Lake Roosevelt Administrative History

1944 Plans

The small Park Service staff continued its planning work during 1943 and 1944. Normally, the Branch of Plans and Designs produced the final site layouts and Master Plans for park units, but it did not become involved in the early planning for the Columbia River Reservoir since it was not yet a Park Service area and might not become one. Still, the Park Service felt an obligation under the interbureau agreement to give Reclamation workable development plans for each of the selected sites, especially since that agency was funding the Park Service work. Greider also believed that these detailed plans would be useful in case a "less experienced planning agency" were designated to take over recreation development. [54]

By mid-summer 1943, Greider and Kearney sent proposed layout plans for Spring Canyon and Hawk Creek to the regional office for comments, followed soon after by plans for additional areas. The comments they received were less about the specific designs than about the future of the recreation area itself. Herbert Maier, Acting Regional Director, worried that the plans should not be carried too far since the Park Service was not sure how much the general public would use the new reservoir. Greider disagreed. "Is it not true that this factor of future use is a problem in connection with any undeveloped area?" he asked. "It would seem that if exact knowledge of attendance and use is to be a prerequisite for park planning very little advance planning for any area would be justified." [55] He reminded the Regional Director that the Committee on Problem No. 26 had studied the recreational needs of the region and concluded that ultimately the area would need full development. While cautioning that the Committee was not party to the working agreement with Reclamation, Maier deferred to Greider for the final word on plans. [56]

Log dump on the Sanpoil River, August 1957. Photo courtesy of National Park Service, Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area (LARO.HQ.MENG).

Greider and Kearney finished the "General Report and Development Outline" for the Columbia River Reservoir in mid-1944. It not only outlined plans for specific areas but also laid out the Park Service approach to development, which was to maintain tight federal control of the entire reservoir area. The Problem No. 26 report had recommended that 80 percent of the shore lands were more valuable for recreation than any other purpose. Further study for the 1944 report showed that just 3 percent of the lands would be needed for recreation, but "in order to protect the full recreational values of this 3 percent, the preservation of at least 80 percent of the Area is essential." Greider and Kearney believed that federal standards were higher than those of private developers (whose standards were "only high enough to meet competition"), and thus the government needed to establish and enforce appropriate requirements for all phases of shoreline development, public and private. The plan proposed that the federal government construct and own all the basic facilities and utilities needed for public recreation on the reservoir, from boat docks and campgrounds to cabins and concession buildings. It also recommended that private resorts built on adjacent lands should be denied access to the reservoir unless these developments supplemented existing facilities and conformed to the overall program. [57]

Director Drury found the report excellent, but he requested a change in the section dealing with administration. He would not agree to have the Park Service assume jurisdiction and administration of the recreation lands at the reservoir, but he was willing to have the agency continue to advise Reclamation under the interbureau agreement. Reclamation also approved the report and reiterated its request to have the Park Service assume responsibility for the administration and development as soon as possible. After signing his approval of the report, Regional Director Maier penned the comment, "Thank God — that's over!" [58]

Agreements

Relief did not come swiftly for either Reclamation or the Park Service. An agreement to formalize the long-term administration of the entire reservoir area was pending clarification of Indian rights in the area. While awaiting final accord, the two agencies renewed the interbureau agreement described earlier, with Reclamation continuing to provide funding for Park Service operations. Banks defended this $10,000 appropriation in 1943, when emphasis was on winning the war. He argued that planning was needed to lay the groundwork for post-war development of the recreation area that would provide employment for returning servicemen. Reclamation funding enabled Phil Kearney to stay with the Park Service through the drafting of the "General Report and Development Outline." By April 1944, however, Banks decreed that Reclamation could not justify further expenditures for architectural plans until the agency in charge of recreational development and management had been selected. Banks thus requested that Kearney be transferred to Reclamation, leaving Greider as the primary Park Service employee until late October 1946 when he was joined by Robert D. Waterhouse, the Resident Engineer. Kearney had worked hard at maintaining good relations between the two agencies, and Greider benefited initially from this good will. [60]

The agreements between the Park Service and Reclamation were renewed several times as the agencies waited for a clear definition of Indian rights. Finally, in June 1945, the Solicitor set forth his interpretation of the 1940 Act for Acquisition of Indian Lands, including delineation of Indian rights to one-quarter of the area. Once this hurdle was crossed, the three Department of the Interior agencies negotiated the Tri-Party Agreement, signed on December 18, 1946. The Park Service, with so few employees, did not feel ready to assume full responsibility for the reservoir area, so it postponed this transfer of authority until July 1, 1947. [61]

Legislative Authority

LARO is one of only two units in the National Park System that lacks specific enabling legislation; the other is Curecanti National Recreation Area in Colorado. The Park Service gained authority at Lake Roosevelt in other ways, however. Initially, the Act of June 23, 1936 (49 Stat. 1894), authorized the Service to cooperate with other federal agencies, paving the way for the subsequent cooperative agreements with Reclamation at LARO. Congress passed more significant legislation with the Act of August 7, 1946 (Public Law 633), that authorized Park Service appropriations for "Administration, protection, improvement, and maintenance of areas, under the jurisdiction of other agencies of the Government, devoted to recreational use pursuant to cooperative agreements." [62]

A few months later, the Park Service, Reclamation, and OIA signed the Tri-Party Agreement to delineate administration of the recreation area. This occurred during the period when the National Park System excluded recreational areas, national parkways, and other non-traditional categories. Consequently, the agreement reflected this ambiguous relationship and stipulated that the Park Service's work at the recreational area

in no way implies that this Area is a part of, or intended to become a unit of, the National Park System or that the basic preservation policies under which the National Parks and Monuments are administered shall necessarily be applied in the planning, development, and management of the recreational resources of the Recreational Area. [63]

Park Service administration at LARO was strengthened on August 24, 1961, by a Deputy Solicitor's opinion concerning the Shadow Mountain NRA. It held that the Act of August 7, 1946, authorized the Park Service to apply its statutes and regulations to any recreation area, including LARO, that it administered through a cooperative agreement with Reclamation. Finally, the Act of August 18, 1970 (Public Law 91-383), amended the earlier Act of August 8, 1953, to define the National Park System as including "any area of land and water now or hereafter administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the National Park Service for park, monument, historic, parkway, recreational, or other purposes." This finally removed any lingering ambiguity about the status of NRAs such as LARO. The Act further stipulated that all authorities governing administration and protection of the National Park System applied to all units within the system, as long as they did not conflict with any specific provision. [64] These laws have provided the legislative authorization for LARO.

A recent District Court decision reinforced LARO's status within the National Park System. Torrison v. Baker et al., filed in 1997, disputed the Park Service's authority to require removal of previously permitted private docks within the NRA. In ruling against the plaintiffs, the Court wrote,

Since the Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area is part of the National Park System, the Park Service must manage it in a manner "consistent with and founded in the purpose established by section 1 of this title, to the common benefit of all the people of the United States." 16 U.S.C. 1a-1 That purpose "is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." 16 U.S.C. 1 (emphasis added). [65]