Lake Roosevelt Administrative History

The gates on Grand Coulee Dam had closed by 1939, starting the impoundment of the Columbia River that became Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake. Although federal and state planners envisioned recreational development for the reservoir from the beginning, they faced many other pressing issues with the massive Columbia Basin Irrigation Project, a major development designed to benefit from the dam and reservoir. Recreation planning was hindered initially by indecision over which agency should guide and manage recreation for the area. Later planning and development efforts were retarded by a chronic lack of funding and marred by interagency disputes. This made the early years of Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area (LARO), from the 1940s through the early 1950s, a constant struggle for basic existence.

As the waters rose in the new lake, government officials began comprehensive planning for the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) hired Dr. Harlan H. Barrows, head of the University of Chicago Geography Department, as a planning consultant to work with William E. Warne, Reclamation Director of Information, and Dr. Edward N. Torbert, an economic geographer with Reclamation. The outcome was the Columbia Basin Joint Investigations that divided the planning process into twenty-eight problems to study. Over the next several years, nearly three hundred people from forty local, state, and national agencies worked on the planning. [2]

Early Planning: Committee on Problem No. 26

Two of the study problems dealt with recreation. Reclamation headed up the committee for Problem No. 25 to locate and plan rural parks and recreation areas within the boundaries of the irrigation project. Other agencies on the committee included the National Park Service (Park Service), Washington Department of Highways, and the Washington State Planning Council. The Park Service was asked to lead the much larger Problem No. 26 committee with a mission "to formulate plans to promote the recreational use of the reservoir above Grand Coulee Dam and its shorelines, not in isolation but in effective inter-relationship with the other diversified recreational assets of the Inland Empire and of contiguous areas, from all significant local, regional, and national points of view." [3] The committee grew to include nine federal agencies, nine state agencies, two outdoor organizations, and four chambers of commerce. [4]

The Park Service moved rapidly to designate the investigation leader for the Problem No. 26 committee. "We believe that the best man to handle this work . . . will be Mr. C. E. Greider," advised Conrad L. Wirth, National Park Service Assistant Director. [5] At the time of his appointment, Claude E. Greider was a State Supervisor with the agency in Portland, Oregon, and he was later promoted to Associate Recreation Planner in the San Francisco office. Greider took charge of the Problem No. 26 investigations in November 1939, beginning an association with Lake Roosevelt that lasted nearly fourteen years and encompassed the initial planning, establishment, and early development of LARO. [7]

Recreation planning for federal reservoirs was a new direction for the Park Service at this time. During the 1930s, the agency administered the work of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) at state parks around the nation. Since most states had no comprehensive planning for their parks, the Park Service supported the Park, Parkway, and Recreation Study Act of 1936 that enabled it to work with other agencies nationwide to coordinate planning for parks at local, state, and federal levels. By 1941, thirty-four states, including Washington, had produced detailed recreation reports. That same year, the Park Service published its comprehensive report, A Study of the Park and Recreation Problem of the United States, outlining the state of parks nationwide and recommending directions for the future. [8]

As part of its expanded duties during the 1930s, the Park Service began working with Reclamation to develop recreation plans for reservoirs administered by the latter agency. Although it did not intend to remain involved in reservoirs of lesser importance, the Park Service recognized the nationally significant recreation potential of larger reservoirs behind major dams, such as Boulder Dam on the Colorado River. Nonetheless, there was considerable disagreement within the agency for many years over adding reservoir recreation sites to the National Park System. Many questioned the national significance of such areas, and some agency stalwarts believed that Lake Mead, behind Boulder Dam, was essentially a commercial playground. The National Park System had never included parklands where recreation, not preservation, was the primary focus; purists were further dismayed with the acceptance of hunting inside the boundaries of these new areas. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes shared these concerns but also saw the potential increases in appropriations if the Park Service assumed responsibility for reservoir recreation. Reclamation also saw good potential in interagency collaboration, and when it announced major investigations in 1945 to expand development of western river systems, it asked the Park Service to do a systematic survey of the recreation potential for all proposed projects. [9]

As it undertook this new role, the Park Service looked to other recreational areas for guidance. Regional Director John E. White requested enough copies of "Recreation Development of the Tennessee River System" (House of Representatives Document No. 505) for each member of the Problem No. 26 Committee. White had seen the report and told an official of the Tennessee Valley Authority that "it appears that the problems you have solved at TVA are quite identical with those facing our committee." [10] Four years earlier, R. F. Bessey, a consultant with the Pacific Northwest Regional Planning Commission, heard about the recreational development being done at reservoirs along the Mississippi River and noted the parallels with Bonneville Dam and its reservoir. He requested information on the planning and administration of the proposed park system. [11]

Before the committee could do much planning, its members needed to see the future reservoir area. Greider visited Grand Coulee Dam in January 1940 for a firsthand look, touring parts of the recreation area with Frank A. Banks, chief construction engineer for the dam. Later, members of the committee spent a day in mid-April traveling to several prospective recreation sites. They started up north at Kettle Falls, toured down to Hunters for lunch, and then ended with a boat trip to the dam. Despite their initial work, the committee made little progress during 1940 because the reservoir had not yet reached full pool. The terrain was rugged, and the only way to reach most of the potential recreation sites was by boat. The water was expected to reach close to maximum level early in 1941, leading to increased use of the area. Committee members recognized the need to develop policies as soon as possible to control this expected rise in visitation. Reclamation suggested using topographical maps, supplemented by a few field examinations, to develop a plan outline over the winter to coordinate both public and private developments. [12]

At this point, the committee recognized that it had gone as far as it could go by itself and could make no further progress without field investigations and plan preparations. Since neither the committee nor any of the cooperating agencies had funding for this work, all agreed to recommend that the Park Service be designated as the agency in charge of recreation planning, development, and administration of the reservoir. "They feel that the Service will undoubtedly have this responsibility eventually," wrote Greider, "so why not now at the beginning of planning and development work." [13] The suggestion was not unexpected, and the Park Service Regional Director forwarded the idea to Washington, D.C., with his full support. At its November 1940 meeting, the committee made its official recommendation that the Park Service assume responsibility for doing field studies and plans, but it held off designating any agency for future development and administrative work. The Park Service agreed to undertake field studies and Master Plans later that month. Banks immediately squelched any attempt to appoint Reclamation as the ultimate administrator for recreation at the reservoir because this was not a function of his agency and its personnel did not want the responsibility. [14]