Lake Roosevelt Administrative History

1972 Task Force

Increasing tension at Lake Roosevelt led Secretary of the Interior Rogers C. B. Morton to appoint a Task Force to hear tribal complaints and attempt to find solutions for the conflicts plaguing the recreation area and adjoining reservations. Chaired by Emmet E. Willard, Morton's Field Representative in Portland, the Task Force included members of the Colville Business Council and Spokane Tribal Council; tribal attorneys; various specialists from both the Colville and Spokane agencies; local and regional representatives of the Park Service, Reclamation, and BIA; representatives of the Corps of Engineers and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA); specialists with the Department of the Interior; and various Washington state officials.

When the Task Force first convened on February 7, 1972, tribal representatives raised issues of concern, giving agency personnel a chance to hear their grievances. Mel Tonasket, CCT Chairman, touched on many hot-button issues: losses of land, buildings, cemeteries, and fish stemming from reservoir construction; lack of compensation for these losses; and the claim of rights under the Winters Doctrine for the use of Indian waters for power production. He also discussed the frustrating irony that Grand Coulee was built to facilitate irrigation and generate electricity, using Indian land and water, yet the reservations had no irrigation projects and paid high electrical rates. Others mentioned the irritations caused by both the Park Service and the Corps requiring permits for the same project, but LARO Superintendent Howe noted that neither he nor STI attorney Dellwo had been able to change this. Dellwo said that he would like to see the Task Force reevaluate the Tri-Party Agreement and clarify the issue of paramount rights. [82]

When the discussion turned to Indian employment, Howe noted that he had hired two Indians for his permanent staff using excepted appointments, as the BIA had also done. He admitted that this might not be legal but said that Civil Service in Seattle knew of his actions. Willard assured him that DOI officials believed such use of excepted appointments was legal, and Sherwin Broadhead, Superintendent of the Colville Agency, expressed his appreciation for Howe's initiative. [83]

After this first meeting, Willard evidently asked members to submit written questions to help guide the direction of the Task Force. Some dealt with topics brought up in the first session, such as land acquisition and the need to revise the Tri-Party Agreement, while others headed into new areas. Park Service Regional Director John A. Rutter was concerned about jurisdictional issues. What were the implications of the CCT move to require tribal fishing licenses? What were the geographical limits of this tribal authority? What court system would try these cases? Would the tribes honor the established responsibilities of the Park Service and Reclamation within LARO boundaries? Would they allow the Park Service to help with recreation planning on reservation lands that adjoin LARO? Did the tribes honor the original acquisition of Indian lands by the federal government? [84]

The STI, largely quiet at the first Task Force meeting, presented a lengthy formal statement to members of the group in May 1972. Drafted by attorney Dellwo and signed by tribal chairman Alex Sherwood, the document built a case for liberal interpretation of Indian rights, with far-reaching associated rights under the Winters Doctrine. Since the tribe had received so little monetary compensation for lands taken, the "remaining values must be reflected in the rights and property interests the Spokanes still retain in the resulting reservoir area." Specifically, the tribe claimed title to the riverbeds and banks up to the pre-dam average high-water mark, as well as the land between this high-water mark and the 1,290-foot level. In addition, it retained all but exclusive ownership of the freeboard lands between the 1,290 and 1,310 levels. The STI wanted the Indian Zone expanded to include all of the Spokane Arm and the east half of the Columbia River, and it claimed all but exclusive rights to control the use of this area, including regulations, licenses, and permits. The tribe asked for compensation for the loss of the fishery, the original taking of both tribal lands and waters, and the continued use of these for project purposes. In addition, the tribe claimed the right to share revenue from the operations of Grand Coulee Dam. Because of these claimed rights, the STI announced that it would now take over control of water pumps, docks, marinas, concessions, and other commercial enterprises through tribal permits, and that it was considering requiring licenses for boating and fishing in tribal waters. It also planned to take eventual control of all recreation in the Indian Zone, with immediate control of both Pierre and Little Falls campgrounds, by issuing permits and charging for public use. Although these claims ran counter to the 1946 Tri-Party Agreement, the STI claimed no involvement with this agreement and stated, "No Indian leader to this date recalls any tribal approval in 1946, and the instrument itself did not come to light again until recent years." [85] (Despite this claim, both the CCT and STI tribal governments had approved the draft agreement formally in 1946.) [86]

The Task Force hit rougher waters within a few months. The group decided in May to investigate tribal water rights, assisted by William Veeder, an attorney for the BIA specializing in the subject. Both tribes asked the various governmental agencies to outline their jurisdiction and administrative authority prior to a meeting on August 1st. Willard, however, responded that the agencies were just in the stage of compiling facts and were not ready to outline jurisdictions. He consequently recommended postponing the meeting until all were ready to participate. The tribes were unwilling to wait, though, and warned Willard that they planned to continue with the meeting. They believed that Willard was not cooperating in their efforts to define their rights since no definition was possible until the tribes understood where they had jurisdiction. Neither Willard nor representatives from the Park Service, Reclamation, or BPA attended the August 1972 meeting, where much of the discussion involved representatives from the Douglas County Public Utility District and its Monse Dam on the Colville Reservation. Other topics included fishing rights and the importance of establishing boundaries for tribal and agency jurisdiction. Tonasket expressed regret that other agencies did not attend and warned, "There better be some drastic changes or this whole task force is undermined by lack of communication, cooperation, and respect." [87]

Tensions continued at a meeting, outside the Task Force, with CCT committee members, Colville Agency Superintendent Sherwin Broadhead, and LARO Superintendent William Burgen and Chief Ranger Paul Larson. Much of the discussion centered on problems at the Keller campground where children had been shooting birds on nearby reservation lands and campers had been riding bicycles outside boundaries. Tribal representatives believed that the Park Service should control its campers, and tribal member Al Aubertin asked the agency to close the campground. Indian concerns also included the Tri-Party Agreement. When Burgen reminded them, "We are operating under the agreement and you people don't recognize it," Broadhead replied, "If you continue to operate under that agreement you can operate and ignore us." He suggested reexamining the agreement. [88]

Water rights and jurisdictional issues dominated the discussion at the Task Force meeting held on September 19, 1972, in Wellpinit. Indian advocates wanted to clarify tribal rights under the Winters Doctrine, and CCT attorney Alvin Ziontz warned both state and federal officials not to try to regulate water rights issues on reservations. "This is . . . a political struggle," he explained. The tribes found cooperation from Reclamation in their request for help with irrigation projects on the reservations, but they challenged the agency over its taking of Indian lands for both the dam and the reservoir, and its continued takings for slide areas within the project boundaries. They also challenged the BPA to pay the tribes for the use of their water, just as the agency paid Canada. Once again, the Indians claimed title to the river beds and full access across freeboard lands. They believed their jurisdiction included "exclusive access and full control by the Tribes subject only to those elements imperatively required to maintain and operate the project." [89]

The Tri-Party Agreement also came under fire at the September meeting. When Jack Christopher, with Reclamation in Boise, asked if the tribes wanted to reopen the Tri-Party Agreement, William Veeder responded, "Oh, we are trying to destroy that." Christopher, along with Wayne Howe from the Park Service's regional office, indicated willingness to discuss the agreement. Howe acknowledged that it was "a very hard document to work with" because it was out-of-date and thus probably should be redone. [90] Later that fall, Regional Director John A. Rutter reported to the National Park Service Director about the situation at Lake Roosevelt. While there had been no physical confrontations, feelings were still running high on both sides. He warned that confrontations were possible given the recent national incidents connected with the Caravan of Broken Treaties. The tribes were impatient with the glacial pace of the Task Force, while non-Indians believed the Park Service should take things slowly. "We feel that both the Secretary and the Service could be embarrassed if the situation is not addressed promptly," added Rutter. He suggested a revision of the Tri-Party Agreement as a good way to start to resolve the issues, but he noted that any such work should involve legal advice from the Office of the Solicitor as well as input from both LARO and regional office staff. [91]