Newton Drury and the Echo Park Dam Controversy Author(S): Susan Rhoades Neel Source: Forest & Conservation History, Vol

Home , Echo Park (Colorado)

Newton Drury and the Echo Park Dam Controversy Author(s): Susan Rhoades Neel Source: Forest & Conservation History, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Apr., 1994), pp. 56-66 Published by: Forest History Society and American Society for Environmental History Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3983720 Accessed: 16/10/2009 15:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fhs.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Forest History Society and American Society for Environmental History are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Forest & Conservation History.

http://www.jstor.org SUSAN RHOADES NEEL

In March1951 NationalPark man documentedthat Drury betrayed TheColorado River Basin ServiceDirector Newton Drury DinosaurNational Monument as early RecreationSurvey resignedthe post he had held for as 1941.2 more than a decade. Drury'sdeparture The documentsto which Ickes Newton Druryfirst confronted the from the park servicecame amidst one referredincluded a 1941 memoran- issue of potentialdam constructionin of the twentieth century'smost impor- dum of understandingbetween the Dinosaur National Monumentonly tant environmentalbattles: the contro- National ParkService and the Bureau months after becomingNational Park versy over the proposedconstruction of Reclamationcalling for conversion Servicedirector in August 1940. Both of Echo Parkand Split Mountain of Dinosaur National Monument into the park service'searlier policy toward dams in Dinosaur National Monu- a multiple-usenational recreation reclamationin the Colorado River ment. Among preservationistswho area, and a 1944 park servicereport basin and Drury'sown philosophyof ralliedto defend Dinosaur there was that concludedsuch a change in the preservationand resourcemanagement littledoubt that Druryhad beenforced reserve'sstatus was justifiedbecause informedhis responseto the issue. from office becauseof his opposition flooding the Greenand Yampa river Drury, who servedmany years as to the powerful Bureauof Reclama- canyons would create sufficientrecre- executivedirector of the Save-the- tion on the Echo Park matter.' As ational opportunitiesto offset any loss Redwoods League,came to the park preservationistsclamored for Drury's of scenery.These documentsare not servicewith a distinguishedpreserva- reinstatement,however, one voice secret, but their origins have yet to be tionist record.In her study of the cautionedthat the situation might not well understood.' In particular,New- league, SusanSchrepfer described be quite as it appeared.Former Secre- ton Drury'srole in their development Druryand his associatesas typicalof tary of the InteriorHarold Ickes sug- remainsunclear. If Drury,widely per- Progressive-era,middle-class reform- gested to one of his preservationist ceived as a dedicatedpreservationist, ers, dedicatedto "traditionalpatemal- friendsthat Drury had been compelled acceded to reclamationdevelopment istic philanthropy,"preferring "state to resignnot because he opposed the in Dinosaur, why did he do it? Exami- to federalinitiatives" and "accommo- Dinosaur dams, but because he had nation of National Park Servicepolicy dation over confrontation."4 failed to do so. Ickes hinted that em- toward reclamationin Dinosaur Backgroundphoto: Photo of Newton Drury barrassingrecords in the possession of National Monument from 1940 to courtesyof the National Park Service, Secretaryof the InteriorOscar Chap- 1950 may help answer that question. HarpersFerry Center.

56 Forest& Conservation History 38 (April 1994) Distaste for centralizedgovernment existing national monuments.Dino- regionso arid, the valueof scarcewater and fear that PresidentFranklin D. saur National Monument was one resourcesclearly outweighed the value Roosevelt intendedto broadenthe area the park serviceanticipated con- of the area's scenic and recreation scope of federalpower prompted vertingto a national recreationarea. resources-with the single exception Drury in 1933 to decline an offer Due largelyto opposition from the of Grand Canyon National Park.9 to head the National Park Service. Utah congressionaldelegation, how- Given past failuresand regional Like many preservationists,however, ever, the servicenever implementedits antagonisms,the challengefor the Drurygrew alarmedby the direction 1940 recreation-areainitiative.8 park servicelate in 1940 was to estab- the park servicetook duringthe New Park serviceactivities throughout lish itself as an influentialparticipant Deal.5Both the size and natureof the Colorado River basin duringthe in the planningprocess. During their the agency'sjurisdiction expanded to late-1930s engenderedconsiderable meetingwith the new director, includenot only new nationalparkland resentmentand misunderstanding, Nusbaum and Christiansenoffered a (some of which many preservationists particularlyamong state water offi- suggestionon how to proceed.They saw as less than worthy of the name), cials and local civic leaders.Con- recommendedthat the agency under- but also a host of monuments,historic cerned by this growing hostility and take a comprehensivesurvey of the sites, and buildings.Drury believed by the Bureauof Reclamation'sinitia- Colorado River basin, the purpose of that much of what the National Park tion of field investigationsalong the which would be to "literally...weigh Servicehad engaged in since 1933 was upperreaches of the Colorado River the monetarybenefits" of utilizingwa- properlythe concern of state, not fed- system, National Park Serviceperson- ter and scenic resourcesand to "estab- eral,government. Thus, in 1940, Drury nel responsiblefor the recreation-area lish a yardstickfor evaluatingthe eco- accepteda second offer of the park initiativemet with Newton Drury in nomic benefitsof recreationaluse.'510 servicedirectorship out of conviction late fall 1940. The two officials,Jesse Only by armingitself with such infor- that the agency had strayedfrom its Nusbaum and Milo F. Christiansen mation, Drury'scounselors warned, mandateto manage the "greatprime- from the Region III Office in Santa Fe, could the park servicehope to be a val" parks, and in doing so violated New Mexico, impressedupon Drury credibleplayer in the "comprehensive the bounds of sound government.As thatthe ColoradoRiver basin's unique study and planningof the Colorado Drurytook the helm, he was deter- environmentalconditions presented River Basin,"and thus influencedeci- mined to steer the serviceback on an especiallydifficult problem for the sions about recreationaldevelopment course and end its era of expansion. park service.They arguedthat in a and scenic Dreservation. Nowhere had the park service's The idea of a detailed New Deal expansionismbeen more study of the Colorado ambitiousthan in the Colorado River River basin's recreation PROPOSEDCOLORADO RIVERSTORAGE PROJECT basin. Here the servicesought not resources Upper ColoradoRiver Commission appealedto only to create new national parks and KENDALL SIT t Drury. The new director monumentsbut also to insinuateitself had a distinctivemanage- into managementof all the region's ment style, particularlyin recreationresources. The servicesuc- his approachto conflict ceeded in establishingsome new park- resolution,which derived lands in the basin, includingthe 1938 Wyoming from a personalityill- addition of the Greenand Yampa disposedto confrontation 1 L.keCity S Utah ECHOPARK rivercanyons to Dinosaur National as well as his experience RES. SITE STE Monument, but there had also been &ofiIeCO ( MT MM. RS s with the Save-the-Red- failures.The service'smost ambitious woods League.Drury project,a seven-thousand-square-mile Spg believedthat good public y %e 'sE I ~~~~~~~G-.a Escalante CG CANYONI DEDEQE National Monument in RESSTE policy resultednot from < c ESEE 2,, +s Utah, stalled in the face of opposition { ntGIeenRive interestgroup politicking from reclamationand livestock inter- but fromreasoned dialogue ests.6In fact, the park serviceachieved R ESSECDYSTAL CDEDD RES.SITE amongresource managers expansion of Dinosaur National Mon- J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ESITE and usersbased on impar- ument only after making significant tial data preparedby 4t % gEN ~~~~~CANYONRES.SITE| , concessions to these special interests. experts. The VattColorado)Daranjptx league often In to response these frustrations,in ,_ Arizona _ 2 E.ST relied on expert studiesas 1940 the park servicelaunched an ini- a springboardfor negotia- i_ aranyl { NewMexico tiative designedto accommodaterec- N I- LEGEND t R tions with timber interests lamation, preservation,and recreation INITIALwSTORAGEUNITbSe . 3sa and as the basis for long- ULTIMATESTORAGiE UNITS _ > ~ in the Colorado River basin. The ser- SCALE range managementpro- vice proposed creatinga system of grams.An exampleof this multiple-usenational recreationareas approachwas the league's throughoutthe basin, includingsome Map drawn by Mark Knudsen. 1926 reporton California's

NewtonDrury 57 scenic and recreationresources, pre- understanding.Under the agreement pared by landscapearchitect Frederick OrA the park servicewould focus its initial Law Olmsted (son of the designerof work on three areas:the Grand Can- New York City's CentralPark).1" yon National Monument and Lake Drury thought the samekind of "sen- Mead National RecreationArea, sibleand objectivestudy and planning" whichwould be affectedby the Bureau that Olmstedprovided the leaguein the of Reclamation'sproposed Bridge 1920s was what the National Park Ser- Canyon Dam; the region that had pre- vice needed for the ColoradoRiver viously been consideredfor inclusion basinin the 1940s.12 in the proposed EscalanteNational Earlyin 1941 Drury asked his Monument (site of the bureau'spro- friend Olmsted to head a recreation posed Glen Canyon and Dark Canyon survey of the Colorado River basin. dams);and Dinosaur National Monu-

Olmsted acceptedthe offer and .. ment, which would prove centralto . . "'X '_! L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..:.. drafteda plan for the surveyoutlin- the bureau'sproposed Colorado ing its goals and proposed implemen- River StorageProject. The recreation tation. He rejectedconducting a com- survey'sobjective was to formulate : ,~~,. >~~...... r:,.'.'.'.,:' prehensivesurvey as neitherrealistic ...... :. "a definite recreationalpolicy and plan nor appropriatebecause the Colorado in conjunctionwith the water control River basin was too vast and diverse. developments[that would] effectively Olmsted thought many of the basin's Echo Park, Dinosaur National Monu- serve the purposesand objectivesof recreationalresources were not of un- ment. In the years following World War both bureaus."The park servicealso usually high caliber and should rightly II, preservationists,who before the war agreed"in principle" to convertGrand be the concern of state and local gov- gave little attention to Bureauof Reclama- Canyon and Dinosaur monuments tion activitiesin the region, began to ernmentsinstead of the National Park into multiple-usenational recreation question the ecological, economic, and Service.Olmsted that the suggested aestheticconsequences of reclamation. areas. "Althoughlegislation would be surveyshould "furnisha sound basis Photo courtesyof the National Archives. requiredin both cases to effect this for decisions"on criticalissues facing policy," the memorandumstated, "the the Departmentof the Interior,the most to pay for the recreationstudy out of National Park Servicedoes not believe pressingof which was water develop- the Colorado River Development such legislationwould be difficultto ment. Olmsted'splan for the recre- Fund. Page agreedand instructedhis secure."'18Drury and Page signed this ation surveywas designedto "help staff to earmarkup to 5 percentof the memorandumof understandingon the ReclamationService in its plan- fundfor a four-yearpark service study.16 4 November 1941.19 ning for the developmentof the water Under federallaw, one agency Overthe next severalyears National resources[of the basin], with a view could transferfunds to another only Park Servicepersonnel conducted to avoiding needless sacrificesof through a memorandumof under- fieldwork for the Colorado River rec- potential recreationalvalues."13 standingsetting out the purposesand reation survey. Olmsted providedgen- Under the 1936 Parks,Parkways, obligations for the exchange. In order eral oversight.While the activitiesof and RecreationArea Act, the National to draft such a document, Olmsted the entire surveyare beyond the scope Park Servicehad authorityto engage and S. 0. Harper,chief engineerof the of this paper, that portion of the study in recreationstudies, but the law pro- Bureauof Reclamation,along with relatingto Dinosaur National Monu- vided no money for such purposes.14 severalother bureauand serviceoffi- ment was to have great significance The park servicebelieved, however, cials, met in mid-November1941. for the unfoldingEcho Park dam con- that another source of money might Bureauofficials pointed out that while troversyand thereforerequires close be used. In 1940 Congressinstructed Congresshad authorizedthe ultimate scrutiny.20 Olmsted and George F. the Bureauof Reclamationto formu- expenditureof $1.5 million for basin Ingalls,chief of the RecreationalPlan- late a basinwidedevelopment plan for studies, revenuesin the Colorado ning Division at Region II who con- the Colorado River system, creating River DevelopmentFund would not ducted the actual fieldwork for the from BoulderCanyon Dam power reach that level for severalyears. The survey,prepared the Dinosaur recre- revenuesa special fund (the Colorado amount availablefor the recreation ation report.The report,completed River DevelopmentFund) for that surveywas much smallerthan the park in May 1944, concluded that much of purpose.15Arguing that the Colorado service had anticipated.Consequently, the monument's"geologic and scenic River basin developmentplan ought the initial phase of the study would interest"would survivereclamation to "integraterecreational use of a fair haveto be scaled back and the parkser- development.In fact such develop- proportionof land [in] the region...with vice asked the reclamationbureau to ment would make the Greenand other uses," Drurysuggested to his recommenda priorityof investigation.17 Yampa rivers "of national importance counterpart,Reclamation Commis- These prioritieswere discussedat from a recreationalviewpoint." The sioner John C. Page, that it would be the November meeting and incorpo- report said that "if and when it is in the mutual interestof both agencies rated into the formal memorandumof shown that it would certainlybe in the

58 Forest&Conservation History 38 (April1994) greaternational interestto develop the survey.Drury did not engage in these should be part of the park service water resourcesof the Canyon Unit activitiesunwittingly or underpolitical mandate.Ickes sided with Strausand [of the monument]...thestatus of the pressureeither from within his organi- orderedthe parkservice to come down unit should be changed to that of a zation or from the Bureauof Reclama- from its "ivorytower" and undertake multiple-purposearea in which water- tion. On the contrary,evidence sug- the task of managingthe three new control...would be the principaluse, gests that Drury saw the recreation recreationareas. and recreationthe secondarybut also study and its conclusions as logical During an InteriorDepartment importantuse."" steps in the process of establishing conferenceon postwar resources Administratorson Drury'sstaff at suitableland-use policies for the region. planningin November 1945, Drury park serviceheadquarters in Washing- Drury'sacceptance of the 1941 memo- expresseddissatisfaction with the ton, D.C., warmly receivedthe Dino- randumof understandingand the secretary'sdecision. Drurytold confer- saur National Monument recreation 1944 recreationreport is difficultto ence attendeesthat he had no general report. ConradWirth called it "an reconcilewith his reputationas a disdain for national recreationareas, exceedinglyfine work" and noted that staunch preservationistdedicated to noting that "[t]heresurely is no the director'sstaff "unanimously" correctingthe excesses of previous national park policy that discourages sharedhis assessment.22There is no park servicepolicies and willing to the establishmentof more recreation recordof Newton Drury'spersonal sacrificehis own careerto protest the areas. The main question is where opinion of the report, but he did not dammingof Dinosaur. Resolvingthe these areas should be establishedand object to its conclusions. In fact, on paradox of Drury'sactions requires administered,and by whom." Drury severaloccasions prior to the report's an understandingof two issues central believedthat in areas of national sig- releaseDrury made clear his position to the park service'sColorado River nificancerecreation should be man- on potentialdevelopment of the monu- basin policies:the relationshipof aged by agencieswith existing jurisdic- ment. In March 1942, for example, nationalrecreation areas to the national tion. Thus, on federalreservoirs the Drurywrote to John Page that the park system and the differingattitudes Bureauof Reclamationshould assume park servicefully acknowledgedthat within the serviceover Dinosaur's responsibilityfor managingrecreation. "the time may come" when the status aestheticqualities. Recreationareas of less than national of the monumentwould be alteredto In the mid-1940s Drury engagedin importance,Drury insisted, ought to accommodatewater development.23In a bitterexchange with the Bureauof be managed by the states. Recreation December 1943 Drurywrote to Page's Reclamationover national recreation was his agency'sbusiness only in the successor,Commissioner of Reclama- areas. The issue centralto this dispute national parks. The National Park tion Harry Bashore,saying that "inso- was administrativejurisdiction, not Serviceshould not be responsiblefor far as I am aware there is no misun- outrightopposition-a distinction managingnational recreationareas.27 derstandingbetween us as to the crucialto Drury'sposition on Dino- The question of park servicejuris- possible futureof Dinosaur National saur National Monument. The con- diction over the envisionednational Monument."24On 27 June 1944 frontationoccurred in 1945 when the recreationarea at Dinosaurwas an Drurytransmitted a copy of the Dino- Bureauof Reclamationrequested that issue duringpreparation of the 1944 saur recreationreport to the Bureauof three new federalreservoirs be desig- recreationreport. The initial draft of Reclamation,marking a formal end to nated national recreationareas and that report,submitted by Olmsted and the Dinosaur section of the Colorado the National Park Servicebe assigned Ingallsin March 1943, includeda rec- River basin recreationsurvey. managementresponsibility for the ommendationfor negotiationof an sites. The bureaucited as precedent interagencyagreement establishing Druryand the Debateover for such an arrangementthe Lake National Park Servicejurisdiction over NationalRereation Areas Mead National RecreationArea, any futurerecreation areas on the which the park servicehad adminis- Green and Yampa rivers.28The final Newton Drury did not initiate tered since 1936. For severalmonths version of the report, however, said the park service'ssearch for a way Drury, Secretaryof the InteriorIckes, nothing about which agencywould to accommodateuse of the Colorado and Ickes'sspecial assistantfor recla- have futuremanagement responsibility River basin'srecreation, scenic, and mation Michael Straus(who later for recreationon the rivers.This re- water resources.Nor did he origi- becamecommissioner of reclamation) versedthe park serviceposition during nate the idea of convertingDinosaur debatedthe bureau'sproposal.25 the 1940 national recreation-areaini- National Monument into a multiple- Drury balked at the idea of having his tiative, when the agency (headedby use national recreationarea. He did, agency manage the new reservoirs, Arno Cammerer)actively sought such however, accept and formalizeboth arguingthat assumptionof responsi- jurisdiction.29Revisions in the Dino- policies through the interagency bilityfor additionalnational recreation saur recreationreport, completed dur- memorandumof understandingand areas would "dissipate[park service] ing Drury'stenure, illustratethe line the cooperativerecreation survey. The energiesand divert [agencypersonnel] he drew between acceptanceof the choice of FrederickLaw Olmsted to from the performanceof our primary need for national recreationareas and head the recreationproject indicates functions."26Straus insisted that man- the role his agency should play in their the importanceDrury attachedto the aging recreationon federalreservoirs management.30

NewtonDrury 59 Although Drury did not want his yons, remainedrelatively unknown thatwould potentially result from the agency to oversee a future Dinosaur throughthe 1940s. Aestheticapprecia- constructionof reservoirs.In placeof recreationarea, he acceptedthe exist- tion for places like Dinosaur National thisinformation Merriam suggested ence of such a reserve.This willingness Monument emergedonly as greater detaileddescriptions of the reserve's can be understoodin the context of numbersof people visited the region wildness,a characteristicnot men- the landscapeaesthetics to whichDrury and personallyexperienced the exqui- tionedin the draft.In additionto these adhered.Drury's personal opinion of site canyonscapesof the Colorado and changes,Merriam argued that nothing the reserve'sscenery is not known, but its tri'butaries. shouldbe includedin the report(such evidence suggeststhat he did not value Such was the case within the as mapsshowing proposed bounda- it highly. Drury sharedwith many of National Park Service.Few park ser- riesor suggestednames for a national his contemporarypreservationists a vice personnelwere intimatelyfamiliar recreationarea) that would indicate well-definedaesthetic derived from with Dinosaur National Monument Dinosaurmight one daybe flooded. nineteenth-centuryRomantic notions until well into the 1950s. The reserve FrederickLaw Olmsted opposed of the western landscape.Historian had no on-site custodian until 1931 Merriam'sefforts to changethe report. Alfred Runte labelledthis aesthetic (an employee of the FederalEmer- Olmstedvisited Dinosaur briefly dur- "monumentalism"-a preferencefor gency Relief Agency) and no park ser- ingthe recreationsurvey, but his age spectaculargeologic formationssitu- vice personnelwere stationedthere andpoor health forced him to tourthe ated, primarilyalthough not exclu- until 1940. The initial park service areaonly by airplane.39He was not sively, in forested and mountainous surveysof the Greenand Yampa can- muchimpressed by whathe saw.The settings.31From the late-nineteenth yons, done in 1933 and 1935, had sceneryin the monument,Olmsted centurythrough the 1960s, monu- been cursory,designed only to deter- told Merriam,was "generallypleasant mentalismwas the aestheticideal for mine boundariesfor the expansion but by no meansextraordinary" and the national park system. Only those of the small existing dinosaurquarry was "notso uniqueand precious.. .as rare and exceptional areas consistent reserve.The serviceadmitted in 1939 to givevery strong grounds for oppos- with the acceptedlandscape aesthetic that it knew relativelynothing about ing"economic development, including were consideredworthy of preservation the region of the expanded monument dam construction.40 as national parklands.32Throughout called the Canyon Unit.35As the park In arguingagainst Merriam's pro- his career,Newton Drury adheredto servicebegan to explore Dinosaur posedrevisions, Olmsted pointed to this traditionalaesthetic. As directorof over the course of the next few years, his original1941 planoutlining the the National Park Service,he repeat- aestheticappreciation of the reserve goalsof the recreationsurvey. The edly emphasizedthe superiorityof grew among those field personnel plannoted that some existing reserves what he called the "primarynational having the greatestexposure to the in the ColoradoRiver basin did not parks,"places such as Yosemite and reserveand ultimatelyamong higher "measureup to thosehigh standards" Yellowstone that most clearlyembod- managementranks. thatought to characterizenational ied monumentalism.33 LawrenceMerriam, director of parksand monuments. One purpose Differentaesthetic standards stress- the park service'sRegion II office and of the recreationsurvey was to iden- ing what are now called wildernesseco- underwhose jurisdictionDinosaur tify suchlands so thatthe National systems began to emergein the 1930s, National Monument fell, providesan ParkService could discontinue "direct a change reflectedin the addition of example of this emergingsensibility.36 administration."By 1944 Olmsted such places as the Evergladesto the Merriamvisited Dinosaur for the evidentlyconsidered Dinosaur National park system. Drury, however, retained first time in fall 1943. Beforethe trip Monumentin thatcategory. He was traditionalistaesthetic tastes. He was Merriamhad not consideredDinosaur adamantthat the finalrecreation not alone, and new aestheticsinflu- to be of "particularscenic importance." reportinclude a recommendationto enced park creation and management After his visit Merriamextolled it as convertthe reserveinto a nationalrec- only graduallyduring the 1940s and "one of the most spectacularviews reationarea, a designationsuitable for 1950s, particularlyin the Colorado that I have ever seen." Having discov- landsthat lacked the aestheticquali- River basin. Unlike the desert land- ered Dinosaur'saesthetic qualities, ties requiredof nationalparklands.41 scapes of the Southwest,embraced Merriamquickly regrettedthe park Thefinal version of the reportdif- within the Romanticparadigm since serviceposition set out in the 1941 feredfrom the draftin includingmore the late-nineteenthcentury, there was memorandumof understanding."I am extensiveand laudatory descriptions little aestheticenthusiasm for the wild forced to admit," he said, "that in my of Dinosaur'sscenery, but Olmsted's canyonscapesof the Colorado River opinion a considerableportion of the aestheticassumptions, not Merriam's, basin until well after World War II. spectacularfeatures will be lost by underlaythe recommendationthat the The exception proves the rule:the [the constructionof dams]."37 monumentbe converted into a national Grand Canyon was valued for its Not long after his visit to Dinosaur, recreationarea. Newton Drury's monumentalqualities, not its wild- Merriamtried to revise the initial draft position on the disagreementover ness, until well into the 1960s.34Much of the recreationreport.38 He wanted the qualityof Dinosaur'sscenery is of the Colorado River basin, especially excised from the draft severallengthy unclear,but he had no personal basis its remote and often forebodingcan- descriptionsof recreationalbenefits for questioninghis friendOlmsted's

60 Forest&Conservation History 38 (April1994) views until 1947-the year Drurysaw and the National ParkService shifted Bureauof Reclamationactivities in the the monumentfor the firsttime. While from accommodationto confrontation region, began to question the ecologi- there is no recordof Drury'simpres- in the late 1940s. cal, economic, and aestheticconse- sionsduring his briefvisit to Dinosaur, quences of reclamation. his subsequentactions demonstrate Emergenceof antireclamationsen- that he did not undergoan aesthetic Confrontationand Resignation timent within the preservationmove- conversionsimilar to Lawrence Impetusfor change in the relation- ment coincidedwith, and in part Merriam's.In fact,Drury was stillwill- ship between the two agenciesover respondedto, growth of the federal ing to see much of the reserveflooded the Colorado River basin resulted reclamationprogram. At the end of and transformedinto a national recre- from broadertransformations within World War II the Bureauof Reclama- ation area. the reclamationand preservation tion enteredwhat journalistMarc This is not to say that Drurysup- movementsin the years following Reisnercalls the "go-go years."42 portedthe constructionof damswithin World War II. The preservationmove- Under the aggressiveleadership of the boundariesof DinosaurNational ment found a bigger base of public CommissionerMichael Strausand Monument. He believedthat invasion support among an increasinglypros- fueledby the postwareconomic boom, of the reserveby reservoirswould con- perous, well-educated,and mobile the bureauproposed a series of mas- stitute a violation of parklandinteg- middleclass. Popularizedecological sive developmentprojects. Among the rity so severeas to compromisethe ideas and the ethical imperatives most ambitiouswas the Colorado River StorageProject (CRSP). The CRSPenvisioned a host of irrigation works, storage reservoirs,and power- generatingdams on the Colorado River'sprincipal upper basin tributar- ies. Key elementsin the CRSPwere a dam at Echo Park and a smaller power-generatingunit at Split Moun- tain, both within Dinosaur National j~~~~ Monument. In this context of expandingrecla- mation ambitionsand rising preservationist concern, Newton Drury began to question the efficacy of recreation iS i~~\ studies as mechanismsfor integrated water use, recreation,and scenic preservation planning.In November 1948 Druryconfided to wildlife biologist and preservationactivist Olaus Murie that while he thought the park service recreationstudies of the mid-1940s had been "on the whole a force for good," the programhad been inad- equate for integratingconsideration of NewtonDrury with his regionaldirectors in Washington,D.C., 17 May1949. Standing "recreationallosses or gains" into fed- (from left to right)are Minor Tillotson, HerbertMaier, PrestonPatraw, Elbert Cox, and eral reclamationplanning.43 Prompted Thomas Allen. Seated (from left to right) are Owen Tomlinson, Drury, and Lawrence primarilyby the Bureauof Reclama- Merriam.Photo courtesyof the National Park Service,Harpers Ferry Center. tion's escalatingactivities in the Colo- rado River basin duringthe summer entire national park concept, but what derivedfrom them infusedthe move- of 1948, Drury moved to disengage matteredto Drurywas the principle, ment with a sense of urgencyand the park servicefrom the recreation not the place.His actions in the last broadenedthe agenda to includecon- studies program. yearsof his directorshipwere guided cern for the environmentas an inte- In September1948 Drury'soffice not by a commitmentto Dinosaur as a grated whole. These changes had issued a new policy directivedeclaring specificlandscape worthy of preserva- importantconsequences for the Colo- that the park servicewould no longer tion butby concernfor the largerissue rado River basin. Tourism in the preparereports assessing recreation of parklandsanctity. The importance region increased,and as it did more resourcesin any national park or of thisdistinction between place and Americanscame to value the distinc- monumentthreatened by Bureauof principleis evidentin thecompromises tive aestheticqualities of places like Reclamationprojects. Instead the ser- Drurysought as the relationship Dinosaur.Preservationists, who vice would issue only brief and uncate- between the Bureauof Reclamation before the war gave little attention to gorical denunciationsof any proposed

NewtonDrury 61 waterproject that violated the sanctity ever, Druryabandoned the report's Mountain Canyon, would become a of thepark system.4 This directive was position, a reversalcompelled by the nationalrecreation area.50 Thompson's immediatelytested when the Bureau political circumstancesthat Tillotson Lodore proposal sought to maintain of Reclamationrequested economic and Merriamhad foreseen.Drury's the legal integrityof the monument- datafrom the parkservice on the rec- retreatwas along the same route the no reservoirwould intrudebeyond the reationpotentials of the proposed park servicehad followed throughout reducedboundaries-while preserving CRSP,which directly affected Dino- the 1940s: an accommodationof pres- what he believedwere the region's saurNational Monument because of the ervation, recreation,and reclamation unique and monumentalscenery. EchoPark and Split Mountain compo- values throughthe conversionof FrederickLaw Olmsted, whom Drury nentsof the project.The parkservice Dinosaur (or at least substantialpor- asked to review the Thompson report, respondedto thebureau's request with tionsof the monument)into a multiple- endorsedthe idea.5'Drury accepted whatcame to be calledthe Reconnais- use national recreationarea. these recommendationsand initiated sanceReport. In accordancewith the Drury'sresumed search for accom- compromisenegotiations with the Septemberpolicy directive, the Recon- modation came in the face of growing Bureauof Reclamation.52 naissanceReport opposed construc- support for the CRSPamong upper Drury'sabandonment of the Recon- tion of the SplitMountain and Echo basin reclamationists.During the late naissanceReport in favor of compro- Parkunits of the CRSPbecause they springand summerof 1949 regional mise caught many park serviceperson- would"adversely and seriously" affect civic leadersand politiciansbarraged nel by surprise.The custodian at "highlyimportant scientific, wilder- the Departmentof the Interiorwith Dinosaur and his immediatesupervi- ness, and recreationalvalues" in Dino- telegrams,petitions, and telephone sor at Rocky Mountain National Park saur National Monument.4sBefore calls demandingprompt authorization had taken the ReconnaissanceReport transmittingthe reportto the Bureau of the CRSP.In August the Reconnais- to heart,making management decisions of Reclamation,the regionalpark ser- sance Report, which the park service consistentwith what they believed vice officials responsiblefor draftingit intendedto be confidential,was was the agency'snew policy of oppos- alertedDrury to the implications."We leaked to the public and the agency ing dam constructionin the reserve."3 wish particularlyto call your attention becamethe object of increasinglyvitri- They were stunnedto hear of the to that recommendation[not to build olic outrage from upper basin boost- Lodore negotiations.David Canfield, the Echo Park and Split Mountain ers.49Although the fervorwas modest superintendentat Rocky Mountain, dams]," Region II DirectorMerriam comparedto what came duringthe found the proposal "confusingand wrote, "sincecommitments made to height of the Echo Park dam contro- disconcerting"and he prepareda the Bureauwhen the monumentwas versy in 1954-56, it was too much for detailedmemorandum opposing the enlargedmay make such a position Drury. He instructedhis special assis- compromise.54Howard Baker,acting untenable."46 tant, Ben H. Thompson, to formulate directorat Region II, was equallydis- As Merriamunderstood, the a compromiseproposal. mayed, telling LawrenceMerriam that ReconnaissanceReport ran contrary Thompson travelledto Utah in Drury had "moreor less kill[ed]"any to every agreement,formal and infor- September1949. He toured the monu- effort to save the monument.Baker mal, that the park servicehad made ment by airplane,met with local civic also prepareda long memorandum with the Bureauof Reclamationsince leadersand Bureauof Reclamation urgingthe directorto reconsider. expansion of the Dinosaur monument officials, and read the latest draft of Drurydefended his decisionto seek a in 1938. If the servicereversed its the CRSPplan. When he returnedto compromise,writing Bakerthat "[i]f position, Merriamwarned, the agency Washington,D.C., Thompson gave our negotiationsshould resultin the must be preparedfor a stifffight, which Drurythe outline of a compromise.It abandonmentof the presentEcho might be lost and which would have called for park serviceacceptance of Parksite and the selectionof an alter- far-reachingconsequences for the the Split Mountain dam providedthat nate site elsewhere,even if it were in entire national park system. Although the Bureauof Reclamationagreed to the upperend of Lodore Canyon, I Merriamwas inclinedto take the risk, substitutea dam at the head of Lodore believethat we would be justifiedin his counterpartat Region IIIwas more Canyon (also in DinosaurNational feelingthat we had salvagedthe major reticent.Minor Tillotson, Region III Monument) for the one at Echo Park. values for which the monumentwas director,believed it would prove Thompson believedthat a dam at established."Drury effectively fore- "extremelydifficult and ultimately Lodorewould flood lessof the reserve's stalled furthercriticism by suggesting impracticableto block the contem- most impressivescenery while a dam that Bakerrethink the matter."5 plated projects"in Dinosaur. He rec- at Split Mountain would actually By early November 1949 dissen- ommendedliving up to prior promises "createsignificant recreational and sion within the ranks of his organiza- and convertingthe reserveinto a scenic attractions."He recommended tion was the least of Drury'sworries. national recreationarea.47 that the monument'sboundaries be For more than a month park service In November1948 Druryapproved reducedto include only Echo Parkand and reclamationofficials had dis- the ReconnaissanceReport, telling the originaldinosaur quarry area. The cussed the Lodore proposal, but at a Tillotson that it was "entirelyaccept- nearlytwo hundredthousand remain- Salt Lake City meetingon 8 Novem- able."48Within less than a year, how- ing acres of the reserve,including Split ber the bureaurejected the compro-

62 Forest&Conservation History 38 (April 1994) mise.Instead the bureaudemanded the CRSPthrough the department By the timeof Chapman'sannounce- thatthe parkservice make good on before the park servicehad a reason- ment, Newton Drury'sposition as the 1941 agreementand immediately able opportunityto respond.60On directorof the National Park Service initiatelegislation to abolishthe entire another occasion Drurytold a group was tenuous. Having engaged in half- monument.56With negotiations dead- of preservationiststhat the Bureauof truths and innuendos,he lost the con- locked,Drury appealed to Interior Reclamationhad only been allowed to fidence of subordinateswho knew the SecretaryChapman. Stressing his conduct fieldworkin the monument facts and of his superior,who inter- desireto havethe matterresolved "due to SecretaryIckes desire during preted for himselfthe documents quietlywithin the department,Drury the war."61Drury's recollection on Drury had signed or accepted.Rela- explainedthat the parkservice would this point was not accurate.The tions between Drury and Chapman acceptdams at SplitMountain and bureau'sstudies, mandatedby Con- deterioratedthrough 1950. In Decem- Lodoreif EchoPark was spared.Such gress and thereforerequiring no secre- ber Chapmanasked Druryto take a a compromise,he pointedout, "would tarial order, began in 1939 with the new post as special assistantto the minimizeimpairment of the national park service'sfull knowledge.62 secretary.Ostensibly the change was monument"while allowing the Bureau Drury'ssubordinates were aston- meant to honor ArthurDemaray, who of Reclamationto proceedwith its ished by these claims, which seemed had worked for the park servicesince waterdevelopment project.57 Chap- designedto defend the directormore the Mather era, with a brief stint as managreed to mediatethe disputeand than the monument. "I was quite con- directorprior to his retirement.But askedhis two agencychiefs to submit cernedwith DirectorDrury's evident Drury saw the move as a demotion, theirrespective cases in writing. understandingthat his Office had not and in a confrontationover the new Overthe nextseveral months Drury been kept fully informed,"Minor posting he openly quarreledwith andCommissioner Straus lobbied the Tillotson confided to Lawrence Chapman.65Shortly thereafter Drury secretarywith a seriesof increasingly Merriam.Bristling from the charge, announcedthat he would resignfrom argumentativememoranda.58 Incensed Tillotson listed the documents,reports, the National Park Servicein order to by whathe interpretedas parkservice and memorandarelating to water overseethe Californiastate parksystem. hypocrisy,Straus provided Chapman developmentin Dinosaur that Drury withcopies of the 1941 interagency had signed since 1941. Surely,Tillot- Conclusion agreementand the 1944 Dinosaur son suggested,"the Directorshould recreationreport. In doingthis Straus have had at least some knowledge of The full story behind Newton shiftedattention away from the pro- these projectsin Dinosaur National Drury'sresignation from the National posedLodore compromise to an Monument for a numberof years."63 Park Servicemay never be known, examinationof the parkservice record ThroughDecember 1949 and into but the fight over DinosaurNational managingthe Dinosaur reserve. Forced early winter 1950 Chapmansought Monument certainlywas a key factor, on the defensive,Drury responded to reconcilehis two feuding bureau although in ways far differentfrom withgrowing petulance and disin- chiefs. The secretaryappointed a spe- what most preservationistsassumed at genuousness.He triedto discreditthe cial departmentalcommittee to work the time. What was said (or not said) ColoradoRiver basin recreation study out a solution, but Strausremained in those last meetings between Drury by characterizingit as the unofficial intransigentand refusedto accept any and Chapmanare memoriesnow actionof overzealoussubordinates. compromise.CRSP public hearingsin lost-neither man ever spoke publicly "Unavoidably,"Drury wrote Chap- Washington,D.C., duringApril 1950 about what happened.Before his man,"in frank discussions of Recla- servedonly to polarize-and publi- death in 1975, however, Drurycom- mation'sproposals with their officials cize-the issue further.The deadlock mented brieflyon his resignationin andperhaps otherwise, some of our grew into a liabilityfor the Truman an oral history interview. "Thegreat peoplemay have expressed thoughts, administration.Those upper basin Bureauof Reclamation,"Drury said, ideas, or personalopinions as to Democratswho faced reelectionin the "was like the state of Prussiain the extent, calibre,worth and kind of rec- fall fell into near hysteriaas Republi- Germanempire, where everythingwas reationaldevelopment that might be cans began to chargethat the lack of weighted in its favor. That's about the appropriatein the area if dams are action on the CRSPwas evidencethat essence of the situation."66In that built."59This was not an accuraterep- the administrationintended to renege statementDrury revealed both the resentationof a programDrury had on all promisesmade to western obvious and more subtle explanations championedfor nearly a decade. reclamationistsduring the 1948 presi- for his decision to leave the federal Nor was Drury credibleon another dentialcampaign. Chapman decided government. importantpoint. He complainedto to end the political hemorrhageand in The problemconfronting Drury in Chapmanthat he had been unaware June 1950 he authorizedthe Bureauof the late 1940s was not simply that the of the Bureauof Reclamation'sinter- Reclamationto complete its project Bureauof Reclamationwas bigger, est in Dinosaur prior to 1948. Drury planningfor the CRSP,including richer,and more influentialthan the implied that the bureausurreptitiously dams at Echo Parkand Split Moun- National ParkService. Drury, a pres- conducted engineeringstudies in the tain Canyon.64 ervationistof long experience,was monument and was tryingto ramrod accustomedto dealingwith powerful

NewtonDrury 63 opponents. He had known losses Notes (Norman:University of OklahomaPress, before and victories,too-Drury was 1980),pp. 166-76;Harlan D. Unrauand 1. The most thorough account of Drury's always a skilled player of the game. G. FrankWilliss, Administrative History: resignationis in Elmo Richardson,Dams, Expansionof theNational Park Service in But Drury envisionedthe natureof Parks,and Politics:Resource Development the 1930s(Washington, D.C.: Government the game in very particularterms. and Preservationin the Truman-Eisenhower PrintingOffice, 1983), pp. 143-53;and For him, the old Progressivemodel Era (Lexington:University Press of Ken- Schrepfer,Fight to Savethe Redwoods, p. 69. of enlightenedbureaucratic discourse tucky, 1973), pp. 62-67. For the preserva- 6. On theEscalante fight, see Elmo Richard- tionist view on the cause of Drury'sresig- on was the son, "FederalPark Policy in Utah:The based impartialexpertise nation, see John Bertram,"Debate Over EscalanteNational Monument Contro- best way for a democracyconsisting Dinosaur Monument Raises Questions versyof 1935-1940,"Utah Historical of competing interests,some more About Long-RangePolicy," New York Quarterly33 (Spring1965): 109-33. powerful than others, to produce poli- Times, 4 March 1951, and LeRoyJohn- 7. Twoprovisions of the 1938executive "Newton B. A Great cies for the greatergood of society. son, Drury, Conser- orderadding the Green and Yampa can- vationist," CongressionalRecord, 82 yonsto Dinosaurembodied the conces- Drury'searnest, willing engagementof Cong., 1st sess., 31 July 1951, pp. 1-16, sionsto reclamationinterests. Although this approachin the Colorado River which reprintsstatements from a number somewhatarcane in theirterminology (and basin is evident in his championingof of preservationists.For the reclamationist thussubject to differinglegal interpreta- the recreationsurvey and his accep- interpretation,see "ConservationistEyes tions),the National Park Service and the See Nothing 'Mysterious'in Ousting of tance of its conclusions, including Bureauof Reclamationagreed prior to Drury,"Salt Lake City Deseret News, 17 signingthe proclamation that the reserve (implicitlyat least) the assessmentof February1951. For Drury'srecollections, wassubject to existingreclamation and Dinosaur'saesthetic qualities as insuf- see Druryto David Brower,3 October power-sitewithdrawals and to theWater ficient and the call for the monument's 1955, ConservationCommittee Files, PowerAct of 1920.On theorigins and conversioninto a multiple-usenational Recordsof the SierraClub, Bancroft meaningof thewater development provi- Library,Berkeley, California (hereafter recreationarea. sionsof the 1938proclamation, see Neel, SierraClub Records);Drury to Owen "IrreconcilableDifferences," pp. 177-206. After more than a decade of trying, Stratton,13 September1955; Druryto 8. On thenational recreation-area initiative, however, Drury'sstrategy culminated PhillipSirotkin, 14 September1955, both see SusanRhoades Neel, "Recreation, Rec- not in reasoneddebate and judicious in SierraClub Records;and Newton B. lamation,and Preservation: National Park resolution but in an ugly and person- Drury, "Parksand Redwoods, 1919- ServicePolicy in theColorado River Basin, 1971," interviewsby Amelia Fry and ally humiliatingbrawl. That fight, 1933-1940"(paper presented at the Susan Schrepfer,tape recording,1959-70, annualmeeting of theAmerican Historical more fitting of Prussiansthan Progres- Regional Oral History Office, Bancroft Association,Pacific Coast Branch, Salt sives, revealedthe futility of a policy- Library,University of California,Berkeley, LakeCity, Utah, August 1990). The ori- making and managementstyle that California,pp. 522-23. ginsof thenational recreation-area concept Drury'spast experienceand beliefs led 2. Harold Ickes to CharlesG. Sauers, 13 aredescribed in Unrauand Williss, Admin- February1951, Papersof Ira Gabrielson, him to see as reasonableand suitable. istrativeHistory, pp. 153-55.The 1940 ConservationCollection, Denver Public initiativewas embodied in a proposed As the reclamationand preservation Library,Denver, Colorado (hereafter amendmentto theAntiquities Act of 1906. movementschanged dramaticallyin ConservationCollection). This letter was 9. Christiansen,supervisor of theRegion III the first few years after the Second widely circulatedwithin the preservationist RecreationPlanning Division, and Nus- World the community. baum,senior archaeologist for Region III, War, park service'stradi- 3. The 1941 interagencyagreement is men- tional and servedfrom 1938 to 1941as National supporters evenmany people tioned, but not explained, in Owen ParkService delegates on theColorado within the agency found Drury'sway Strattonand PhillipSirotkin, The Echo RiverDrainage Basin Committee, an arm of doing things old-fashionedand inef- Park Dam Controversy(Mobile: Univer- of theNational Resources Committee. fective. They turned to new modes sity of AlabamaPress, 1959); Richardson, Theirmeeting with Drury is describedin Dams, Parks,and Politics;and Mark ThomasAllen to Drury,23 December of political action changingthe world Harvey, "The Echo ParkControversy and of 1940,Dinosaur National Monument File, environmentalpolitics that Drury the AmericanConservation Movement" CentralClassified Files, Records of the had known and in which he func- (Ph.D. diss., Universityof Wyoming, NationalPark Service, Record Group 79, tioned for most of his public life. The 1986). The discussionbelow is drawn from NationalArchives, Washington, D.C. confusion, anger, and self-deception Susan Rhoades Neel, "IrreconcilableDif- (hereafterDNM File). ferences:Reclamation, Preservation and evident in Drury'sactions during 1949 I0. ThomasAllen to Drury,23 December the Originsof the Echo ParkDam Contro- 1940,DNM File. and early 1950 suggest how ill-suited versy" (Ph.D. diss., Universityof Califor- I1. On theleague's use of expertstudies of he was for negotiatingthe changing nia, Los Angeles, 1990), esp. chap. 5. recreationresources, including the 1926 terrain.In the fight over Dinosaur, as 4. Susan R. Schrepfer,The Fight to Save the Olmstedreport, see Schrepfer, Fight to Ronald Forestahas suggested,Drury Redwoods:A History of Environmental Savethe Redwoods, pp. 31-32. Reform, 1917-1978 (Madison:University lost control of his own house.67That, 12. "TheRelation of the ParkService to the of Wisconsin Press, 1983), chap. 1. Seealso ColoradoBasin," address by Newton more than anythingelse, may explain Ronald A. Foresta,America's National Druryto a jointmeeting of theColorado why Newton Drury resigned. Parksand TheirKeepers (Washington, RiverDrainage Basin Committee and the D.C.: Resourcesfor the Future,1984), Committeesof 14 and16, 21 October pp. 47-51. 1941,p. 30, Recreation,Land Use, and S. On preservationbacklash against National StateCooperation File, Region II Files, ParkService activities, see DonaldC. Swain, Recordsof theNational Park Service, "The National ParkService and the New RecordGroup 79, NationalArchives, Kan- Deal, 1933- 1940, " Pacific Historical sas CityBranch, Kansas City, Missouri Review41 (August1972): 312-32; ConradL. (hereafterRecreation File). Wirth,Parks, Politics, and the People

64 Forest&Conservation History 38 (April 1994) 13. "Draftof PreliminaryNotes in Regardto without modificationin 1942 and 1943. parkservice. The park service legal staff ProposedSurvey of RecreationalResources See Harry Bashoreto Drury, [26 August recommendedthat the matter be ignored of the Colorado River Basin,"22 July 1942], and the attached "Memorandumof becausemost of thearea was already cov- 1941, National ParkService Cooperation AgreementBetween the Bureauof Recla- eredby power-sitewithdrawals, but on the File, Recordsof the Chief Engineer's mation and the National ParkService Con- urgingof RegionII officials Drury asked Office, Branchof Researchand Engineer- cerningthe Continuationof Work in the the Bureauof Reclamationto providean ing, Recordsof the Bureauof Reclamation, Colorado River Basin During the Fiscal explanationfor having acted without prior Record Group 115, Denver FederalRecord Year 1943," 25 August 1942; and Harry consultation. Center,Denver, Colorado (hereafterNPS Bashoreto Drury, 30 July 1943, and the 25. Druryto HaroldIckes, 25 January1945; CooperationFile). Although this document attached "Memorandumof Understanding HarryS. Bashoreto HaroldIckes, 5 Janu- does not bear Olmsted'sname, the memo- Betweenthe Bureauof Reclamationand ary1945; Michael Straus to HaroldIckes, randumaccompanying it identifieshim as the National ParkService, Department of 6 February1945, copies of whichare in- the author. See Drury to John C. Page, the Interior,"all in NPS CooperationFile. cludedin Drury,"Parks and Redwoods." 29 August 1941, NPS CooperationFile. 20. The National ParkService did not publish 26. Drury,"What Changes in NationalPark The degreeto which Drury acceptedthe the resultsof the Colorado River basin rec- PolicyWould Make the Parks More Useful concepts set out by Olmsted in the plan reation surveyuntil 1950, but by that time to thePeople and Provide More Recreational was apparentduring the director'sappear- the agency'spolicy toward reclamationin Areas?"(address before the U.S. Depart- ance before the Colorado RiverDrainage the region had changedsubstantially. See mentof the InteriorPost-War Resources Basin Committeein November 1941. Dur- U.S. Departmentof the Interior,National Institute,Washington, D.C., 5-9 Novem- ing the speech Drury referredrepeatedly to ParkService, A Surveyof the Recreational ber1945, copy in the Papersof JoelD. Olmsted'splan for the surveyand quoted Resourcesof the Colorado RiverBasin Wolfsohn,Harry S. TrumanPresidential fromthe above-citeddocument extensively. (Washington,D.C.: GovernmentPrinting Library,Independence, Missouri). 14. U.S.Statutes at Large49 (1935-36):1894-95. Office, 1950). Earlyreports in the survey 27. Drury,"What Changes?" p. 12. 1S. The Colorado RiverDevelopment fund differeddramatically from the 1950 pub- 28. "PreliminaryReport on theDinosaur was establishedby the BoulderCanyon lished version, reflectingOlmsted's conclu- NationalMonument Prepared in Connec- AdjustmentAct, U.S. Statutesat Large sion that the only place in the Colorado tionwith the Survey of theRecreational 54 (1939-41): 775. Riverbasin where the sceneryjustified Resourcesof the ColoradoRiver Basin," 16. The quotation is from Drury, "Relation complete and unquestionedexclusion from 22 March1943, P&M File. of Park Serviceto Colorado River Basin." reclamationdevelopment was GrandCan- 29. WhenJesse Nusbaum discussed the 1940 On Drury'sproposal and the Bureauof yon National Park.See Olmsted, "Draftof recreation-areaproposal with the members Reclamation'sresponse, see Drury to PreliminaryNotes," p. 10. of the ColoradoRiver Drainage Basin Harold Ickes, 24 January1941; Drury 21. "Reporton Dinosaur National Monu- Committeehe stressedthat the National to John C. Page, 22 May 1941; Arthur ment," May 1944, Parksand Monuments ParkService would be responsiblefor the Demarayto John C. Page, 22 May 1941; File, Region II Office Files, Recordsof the recreationalaspects of federalreclamation John C. Page to Drury, 1 July 1941; W. H. National Park Service,Record Group 79, projects.See Nusbaum, "General Policies Nalder, file memorandum,7 August 1941; National Archives,Kansas City Branch, Applicableto Establishmentof a National and John C. Page to S. 0. Harper,6 and KansasCity, Missouri (hereafterP&M RecreationArea," n.d., attached to MiloF. 18 September1941, all in NPS Coopera- File). Christiansen,report on the 3 June1940 tion File. On the Bureauof Reclamation's 22. ConradWirth to LawrenceMerriam, meetingof the ColoradoRiver Drainage motives for cooperatingwith the park ser- 19 June 1944, P&M File. BasinCommittee, Recreation File. vice on gatheringrecreation data for the 23. Drury to John C. Page, 12 March 1942, 30. Evidencethat this distinction had been Colorado River basin, see Neel, "Irrecon- P&M File. Drury'sletter was prompted criticalto Drury'sthinking on Dinosaur cilable Differences,"pp. 288-304; and "A by a requestfrom the chief engineerthat a NationalMonument can be foundin Forward-lookingStep," ReclamationEra statementabout the park service'sposition Druryto OwenStratton, 13 September 32 (February1942): 39. be includedin a preliminaryBureau of 1955,Sierra Club Records. Stratton, a 17. On the November meeting,see "Agenda Reclamationreport on its projectinvestiga- politicalscientist, submitted a draftreport for Conferencewith Bureauof Reclama- tions. Drury urged Page not to state the on theEcho Park dam controversy to tion Officials,"n.d., and S. 0. Harperto park service'sposition in so preliminary Druryfor comment. Taking issue with John C. Page, 22 November 1941, both in and public a forum. "Anythingplaced in whathe believedto be thereport's implica- NPS CooperationFile. On the National your reportregarding this," Drury said, tionthat he hadagreed to constructionof ParkService's request for a Bureauof Rec- "would almost certainlyresult in immedi- damsin Dinosaur,Drury wrote: "The lamationpriority list for the Colorado ate confusion of motives and objectivesin recordwill show that I wasnever in favor Riverrecreation survey, see Drury to John the minds of many conservationgroups, of theseso-called multiple-use recreational C. Page, 5 September1941, and John C. whereas,later on, if your reportand rec- areas as a part of the National Park Sys- Page to S. 0. Harper,6 and 8 September ommendationsare approved,the position tem,and again and again drew attention to 1941, all in NPS CooperationFile. of this Servicecan more logically be thefact that to introducenon-conforming 18. "Memorandumof UnderstandingRe: Pro- explainedto the public." Harry Bashore, usesin areasof thiscategory, under the posed Surveyof RecreationalResources of who soon took over as ReclamationCom- jurisdictionof the National Park Service, the Colorado River Basin,"4 November missioner,agreed to continue to keep wouldtend to breakdown all National 1941, NPS CooperationFile. National Park Servicecooperation at an Parkstandards" (emphasis added). 19. Given Harold Ickes'slater criticism of "informallevel." Harry Bashoreto S. 0. 31. AlfredRunte, National Parks:The Ameri- Drury'ssigning of this memorandum,it Harper,24 August 1942, NPS Coopera- canExperience (Lincoln: University of should be noted that copies of the agree- tion File. NebraskaPress, 1979), esp. chaps. 1 and2. ment includeda space for the signatureof 24. Drury to Harry Bashore,1 December Seealso Anne Farrar Hyde, An American the secretaryof the interior.Copies signed 1943, DNM File. Drury'sassurance that Vision:Far WesternLandscape and by Druryand Page exist in severalBureau 'no misunderstandingexisted" came after National Culture,1820-1920 (New York: of Reclamationand National ParkService a first form reclamationwithdrawal was New YorkUniversity Press, 1990). files; however, I have not located any cop- issued in July 1943 for a large section of 32. Criteriaother than aestheticsguided deci- ies signed by Ickes or even bearinga stamp Dinosaur National Monument.The with- sions about which lands ought to be part signifyingthe approvalof the Office of the drawal was made without notifyingthe of the park system, includingscientific and Secretary.The agreementwas renewed culturalsignificance. A host of pragmatic

NewtonDrury 65 considerationsranging from local politics 41. Olmsted, "Draftof PreliminaryNotes," "MattersRelating to the Bureauof to theeconomics of tourismalso influ- pp. 5-6. See also FrederickLaw Olmsted Reclamation'sColorado River Storage encedparkland creation. to LawrenceMerriam, 29 December1943, ProjectWhich AdverselyAffects Dinosaur 33. Drury,"Parks and Redwoods," p. 380. P&M File. National Monument," 16 November 34. Severalenvironmental historians have 42. MarcReisner, Cadillac Desert: The Ameri- 1949, all in P&M File. For the Bureauof notedthe relationshipbetween personal can Westand its DisappearingWater Reclamationperspective, see Wesley R. "bonding"to particularlandscapes and (New York:Viking Press, 1986), p. 151. Nelson to E. 0. Larson,28 October 1949, politicalactivism. See Susan Schrepfer, 43. Druryto Olaus Murie, 2 December1948, UCRB File. "EstablishingAdministrative 'Standing': Papersof Olaus Murie, Conservation 57. Druryto Oscar Chapman, 18 November TheSierra Club and the Forest Service, Collection. 1949, PS Papers. 1897-1956," Pacific HistoricalReview 44. Policy directive,8 September1948, a copy 58. Strausmade his case in two memos to 58 (February1989): 55-81; and Samuel P. of which is attachedto LawrenceMerriam Chapmandated 20 December1949 and Hays,"Human Choices in theGreat Lakes to Minor Tillotson, 10 September1948, 24 February1950, copies of which can be Wildlands,"in SusanFlader, ed., The P&M File. found in the Colorado RiverFile, Records Great Lakes Forest:An Environmental 45. Minor Tillotson to E. 0. Larson,21 April of the Office of the Secretaryof the Inte- and Social History (Minneapolis:Univer- 1949, and attached "Reconnaissance rior, Record Group 48, National Archives, sityof MinnesotaPress in associationwith Report:Echo Park, Split Mountain, Flaming Washington,D.C. (hereaftercited as Colo- the ForestHistory Society, 1983), p. 301. Gorge and Cross Mountain Units, Colo- rado RiverFile). Drurysubmitted four Thatthis was true in thecase of Dinosaur rado River StorageProject, Upper Colo- lengthymemoranda to the secretary: NationalMonument can be seennot only rado River Basin,"P&M File. Becausethe 30 December1949, Colorado RiverFile; in thechanging attitudes of parkservice FlamingGorge and Cross Mountain dams 28 Februaryand 3 March 1950, PS Papers; personnel,but also within citizen-activist would not directlyaffect any parklands, and 3 March 1950, P&M File (the two conservationgroups, such as theSierra the ReconnaissanceReport did assess in 3 March memos covereddifferent topics). Club.On theclub's postwar "discovery" some detail the recreationpotential of 59. Druryto Chapman,3 March 1950. of the ColoradoRiver basin, including those units, but includedno economicdata. 60. Druryto Chapman,30 December1949. DinosaurNational Monument, see 46. LawrenceMerriam to Drury,26 January 61. Drury is quoted in E. M. Hilton, memo for Michael P. Cohen, The History of the 1949, P&M File. the file, 9 March 1950, P&M File. In sub- SierraClub, 1892-1970 (San Francisco, 47. Minor Tillotson to LawrenceMerriam, sequentyears, Druryrepeated the charge California:Sierra Club Books, 1988), pp. 9 November 1948, P&M File. that the Bureauof Reclamation'splanning 146-47;and the records of theSierra Club 48. Minor Tillotson to LawrenceMerriam, of the CRSPhad been conductedin secret ConservationCommittee (1950-52), espe- 9 November 1948, P&M File. Tillotson and that the National ParkService had ciallythose relating to the rivertrips of reportedDrury's comment to Merriam. been taken by surpriseon the whole Dino- HaroldC. Bradleyand David Brower, 49. David Canfieldto Howard Baker, saur matter.See Druryto PhillipSirotkin, SierraClub Records. 23 August 1949, P&M File. There is no 17 September1955, SierraClub Records. 35. JohnS. McLaughlinto ArnoCammerer, indicationwho gave the reportto the Ver- 62. On the initiationof bureaufieldwork in 19January 1939, P&M File. To rectifythe nal boosters, but the park service believed Dinosaurand the park serviceresponse to problemMcLaughlin pointed out, thepark that bureaufield personnel had circulatedit. it, see Neel, "IrreconcilableDifferences," serviceundertook an extensivefield survey SO. Ben H. Thompson to Drury, 8 and 13 pp. 216-20. of themonument during summer 1939. September1949, ProgramStaff Papers, 63. Minor Tillotson to LawrenceMerriam, Thisbecame the basisfor the monument's Recordsof the Office of the Secretaryof 5 May 1950, P&M File. masterplan. the Interior,Record Group 48, National 64. B. H. Stringhamto ElbertThomas, 36. Anothergood example can be foundin Archives,Washington, D.C. (hereafter 30 January1950; FlorenceCook to Thomas, theinformal report of the 1939park ser- cited as PS Papers). 30 January1950; SterlingPrice to Thomas, viceteam sent to surveythe monument S. Olmsted'scomments were reportedin Ben 30 January1950, all in Papersof ElbertD. andprepare a managementmaster plan. Thompson to Drury,27 October 1949, Thomas, Utah HistoricalSociety, Salt Lake ThomasJ. Allento ArnoCammerer, P&M File. City, Utah (hereafterThomas Papers); 29 June1939, DNM File;and "Planning 52. ArthurDemaray to Michael Straus, Harold Linketo J. BrackenLee, 17 Febru- andDevelopment Report for Dinosaur 13 September1949, C. GirardDavidson ary 1950, Papersof GovernorJ. Bracken NationalMonument Prepared as the Papers,Records of the Office of the Secre- Lee, Utah State Archives,Salt Lake City, Resultof InspectionTrip to theArea, tary of the Interior,Record Group 48, Utah;Reva Beck Bosone to OscarChapman, June12-23, 1939," P&M File. National Archives,Washington, D.C. 8 February1950, Papersof Reva Beck 37. LawrenceMerriam to Drury,7 October 53. ParleyNeeley to E. 0. Larson,22 Septem- Bosone, SpecialCollections Department, 1943,P&M File. ber 1949, Upper Colorado River Basin MarriottLibrary, University of Utah, Salt 38. LawrenceMerriam, "Outline for Final File, Recordsof the Denver Engineering Lake City, Utah; WalterK. Grangerto Report,Dinosaur National Monument, and ResearchOffice, Recordsof the Oscar Chapman,8 February1950, Colo- ColoradoRiver Basin Survey Study," n.d., Bureauof Reclamation,Record Group rado River File;Ben Thompson to Newton copyattached to Merriamto George 115, Denver FederalRecord Center,Den- Drury,25 January1950, PS Papers;and Ingalls,23 February1944; see also Merriam ver, Colorado (hereaftercited as UCRB Vernal(Utah) Express, 9 & 16 February to Drury,6 and10 March1944, all in File);and Jess Lombardto David Canfield, 1950. SenatorThomas's administrative P&MFile. 5 July 1949, P&M File. assistanttold the White House that "our 39. An aerialperspective tends to flattenthe 54. DavidCanfield to HowardBaker, 7 October opposition in Utah is tryingto create the convolutedstratigraphy of the landscape 1949, P&M File. impressionthat the Administrationis andobscure the delicate colorations of 5S. Howard Bakerto Drury,29 September unfriendlytoward the reclamationpro- rockformations. The most distinctive and 1949; Howard Bakerto Lawrence gram and that ordershave been given to aestheticallycompelling features of Dino- Merriam,23 September1949; and Drury slow things up." Paul L. Badgerto DavidE. saurare not easilyseen from the air. to Howard Baker,4 October 1949, all in Bell, 22 February1950, Thomas Papers. 40. FrederickLaw Olmsted to Lawrence P&M File. 65. Richardson,Dams, Parks,and Politics, Merriam,29 December1943, P&M File. 56. The negotitions can be traced through pp. 65-67. ConradWirth to Drury,28 October 1949; 66. Drury, "Parksand Redwoods,"pp. 522-23. Leo Diederichto LawrenceMerriam, 67. Foresta,America's National Parks,p. 51. 10 November 1949; and Leo Diederich,

66 Forest& Conservation Historv 38 (Anril 19941