Lake Roosevelt Administrative History

Taking Action, 1972-1973

While the agencies were looking into revision of the basic operating agreement, the STI pursued a strategy of objectives effectively designed to revise the way that the Tri-Party Agreement applied to the Spokane Tribe. These included receipt of revenue from all leasing of freeboard lands; recognition of tribal jurisdiction over all activities in the freeboard area, such as hunting, fishing, and camping, as well as the right to collect revenue from these; and recognition of the tribe as the agency issuing permits in the freeboard area, with no charges made for tribal members. Attorney Dellwo suggested that these jurisdictional questions would be resolved if the Secretary recognized the "all but exclusive ownership" approach to freeboard lands. [92]

R. K. Seely, Bureau Operations Manager at Coulee Dam, disagreed with the STI's requests because of the precedent they might set. For instance, the CCT had sold much of the valuable lands bordering the lake to non-Indians. "To give the Indians any control over the freeboard area would put them between the landowners and the lake," he wrote, "which of course is completely unacceptable to the white landowners." Seely did not believe the tribes should be allowed to keep revenue from freeboard leases since the Park Service had to turn over all the fees it collected. He worried that tribal control of the freeboard area might restrict Reclamation from controlling lands in dangerous slide zones. Furthermore, Seely was concerned that the tribes might restrict non-Indian use of these lands. He concluded by emphasizing the need for Reclamation and/or the Park Service to keep control of the freeboard area. [93]

The STI had an opportunity early in 1973 to take control of some contested ground. When the tribe heard that the Park Service planned to close Little Falls campground, it asked to take over management of the site, popular with tribal members. The Park Service then reversed its decision, claiming that it should keep the campground open since it was so popular and that because it lay within freeboard lands, it was up to the agency to manage the area. The tribe met privately with Reclamation to discuss management of the freeboard area and was encouraged when the agency asked them to submit a management plan. LARO Superintendent Burgen recognized that the tribe was serious about its request and noted, "Our credibility with the Tribe, solidifying or shattering our relationship, is on the block." He recommended getting approval from Reclamation and "political figures" for this transfer and any others, and he outlined how such a deal could take place with revisions in the Tri-Party Agreement. [94]

The Regional Director recommended approval of a special use permit to allow the STI to manage Little Falls campground. Although relations between the Park Service and the tribe were generally good, he warned that "disapproval of this request could easily escalate ill will felt by the Spokane Tribe and radical elements of the Indian Rights Movement into a highly publicized and possibly dangerous confrontation." [95] The Washington office granted approval. Before the transfer was completed, however, the STI angered Burgen by passing a resolution to impose fees for fishing, camping, and picnicking on the Spokane Arm. He told Glenn Galbraith, STI Executive Director, that he would "vehemently object" to such fees for any area, especially Pierre, administered by the Park Service. He noted that once the tribe had taken over management, they could assess fees at Little Falls, but if they tried to do the same at Pierre campground, the Park Service would close the site. [96]

The STI also took its concerns directly to the Secretary of the Interior in June 1973. In addition to jurisdictional control of the freeboard area, the tribe asked for exclusive rights to protect and control archaeological remains; transfer of Fort Spokane, along with the freeboard area on the opposite side of the Spokane Arm, to tribal control; and revenue from both water storage and power production. [97]

At the same time the STI was pushing to expand tribal rights, the CCT also revealed its concerns and objectives. The tribes had given up on the Task Force, called for the dismissal of Emmet Willard, and asked to deal directly with the Secretary of the Interior. Their goals included employment for tribal members at Grand Coulee Dam; preferential power rates for planned development on the reservation; irrigation projects for the reservation; tribal use of freeboard areas; and return of slide areas where there was no danger of slides. They reiterated their claim to a percentage of the power produced at the dam using their water rights and riverbed, as well as the valuable dam site. Finally, they wanted exclusive jurisdiction over hunting, fishing, and boating within the reservation boundaries, and they requested negotiations to phase the Park Service out of the reservation by allowing the CCT to take control of Park Service facilities there. One agency official worried that loss of the campgrounds in the Indian Zones would lead to fragmented administration at Lake Roosevelt, changing it into more of a recreation area for local groups instead of a national area. He noted that over the years since 1946, "many non-Indians have come to feel that this area belongs to all persons." [98]

Activists jumped into the jurisdictional dispute again in the spring of 1973. The Colville Agency issued a special use permit to a CCT member for Barnaby Island, as well as an island to the northwest and a small area of freeboard lands. The BIA did not notify the Park Service of the lease, and the agency discovered it entirely by accident when a maintenance man stopped at Barnaby on April 27 and found two people there. Stephanie Fuller, a Nespelem resident, mentioned possible development of the site and said that both the BIA and Colville Business Council were willing to make it a test case. Paul Larson, LARO Chief Ranger, called the BIA and talked with Bob Jones, who was surprised that the Park Service knew about the lease. Jones admitted that the BIA had approved it in January but had not planned to tell either the Park Service or Reclamation yet. He asked that Larson not tell Reclamation, but Larson refused. Larson then talked with George Davis, Acting Superintendent of the Colville Agency, to protest the BIA action and ask that nothing be done to interfere with public use of the developed site. Davis later told Larson that the CCT was unwilling to wait any longer for clarification of their rights. The BIA supported the tribe's contention that it had a right to these lands. At a subsequent meeting in early May, CCT and local BIA officials continued to challenge Park Service authority and pushed Larson to admit that the Tri-Party Agreement needed revision. Larson said that he hoped nothing would happen on Barnaby Island to provoke an "emotional confrontation" and reiterated the need for continued dialogue to work through differences. Council members, however, said that they would back Fuller in her lease. [99]

For LARO Superintendent Burgen, things were getting out of hand. In addition to the Barnaby Island incident, the Spokane Business Council passed a resolution claiming all the water surrounding the reservation and extending to the far banks instead of the midpoint of the reservoir. The Park Service had been working on a special use permit to allow the STI to manage the Little Falls campground, but the tribe decided not to sign at the last minute and instead announced that it might start charging visitors to use both Little Falls and Pierre camping areas. In addition, a group of young Spokane Indians who claimed to be starting a cultural area had been given permission from the Tribal Council to bulldoze a launch ramp at the site. Burgen warned the regional office that both the CCT and STI had decided to take control of the Indian Zones and, in the case of the STI, claim even more. "Neither Tribe places any weight on challenges to their right by this office," he continued. "The situation obviously discards the Tri-Party Agreement and with it any workable management of the Indian Zone on our part." Burgen was concerned about the Park Service not having a sufficient response to help visitors who faced potential restrictions by the tribes. [101]

In the midst of this uncertainty, the regional office requested a reexamination of the Tri-Party Agreement. The Washington Office responded that they were unclear just what part of the present agreement seemed unsatisfactory, and they asked for further detailed information and recommendations. The Regional Director had sent information through memos and phone calls to alert the Washington staff to a situation that could become "newsworthy and possibly embarrassing to the Secretary." He assured them, however, that "We feel fully competent to handle it at this level." [102]