Whtie Sands Administrative History

White Sands could not bask in the glow of such compliments as those paid by visitors or park service superintendents. The heavy volume of traffic, small staff, and modest budget strained not only the landscape but relations between Tom Charles and his superiors. The custodian worried in February 1935 at the slow pace of construction at the monument. Charles would entertain dignitaries like Governor Tingley at Play Day, with no shade, fireplaces, running water, or lavatory facilities for visitors. Then at Play Day disaster struck as "there was a constant waiting line of from five to twenty women" to use the crudely built, temporary toilets in the dunes. The expensive ($500 each) lavatories built in the "Navajo hogan" style at the park entrance, five-and-one-half miles away, went unused, and Charles questioned the logic of NPS designers and consultants who never attended his ceremonies nor asked local residents their opinion of the monument. "I have had severe criticism on this subject" from civic leaders in town, said Charles, and the custodian told Pinkley that he could no longer "hold my tongue." [34]

Charles' dialogue with his superiors developed simultaneously with the grandiose plans of local and regional interests for White Sands. As Charles requested better picnic facilities, J.B. Willis of El Paso asked the NPS for a lease to construct "a large bathing beach, dance pavilion, and other accommodations for the visiting public." Then Pinkley learned that Alamogordo officials envisioned a permanent baseball field, swimming pool, horse track and fairgrounds for the dunes. What ensued was a flurry of memoranda that revealed not only the difference between NPS policy and local ambition, but the distinctiveness of White Sands within SWNM. [35]

The essential problem of White Sands for NPS personnel was the intensely local character of visitation and promotion. Tom Charles' superiors sat in offices in Washington, San Francisco, Casa Grande, and Oklahoma City, and traveled constantly to dozens of park units. From this came a decidedly national perspective on park management, linked to classic Progressive concepts of aesthetics and preservation. To Charles and his peers, the dunes remained what they had always been: a place for recreation. "As I see this," said Charles, "it is not a matter of what the Monument was created for." The park service needed to remember that "we have . . . to take care of the actual needs of the people who visit here." Pinkley became quite sarcastic at Charles' reading of public service, charging: "Where is your authority there for making a Southern New Mexico playground?" The local chamber then decided to approach Governor Tingley and the state's U.S. senators to bring pressure on the NPS, leading Pinkley to demand rhetorically: "How are you going to make sure the local Chambers of Commerce won't try to make a young Coney Island out of the White Sands at the expense of the United States Government?" [36]

As long as the debate over facilities remained within park service channels, the issue of competing philosophies rarely surfaced. It was when civic leaders protested directly to Washington that the larger implications of the Charles-Pinkley correspondence became clear. A.E. Demaray wrote to E.H. Simons of the El Paso chamber of commerce to explain the controversy raging within the park service. San Francisco and Washington staff wanted all development clustered at the park entrance, "so [that] the visitor may get the unique experience of seeing a world without vegetation." The staff wanted "man-made intrusions" left out of the heart of the dunes, allowing the visitor, in Pinkley's words, to engage "the vast silence and weird beauty" of this "sacred area." Such patrons, whom Pinkley called "national" visitors, came "from far distant states . . . to get the full thrill of the White Sands." Pinkley offered no statistics on the volume of national visitation, and by the end of 1935 no clear resolution seemed at hand. [37]

The conflicting pattern of booming attendance and NPS reluctance to accommodate local demands led civic officials to explore alternatives in the vicinity of the monument. Fortunately, a rancher named L.L. Garton owned property immediately south of U.S. 70 within one-half mile of the park entrance. Garton and previous owners had tried to develop the acreage, which included the only easily accessible potable water between Alamogordo and White Sands. Garton had purchased 1,240 acres around the well in 1916, after a group of Otero County businessmen had failed to discover oil on the property. They did find "mineralized" water at 94 degrees Fahrenheit; too alkaline to grow crops like cotton, but warm enough to provide area residents with the equivalent of a "hot-springs resort." In 1930 Mr. Garton stocked his "lake" with muskrats, black bass, sunfish, bullfrogs, and oysters to create an "aquatic farm" for the enjoyment of his guests. Four years later this experiment had also failed, and Garton entertained inquiries from Dr. F.B. Evans, president of the Alamogordo chamber, and NM A&M president Dr. Harry L. Kent to sell the land to the park service. [38]

In order to ascertain the merits of the Garton property, the NPS in March 1935 sent Ardey Borell, SWNM naturalist technician, to White Sands. His six-day visit impressed Borell with the abundance of waterfowl in the high desert (53 species of birds). "At present very few Western Parks or Monuments provide sanctuary for waterfowl," Borell informed his superiors, a circumstance that Garton's sale to private owners would jeopardize. Borell's conclusions about the lake's ecological value meshed with the report of Tom Charles' son, Ralph Charles, who served in Las Cruces as a "land planning consultant" for the National Resources Planning Board (NRPB). Ralph Charles had written in December 1934 that Garton, then aged 75, would sell the entire property at low cost. From this "recreational possibilities could be developed," as well as the bird refuge, an opinion echoed in January 1935 by Elliott Barker, New Mexico state game warden. [39]

What convinced park service personnel to pursue the Garton property was the potential to develop the lake's water resources for visitor use at the adjacent monument, and the applicability of construction funds from the Resettlement Administration's "submarginal lands" program. This agency was part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's efforts to restore lands no longer of value to farmers and ranchers. Tom Charles had tapped the water supply at the dunes, providing visitors with a highly alkaline but drinkable source of water. Yet he and his superiors knew that a better supply, with much greater volume, had to be identified soon. Garton's well needed to be tested for its feasibility, and NPS officials in the regional office in Oklahoma City began the paperwork for purchase that summer. [40]

The Garton case then entered the complicated network of New Deal/park service collaboration, setting a pattern that persisted for the remainder of the decade. In early August a sixty-year-old man from Marshall, Texas, came to Tom Charles' office, identifying himself as John Happer, "manager" for the Garton project. Charles had no advance notice of Happer's work, and hastily wrote Pinkley that "this is all Greek to me. The SWNM superintendent concurred, asking western NPS staff for an explanation. Frank Kittredge of San Francisco complained: "There appears to be quite a duplication and lack of information on the part of the Park Service in this matter." Then John H. Diehl, SWNM engineer, went to White Sands to investigate. He learned that Happer had been sent by L. Vernon Randau, the NPS official in Oklahoma City in charge of "Recreational Demonstration Projects [RDP]." Happer was not needed for at least thirty days, said Diehl, as no surveys had yet been conducted nor leases signed. [41]

The Happer incident was not the first instance of New Deal problems at White Sands, but it did echo the ambiguities of the monument's early years. Without the large amounts of non-NPS funds for land acquisition and facilities construction, White Sands may have remained as Tom Charles found it in 1933. Yet the lack of park service control led to strained relations with nascent agencies like the Resettlement Administration, and its successor the Works Progress Administration (WPA). Such bodies had no permanence like the NPS, no clear mission beyond relief employment, and no stable chain of command. For these reasons the RDP and the WPA work at White Sands could be vulnerable to political intervention at all levels (local, state, and federal), further irritating career park service employees who had their doubts about the proper path for White Sands to take.

To make himself useful, John Happer traveled around the Tularosa basin inquiring about the need for his services. Charles and Pinkley exchanged bemused letters about Happer's frenetic pace, with Pinkley sarcastically noting that "Happer is sort of out on a limb. . . and is afraid some one will come along and catch him doing nothing and fire him." In September Pinkley received unofficial notice that the Garton project would have $50,000, which he wanted to apply to the monument as well. He found it ironic that the park service could not finance "a custodian's residence, public comfort station [restroom], water and sewer systems, equipment shed and administration building." More revealing was the fact that "the Government has not called on Mr. Garton. . . for abstracts." Happer had no "specific information concerning the amount of money to be spent or the nature of the project to be undertaken." Pinkley wanted Garton Lake to have only "fencing and the construction of a few relatively inexpensive dykes" for the wildlife refuge, and he regretted supporting the purchase in December without knowledge of the lavish funding provided by the Resettlement Administration. [42]

The pace of New Deal spending, countered by NPS desires to approve projects through channels, propelled Garton Lake into turmoil. Evidently other federal agencies had similar complaints against the RDP. In early November 1935, Ralph Charles sent a quick note to his father with rumors of suspension of all resettlement work. Yet Ralph Charles also learned that federal officials wanted White Sands ready to restart Garton Lake at a moment's notice. John Happer proceeded to acquire Mr. Garton's abstract of his deeds and patents. Happer saw mention of several oil leases on the Garton property held by out-of-state residents, but believed that these had been proven worthless, and that quit-claim deeds could be secured rather easily. [43]

Once the funding for Garton Lake had been restored, Tom Charles discovered the full magnitude of political involvement in the project. Several WPA contracts in the Alamogordo area had started that fall, depleting the source of competent labor. This affected Garton Lake when Happer informed NPS that his assistant would be Frank Cunningham, an elderly man whom Tom Charles had known for nearly thirty years. Cunningham would be responsible for all survey work on the White Sands RDP, even though Charles reported: "He may be the best surveyor in the state, but if he is I do not know it." When confronted by NPS officials about Cunningham's qualifications, Happer said, in the words of Jack Diehl: "It was not any concern of ours . . . and . . . that he was the boss on that job." Tom Charles then clarified the issue for the NPS: "[Cunningham] is rather diplomatic in handling men, gets along well with the Bronson Cutting faction politically, and I do not take it as a life and death matter whether he is the engineer out there or not." Pinkley then concurred, telling Diehl: "We will just have to make the best of it, recognizing that we have to adjust ourselves to the Works Progress Board." [44]

Figure 9. Early Registration Booth (Restroom in Background) (1930s).
(Courtesy White Sands National Monument)