote to Foley. [85]

Complaints multiplied as LARO implemented its Special Park Use Management Plan in 1990, with its increased fees and phasing out of special use permits. The Lake Roosevelt Property Owners Association (LRPOA) took up the cause for its members, who owned land adjacent to the NRA and who had used the lakeshore for years, with and without permits. LARO officials met with the group four times during the comment period for the new management plan and also extended the comment period several months at their request. The Park Service adopted the plan in October 1990 against the wishes of the LRPOA, which then turned to the regional office for help early in 1991. Acting Regional Director William J. Briggle corresponded with the president and met with members in Spokane on February 6. They complained that the new Special Park Use Management Plan was "a radical change" from past practices and would "impose a great cost in value and pleasure of owning land and living adjacent to Lake Roosevelt." The group predicted "serious and determined confrontations between property owners and the NPS." They appreciated Briggle's willingness to consider community docks and grandfathering present permitted docks, within limits. LARO saw things differently from LRPOA, however. "In spite of the tone of the letter, the real issue is change in NPS policy — not 'attitude,'" said a note in the margin of the letter. "They want the SUP Mg'm't plan rescinded, and anything short of this goal is unacceptable to them." [86]

Kelly Cash assisted Briggle in drafting a reply to LRPOA that did not mince words. Briggle pointed out that LARO's Special Park Use Management Plan was needed to implement NPS-53, yet it was considerably more generous than the national plan because it allowed a prolonged phase-out of permitted uses. He reminded the property owners that the lakeshore was public land and the Park Service could not abandon this to private owners. "Everyone has the same rights and privileges within the National Recreation Area," he wrote, "and there are no special privileges that extend to only the adjacent landowners. . . . I do not know how to make [it] more clear . . . . The NPS-53 Guidelines will be implemented." Briggle also objected to the prediction of confrontations at LARO, saying that there would be no such encounters unless adjacent landowners chose to initiate one by refusing to comply with federal rules and regulations. [87]

LRPOA got the attention of local politicians as well as the Washington congressional delegation. Senator Slade Gorton intervened on behalf of the LRPOA in 1991, encouraging Superintendent Kuiper to continue meeting with the group and to maintain a cooperative relationship. A year later, however, Gorton took a harder line. Constituents had complained that LARO's Special Park Use Management Plan was overly restrictive. They felt excluded from the decision-making process, so Gorton suggested that the state of Washington should be included in planning to represent local communities and citizens. "I urged the Director to reformulate the Park Service's planning process to include local interests and, if I am not persuaded that changes will be made, I will pursue a legislative solution," Gorton warned. [88] One of the senator's aides explained that he did not necessarily believe there should be private docks along the lake, but he wanted people to have a real voice in the planning. In an attempt to change operations at Lake Roosevelt, the Senate Appropriations Committee directed the Lake Roosevelt Coordinating Committee in 1992 essentially to look into ways of including the views of parties not represented on the LRCC. The committee had to report back to the Senate by April 1993. [89]

Despite the objections of the LRPOA, the Park Service continued to push ahead with removal of private docks — and Congress, regional politicians, and special interest groups pushed back. For a short but intense time, the focus of their attention was LARO Superintendent Gerald Tays. When he came to the park in 1993, he was quite familiar with the issues involving special use permits since he had served on the Park Service task force in the 1980s that drafted the NPS-53 regulations. He found LARO's Special Park Use Management Plan to be quite fair, returning lands to the public but doing it in a way that gave permittees an opportunity to make adjustments in their lives. Early in his tenure, Tays met with members of LRPOA, participating in a long boat ride up the Spokane Arm during which members hoped to convince him to extend their permits. While Tays could not do that, he was sympathetic to their complaints about lack of public boat launch ramps. He offered other solutions, such as opening private docks to the public. This was unacceptable, however: "They did not want to hear of the public coming in and using these facilities," he remembered. [90]

While some permittees continued to fight, Tays continued implementation of the 1990 Special Park Use Management Plan at LARO. He saw the issue as fairly clear cut. "There was nothing difficult" about these decisions, he later recalled. "When you have the law and policy on your side, if people disagree with it, you can tell them either go to Congress and change the law or go to the National Park Service hierarchy and change the policy. But I have no choice but to enforce the law and the policy." [91]

The political stakes for LARO were raised after the 1994 elections swept a Republican majority into Congress, ousting long-time Park Service supporter Rep. Tom Foley. His replacement, George Nethercutt, gained a seat on the appropriations subcommittee overseeing the Park Service budget, and he took immediate interest in the situation at Lake Roosevelt. He established an office in Colville to enable him to closely monitor issues at the park. Constituents reached out to him with their concerns, one of which was the LARO Special Park Use Management Plan. Sensing the time was ripe for action, the LRPOA began a push in 1995 to overturn the plan. LARO Superintendent Tays had anticipated this move and conceded that it would require a "concerted effort to thwart the challenge mounted by the Association." [92]

Regional county commissioners joined briefly with the CCT and STI to form the short-lived Lake Roosevelt Council of Governments (LRCOG) in 1996 to work for change in the management of the lake. They contended that the NRA belonged to "the citizens of the region" and thus the regional elected representatives needed to participate in plans concerning "this national asset." Their initial purpose, however, was to apply political pressure to ensure the removal of Superintendent Tays. The Park Service had concerns about the continued effectiveness of Tays as superintendent at LARO and transferred his position in March 1996 to the regional office. LRCOG members then asked to be involved in the selection of the new LARO Superintendent. The Park Service replied that the agency would welcome LRCOG input on qualities it believed important in a superintendent, but it could not allow the group to participate in federal hiring. [93]

One of the main targets of LRCOG was LARO's Special Park Use Management Plan, and the group lobbied its congressional delegation to push the Park Service to continue special use permits, including docks, at Lake Roosevelt. It wanted existing facilities to be grandfathered in, claiming that their removal would add to congestion at public docks and boat launch areas. Members complained that LARO had closed access to some areas, keeping the public from enjoying the lake front. "It's pure arrogance," suggested Lincoln County commissioner Ted Hopkins. "They're making it more and more difficult for the citizens to enjoy their own recreation area." [94] By the fall of 1996, fourteen more docks were scheduled for removal within a few months. LRPOA rallied to save these, working in conjunction with LRCOG. Calling the removal hasty, LRPOA initiated a letter writing campaign to congressional representatives in an attempt to cause the Park Service to change direction. [95]

In an effort to calm the waters at Lake Roosevelt, the Park Service began work on a new General Management Plan (GMP). Senator Gorton earmarked money for this work, and he and Nethercutt added a statement to the FY1997 Interior Appropriations Act that provided management advice and directed the Park Service to consult with all affected groups:

The conference agreement recognizes the increased public demand and lack of adequate public facilities and encourages the National Park Service to consider retaining access to existing community docks, deemed appropriate for public use, within current environmental guidelines, as it develops the Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area general management plan. In addition, the National Park Service is encouraged to consider other alternatives for providing greater public access to Lake Roosevelt in the development of the management plan. Local participation is critical to the development of successful management plans and the National Park Service is directed to consult thoroughly with affected local government representatives and other interested parties in the development of the management plan.

LARO Superintendent Vaughn Baker responded to this directive and notified regional county commissioners of the upcoming GMP planning process, inviting their participation. [96]

In response to the vocal complaints, LARO did soften its rules somewhat. Nearly a month after the docks were to be removed, LARO Chief Ranger Goodrich wrote to owners who had asked for additional time to complete the demolition. He acknowledged that inclement weather made the process difficult and asked that they try to remove the docks as soon as the weather and lake level allowed, with a target date of the end of May 1997. In contrast, LRCOG toughened its stance at the suggestion of attorney Linnwood D. Sampson. He offered to work with LRCOG in any of three ways: representing the group at meetings discussing the GMP; defending property owners over removal of remaining docks; or initiating legal action to determine property owners' rights. Commissioner Hopkins circulated Sampson's letter and requested $2,000 from each member to initiate court action. "I realize that budgets are tight," he wrote, "but I feel that we have this one unique opportunity to make a difference along Lake Roosevelt. If we fail to act now, our citizens will live with the results forever." [97] Despite its hard line, LRCOG began working with the Park Service during the process of writing a new GMP for LARO. Likewise, LRPOA urged its members to become involved in the process. It cautioned, however, that the Park Service did not plan to revisit the issue of private docks, but it had agreed to reexamine its policy on community docks. Therefore, members testifying at scoping sessions "should refrain from asking for private docks." [98]

Another Lake Roosevelt property owner, encouraged by LRCOG, decided to make a test case out of his refusal to remove his dock in 1997. Edward G. Torrison had complained six years earlier about the effect that NPS-53 had on his property. There were steep fee increases and impending termination of his permit, causing him to worry that his property values would decline steeply. Overlooking the fact that he had bought view property without lake frontage, he asserted, "Nobody would want to purchase lake property without a dock to place a boat, to swim from, or even just relax upon." The suit took on implications beyond a single dock, centering instead on the Park Service's right to require removal of docks. While the case remained in litigation, the agency temporarily backed away from forcing the last three private docks off the lake. [99]

Tensions eased as LARO unveiled its ideas for community access points at a series of public meetings in 1998 during the GMP process. The modification reflected recognition of the radical changes at Lake Roosevelt during the past two decades. Not only had outside visitation greatly increased, from 800,000 in 1980 to 1.4 million in 1997, but so had the population living adjacent to NRA lands. Without nearby docks, some of these newer residents were forced to drive twenty to thirty miles to reach a Park Service boat ramp. To help meet the needs of these different recreational users, LARO proposed converting, on a case-by-case basis, the currently permitted eighteen community docks to community access points when the permits expired in 2001, if the surrounding community were amenable to such a change. If the nearby residents were not willing to open the dock to the public, the permit would expire and the dock would be removed. If established, these public access points would serve three purposes: to provide additional access, reduce crowding at established areas, and serve adjacent residents. Local communities, county governments, and LARO all would work together to decide on locations and share the expense of development and maintenance. This concept proved popular with those attending the public meetings in 1998. Jim Pritchard, a lakeside resident and former Park Service critic, spoke for many when he said, "It appears that the Park Service is trying to meet the needs of both local and outside users. Vaughn Baker really seems to have caught on that there is a need in this area." LARO adopted the concept of community access points in the 1998 GMP, fulfilling the actions mandated by Congress in the Appropriations Bill. [100]

The plan to switch to community access points helped resolve the long-time rocky relationship between the Park Service and the Grand Coulee Dam Yacht Club. The club, initially composed of mostly Reclamation staff, had enjoyed special privileges at the lake since its founding in 1939. The original facilities were within the Reclamation Zone, under lease from the Bureau. After acquiring land at Eden Harbor in 1981, however, the club decided to construct new facilities, this time under the watchful eye of the Park Service. Following approval of the Special Park Use Management Plan in 1990, the yacht club found its lease fee raised, like all others around the lake. Admitting that it had enjoyed "a real bargain" in past years, the club complained about the increase from $150 to approximately $9,000 per year. LARO was willing to compromise and eventually lowered the annual fee to $2,800. Members remained angry and took their protest to the Department of the Interior, claiming that the rate increase had caused their membership to drop. They insisted that NPS-53 be changed to allow community docks to continue indefinitely. LARO remained firm and gave the club until 2001 to remove the forty-boat dock. Before that date, however, the yacht club found its situation changed by the possibility of having its facility designated a community access point that would be available to the public. This compromise was acceptable to the Park Service and yacht club members alike. [101]

The controversy over private docks, which had continued for more than a decade, was finally resolved in the fall of 2000. Edward Torrison and his wife lost their long-standing lawsuit against the Park Service when the U.S. District Court of Eastern Washington dismissed their case on September 27, 2000. In his decision, Chief District Judge Fred Van Sickle ruled first, that LARO is part of the National Park System and must be managed as such; and second, that Congress gave the Park Service authority to manage these units. He concluded that "the Park Service does have the power to demand the removal of private structures that encroach upon the Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area." [102]

Conclusion

Special park uses have turned nearly 180 degrees at Lake Roosevelt NRA, starting with encouraging a wide variety of uses by private parties and moving finally to termination of those activities to return the lands to public use. Problems began with the 1946 Tri-Party Agreement that required the Park Service to administer the special uses of the recreation area, managing it not only for recreation but also for industry, agriculture, and transportation. Years of inconsistent approvals, irregular monitoring, and insufficient funding for both staff and development of public recreation areas led to a gradual proliferation of private uses along the lakeshore, both permitted and not. Regaining control required nearly twenty years of tightening Park Service regulations, both nationally and locally, in addition to educating the public about the need for these changes. The road has been rough at times. There have been a number of contentious issues to settle, with grazing still unresolved. New policies have brought changes in appearance of the park lands along the lakeshore so they now appear more natural and less "private" than in past decades. LARO's first Superintendent, Claude Greider, might not recognize the place.