Lake Roosevelt Administrative History

Early Budgets and Staffing

Additional Congressional recognition of LARO came through line-item appropriations. Funding for work at the new reservoir came initially from Reclamation. Following the end of World War II, the agency increased its usual $10,000 request to $25,000 for FY1947. Greider hoped to step up the pace of recreation development and planning and requested an increase in personnel in May 1946 to include a recreation area supervisor, assistant supervisor, engineer, landscape architect or park ranger, clerk-typist, and clerk-stenographer. Banks supported the request, calling it a minimum, and suggested that Reclamation might be criticized if it did not provide sufficient recreation staff. The 1946 Tri-Party Agreement stipulated that Reclamation fund Park Service work at the reservoir. The agencies continued with this fiscal relationship through FY1948. All of the initial Reclamation funds came with strings attached and could be used only for administration and planning work. [66]

Despite the increases in funding, Greider was shorthanded much of the time during the early years. Following the transfer of Phil Kearney in 1944, Greider had primary responsibility for Park Service operations until late 1946, when he was joined by an engineer. The staff increased considerably in 1947 with the addition of a landscape architect, chief ranger, and clerk, but the work still exceeded available personnel. Greider complained about this situation, adding that he periodically had been forced to use engineer Robert Waterhouse for routine administrative matters, which cut into critical mapping and planning projects. "This staff is barely adequate to properly service the large number of current permits and applications," he reported. "It is wholly unable to function as an independent office in fiscal or personnel matters, or to adequately perform all desirable planning work." [67]

The reservoir, known since April 1945 as Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake, and the adjacent shore lands, became Coulee Dam Recreational Area (LARO) with the Tri-Party Agreement. The signatory agencies discussed the name during negotiations in April 1946. They decided that the full name, Franklin Delano Roosevelt Lake National Recreation Area was "cumbersome" so Herbert Maier, Acting Regional Director, suggested that the area be named after the dam, which was the only one in the world while the country had innumerable Roosevelt lakes. Maier also opposed using the term "National" in the name since the Park Service did not have such a category. "We finally agreed upon 'Coulee Dam Recreational Area,'" Maier wrote. "The word 'Grand' was omitted since there is a Grand Coulee Area some miles below the Dam which is likely to become a state park." [69] The term national recreation area was applied to the reservoir by at least 1951 when the Park Service issued regulations governing use of the NRAs.

Once freed from the budget restrictions imposed by Reclamation, the Park Service hoped to proceed with development of the new recreational area. The agency completed Master Plans in 1948 that spelled out development priorities. Greider estimated that it would take a major investment of nearly $1.7 million to get LARO up to full operations, ready to attract additional private investment in concession facilities. Despite the great need, Greider was a realist, and he hoped that LARO's small budget, including $30,000 for administration, protection, and maintenance and $12,500 for development, would not be cut. It was reduced, however, and LARO got $26,000 total in FY1949, with none for development — its first Congressional appropriation. [71]

Subsequent appropriations also fell far short of meeting LARO's needs. A similar situation occurred at other national park units across the country as the Park Service struggled to meet soaring attendance figures at parks where facilities had been neglected during the war years. By 1950, the Park Service had a backlog of work estimated at $500 million. Before it could make a dent in these needs, however, war broke out again, this time in Korea. National Park Service Director, Arthur E. Demaray, lamented that limited agency funding meant that there was not enough money to allocate large amounts to any one area, such as LARO, to complete major development work. "In fact," he wrote, "about all we can do with these limited funds is to take care of the most urgent needs on a Service-wide priority basis." While the funds spent at LARO were "not very impressive," they were typical of limited funds appropriated to the Park Service for several years. [72] Park Service budgets were cut again by 1952 and the following year the agency was subjected to a reduction in staff. [73]

With federal budgets tight, Congress worked to balance competing demands. Washington Congressman Walt Horan was a staunch advocate of LARO and its plans for the area. He realized, however, that with large amounts of federal money pouring into Washington state for power and land development projects, he could not push for too much. "If we have to choose between recreational development and reclamation," he noted, "we would be forced to choose the latter." [75] He continued to push for funding, however, and LARO was one of just four areas nationwide to receive development funds during FY1950. He was unsure of additional money and explained to LARO supporters, "Unfortunately, we have a situation in which everybody wants to balance the budget in somebody else's back yard." [76]

Lack of funds to develop recreational facilities at LARO led to public relations problems for Greider and the Park Service. Money was just part of the problem, however. Another issue was the clash between the local population's desire for immediate development of any type and the Park Service's preference for orderly planning and development. Greider outlined the situation in 1947, advocating "a conservative and orderly program" and discouraging most recreational use until both the public and the resources could be properly protected. He planned to permit several concessions catering to boaters the following year. [77] Congressman Horan appreciated Greider's desire for careful planning, but he countered that "the demand for this development is becoming so strong and the Dam has been under construction for so many years that many visitors and residents in the area seem to feel this phase has been either neglected or unduly postponed." He urged looking into using private capital for some of the work. [78] Greider described Park Service plans for development of the new area to nearly 375 people at the Colville Chamber of Commerce meeting in December 1947. Those attending supported the Park Service and planned to lobby Congress to fund immediate development. [79]