Lake Roosevelt Administrative History

Park Service Critics

After another year with little to show at the recreation area, the local mood turned angrier, fed by a small group of men in the Grand Coulee area who opposed the Park Service not only for its lack of development work but also for its attempt to restrict their use of the lake and shore lands. They charged that the Park Service was restricting permits on the lake and imposing such strict conditions on permittees that one man would have had to spend $20,000 for a dock, including $15,000 for surveys. Greider, who was seen as belligerent, needed to "get out from behind his miles and miles of plans and come down to earth" before the complainers would back his quest for funding. [80] Park Service officials defended their superintendent, and Greider decried "the aggressive campaign being staged by the Grand Coulee people to discredit the National Park Service program." [81]

The critics challenged both the lack of funding and how the Park Service spent what little money it received. The Spokane Chamber of Commerce urged rapid development to benefit private capital that was ready to invest in the region. It claimed that Lake Roosevelt's wonderful recreation potential was being held back by "the snail-like pace of development." [82] Another man looked at the three new houses built for Park Service employees and fumed at money being spent on administrative needs instead of public recreation. [83]

Many of the complaints centered around the perceived lack of industrial use of the reservoir area, even though all planning thus far had considered the needs of industries and agriculture. Indeed, Reclamation initially emphasized these non-recreational uses as an important part of the war effort and asked the Park Service to administer their permits, coordinating them with recreational plans for post-war development. The 1944 "General Report and Development Outline" provided guidelines for two categories of non-recreational development: essential public service utilities, such as municipal water systems and public ferries; and private industries including agriculture, logging, and mining. The report recommended that such uses be permitted where practical but never at the expense of the area's recreational values. By 1944, four sawmills and twenty log dumps operated along the lake shore, in addition to eighteen grazing leases, a passenger boat line, two freight lines, and two ferries. The 1946 Tri-Party Agreement gave further support to industrial uses by assigning the Park Service the function of issuing permits "for legitimate industrial and recreational purposes" along with agricultural and grazing leases on lands within the recreation area. As industrial use expanded after World War II, Greider and the LARO staff tried to satisfy demands for permits while protecting areas designated most important for future recreational use. For example, they redirected loggers away from the strip along Highway 25 as much as possible and tried to keep the Gifford area (across the river from Inchelium) entirely free of log dumps. By 1948, there were twenty-seven permitted uses related to logging, but the number of sites actually in use was probably much higher; Greider noted approximately forty log dumps used by fifteen companies or individuals. [84]

Despite these permitted industrial uses, a small vocal group continued to complain about the restrictive policies of the Park Service as well as what some saw as the uncooperative attitude of Superintendent Greider. One man suggested that the Park Service opposed private development in what was supposed to be a jointly operated area with 20 percent of the land set aside for industrial use. "If we are going to have those kind of regulations," he asked, "why not just call it a National Park?" [85] Greider defended his record, saying that by mid-1949 there were more than one hundred permits covering industrial uses on the lake, from log dumps and three sawmills to grazing and other agricultural uses. In addition, there was a tugboat transportation service and two railroad docks. Through his cooperation with industry, its value had grown to exceed several million dollars a year. Park Service planners continued to include industrial uses, such as sawmills, at LARO into the 1990s. The 1963 Master Plan even viewed such operations, especially tug boats, in a positive light: "We think these commercial uses add to the interest and enjoyment of the visitors and are to be considered an asset rather than an objectionable feature." [86]

Industrial uses eventually caused conflict between the Park Service and Reclamation at Lake Roosevelt. Reclamation, through all of its construction work at the dam, was inextricably bound with industry, and the dam itself was a major industrial site. In 1948, however, other Reclamation operations connected with the dam caused a serious inter-agency rift. Reclamation had closed its sawmill near the dam about a year earlier and planned to dismantle it, freeing the site for the long-awaited Park Service development of the South Marina. Then, without consulting the Park Service, Reclamation let a four-year contract for work on the pumping plant and feeder canal that included not only use of the sawmill but also construction of a concrete plant to be located at the proposed entrance to the South Marina, on the site of a planned Park Service headquarters building. A dismayed Greider told Reclamation officials that the contractor's use of this site would jeopardize Park Service plans for the whole area and would force the agency to revamp its six-year program. Frank A. Banks admitted his error and apologized to Greider. "It is regrettable that a misunderstanding has developed because our relations with you have been on such an amicable plane," he wrote, "largely due to your very cooperative and sympathetic efforts in discharging your responsibilities." He hoped that this incident would not delay plans for the South Marina. [87]

The issue was not easily resolved, however, and soon escalated to the regional level with both agencies. Park Service Regional Director Owen A. Tomlinson wrote to R. J. Newell, his Reclamation counterpart in Boise, to express concern for the situation and hope that it could be worked out without having to go higher. Within a short time, Newell telephoned Tomlinson and admitted "frankly" that the matter had been badly handled and vowed that there would be no such mistakes in the future. Despite this assurance, Tomlinson planned to ask the Director to talk with the Commissioner of Reclamation "so that definite instructions can be issued and every Bureau official will know [to] respect interbureau agreements with the Park Service." [88] Director Drury expressed his "regret and chagrin" that Reclamation did not follow the 1946 agreement but added, "Apparently the cement plant is now a fait accompli and nothing will be accomplished by crying over spilt milk." He asked if he could assure Tomlinson that the agreement would be followed in the future. The response from Michael W. Straus, Commissioner of Reclamation, was emphatic: "I can assure you that the Bureau of Reclamation will at all times attempt to carry out both the letter and the spirit of our inter-bureau agreement." [89]

Ironically, the Park Service gained some benefit from retaining industrial use at the South Marina site. Reclamation opened a rock quarry nearby as a source for riprap. In giving Park Service concurrence for this use, Greider asked Reclamation to set aside waste rock since LARO was looking for twenty thousand yards of material to improve the future boat dock area of the South Marina. Banks agreed to stockpile such material at the quarry site. Reclamation also agreed to locate the haul road so that it could eventually become an integral part of the proposed recreational plans. [90] The South Marina was not developed, however, and this was just the first of several cancellations or postponements of work at the site. Now known as Crescent Bay, the area still awaits development.