Lake Roosevelt Administrative History

Aftermath of the Regulations Controversy

The controversy had run its course, but it left two legacies. The first was strained relations between Reclamation and the Park Service, still healing from the 1949 concrete plant controversy. While that conflict went to the heart of the interbureau agreement, the fight over regulations came down to personal relations between employees of the two agencies. Through the Yacht Club, many Reclamation employees had taken a stand against the regulations. Greider complained to Reclamation officials in mid-1951 about "the unusual activities of its employees" in opposing not only the rules but the Park Service's planning and development as well. He conceded that they had a right to their private opinions, but he emphasized that

when representatives of one government agency organize and carry on an intensive high-pressure public campaign . . . in which they misrepresent the purposes and policies of another agency with which they have a cooperative agreement, it is entirely another matter. [104]

A number of non-governmental people in the community had told Greider of being approached by Reclamation employees looking for support in their opposition to the Park Service. Greider finally met with the District Project Manager and his staff who agreed that Reclamation's propaganda campaign had gone to unjustifiable lengths. Reclamation agreed to draft a statement of support for the Park Service, and all believed that its release would reassure the public that the agency gave no official support to most of the complaints voiced by individual employees. [105]

The problem did not end there, however. The Park Service appeared vindictive later that fall when it requested transfer of the Yacht Club lease from Reclamation to Park Service control, less than two days after the club had taken a formal stand against the Park Service. The recently retired Frank A. Banks, former Reclamation supervising engineer, saw this move as retaliatory, and he also harshly criticized the Park Service for its lack of recreational improvements. He said that he had initially worked to attract the Park Service to the area but saw that the agency had done little to develop it or encourage recreational use. Instead, he believed the regulations and other rules discouraged and antagonized people, causing the Park Service's public relations to become "terrible." [106]

The second legacy from the fight over regulations led to the Park Service losing its bid to manage the Equalizing Reservoir, now known as Banks Lake. The reservoir formed after Reclamation constructed Dry Falls Dam near Coulee City and filled the formerly dry Grand Coulee with water from Lake Roosevelt. Water from the reservoir is used to irrigate the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project. The Park Service had studied this area in the 1930s for possible inclusion in the National Park System. While many believed it had unique geological and scenic values, a bill to establish the area as a national park received an unfavorable report in both 1918 and 1926, and National Park Service Director Horace Albright disapproved the idea in May 1933. Washington State acquired close to 470 acres at Dry Falls ca. 1922 for a state park. Construction of Grand Coulee Dam rekindled Park Service interest in the area, and a 1938 report suggested that the area south of the planned reservoir could be established as a national monument to showcase its outstanding geological features. The report also recommended that the Park Service consider the recreational development along both the Columbia River and the proposed reservoir to be formed in the North Coulee, with the combination of recreation and education offering "even greater appeal to the traveling public." [107]

Planning moved from the theoretical to the practical stage by the late 1940s as agencies and community groups tried to assess who could best manage the recreational aspects of the Equalizing Reservoir. The Grant County Recreation Committee, a subcommittee of the Grant County Chamber of Commerce, was concerned primarily with fast results. A secondary concern was development of a fishery program, and many on the committee felt that the state would be unable to produce results in a reasonable time. "Perhaps it is needless to say I did not say anything that would discourage . . . [this] line of reasoning," admitted Greider. [108] Before the end of the year, Washington State informed the Park Service that it would be unable to assume management and development of the reservoir, so Secretary of the Interior Oscar Chapman told both the Park Service and Reclamation to proceed with plans to add the reservoir to LARO. Five of the regional office staff spent several days the following spring conducting a preliminary study of the Equalizing Reservoir, and both agencies continued to plan for the Park Service to administer the new lake. [109]

By September 1951, as complaints escalated about the proposed regulations for Lake Roosevelt, public support for Park Service administration of the Equalizing Reservoir began to erode. Hubert H. Walter, Administrative Assistant for the Columbia Basin Commission, said that local people were worried about potential restrictions and they believed that state parks administration would be more sympathetic to their concerns. At a meeting later that fall, the CBC supported local concerns by passing a resolution that the new reservoir be given to the state for administration. A few months later, the Park Service decided to back off from its push to include the reservoir in the NRA until public relations improved. In the meantime, Reclamation would continue to handle permit requests in consultation with Greider. The Regional Director recognized that the Park Service faced a difficult situation at LARO, one so volatile that he decided to send a representative there on special assignment to handle public relations prior to implementation of any regulations. [110] It is unclear whether or not this person ever came.

Washington State once again indicated interest in the Equalizing Reservoir early in 1952 when it became apparent that the Park Service was losing its hold on the area. The director of the Department of Game asked Reclamation for eight months to conduct a joint wildlife and recreation study to see what lands might be needed. Within less than two months, however, the director of the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission announced that the Park Service should take responsibility for the area north of Coulee City and State Parks would take the area to the south. Even with that reduced area, the state agency would have insufficient finances to develop parks for several years. After the state backed out, the Park Service met with Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Department of Game, and State Parks to negotiate an agreement to administer the reservoir. The CBC continued to object, saying that people wanted the state to administer the area even if development took many years. [111]

The fate of the Equalizing Reservoir remained up in the air for the rest of 1952 as agencies vied for influence and control. The Park Service continued to plan for the recreational development there, which was to become a fourth ranger district at LARO. National Park Service Director Conrad Wirth backed the inclusion of the new lake in the NRA, saying that the administration of both lakes by one agency was both logical and economical. To critics concerned about over-regulation of Park Service units, he responded that the agency's approach to reservoir recreation areas was considerably less restrictive than its policies concerning national parks. Because the reservoirs were artificial in nature, they were more appropriate for "man-made attractions" than other parks. Meanwhile, the Washington Department of Game Director maintained his agency's interest in the reservoir and complained to Congressman Walt Horan that while Reclamation had done a fine job with the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project, it was not in the state's interest to have other federal agencies step in and "literally create a federal empire within the Basin." In addition, he believed that his agency would be better at administering the reservoir since "the record of the Park Service in this State as regards recreational development is one of glowing promises and . . . few accomplishments," with bureaucratic regulations that made enjoyment of natural resources "onerous" to many people. [112]

The CBC kept pushing its case for state control as well. It succeeded in delaying any decision when National Park Service Director Wirth agreed that his agency would not sign the Memorandum of Agreement for the Equalizing Reservoir before discussing the issue with the Commission. CBC's Hubert Walter suggested that they should continue stalling to delay the transfer until the new Eisenhower administration took over. The change of leadership brought a variation in the original plan when Douglas McKay, the new Secretary of the Interior, proposed a cooperative solution with both state and federal agencies combining efforts. Under his plan, the Park Service would retain general supervision of both LARO and the Equalizing Reservoir area, both of which he considered nationally significant. The administration could be flexible enough, however, to allow state and local agencies to develop and manage some areas. For instance, the state Department of Game might manage some areas for wildlife, while the State Parks and Recreation Commission could develop park facilities both at the reservoir and Lake Roosevelt. Despite these suggestions, the Park Service retained control of Lake Roosevelt while the State took over the Equalizing Reservoir. [113]

Administration of the Equalizing Reservoir did not work as well as supporters had hoped, at least initially. By 1958, local opinion had reversed and begun pushing for transfer of the area to the Park Service. "Our people are, of course, not participating in the promotion of this transfer," reassured the Regional Director. [114] Dissatisfaction was based apparently on the state's lack of development at the reservoir, ironically the same reason cited by those displeased with the Park Service's administration at Lake Roosevelt a decade earlier. [115] Despite complaints, the reservoir remained under state management.

It is difficult to pinpoint all the factors that contributed to the unrest at LARO during the late 1940s and early 1950s, but reasonable speculation suggests at least three: slow pace of development, imposition of regulations, and the personality of Superintendent Greider. Released from wartime constraints, local people eagerly awaited the development of the new lake. At first they were patient with limited budgets and supported the local Park Service administration. But as months stretched into years, they took out their frustrations on LARO staff. As relations began to sour, the Park Service imposed regulations on all NRAs. Many of the initially strict rules were modified following a comment period, but the simmering resentment turned to outright anger as residents saw the Park Service trying to limit their use of the NRA to developed areas only, when LARO had not yet received sufficient funding to develop many public facilities.

The strong personality of the first superintendent, Claude E. Greider, may have compounded the problem. Greider had definite ideas about how to run the NRA and periodically clashed with Regional personnel. He vigorously defended Park Service interests at LARO against attacks by both the OIA (the log dump at Sanpoil Bay) and Reclamation (the concrete plant at the South Marina). During the controversy over regulations, several critics described Greider as confrontational suggesting, at least, that his actions occasionally could be misinterpreted. Don Everts, a long-time LARO employee, remembered Greider as "kind of a pompous person . . . [but] a pretty good superintendent." [116] Soon after Everts arrived at LARO in 1951, he accompanied Greider and several staff to Hunters to discuss potential development work there.

And he got out, he was a little guy, bald-headed, just a small guy, strutted around in his uniform. And [he] looked around and decided he'd ask us what we'd suggest. Well, that didn't go over too well right at first. We didn't suggest what he had in mind. So he . . . says, "Now we'll vote on it." So we did, and he was all by himself. And the classic statement that stuck in my mind for years, "That's the end of democracy in this area." He was quite a guy. [117]

Passions evidently cooled following the fights over LARO regulations and management of the Equalizing Reservoir. Greider's annual report for FY1953 was brief: "No events of sufficient significance to the National Park Service occurred in this area to suggest the need for a special report." By that time, the Superintendent was ready to move on. The Park Service transferred Greider to the Portland Office on August 12, 1953, where he was named Assistant Chief of the Columbia Basin Recreation Survey and placed in charge of the Rogue River Recreation Survey. He was replaced at LARO by Hugh Peyton, the former superintendent of the Millerton Lake NRA in California. Greider's connection with LARO and Lake Roosevelt spanned nearly fourteen years. He nurtured the idea of a recreation area, oversaw its initial development, and stayed long enough to help it get its feet wet. Many of the issues he faced, especially Indian rights and public rejection of Park Service rules and regulations, have continued to challenge LARO managers to the present. [118]