Cover drawing of Lock 8 by Diana Suttenfield-Abshire from The C & 0 Canal: An Illustrated

History, published 1981 by The American Canal and Transportation Center, P.O. Box 310,

Shepherdstown, W. Va. 25433. Used with permission.

Book design by Candace Clifford.
C & 0 CANAL

THE MAKING OF A PARK

Barry Mackintosh

History Division

National Park Service

Department of the Interior

Washington, D.C.

1991

iii

CONTENTS

Preface v

Prologue: The Operating Canal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter One: Uncle Sam Buys a Canal 5

Chapter Two: Legacies and Loose Ends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21

Chapter Three: The Park Service Takes Charge . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31

Chapter Four: The Parkway Proposition 49

Chapter Five: The Park Campaign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81

Chapter Six: Expanding the Park 103

Chapter Seven: Planning the Park 119

Chapter Eight: Managing the Park 133

Chapter Nine: Developing the Park .. 153

Chapter Ten : Using the Park 179

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 185

Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Administrative Chronology 194

Principal Park Officials 195

Sources Consulted 197

Index _ 203

v

PREFACE

-----TheChesapeake- and-6hioCanaTNationaCHi-sto~icaiPaik-is -one o{35s--- - - - -- ---

units of the national park system at this writing. The historic C & 0 Canal

is its primary feature, justifying its designation as a historical park. But

hikers and bicyclists along the 184.5-mile canal towpath are at least as

likely to marvel at the park's natural resources and scenic beauty and enjoy

their physical activity as they are to appreciate the canal's history. No

other single resource in the system combines such outstanding historical,

natural, and recreational values to a greater degree.

The canal was built and operated as a commercial transportation artery

between 1828 and 1924. Other historians, notably Walter S. Sanderlin in

The Great National Project and Harlan D. Unrau in an unpublished

National Park Service study, have addressed this period in scholarly detail,

and the Park Service is publishing a concise popular account of it,

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal (Official National Park Handbook No. 142),

in 1991. The present history contains only the barest summary of the

canal's construction and commercial operation. It focuses instead on how

the defunct waterway--a financial failure--was adapted to serve a public

purpose never envisioned by its builders. Adaptive reuse, a favored

technique for saving obsolete historic structures, has never been practiced

on a larger scale nor more successfully than in this instance.

This saga of the canal's reincarnation as a park owes much to many

Park Service employees and park friends. Past and present employees

contributing recollections and other information included Robert W. Bell,

John Blair, Michael Brown, William Clark, Harry A. DeLashmutt III,

William R. Failor, Raymond L. Freeman, Gordon Gay, George H. Hicks,

Thomas O. Hobbs, F. Ross Holland, Jr., W. Dean McClanahan, Richard

G. O'Guin, John G. Parsons, David A. Ritchie, David M. Sherman,

Richard L. Stanton, Lee Struble, Linda Toms, and Conrad L. Wirth.

Outside park supporters doing likewise included William E. Davies, John

C. Frye, Gilbert M. Gude, Carrie Johnson, Nancy C. Long, and Joan

Paull. James D. Young, the park's resource manager in 1974-1976 and

assistant superintendent from 1977 to 1991, was particularly helpful in

responding patiently to innumerable research requests.

This history would not have been written without the support of Edwin

C. Bearss, the indefatigable chief historian of the National Park Service.

It would not have merited publication without the editorial assistance of

Gay Mackintosh, the sharp-eyed spouse of the author. A special thanks to

both.

Barry Mackintosh

July 1991

PROLOGUE

THE OPERATING CANAL

1

--- --- --Belore-£ailroads-irid hTghways~wafer wasTlie--onfygoodw-ay-to-tiansport------ -- - _.

heavy cargoes over long distances. As American settlement grew rapidly

beyond the Alleghenies in the early 19th century, eastern commercial

interests promoted the construction of canals to link the western hinterlands

with seaboard markets. The success of New York's Erie Canal, built

between 1817 and 1825, spurred other such ventures, among them the

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal.

George Washington had been among the first to envision water-borne

trade between the Chesapeake region and the Ohio country. In 1785 he

helped organize the Potomac Company to build skirting canals around falls

and clear other obstacles in the Potomac River above tidewater. After these

attempts to improve river navigation proved inadequate, Congress in 1825

chartered the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company to build a canal

alongside the Potomac from Washington, D.C., to Cumberland, Maryland,

thence over the mountains to the headwaters of the Ohio. The company

began work on July 4, 1828, with President John Quincy Adams turning the

first spadeful of earth at Little Falls, Maryland. By fateful coincidence, a

similar ceremony at Baltimore that same day inaugurated the nation's first

major commercial railroad, the Baltimore and Ohio.

From the beginning, the canal was plagued with problems. Unforeseen

rock formations hampered excavation. Lumber, stone, lime, and other

building materials were often less available and more expensive than

anticipated. Labor shortages and disputes slowed work progress, as did a

protracted legal battle with the B & 0 Railroad over use of the narrow

right-of-way above Point of Rocks. By 1839 the canal company had built

and opened 134 miles of canal from Georgetown to near Hancock, but

serious financial difficulties delayed completion of the remaining fifty miles

to Cumberland until 1850. Easily outpacing the C & 0, the B & 0 had

reached Cumberland eight years earlier on its route westward. The canal,

its builders heavily in debt, went no farther.

The 184.5-mile canal encompassed 74 lift locks to accommodate the

605-foot difference in elevation between Georgetown and Cumberland,

seven dams to impound river water and feed it into the ditch, eleven stone

aqueducts over major Potomac tributaries and hundreds of culverts for

lesser streams and road underpasses, and a great assortment of water

control devices, river locks, bridges, and lockhouses. Its two most

impressive engineering features were undoubtedly the Monocacy Aqueduct,

spanning 560 feet atop seven arches, and the 3,117-foot Paw Paw Tunnel,

dug through a mountain to shortcut two bends in the river. By the
2 THE OPERATING CANAL

slackwaters above Dams 4 and 5 no ditch was built; there the mule-drawn

barges entered the river, being pulled from the towpath along the bank.

Rendered obsolescent by the railroad, the canal nevertheless plied a

respectable trade for several decades. Coal, agricultural products, lumber,

and building stone descended the waterway; lesser westward cargoes

included fish, salt, fertilizer, and iron ore. In 1875, the peak year of its

operation, the canal carried nearly a million tons. But the lucrative coal

trade shifted increasingly to the railroad. During all but a few years the

canal, which had cost more than $11 million to build, operated at a loss.

Recurring floods added to the canal company's woes. Damage from

flooding in 1886 forced the unrestrained sale of repair bonds, which carried

a preferred mortgage on the physical property of the canal. In the spring

of 1889 the rains that caused the infamous Johnstown Flood also devastated

the Potomac Valley, leaving the canal in ruins. The B & a Railroad, which

acquired most of the canal company's construction and repair bonds, had

courts in Maryland and Washington appoint its representatives as receivers

or trustees for the company. They restored the canal to operation by

September 1891 and organized the Chesapeake and Ohio Transportation

Company, a shadow corporation enabling the canal to show a profit and

avoid its forced sale to a possible competitor. 1

Low-volume traffic continued until May 14, 1924, when a relatively

minor flood again halted canal navigation. The receivers repaired the

lower five miles from the river inlet at Lock 5 to Georgetown, where the

company profited from supplying canal water to several mills. But they

took no action to repair damage and restore navigation to the remaining 180

miles. The era of canal commerce in the Potomac Valley had ended.

To avoid foreclosure, the company had to assure the courts that the

canal was not abandoned. According to Walter S. Sanderlin, author of the

principal C & 0 Canal history: "The court accepted the position of the

receivers, and ruled that the canal had not forfeited its rights by non-operation, but that the 'other' aspect of its business, the maintenance of a canal

for purposes of navigation, was merely suspended temporarily in the

absence of remunerative business. Both the receivers and the court

continued to maintain the ludicrous contention that the canal was not

abandoned, and. could easily and quickly be put into navigable condition if

trade were offered--even after the dams and feeders filled tip and washed

out, locks and lockhouses deteriorated into a hopelessly unusable condition,

·Walter S. Sanderlin, The Great National Project: A History of the Chesapeake and Ohio

Canal (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1946), pp. 254-67.
PROLOGUE 3

and saplings two, three, and four inches in diameter grew in the trunk,

destroying the puddling and often obscuring the canal itself. 112

Of course, the B & 0 Railroad had no desire to return the obsolete,

-----unprofitable-canaLto--operation.- -Its -primary concern was.that.thepoten- _

tially valuable right-of-way not fall into the hands of a competitor, such as

the Western Maryland Railway. If the property could be sold with assurance that it would not be used for commercial transportation, the railroad

would be delighted.

How else could an old canal be put to use?

2Jbid., pp. 277-78. The surviving trustee's report to the court for 1935 was typical:

•Although to the casual observer the Canal may seem to be in a serious condition, this is not the

fact, and, upon resumption of the canal trade traffic sufficient tojustify putting the Canal in operation, this would quickly be done, and the cost of doing it would not be very great.· (Report to

Circuit Court of Washington County, Md., filed June 10, 1936, copy in file 1460/C & 0 Canal,

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park.)

CHAPTER ONE

UNCLE SAM BUYS A CANAL

5

In 1901 the Semite Committee ~on the Districtof Columbia, chaired by Sen. -~

James McMillan of Michigan, engaged four of the nation's most distinguished design professionals to study and recommend improvements to

Washington's park system. Architects Daniel H. Burnham and Charles F.

McKim, landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., and sculptor

Augustus Saint-Gaudens composed the Senate Park Commission or

McMillan Commission, as it became known. Charles Moore of the Senate

committee's staff served as secretary to the commission and editor of its

influential report, The Improvement of the Park System of the District of

Columbia.

The McMillan Commission is best remembered for reviving and

extending Pierre Charles L'Enfant's plan for the monumental core of the

capital. But its report went on to recommend significant parkland additions

and enhancements well beyond the central city, extending south to Mount

Vernon and northwest to Great Falls. Even though the Chesapeake and

Ohio Canal was still in commercial use, the commission viewed it as a

picturesque recreational amenity for its proposed "Potomac Drive":

Without interfering with the future utilization of the water power, the surroundings of the

Great Falls on both sides of the river should, in our opinion, be converted into a national

park, to be connected with the city by a continuous river drive. The beauty of the scenery

along the route of this proposed noble river-side improvement is so rare and, in the minds

of the Commission, of so great value not only to all Washingtonians, but to all visitors,

American and foreign, that it should be safeguarded in every way. No buildings should

be allowed between the drives and the river, and no change should come to pass in the

character of the canal that will tend to transform its primitive character and quaint beauty.

The canal has a charm of its own, as, half disclosed and half revealed, it winds among the

trees; .and not the least part of this charm, so desirable to be preserved, is the slow, oldfashioned movement of the boats and of the people on and near this ancient waterway.

Already the canal is used, aside from the navigation of commerce, by pleasure seekers in

canoes, and by excursion parties in various craft. More and more will the canal thus be

used as an attractive route between the populous city and the natural charms of the

picturesque region between Cabin John Bridge and Great Falls. The preservation and

continuance of the canal in its original character will thus add elements of gayety and life

to a scene much to be enjoyed by the passers-by on the neighboring and upper roadways.'

There was no immediate response to the commission's Potomac Drive

proposal, but it was not forgotten. Nor was the concern that had caused the

lU.S. Congress, Senate, Committeeon the District of Columbia, The Improvement ofthe Park

System ofthe District of Columbia (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1902), p. 96.
6 UNCLE SAM BUYS A CANAL

commission to preface its recommendation with a bow to power development. In 1921 the Army's district engineer 'proposed a dam near Chain

Bridge high enough to submerge everything to the top of Great Falls. The

next year Sen. Bert M. Fernald of Maine, chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, introduced legislation that would

direct the Army's chief of engineers to survey the banks of the Potomac

from Washington to Great Falls and report on the advisability and cost of

extending the national capital's park system in that area. On the motion of

Sen. George W. Norris of Nebraska, Fernald's bill was amended on the

Senate floor to require the chief of engineers to consider the dam proposal

and "make no suggestion for an extension of the park system of the District

that shall interfere with such water-power development. "2

The bill passed the Senate on April 19, 1922, but died in the House.

Neither body acted upon a similar bill in the next Congress. Supporters of

both park and power development on the Potomac would continue to be

heard from, however, for Fernald's bill and Norris's amendment presaged

a conflict that would continue beyond mid-century.

When the C & 0 Canal did not resume operation after the 1924 flood,

it became a subject of increasing government interest. In 1926 Lt. Col. J.

Franklin Bell, engineer commissioner of the District of Columbia, urged

Congress to authorize acquisition of the canal property for a federal

highway to Cumberland. "Anyone who has driven over the mountains from

Cumberland can visualize how necessary it will be in the future to have a

canal boulevard for bus, truck, and automobile traffic from Cumberland to

the National Capital," he declared. The road, as he envisioned it, would

not necessarily obliterate the canal and might revive its use for heavy

freight in powered barges by providing more and better access and transfer

facilities. 3

Fred G. Coldren, secretary of the National Capital Park and Planning

Commission, was asked to comment on Bell's proposal. "A properly

constructed automobile highway along the route of the Chesapeake and

Ohio Canal from Cumberland to this city, would form the natural course

for private vehicles for a very large part of the central and western portions

of the Union, and this route would be more appealing ... than any other,

from the standpoints of beauty, historical interest, grade and distance," he

2S.J. Res. 192, 67th Congress; Congressional Record 62: 5700. The 1921 plan for the high

dam near Chain Bridge encountered heavy opposition; its fate was sealed in the mid-1930s when

Congress approved construction ofthe Navy's David Taylor Model Basin at Carderock, Maryland,

on land that it would have inundated.

3Letter, Bell to Rep. Frederick N. Zihlman, quoted in "Groundwork Is Laid for Route to

Cumberland," Hagerstown Herald, Aug. 19, 1926, p. 10.
CHAPTER ONE 7

wrote. He favored locating the road inland from the canal along the bluffs

to maximize the view from it. So did the commission's executive officer,

Maj. U. S. Grant III, out of his desire "to preserve the canal itself, with its

___-- - .quietwatersand.ancient. locks, -as--an-asset--of--unusual-beaut-y-,-prov-iding- - - ---- ---

picturesqueness and sylvan intimacy for the enjoyment of canoeists and

pedestrians. "4

That fall Coldren and Dorsey W. Hyde, secretary of the Washington

Chamber of Commerce, visited George L. Nicolson, general manager of the

C & 0 Canal Company, in his Georgetown office. Nicolson noted that the

company's only current revenues were about $60,000 per year from the

rental of water power to three businesses in Georgetown, but he maintained

that it was ready to resume its transportation business whenever warranted

by the coal trade. In any sale, therefore, the company could be expected

to seek a price reflecting this foregone operating income. Nicolson also

raised a practical difficulty: the B & 0 Railroad was unwilling to cede

control of all canal property between Point of Rocks and Harpers Ferry

because it needed to expand its trackage into the canal right-of-way at

certain tight spots there,"

As Colonel Bell's proposal for a canal boulevard languished, the

approaching centennial of the beginning of canal construction focused

public attention on the historic waterway itself. The Citizens Association

of Georgetown sponsored a pageant at the Little Falls groundbreaking site

on June 2, 1928, to mark the anniversary (a month early) with costumed

celebrants and nostalgic reminiscences of the operating canal. 6

That December Rep. Louis C. Cramton of Michigan introduced new

legislation to implement the McMillan Commission's Potomac Drive plan

(and enable other extensions of the national capital park system). His bill

would authorize appropriations for a George Washington Memorial

Parkway extending just above Great Falls on both sides of the river,

"including the protection and preservation of the natural scenery of the

Gorge and the Great Falls of the Potomac and the acquisition of that portion

of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal." Maryland and Virginia would be

required to bear half the costs of land acquisition in their jurisdictions.

4Letter, Coldren to Maj. William E. R. Covell with postscript endorsement by Grant, Aug.

30, 1926, George Washington Memorial Parkway/C & 0 Canal file 500-10, National Capital

Planning Commission, Record Group 328, National Archives, Washington, D.C. Collection

hereinafter cited as GWMP/C&O file 500-10, RG 328.

SColdren office memorandum, subject: C & 0 Canal Co., November 1926, ibid.

6JoOO J. Daly, •Civilization and a Canal, • Washington Post Magazine Section, May 27, 1928,

p.3.
8 UNCLE SAM BUYS A CANAL

Objections from those with more utilitarian concerns were anticipated with

a proviso "that the acquisition of any land in the Potomac River Valley for

park purposes shall not debar or limit, or abridge its use for such works as

Congress may in the future authorize for the improvement and the extension

of navigation, including the connecting of the upper Potomac River with the

Ohio River, or for flood control or irrigation or drainage, or for the

development of hydroelectric power. ,,7

The bill passed the House too late to be considered by the Senate in that

Congress, so Cramton reintroduced it in the next Congress in April 1929.

It was passed again by the House in January 1930, then referred to the

Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, chaired by Sen. Arthur

Capper of Kansas. Capper's committee increased the authorized appropriation from $7 million to $9 million to cover the expected cost of a bridge at

Great Falls linking the Maryland and Virginia segments of the parkway

road. It further amended the bill to authorize acquisition of the C & 0

Canal as far as Point of Rocks. The amended bill cleared both houses and

received President Herbert C. Hoover's signature on May 29, 1930,

becoming known thereafter as the Capper-Cramton Act. 8

The authority to obtain the canal to Point of Rocks stemmed from

discussions between Daniel Willard, president of the B & 0 Railroad, and

Frederic A. Delano, chairman of the National Capital Park and Planning

Commission (NCP&PC), the agency charged with acquiring federal

parkland in the area. Delano, a former railroad president himself, knew

Willard and was able to ascertain the B & O's interest in selling that

portion of the canal, provided that the right-of-way would not be used for

commercial transportation. Willard named a price of approximately $1

million."

The Capper-Cramton Act appropriated no money, and in the early

Depression years the emphasis was on curtailing rather than increasing

federal spending. "If the Commission succeeds in gaining control of the

canal, it is proposed to restore it as a waterway for recreation purposes and

to build a parkway paralleling the water course either on the tow path or on

'H.R. 15524, 70th Congress; Congressional Record 70: 4613.

8H.R. 26, 71st Congress; S. Rept. 458, 71st Congress, Apr. 17, 1930; Congressional Record

72: 1085, 2724, 8849.

9Memorandum, Delano to Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes, May 16, 1934, C & 0

Canal file 650.03, National Capital Parks, National Park Service, Record Group 79, National

Archives, Washington, D.C. Collection hereinafter cited as C&O file 650.03, RG 79.
CHAPTER ONE 9

the opposite bank," the NCP&PC's planning director noted in 1931.10 But

there was no immediate prospect of obtaining the necessary funds.

Franklin D. Roosevelt assumed the presidency in March 1933 much

--- -- more-willing .than.his.predecessor to-support-public works.and.work.relief.,-- --- - ---

projects. On June 16 he signed the National Industrial Recovery Act,

authorizing the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works

(commonly known as the Public Works Administration or PWA). The act

directed its administrator to prepare a comprehensive public works program, to include the "construction, repair, and improvement of public

highways and park ways, public buildings, and any publicly owned

instrumentalities and facilities." The President, through the PWA administrator or others, could acquire any real or personal property by purchase or

condemnation for any such project "with a view to increasing employment

quickly. 1111

This sweeping authority would permit acquisition and restoration of the

C & 0 Canal above as well as below Point of Rocks. The B & 0,

undergoing financial difficulties, was increasingly eager to sell. But

government action to buy still did not appear imminent. That July Herbert

R. Preston of the B & 0, the canal company's surviving trustee, wrote

B & 0 counsel George E. Hamilton on the topic: "Mr. Nicolson was here

yesterday [July 13] and we discussed very thoroughly ... the possibility

of interesting the Government in the purchase of the portion of the canal

that it will some day wish to acquire. Mr. Nicolson could not think of any

considerable amount of work which could be done or which would require

any part of the canal property. . .. The only thing that occurred to us was

that it might be suggested that the Government would not wish to begin any

work in connection with the proposed boulevard and parking until it had acquired the canal property, and, while it might not be able to do any work

at once upon the canal property, before it did anything it should secure the

canal. . .. Neither Mr. Nicolson nor I could see very much hope in

- putting up a proposition for immediate consideration. "12

Again the canal transaction languished, to be prodded from a different

direction nearly a year later. On May 1, 1934, Frederic C. Howe,

consumers' counsel of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, sent a

letter to the President's wife, Eleanor Roosevelt:

l't.etter, Charles W. Eliot II to Robert Kingery, Feb. 11, 1931, GWMPI C&O file 500-10,

RG 328.

"Public Law 73-67, Sees. 202 and 203(a), U.S. Statutes at Large 48: 201-02.

12Letter, Preston to Hamilton, July 14, 1933, Correspondence of Office of Trustees, C & 0

Canal Company, Record Group 79, National Archives.
10 UNCLE SAM BUYS A CANAL

Each time when I motor up alongside of the old Chesapeake & Ohio canal I think of

what a wonderful bit of parkway and waterway it would be if developed by the

government. And it could be done so easily. One of these big dredges could wade right

up the canal deepening and widening it so that it could be used much as the river Thames.

The old tow-path could be used by pedestrians and, if widened somewhat, by bicycles.

It is clean enough for swimming and has endless beautiful spots for picnicing, tea rooms

and all sorts of recreation.

In addition, it has historic and sentimental reasons for converting it into a public

highway, as it was one of the dreams of President Washington, I believe, to make it a

means of connecting the East and the West. And it isn't too fanciful to suggest that it

should be recaptured by the present president and identified with his name, and for the

same reasons which identify many of our institutions with our first president,'?

As Howe had surely hoped, Mrs. Roosevelt relayed his suggestion to

her husband. The President responded promptly with a note to Secretary

of the Interior and Public Works Administrator Harold L. Ickes:

It occurs to me that the National Reservation and Park Service may care to look into

this suggestion.

I do not know who has the present title to the Chesapeake & Ohio canal, but it occurs

to me that if the government could buy it for a parkway and waterway for recreational

purposes and develop it at low cost over a period of years, it might be something well

worth while.

It is not my thought that the old locks should be put back into use, but perhaps we

could put in a carrying path for the transfer of canoes from one level to another.

Will you have it looked into and let me knOW?,4

Ickes forwarded Roosevelt's note to Frederic A. Delano (who in

addition to being chairman of the NCP&PC was the President's uncle).

Delano seized the opportunity to promote the canal acquisition and George

Washington Memorial Parkway development in his reply:

Apart from the river frontage and the Great Falls itself, the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal

is the chief center of interest in the proposed Parkway on the Maryland side. For large

numbers of people it would have the greatest all round recreational value to be obtained

in one unit, providing ideal facilities for boating, canoeing, cycling, hiking, picnicing and

even swimming at certain points. . . .

Plans of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission, which is the agency

heretofore authorized to acquire the Parkway, contemplate the preservation of the Canal

much as it is today for its entire 15 mile length from Georgetown to Great Falls, and the

acquisition of all the low land between it and the river. The Parkway road would be built

on the high land above the Canal, often parallel to it, and for most of the distance would

13C&O file 650.03, RG 79.

14Memorandum dated May 11, 1934, ibid. (The President's mislabeling of the National Park

Service doubtless resulted from its temporary redesignation as the Office of National Parks,

Buildings, and Reservations between August 10, 1933, and March 2, 1934.)
CHAPTER ONE 11

be the boundary of the park. Thus, in the plan of acquisition the Canal is the key property

for the George Washington Memorial Parkway just as it would be in recreational, scenic

and historic value. IS

.- - - -- ._. ----- -

- -- -- - -- _.._-- _. ·Capitaliiing oii--tne-cufrentnational-preocc-upatioii~-]Jelan-oe-mpna-sized---

how canal development could increase employment. "Clean up and grading

of the old Canal would provide ideal relief work, " he declared. "Landscaping and reconstruction of locks and canal bridges would be excellent

projects for C.C.C. camps to undertake." His final justification for

purchasing the canal "and adjacent rights of way" was to provide an

attractive route to the Skyline Drive, Harpers Ferry, and Antietam and

Gettysburg battlefields;"

"I heartily endorse the proposed acquisition," Ickes wrote in referring

Delano's memorandum to the President. Roosevelt wrote back, "Why not

include this definitely in next year's budget?" He was reluctant to spend

emergency relief funds to buy the canal, preferring that the money come

through the regular appropriations process. 17

But a congressional appropriation for this purpose was doubtful, and at

year's end Delano again wrote Ickes to urge acquisition of the canal with

public works money. On January 29, 1935, the two men discussed the

subject with Roosevelt. "The President was favorable to the acquisition of

the Canal . . . provided we could show actual work relief in connection

with the development of the property equal at least to the cost of the

Canal," Delano reported afterward to John Nolen, Jr., NCP&PC planning

director. 18

As the bureau that would develop and manage the canal once it was

acquired, the National Park Service now became involved in planning more

specifically for its development. That March, planners with the NCP&PC,

the Park Service, and the Bureau of Public Roads reconnoitered the canal

and its environs to the Point of Rocks vicinity. Parkways were then much

in vogue, and an extension of the George Washington Memorial Parkway

road up the Potomac to intersect with a proposed Appalachian Parkway

extension of the Skyline Drive was on the drawing boards. The planners

ISMemorandum to Ickes, May 16, 1934, ibid.

16Ibid.

l7Letter, Ickes to Roosevelt, May 28, 1934, ibid.; memorandum, Roosevelt to Ickes, May 29,

1934, ibid.

"Lettere Delano to Ickes, Dec. 26, 1934, ibid.; memorandum, Delano to Nolen, Jan. 30,

1935, GWMP/C&O file 500-10, RG 328.
12 UNCLE SAM BUYS A CANAL

took this into account in their reconnaissance and recommendations, reported to Delano by John Nolen:

There was unanimous agreement that the Canal should be preserved as a recreational

waterway of great scenic and historical value for the full distance between Washington and

the Monocacy and perhaps to Point of Rocks. . .. We further concluded that the

restoration of the canal as a scenic waterway was an ideal work relief project of almost

boundless proportions. The lock gates and sills in most cases need complete rebuilding,

banks and revetments require extensive cleaning and reconditioning and lock houses and

other supplementary facilities should be put in shape for active use. We even considered

the necessity of resetting all the stones in the Monocacy bridge which is badly out of line

due to frost action and settlement of one pier."

The planners determined that any parkway road above Great Falls

should be on the Virginia side of the river, crossing to Maryland between

Goose Creek and the Monocacy. "To parallel the canal with a highway

would destroy much of its scenic and recreational value and filling it in

would destroy its historic value," Nolen warned. 20

Delano relayed the planners' findings and recommendations to

Roosevelt, who asked that NCP&PC and NPS representatives begin active

negotiations for purchase of the canal. 21 Before doing so, however, it was

necessary to investigate the legal status of the property. "Incidentally it has

occurred to me that the R.F.C. [Reconstruction Finance Corporation] have

probably had various negotiations with the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad in

regard to federal aid, and that this question of the government acquiring

title to the canal might be included in the general bargain," Delano wrote

Ickes on August 27. "But even so, it is important to know how much the

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad has to sell, and whether the title they could give

is of any value to the Government unless the States of Maryland and

Virginia authorize the sale. "22

The President remained actively involved in the discussions. "Why not

ask the Department of Justice to investigate the R&D's. title to the canal?"

he wrote Ickes four days later. As it did so, NPS and NCP&PC officials

drafted an executive order that would allocate $4 million under the

Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935 for land acquisition and Civilian Conservation Corps work along the Potomac to Harpers Ferry. The

19Memorandum, Nolen to Delano, May 31, 1935, GWMP/C&O file 500-10, RG 328.

3lJbid.

21Memorandum, Ickes to Acting NPS Director Arthur E. Demaray, June 7, 1935, C&O file

650.03, RG 79.

• 22J:...etter, Delano to Ickes, ibid.
CHAPTER ONE 13

order closely paralleled one Roosevelt signed on August 5 allocating

$705,000 from the same source to acquire lands and support CCC work at

Isle Royale National Park. 23

____ .. _.Butthe Presidentcould not.act.until.thetitle situation.was.clarified, .and.i, _ _ _

the initial word from the Justice Department was not encouraging. "It is

well known that the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company has itself no

title to the lands and works of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company,

which are in the hands of trustees acting under the direction and supervision of the Circuit Court of Washington County, Maryland," it reported.

Delano met again with Roosevelt in December. "The President thought that

probably we would have to resort to seizing two or more pieces of property

and allowing those who think they have title to bring a test case, " he wrote

afterward. 24

Adopting a modified version of Roosevelt's suggested tactic, the Justice

Department filed suit against the B & 0 Railroad Company and the C & 0

Canal Company and its trustees on January 8, 1936. The stated aim was

to recover the Mole, an area that had been filled by the canal company on

the federally owned riverbed where Rock Creek entered the Potomac in

Washington. (The Mole contained the canal's tidelock, through which

boats could move between the river and a basin impounded by a dam across

the mouth of Rock Creek.) The government claimed that the Mole should

revert to the United States because the canal company was no longer

operating; the defendants asserted that the canal company remained in

business and that it held fee simple title to the land;"

The government's hand was seemingly strengthened by a major

Potomac flood that March--one of the greatest on record. The incomeproducing Georgetown canal level was again knocked out of commission,

numerous summer camps and boathouses on riverfront lands leased to

others by the canal company were swept away, and the towpath was washed

out in many places. But the company moved swiftly to repair the Georgetown segment, maintaining its water power revenues and its claim to be

operational.

In December the Justice Department rendered its opinion as to whether

and how good title to the canal might be conveyed. Attorney General

23Memorandum, Roosevelt to Ickes, Aug. 31, 1935, ibid.; letter, Delano to Roosevelt, Sept.

24, 1935, GWMP/C&O file 500-10, RG 328.

24Letter, Assistant Attorney General Harry W. Blair to Acting Secretary ofthe Interior Charles

West, Oct. 1, 1935, C&O file 650.03, RG 79; memorandum, Delano to T. S. Settle, Dec. 31,

1935, GWMP/C&O file 500-10, RG 328.

2SMemorandum, Settle to Delano, Apr. 2, 1936,GWMP/C&O file 500-10, RG 328.
14

- x:-

Lock 6 lockhouse in 1936flood.

UNCLE SAM BUYS A CANAL •

•

Homer Cummings advised Ickes that the estate acquired by the canal

company by purchase or condemnation was not subject to reversion to the

prior owners upon abandonment of the canal or dissolution of the company;

in other words, it could be transferred to a purchaser. The Circuit Court

of Washington County, Maryland, with the concurrence of the U.S. District

Court for the District of Columbia, had jurisdiction in pending suits to

decree a sale of canal company property upon a showing that the company

could not be made to earn sufficient revenue to defray its operating

expenses and leave a surplus to be applied to the interest on its bonds.

Cummings recommended negotiations with the B & 0 Railroad , the primary

bondholder, to bring about a sale by court decree. Although the government's interest had centered on the canal from Georgetown to Point of

Rocks, he expected that the Maryland court would seek disposition of the

entire canal property to Curnberland.. "

Upon receiving the attorney general's opinion, Thomas S. Settle,

secretary of the NCP&PC, proposed that the Capper-Cramton Act be

amended to authorize a $3 million appropriation for buying the canal

"Letter, Cummings to Ickes, Dec. 2t, 1936, C&O file 650.03, RG 79. •
CHAPTER ONE 15

without the matching state contribution otherwise required under the act.

At its January 1937 meeting the NCP&PC voted to have its legislative

committee pursue this possibility. . When nothing happened, Settle

. repeatedly pressed Delano on the subject. But the economy was again -

declining, and Delano viewed the plan as inopportune. "I have very much

doubt as to whether this is a good time to approach the President or

Congress or the Budget Bureau for $3,000,000 to be spent for the C. & O.

Canal or related property," he wrote Settle in June. He suggested waiting

until the fall, when there would be a clearer picture of likely revenues from

pending District of Columbia tax legislation and "the general situation in

the Budget. ,,27

One Sunday that September, when the prospect of action still appeared

dim, Ronald F. Lee, a young Park Service historian, hiked up the towpath

from Cabin John, Maryland. "The historical and recreational interest of

the old canal is certainly all that has been claimed for it and it seems a

shame that nothing has been done to maintain or improve the remains," he

told Branch Spalding, head of the NPS Branch of Historic Sites. Aware

that the Historic Sites Act of 1935 authorized the Service to cooperate with

other parties in managing historic properties, Lee suggested that the canal

"be designated a National Historic Site and a cooperative agreement entered

into with the [B & 0 Railroad] company which would permit its development for recreational purposes without forcing the railroad to turn over to

the Government a fee simple title. ,,28

Lee's suggestion might have received serious consideration had not the

B & O's financial circumstances sharply deteriorated by the end of 1937,

driving matters to a different conclusion. In December the railroad sought

another loan of $8,233,000 from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation,

to which it already owed nearly $80 million. Settle clipped a newspaper

account of this request and sent it to Delano. "I am calling this to your

attention especially because when the Bureau of the Budget asked you about

the acquisition of the C & 0 Canal, at our recent hearing, you stated that

the B & 0 may some day want something," he wrote."

,

27Extract from minutes of 115th meeting, NCP&PC, Jan. 28-29, 1937, GWMP/C&O file 500-

10, RG 328; memorandums, Settle to Delano, Mar. 31 and June 3, 1937, ibid.; memorandum,

Delano to Settle, June 8, 1937, ibid.

2llMemorandum, Lee to Spalding, Sept. 27, 1937, C & 0 Canal National Historical Park file,

NPS History Division. At that time no national historic sites had yet been designated under the

general Historic Sites Act authority (or authorized by particular acts of Congress), although

several such arrangements were under consideration.

29Memorandum, Settle to Delano, Dec. 29, 1937, with Washington Post clipping of Dec. 28,

1937, GWMP/C&O file 500-10, RG 328.
16 UNCLE SAM BUYS A CANAL

Delano wasted no time in taking advantage of the situation. He laid out

his agenda in a confidential letter to Frank C. Wright, special assistant to

the RFC's board of directors:

I understand that the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad owes the RFC a lot of money.

There is one piece of property that the Railroad owns that the Government would like to

have. I refer to the C. & O. Canal.

Several years ago ... Mr. Willard told me that if the Government wanted it he was

willing to sell that much of the Canal between Point of Rocks and Washington. I talked

the matter over with the President, and he asked me to find out what the bottom price was.

At that time Mr. Willard was talking about a million and a quarter, but he intimated that

he would take a million. . . .

Our Park and Planning Commission has always felt that the Canal should be preserved

as a Canal at least as far as Great Falls. Beyond that we were not particular. The

B. & O. wants to retain some of the Canal at certain points above Point of Rocks because

of a deficient right of way at these points, but the President has intimated that if he bought

it at all he would like to have it all the way to Cumberland. I have no authority from the

President or anyone else to speak with definiteness on this subject, but it might be

something you would like to bear in mind in negotiations."

Wright, another of Delano's high-placed acquaintances, was receptive.

"I shall promptly ascertain what can be done," he replied. "It seems to me

that unless previously pledged under a bond issue or a bank loan, it should

be feasible to put the B. & O's title to the canal property up with the RFC

as additional collateral (sadly needed), after which, with the B. & O's consent, the National Parks, or some other subsidiary of the Interior Department, could acquire the title and promptly begin improvements.... As to

price, the figures which you quote are not high, and I would be willing to

see the price increased, provided the amount finally paid was credited to

the B. & O. debt to the Government." Wright mentioned his personal

interest in the plan for a northern extension of the Skyline Drive and hoped

that a road might be built on the canal to "open up much of the really

historic location of the Civil War. ,,31

On January 7, 1938, Wright visited George M. Shriver, senior vice

president of the B & 0, in his Baltimore office. "He will sell for 2-112

millions the entire 186 miles of canal less certain properties and water

rights in Georgetown and one or two small items elsewhere," Wright wired

Delano that evening. "B & 0 agreeable to proceeds being credited to its

3OLetter, Delano to Wright, Dec. 31, 1937, Office Files of Frederic A. Delano, RG 328.

"Letter, Wright to Delano, Jan. 4, 1938, ibid.
CHAPTER ONE 17

debt to RFC and [RFC chairman Jesse] Jones is willing to charge the cost

to his balance due Ickes. "32

By the end of the month the initial phase of the transaction had been

___.completed. "Effective today,F.ebruaryl, 1938, the Reconstruction Finance

Corporation holds as additional collateral for loans of the Baltimore & Ohio

Railroad Company, all of the Baltimore & Ohio's interest in the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal and its subsidiaries," Wright wrote Ickes. The sale

could occur after about six months, when all titles were perfected. Wright

recommended a procedure whereby Ickes as PWA administrator would

make an allotment to the Interior Department for purchase of the canal, and

an equal amount would be deducted from the PWA's profit account with the

RFC (created by the RFC's sale of PWA securities at premiums above face

value)."

Wright continued to act as intermediary in the sale negotiations,

pressing the parties involved to close the transaction. At his urging, Ickes

obtained Roosevelt's approval of the purchase arrangement. 34 Ickes then

had the Park Service appraise the canal property. It estimated the value of

the canal's land from Georgetown to Great Falls at $1,178,087 and from

Great Falls to Cumberland at $553,000. It added $500,000 for the

recreational value of the canal to Seneca, $450,000 for the water power

rights in Georgetown, and $120,000 for the structural value of the

Monocacy Aqueduct. The total came to $2,801,087. This appraisal,

doubtless influenced by the price generally agreed upon, enabled Delano to

inform Wright that Interior had "fully justified a $2,500,000 valuation. "35

On March 24 the impending purchase was made public. Delano took

the occasion to congratulate Wright on his key role: "The papers last night

and this morning are full of news about the acquisition of the C. & O.

Canal. I don't think anything has been done in a long while which will be

as much appreciated as this. Our friend Harold Ickes is getting all the

bouquets, but I will testify in history that it was you and Jesse Jones who

really put the job over. "36

32Telegram, Wright to Delano, Jan. 7, 1938, ibid.

33Letter, Wright to Ickes, Feb. 1, 1938, C&O file 650.03, RG 79.

34Memorandum, Wright to Jesse Jones, Feb. 24, 1938, quoting Ickes' message from

Roosevelt, Delano Office Files, RG 328; Ickes, The Secret Diary ofHarold L. Ickes (New York:

Simon & Schuster, 1954) 2: 332.

35Memorandum, Arthur E. Demaray to Ickes, Mar. 21, 1938, Delano Office Files, RG 328;

memorandum, Delano to Wright, Mar. 22, 1938, ibid.

36Letter, Delano to Wright, Mar. 25, 1938, ibid.
18 UNCLE SAM BUYS A CANAL

Because the B & 0 did not hold actual title to the canal and the canal

company's receivers had all died, it was now necessary to have the

Maryland and D.C. courts appoint other B & 0 officials as receivers to

negotiate the sale of the company's property. The negotiations were

complicated by the railroad's desire to reserve some of the canal lands.

Although President Willard reduced the purchase price to $2 million on

April 12, some of the requested reservations were unacceptable to the Park

Service. In concert with the Western Maryland Railway, the B & 0 wanted

15 segments of canal bed totaling more than 31 miles for additional track

in places above Point of Rocks where the railroad lines ran close to the

canal. George 1. Albrecht of the NPS Branch of Plans and Design

recommended denial of all reservations except for a few that were clearly

necessary to allow a second track without taking the whole canal bed. In

endorsing this position to Ickes, NPS Director Arno B. Cammerer declared

that "the continuity of ownership of the canal bed is of paramount importance to this Service and ... no reservations should be allowed which will

break such continuity. ,,37

Because the B & 0 was itself on the verge of receivership and the Park

Service was eager to begin CCC work on the canal, the receivers and

government representatives came to a general agreement that postponed

resolution of the stickier issues. The most significant areas sought by the

railroad adjoined its Point of Rocks and Catoctin tunnels. In lieu of metes

and bounds defining the extent to which the railroad could fill into the canal

bed at these and other reservations, the reservations were made subject to

a "slope clause." This supplemented their descriptions to include "the

necessary slopes for fills, the slope limits of which shall be described by

metes and bounds as soon as surveys are completed, provided that such

slopes shall not extend beyond a point midway between the bottom of the

canal bed slope and the top of the same slope where it joins the tow path

grade, and shall not encroach upon any Canal Company locks, aqueducts,

or spillway structures, and provided further that such slope limits shall be

subject to the final approval of the Secretary of the Interior, or his successors. "38

The reservations were described in an attachment to the sales contract,

which was signed on August 6. The attachment also contained significant

31LeUer, Willard to Ickes, Apr. 12, 1938, C&O file 650.03, RG 79; Albrecht, "General

Statement on Reservations of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal above Point of Rocks made by the

Baltimore and Ohio and Western Maryland Railroads," Apr. 29, 1938, ibid.; memorandum,

Cammerer to Ickes, May 2, 1938, ibid.

38Contract for Sale of Property of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, Aug. 6, 1938,

GWMP/C&O file 500-10, RG 328.
CHAPTER ONE 19

provisions pertaining to the Mole at the mouth of Rock Creek and the

adjoining canal company land on the west bank of the creek below K Street.

The Mole itself and an abutting parcel on the west, then occupied by

___________ ~ai!~9~d tIi!~.ks~!!(L ~~pJ!~!L~nQ _c~rp.~Il! _~~)J!lpan!~~ 1l}14~L]3_~ p_le_~~~~L _

would be acquired by the United States in fee; but the B &

°and its lessees

could remain for two years, and the railroad could retain its team tracks on

the abutting parcel as long as it continuously used them. The remaining

tract running north to K Street (Parcel G), also containing tracks and leased

to two other cement companies, would be conveyed to the B & 0; but the

government would acquire a perpetual easement, enforceable after two

years, limiting the height of buildings there to twenty feet. 39

In other provisions of the contract, the government agreed not to allow

any portion of the canal property to be used for conveying freight or

passengers by land without the consent of the B & 0, except that transportation facilities could be provided to accommodate the visiting public. The

receivers agreed to remove all occupants of the property other than existing

water lessees before the government accepted title, unless the secretary of

the interior waived this requirement in particular cases. The receivers also

agreed to turn over all of the canal company's records relating to the canal

property. e An Interior Department press release announcing the execution of the

sales contract declared that the 22 miles of the canal from Georgetown to

Seneca would be restored to their former condition. "Determination to

conserve the historic water route as a national historic site definitely ends

consideration of other proposals for the disposition of the lower end of the

canal," it stated, while noting that plans for the remainder had not been

completed;"

Ickes arranged for a PWA allotment of $2.5 million--$2 million to buy

the canal and $500,000 for "the construction of a parkway as well as the

rehabilitation of the existing canal as an historic site. "41 The courts

approved the transaction, and on September 23 the receivers executed the

39Ibid.

40press release of Aug. 12, 1938, GWMP/C&O file 500-10, RG 328.

"Memorandum, Ickes to Secretary ofthe Treasury, July 29, 1938, C&O file 650.03, RG 79.

"The construction of a parkway" was evidently inserted to help justify the allotment under the

National Industrial Recovery Act, which specified parkway construction among the public works

that could be funded under its authority (see page 9). Because the Capper-Cramton Act authorized

acquisition of part of the canal for the George Washington Memorial Parkway project, rehabilitation of the canal for recreational use could be interpreted as contributing to that project. The

allotment justification would later be cited to support plans for a parkway road along the canal to

Cumberland.
20 UNCLE SAM BUYS A CANAL •

Buying the canal, September 28, 1938: George L. Nicolson, Roger S. B. Hartz; Harold L.

Ickes. (AP·· World Wide Photo)

deed of sale. Ickes accepted the deed on September 28 in a ceremony in his

office, giving a $2 million check to one of the receivers, Roger S. B.

Hartz. (As agreed, the money was applied to the B & O's debt to the

RFC.)

Soon afterward , B & 0 president Willard wrote Ickes to thank him and

his staff for their cooperation during the sale negotiations. "While the

work of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company has ended, I hope that

with its passing to the Government the Canal and its adjacent lands will

now enter upon a new and perhaps even greater period of usefulness to the

people of Maryland and the District of Columbia, and of our neighboring

states," he wrote.V It was up to the National Park Service to make

Willard's hope a reality.

"Letter, Willard to Ickes, Oct. 8, t938, C&O file 650.03, RG 79.

•

•
CHAPTER TWO

LEGACIES AND LOOSE ENDS

21

The passing of the deed on September 28, 1938, did not give the National

Park Service a vacant piece of property nor end all dealings with the C & 0

Canal Company. Matters involving canal occupants, water users, records,

and lands remained to be addressed.

As noted previously, the receivers for the canal company agreed to

arrange for the removal of all persons on canal property before the government took title, unless the secretary of the interior permitted certain ones

to remain. When NPS Acting Director Hillory A. Tolson returned the

signed sales contract to Assistant General Counsel Daniel Willard, Jr., of

the B & 0 Railroad on August 8, he suggested that the railroad move

promptly to comply with this provision "because of the large number of

occupants on the canal property at the present time. "I About 180 tenants

then used canal lands and structures under various leases and licenses. 2

The Park Service soon thought better about pressing for wholesale eviction, realizing that this would be bad for public relations and unnecessary

where continued occupancy would not interfere with immediate

development plans. Arrangements were made to have most occupants

remain under NPS special use permits, normally good for a year. When

they asked about their long-term status, the standard reply was soothing:

"While we are not in a position to make specific commitments with regard

to existing occupancies . . . you may rest assured that it is not our desire

to impose hardships on individual occupants, and that careful consideration

will be given to requests for extensions or renewals of special use • ,,3 permits ....

Some of the occupants were superannuated canal company locktenders

and maintenance employees. The oldest was J. H. Speaker, 88, in the Lock

l l Jockhouse at Cabin John. John S. Sigafoose, 85, had tended Lock 30 at

Brunswick. Charles Shaffer, 82, occupied the lockhouse at Lock 7.

Sylvester Pennifield, 80, had been a foreman overseeing the Georgetown

locks. Sam Taylor, 78, occupied the Four Locks lockhouse near Big

lLetter, Tolson to Willard, Aug. 8, 1938, George Washington Memorial Parkway/C & 0

Canal file 500-10, National Capital Planning Commission, Record Group 328, National Archives,

Washington, D.C. Collection hereinafter cited as GWMP/C&O file 500-10, RG 328.

2Letter, Daniel Willard, Jr., to Director, NPS, Aug. 31, 1938, C & 0 Canal file 650.03,

National Capital Parks, National Park Service, Record Group 79, National Archives, Washington,

D.C. Collection hereinafter cited as C&O file 650.03, RG 79.

3Interior Department press release dated Sept. 26, 1938, ibid.
22 LEGACIES AND LOOSE ENDS

Spring. Mrs. A. L. Violette, 77, resided at Lock 23 below Seneca.

Charles Stewart, 76, occupied the lockhouse at Lock 14, uppermost of the

"Seven Locks" at Cabin John. Julia King lived in the frame lockhouse at

Lock 5 and continued to operate the adjoining inlet gate supplying water to

the Georgetown mills.'

The Park Service obtained approval from the secretary of the interior's

office to hire these and 27 other former canal company employees through

the end of the fiscal year from the $500,000 balance of the PWA allotment.

Their employment was justified by the need to keep water flowing into

Georgetown and to protect the canal above, but in most instances it was a

matter of charity. B & 0 president Willard commended Secretary Ickes for

"the fair and even generous policy which ... you have adopted toward

those persons who have heretofore occupied otherwise unused portions of

Canal lands, for houses, camp sites, etc., and towards the employees of the

Canal, all of whom have served the Canal for many years, are no longer

young, and doubtless would have difficulty in securing employment

elsewhere. lIS Few if any of the former canal employees remained on the

government payroll after mid-1939, but those living on canal property were

permitted to stay.

When the government acquired the canal, two Georgetown companies

were still leasing canal water for power. The Wilkins-Rogers Milling

Company and the District of Columbia Paper Mills held a total of nine

leases dating from 1887, with annual rent totaling $23,067.80.6 The Park

Service now collected this rent for the federal treasury. Wilkins-Rogers

continued to use and pay for canal water into the 1960s.

The other major commercial patron of the canal company at the time

of sale was the Potomac Edison Company, which used Dams 4 and 5 of the

canal for power generation. Potomac Edison had rebuilt Dam 4 after the

1936 flood. Its agreement with the canal company remained in effect with

the Park Service, yielding another $1,500 per year to the federal treasury.

The power company was required to repair and maintain the two dams, an

arrangement deemed of such benefit to the government that the annual fee

"lnterior Department press release dated Nov. 3, 1938, GWMP/C&O file 500-10, RG 328.

~Memorandum, Tolson to Acting Secretary of the Interior, Oct. 15, 1938, C&O file 650.03,

RG 79; letter, Willard to Ickes, Oct. 8, 1938, ibid.

6Letter, George L. Nicolson to Secretary of the Interior, May 13, 1938, ibid.
CHAPTER TWO 23

was dropped in 1973. 7 Potomac Edison continues to use and maintain the

dams.

When the editor of George Washington's papers at the Library of

Congress learned that the government would acquire the C & 0 Canal, he

wrote to urge that the records of the canal company--which included the

records of its predecessor, George Washington's Potomac Company--be

made part of the purchase and deposited in the Library of Congress. 8 The

first part of his request was carried out. By January 1939 the Park Service

held a large mass of records, most of which were stored with the

mechanical equipment between the fifth and sixth floors of the Interior

Building. A clerk was detailed to arrange some six hundred bundles of

loose correspondence into manila file folders. Other canal company

records went to the NPS Branch of Historic Sites office in the same

building. Using these and other sources, NPS historians T. Sutton Jett and

Rogers W. Young began to conduct research and prepare reports to support

restoration of the canal and interpretation of its history and significance to

the public."

Ronald F. Lee, supervisor of the Branch of Historic Sites, was

concerned about the condition of the records. "As might be expected many

of the documents are now greatly in need of repair, and all should be

treated to prevent further deterioration," he noted. "The heat, and the dry

and varying temperature of floor 5-1/2 is hardly a proper place for loose

manuscripts ranging in age from one hundred to one hundred forty years. "

He urged their relocation to the National Archives. NPS Director Arno B.

Cammerer and Secretary Ickes approved, and the transfer took place that

May. Jett and Young moved with the records, setting up shop in the East

Search Room on the second floor of the National Archives building.!"

When the records were first received, the historians found that some

expected and needed items were missing, including early engineering and

'1Dam 4 and 5 file, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park. Potomac Edison both

owned and used Dam 3, originally built for the U.S. Armory at Harpers Ferry and later made to

supply the C & 0 Canal also. The NPS acquired this dam in 1985 for Harpers Ferry National

Historical Park.

8Letter, John C. Fitzpatrick to H. P. Caemmerer, Mar. 28,1938, Office Files of Frederic A.

Delano, RG 328.

9Memorandum, Ronald F. Lee to Hillory A. Tolson, July 21, 1938, C&O file 650.03, RG

79; memorandum, Lee to Tolson, Oct. 7, 1938, ibid.; memorandum, Lee to Arno B. Cammerer,

Jan. 26, 1939, ibid.

IOMemorandum, Lee to Cammerer, Jan. 26, 1939, ibid.; memorandum, Cammerer to Ickes,

Mar. 14, 1939, ibid.; memorandum, Jett to Lee, May 12, 1939, ibid.
24 LEGACIES AND LOOSE ENDS

construction drawings. Asked about them, Daniel Willard, Jr., mentioned

the loss of some records in a 1904 fire at the home of Sen. Arthur P.

Gorman, a former canal company president. The B & 0 did turn over two

more minute books containing proceedings of the stockholders and the

president and directors. The bulk of missing material was later discovered

at the Security Storage Company in Washington and delivered to the

National Archives. 11

When the Park Service transferred the canal records to the National

Archives, it retained the right to permit or refuse public access to them.

In 1944 the Archives sought removal of this restriction on grounds that the

wartime relocation of Service headquarters to Chicago made access requests

difficult to process. But the Interior Department solicitor continued to

oppose free access. "While the records may contain material of historic

value, nevertheless it is believed that the interests of the United States are

of primary importance," he argued. "The reason for requiring the

restriction was to prevent interlopers from claiming title to land acquired

by the United States from the canal company. In order to avoid such

controversies, therefore, it is considered necessary and in the best interests

of the United States to continue this restriction." The communications

problem was resolved by authorizing the NPS liaison officer in Washington,

Associate Director Arthur E. Demaray, to act on applications for access to

the records. 12

The policy of denying land claimants access to public records that

might support their claims continued into the 1960s. When NPS Chief

Historian Robert M. Utley proposed an end to the restriction in 1967, the

NPS regional office overseeing the canal still argued in its favor. But the

solicitor's office now felt otherwise. Associate Solicitor Bernard R. Meyer

informed the regional director that the existence of adverse claimants was

no justification for restricting public access, especially in view of the recent

Freedom of Information Act. The regional office yielded and discontinued

the policy in January 1968. 13

"Letter, Cammerer to Willard, Feb. 6, 1939, ibid.; letter, Willard to Cammerer, Feb. 10,

1939, ibid.; Assistant Research Technicians' Monthly Report, October 1939, ibid.

l2Letter, Philip M. Hamer to Director, NPS, Jan. 12, 1944, ibid.; memorandum, Fowler

Harper (solicitor) to Demaray, Mar. 4, 1944, ibid.; letter, Hillory A. Tolson to Hamer, Mar. 15,

1944, ibid.

13Letter, Utley to Paul Claussen, Mar. 14, 1967, C & 0 Canal National Historical Park file,

NPS History Division; memorandum, Utley to Regional Director, National Capital Region, Mar.

15, 1967, ibid.; memorandum, Robert C. Home to Utley, Mar. 21, 1967, ibid.; memorandum,

Meyer to Regional Director, NCR, Dec. 18, 1967, ibid.; memorandum, I. J. Castro to Lawson

B. Knott, Jr., Jan. 15, 1968, ibid.
CHAPTER TWO 25

The principal unfinished business between the government and the

B & 0 Railroad (nominally, the receivers of the C & 0 Canal Company)

related to the canal lands reserved by the railroad and the Mole area in

Georgetown. The Park Service was worried about its future inability to

restore and rewater the canal above Point of Rocks if the railroad filled into

the canal bed for new track. Of particular concern were the reservations

of 4.5 acres affecting 2.54 miles between Point of Rocks and Harpers Ferry

and six acres covering 3.65 miles between Big Pool and Cumberland. For

its part, the B & 0, foreseeing increased business from new government

construction in the Foggy Bottom section of Washington, had second

thoughts about losing its tracks on the nearby Mole and revenues from the

cement plants there that were slated for removal by September 1940.

In October 1939 Roger S. B. Hartz, one of the B & O's receivers for

the canal company, proposed exchanging the reservations desired by the

Park Service for the Georgetown property and easement acquired by the

Service. Hartz noted that the easement, which would limit the height of

structures on the B & O's Parcel G to twenty feet effective September

1940, would eliminate the sixty-foot cement elevators of the Standard Lime

& Stone and Lehigh Portland Cement companies operating there under

lease. "This would place a serious handicap on the handling of material for

concrete to be used in construction work in the District, if not compel the

removal of suppliers of such material, to the great detriment of the

Baltimore and Ohio, and possibly increasing appreciably the cost of work

in the District," he warned. 14

Park Service and National Capital Park and Planning Commission

officials opposed the exchange. NCP&PC Chairman Frederic A. Delano

maintained that "the present nuisance industries on the Mole should be

eliminated as soon as possible, as they are without question a detriment to

the development and enjoyment of the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway. "

They also questioned the dollar comparability of the Mole and the

reservations in view of the B & O's gross annual revenues approximating

$1 million from the Mole leases. They were willing to let the railroad and

its tenants remain for up to five more years in exchange for the

reservations. But Hartz held out for fee title to the Mole area. If the

government declined his proposal, he observed, the Park Service would not

14Letter, Hartz to Arno B. Cammerer, C&O file 650.03, RG 79; memorandum, Hartz to

George M. Shriver, Jan. 22,1940, GWMP/C&O file 500-10, RG 328. The easement ran in favor

of the owner of the Mole, so the railroad's acquisition of the Mole would nullify it.
26 LEGACIES AND LOOSE ENDS

only be unable to restore important sections of the canal, it might find the

railroad uncooperative in other matters of mutual interest. 15

NPS Associate Director Demaray gave Secretary Ickes a status report

on the negotiations in April 1940. Discounting the problem posed by the

B & D's reservations, he recommended holding firm on Mole ownership

while suggesting a lesser consideration from the railroad for its extended

occupancy:

It seems improbable that we will ever completely restore the waterway for barge

purposes due to the recurring floods and extremely heavy maintenance costs. Until the

railroad builds its additional tracks, which also is questionable, the existing canal could be

filled with water, but the railroad is taking the position that it would be necessary to flood

a portion of their lands for which legal authority would have to be secured from the

railroad. Otherwise it would be necessary to build an extensive retaining wall....

It is recommended that you do not approve such an exchange of land [as proposed by

Hartz] and instruct the National Park Service to advise the Railroad Company that the

industries on the Mole wharf be removed September 23, 1940.

It is also recommended that you authorize the Park Service to attempt to negotiate, with

the railroad, a five-year extension permit of railroad tracks on the Mole property in

exchange for an easement to flood a portion of the reserved lands of the railroad in the

event it is ever desired to put water in the existing canal between Point of Rocks and

Cumberland, and until such time as the railroad builds its additional tracks, which we

believe will not be done."

Hartz was willing to consider the easement in exchange for permission

to keep the railroad tracks on the Mole for seven more years and to move

a cement elevator there to Parcel G and retain it and the two already there

for the same period. I? But the longer term was unacceptable to the

government, and negotiations dragged on. The McGuire & Rolfe asphalt

plant vacated the end of the Mole in May 1941, eight months late. Amid

growing preparations for national defense, however, the cement companies

on the west end of the Mole and Parcel G were allowed to remain.

ISMemorandum for files, Donald E. Lee, Nov. 22, 1939, GWMP/C&O file 500-10, RG 328;

letter, Delano to Frank C. Wright, Mar. 1, 1940, ibid.; letter, Hartz to Wright, Mar. 27, 1940,

ibid. As examples of matters requiring future cooperation, Hartz mentioned the need for reciprocal

easements for the maintenance and renewal of many drainage structures passing under both the

railroad and the canal and the need to amend the legal status of the railroad crossing of the canal

near Arizona Avenue in Washington. (Because that crossing had been included as a reservation

in the sale, the railroad would otherwise retain fee title to the canal below rather than an easement

over it.)

16Memorandum, Demaray to Ickes, Apr. 11, 1940, C&O file 650.03, RG 79.

l1Hartz, •A Suggested Basis of Settlement,· Apr. 23, 1940, GWMP/C&O file 500-10, RG

328.
• • •

RE Cf.IVER5 OF

CHE,5APEAKE. & OHIO CANAL CO.

Plan 5howine,

Land sold on 5ept. 23'=fl,1')35 to:

I2Z:Zl BALTIMORE & OHIO R.R.Co

IIIBtI UNITE.D STATES OF AMERICA

Oeorqerown D. C.

:.., -, -:.... :

I 'I 7, , ''' ~';; . 'I II , , ' .... ,'; ,/ I ,~ ,

-- ,, -

/'

LEA~ED TO:

c==J ehll~17 Port la nd ceme n!' Co

C-=-"-l Sta llo a rd Lime &. 5ton~ cc

North American Cem e nt Corp.

L ::':=J GUire 6r. Ro\fe .Inc .

t!'~G

~Oi 0

vf., (t

12'

.:
28 LEGACIES AND LOOSE ENDS •

The Mole and tidelock (left), c. 1940.

View through tidelock to Potomac River. c. 1940.

•

•
CHAPTER TWO 29

America's entry into World War II in December extended their reprieve.

In the end, the Mole was not fully cleared and the twenty-foot height

restriction on Parcel G was not fully enforced until the 1950s. 18

The government did favorably conclude negotiations on some other

outstanding issues during the remainder of 1941 and into 1942. It received

fee title to the canal under the railroad overpass near Arizona Avenue in

Washington, which had mistakenly been reserved for the railroad in lieu of

an intended easement. Because the Western Maryland Railway no longer

wished to purchase twelve reserved areas between Harpers Ferry and

Cumberland, these were conveyed to the government subject to their

continued use by the railroad. 19

But there was no agreement on the most critical reservations below

Harpers Ferry. Under the most favorable interpretation of the slope clause

affecting them (page 18), the government would be able to approve the

outer limits of any fill slopes--even to the point of requiring a vertical

"slope" with artificial support--to preserve a waterway sufficient for canal

purposes. The railroad disputed this interpretation, especially if it would

be required to bear the expense of retaining walls. Negotiations on the

subject terminated in September 1941 with the understanding that the rights

of the parties would have to be adjudicated in court if and when the

government started restoring the canal or the railroad started widening its

roadbed in these areas. 20

In 1949 the B & 0 began to dump earth, ballast, and cinders into the

canal between Point of Rocks and Brunswick, both within and outside its

reserved areas, without seeking or obtaining the government's prior

approval. By that time the Park Service had abandoned any thought of

restoring the canal in favor of another development concept that would

require its extensive filling. It therefore permitted the B & 0 to continue

this activity through the mid-1950s. 21 Outside the narrow Point of Rocks

and Catoctin railroad tunnels, where the B & 0 later rerouted one of the

"The NPS built the Harry T. Thompson Boat Center on the cleared Mole in 1959-60.

19J.etter, Hartz to Joseph M. Hernon, Dec. 3, 1941, enclosing deed subject to crossing

easement, C&O file 650.03, RG 79; letter, Hartz to Abe Fortas, Nov. 17, 1942, enclosing deed

for 12 parcels, ibid.

31Memorandum, NPS Director Newton B. Drury to Under Secretary of the Interior John J.

Dempsey, Oct. 3, 1941, ibid.

2lMemorandum, Thomas C. Tingle and Samuel H. Hower to Commanding Officer, U.S. Park

Police, Jan. 31, 1949, Administration, Maintenance, and Protection file 1460/C&O-5, Washington

National Records Center, Suitland, Md.; letter, E. E. Shiffer to Frank T. Gartside, July 31,1956,

C & 0 Administration and Protection file, C & 0 Canal NHP.
30 LEGACIES AND LOOSE ENDS

double tracks that had gone through the tunnels, the fill constricted the

canal to a V-shaped cross section as little as nine feet across and three feet

deep. Once again the railroad buried the canal--this time literally.
CHAPTER THREE

THE PARK SERVICE TAKES CHARGE

31

President Franklin D. Roosevelt had approved the purchase of the C & 0

Canal with public works funds as an unemployment relief measure. The

National Park Service was under pressure to justify that rationale with

results. Even before the government took title, Park Service officials

sought permission from the B & 0 Railroad to begin restoration and

improvement work with Civilian Conservation Corps camps under their

supervision. 1 ,

The first of two CCC camps assigned to the canal, designated NP-1,

was established June 18, 1938, and operated until April 1, 1942; the

second, NP-2, operated from October 5, 1938, to November 15, 1941.

Both camps were located on land acquired for the George Washington

Memorial Parkway between the canal and the river near Carderock,

Maryland. With the CCC following local custom regarding racial

segregation, all enrollees in these camps were black. "Major" Lewis G.

Heider, who had been acting superintendent of Vicksburg National Military

Park in Mississippi since 1933, came to the National Capital Parks (NCP)

office of the Park Service in July 1938 to superintend the work of the CCC,

NPS staff, and contractors on the canal project.

The work program, known officially as Federal Project 712, provided

for rehabilitation of the canal and recreational developments from

Georgetown to Seneca, Maryland. Plans called for repairing or replacing

masonry walls and timber gates in 23 locks; constructing stone retaining

walls and dams and repairing the towpath and dikes in the Widewater area

below Great Falls; providing water and sewer systems, parking and picnic

areas, and refreshment and canoe rental concessions at Great Falls; building

flood control structures at the Foundry Branch spillway; clearing the canal

channel and repairing the towpath throughout; repairing selected

lockhouses; recording all historic structures with architectural drawings;

undertaking necessary boundary surveys; collecting historical data;

establishing a fishing program; and planning additional recreational

developments at Georgetown, Carderock, and Great Falls. 2

'Letter, Arthur E. Demaray to Daniel Willard, Jr., June 4, 1938, George Washington

Memorial Parkway/C & 0 Canal file 500-10, National Capital Planning Commission, Record

Group 328, National Archives, Washington, D.C.; letter, Hillory A. Tolson to Willard, Aug. 8,

1938, ibid. Collection hereinafter cited as GWMP/C&O file 500-10, RG 328.

2Memorandum, NCP Acting Superintendent Frank T. Gartside to NPS Director, Nov. 8,

1939, ibid. The planned recreational development in Georgetown was a canoe concession in a

rear addition to the Francis Scott Key house, which fronted on M Streetjust west of Key Bridge.
32

Lock 20 and the Grear Falls Tavern , c. 1938.

THE PARK SERVICE TAKES CHARGE •

"Continued operation of the old tavern at Great Falls is contemplated

•

under lease or concession on a basis somewhat more like its original use, •

the Park Service announced upon its acquisition . "In recent years the old

tavern has continued to provide chicken dinners as of old, but in some

respects it has assumed more the atmosphere of a 'hot dog ' and refreshment

stand on the outside."? By early 1939 the projected food concession had

shifted to the upper deck of the planned canoe rental facility opposite the

tavern , which was now to be renovated as a public contact and

administration building. When an architect and an engineer closely

inspected the tavern in late 1940, however, they found it unsafe for any

occupancy. The joists, sills, and flooring were rotted and near collapse,

the rear upstairs porch was severely decayed , the plaster throughout was

loose and falling, and the wiring constituted a fire hazard . They recom-

'Interior Department press release dated Sept. 26, t938 , C & 0 Canal file 650.03, National

Capital Parks, National Park Service, Record Group 79, National Archives, Washington, D.C. •

Collection hereinafter cited as C&O file 650.03. RG 79.
CHAPTER THREE 33

mended that the contents be removed, the electricity be disconnected, and

the building be closed pending its complete rehabilitation."

During the project planning in November 1938, Iohn Nolen, Ir.,

- planning-director for theNational Capital Park and Planning Commission,

expressed concern about the effect of canal rehabilitation on land

acquisition for the George Washington Memorial Parkway. "I think we

have all recognized that the improvement of the Canal would make it more

expensive to buy the adjoining property," he wrote NCP&PC Chairman

Frederic A. Delano and NPS Director Arno B. Cammerer. "In order to

minimize this effect, I have suggested to Mr. [C. Marshall] Finnan [NCP

superintendent] that the first work at least be confined to the area around

Great Falls and farther up stream, to give us as much time as possible to

work out our program in the metropolitan area. ,,5

Nolen's account of a subsequent meeting with Finnan and other NPS

officials indicated acceptance of his suggestion: "On behalf of the

Commission I emphasized the fact that the Canal below Great Falls is part

of the George Washington Memorial Parkway and its development should

be planned in connection with the larger project. Also, that it was important

in the realization of this plan that in the lower section where the

Commission proposes to acquire adjoining land, not to encourage

speculation activity particularly by undue publicity. As the major schedule

of operations is to be progressive down stream from Seneca, this will

postpone to some extent the development program in the area where the

Commission has the problem of acquiring adjacent land. "6

The concern about publicity in the lower section did not rule out a

ceremony calling attention to the canal's rehabilitation, held at Lock 1 on

Washington's Birthday 1939. Among those present were Delano, Finnan,

Assistant Secretary of the Interior Oscar L. Chapman, retired lockkeepers

Sylvester Pennifield and Charles Stewart, and Mutt, a 38-year-old canal

mule who towed a barge containing the U.S. Navy Band from Rock Creek

into the lock. Arthur Godfrey was master of ceremonies for the program,

which was broadcast on local radio."

4Memorandum, NCP Superintendent C. Marshall Finnan to Arthur E. Demaray, Feb. 10,

1939, ibid.; memorandum, Dick Sutton to Francis F. Gillen, Dec. 10, 1940, ibid.

5Memorandum, Nolen to Delano and Cammerer, Nov. 7, 1938, GWMP/C&O file 500-10,

RG 328.

6Memorandum, Nolen to Delano, Nov. 10, 1938, ibid.

"Memorandum, Edward J. Kelly to Miss Ryan, Feb. 24, -1939, file 1460/C & 0 Canal,

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park.
34 THE PARK SERVICE TAKES CHARGE

Ceremony at Lock 1, February 22, 1939. (GSA's West Heating Plant flOW occupies area 10

right of lock.)

The CCC enrollees had begun work by clearing trees, other vegetation,

and accumulated debris from the dry canal bed above Lock 5. Their

activities prompted the first of repeated complaints over the years about the

destructive effects of canal rehabilitation on the natural surroundings. An

unhappy citizen relayed the observations of two hikers in the Carderock area: "These men are apparently cleaning out the bed of the C & 0 Canal but

the devastation they have wrought in all the surrounding woods is

appalling. My friends say that they have cut down the trees over large

areas and seem to have taken all sizes, good and bad. It seemed to them

that the destruction was for the purpose of supplying fuel for the camps;

and probably construction work in the camps. If that is the reason for the

slaughter, then we can expect increasing devastation as the camps move up

the Canal. . . . I know very well that consternation will prevail among the

hiking clubs of Washington when they learn what is going on up there. "8

Edmund B. Rogers, superintendent of Yellowstone National Park then

temporarily assigned to NPS headquarters, visited the camps with Lewis

Heider and Robert M. Coates, the CCC coordinator for National Capital

SLetter, w. M. Pomeroy to John Collier, Dec. 5, 1938, C&O file 650.03, RG 79.
CHAPTER THREE 35

CCC reconstruction of

Lock 15, April 4,

1940.

Parks. He reported that although some clearing had necessarily occurred,

it had been minimized. The camps burned coal, requiring no wood for

fuel. They appeared raw and disorderly only because they were new. They

would quickly be put in good order to avoid further criticism."

Soon afterward, in early 1939 , the first organization representing public

interest in the canal was formed under the auspices of the Advisory Board

of the Conduit Road [later MacArthur Boulevard] in Cabin John. The Civic

C & 0 Committee was chaired by Paul Bartsch of the Audubon Society of

the District of Columbia; other members included P. L. Ricker of the

Wildflower Preservation Society and George H. Collingswood of the

American Forestry Society. According to an NPS representative attending

a committee meeting one evening that December, they "had so much fun

discussing developments of the canal that they did not adjourn until after

midnight." Of particular concern to the members was better enforcement

of regulations against hunting and removal of plants.'?

Work on the canal proceeded expeditiously. By February 1940 the 23

locks from Georgetown to the inlet at Violettes Lock had been returned to

operating condition. The stonework of some had required only minor resetting and repointing; others had been completely reconstructed. All had

received new wooden gates, with ironwork salvaged from the old ones and

from locks further up the canal. At Widewater a large break from the 1936

flood (requiring some 30,000 cubic yards of fill), two small dams, and

9Memorandum, Rogers to Director, NPS, Dec. 10, 1938, ibid.

I°Letter, C. H. Godbolt to C. Marshall Finnan , Jan. 3, 1939, file 1460/C & 0 Canal, C & 0

Canal NHP; memorandum, Edwin L. Green, Jr. , to Victor H. Cahalane, Dec. 12, 1939, C&O

file 650.03, RG 79.
36

Lock 5 and lockhouse

before rehabilitation,

1939. (House

demolished 1957 for

parkway.)

THE PARK SERVICE TAKES CHARGE

some rubble wall had been repaired by the Corson & Gruman Company

under a $10 1,000 contract. In addition to clearing the channel, the CCC

had repaired lesser breaks and surface wash elsewhere along the towpath

and would proceed to develop picnic areas at Carderock and Great Falls.

Corson & Gruman received another contract for $15,500 in March to

reconstruct the spillway at Foundry Branch, just above Georgetown, and to

raise the walls of Lock 5 to the height of the adjoining concrete dam for

flood control. 11

The lockhouses at Locks 5,7, and 10 were upgraded during 1939 with

modern plumbing, heating, and electrical systems and dormer windows in

their attics. The Lock 5 lockhouse, occupied by Julia King, was the second

at its location--a frame structure on a stone basement dating from 1853. In

addition to the mechanical improvements, its exterior was largely rebuilt

over the existing frame. The stone house at Lock 7 had been completed in

August 1829, making it the first on the canal. After rehabilitation it

became the home of NCP Chief Naturalist Donald Edward McHenry and his

family. An occupied log house just south of the Great Falls Tavern, built

about 1884 and used by locktenders there, received lesser improvements. 12

Historians T. Sutton Jett and Rogers W. Young labored meanwhile in

the National Archives on the C & 0 Canal Company records. By January

1940 they had filled four large file boxes with bibliographic and subj ect

II "Status of Development, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal," February 1940, C&O file 650.03,

RG 79; memorandum, Arthur E. Demaray to A. J. Wirtz, Apr. 1, 1940, ibid.

12J)allas D. L. McGrew, "Outline Report of Architectural Work on the Restoration of the

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal for Recreational Use (Georgetown, D.C., to Seneca, Md.)," PS

Branch of Plans and Design, 1939, ibid.
CHAPTER THREE 37

Lock 7 and lockhouse after restoration, 1943.

notes from that massive collection and from relevant sources in other area

repositories. Young completed a 37-page "preliminary historical

memorandum" on the dimensions and construction of the canal to Seneca,

a 19-page memorandum on the construction of lockhouses to Seneca, and

a 14-page article on the general development of the canal. Jett and Young

together turned out a ninety-page study on the Great Falls area from 1858

to 1880 and a 225-page monograph on canal commerce in Georgetown to

1860. 13

On June 28, 1940, Secretary Ickes advised Frederic Delano that the

restored portion of the canal would be ready for rewatering on July 20. "It

is understood that land acquisition officials of the National Capital Park and

Planning Commission fear that the operation of the canal in the area

between Little Falls and Great Falls will result in increased valuations

being placed upon adjacent lands which are to be acquired for the proposed

George Washington Memorial Parkway," Ickes wrote. But he disagreed

that stalling would make much difference , and he was loath to deny the

public use of the rewatered canal during the summer season. "Unless you

13Young, "Final Report on Research Completed on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Project

between January , 1939, and January , 1940," Jan. 19, 1940, ibid.
38 THE PARK SERVICE TAKES CHARGE

have some opinion to the contrary, I propose to instruct the National Park

Service to turn water into the canal upon its completion," he concluded."

Delano requested and was granted a delay of "two or three weeks" to

help the NCP&PC complete the most important purchases. On August 2

the commission voted to offer no further objection to rewatering. At the

same time, it suggested posting the canal boundary to make clear that

adjoining owners had no legal right of access, as they would to a road.

This, it was hoped, would help avoid commercialization and further

enhancement of land values near Great Falls where some parkway land

remained unacquired.P

On August 9, an Interior Department press release announced that

water was flowing into the inlet lock below Seneca, so that the previously

dry portion down to Lock 5 would be full for public use on August 17.

Canoeists soon joined hikers and bicyclists along this scenic stretch. On

September 24-25 three members of the Washington Evening Star newspaper

staff accompanied NPS photographer Abbie Rowe and Donald McHenry on

an overnight canoe trip from Seneca to Georgetown--a journey given

prominent publicity in the October 13 Star.

Although all locks had been restored to operating condition, Lock 20

at Great Falls Tavern was the only one actually operated for the Star party

and on other special occasions. Canoeists normally had to portage around

the locks, an awkward situation that prompted McHenry and a few others

to advocate some kind of mechanical device for the purpose. Sutton Jett

dissented. He thought any such apparatus would be unsightly and suggested

waiting to see whether canoe use might increase enough to justify operation

of the locks for a small fee. His larger concern was that the historical

values of the canal were being subordinated to recreational development

and use. In his view, the visitor parking and concessions installed close to

the canal at Great Falls and the paddle boats rented there by the Welfare

and Recreational Association (predecessor of Guest Services Inc.) were

unwarranted intrusions on the historic canal scene. 16 Whether or not in

deference to Jett's opinion, no portaging devices were added.

The priority given recreation was reflected in the title administratively

applied to the watered section: "Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Recreational

14Letter, Ickes to Delano, June 28, 1940, Office Files of Frederic A. Delano, RG 328.

15Letter, Delano to Ickes, July 9, 1940, ibid.; letter, Delano to Ickes, Aug. 19, 1940, ibid.

"Memorandum, McHenry to Francis F. Gillen, Oct. 8, 1940, Administration, Maintenance,

and Protection file 1460/C&O-5, National Capital Parks, Washington National Records Center,

Suitland, Md.; memorandum, Harry T. Thompson to Robert C. Home, Oct. 2, 1940, ibid.;

memorandum, Jett to Irving C. Root, May 6, 1941, ibid. Hereinafter cited as file 1460/C&O-5,

WNRC.
CHAPTER THREE 39

Rudy Kauffmann and Elwood Baker ofEvening Star, Abbie Rowe and Donald E. McHenry of

NPS below Pennyfield Lock (Lock 22), September 24, 1940.

Waterway." In November 1940 NCP Acting Superintendent Francis F.

Gillen requested official approval of that designation along with formal

transfer of the section from NCP&PC's books to the national capital parks

system."

In response, NPS Acting Associate Director Hillory A. Tolson

explained the interim status of the bureau's relationship to the canal. The

Park Service was still serving as the agency designated by the Public Works

Administration to undertake the canal's development as a public works

project. Although the project was largely complete, the bureau's attorneys

recommended that none of the canal property be incorporated into the

national capital parks system until all outstanding issues with the receivers

of the C & 0 Canal Company were resolved. Tolson approved continuation

of the "recreational waterway" administrative designation and promised that

upon conclusion of negotiations with the receivers, NCP&PC would

transfer an appropriate part of the canal to the national capital parks

system. "The remaining portion of the canal property will thereafter be

designated as a historic site," he wrote. 18

'1Memorandum, Gillen to Arthur E. Demaray, Nov. 1, 1940, C&O file 650.03, RG 79.

18Memorandum, Tolson to Gillen, Nov. 8, 1940, ibid.
40 THE PARK SERVICE TAKES CHARGE

This suggested that only the unrestored canal above Seneca would be

treated primarily as a historic rather than a recreational resource.

Sympathizing with lett, Ronald F. Lee, the NPS chief historian,

recommended having the secretary of the interior designate the entire canal

as a national historic site. National historic site designation, he argued,

was warranted by the historical significance of the canal; it would rank the

canal with other properties so titled; it would help prevent uses contrary to

the general policies for national park system areas; and it would aid in

securing regular appropriations for administration, protection, maintenance,

and interpretation. 19

Lee maintained that the designation need not remove the canal from

National Capital Parks. At that time, however, NCP administered or

contained no national historic sites or other areas bearing "national" labels

and classed as discrete units of the national park system. Although it had

numerous constituent parts, NCP was a single unit of the system headed by

a single superintendent. A national historic site within or under NCP

would not square with contemporary practice. As a result, it was decided

that only "a suitable portion of the canal to be determined by existing

administrative and historical requirements" would be recommended to the

secretary for designation if the secretary's Advisory Board on National

Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings, and Monuments found it nationally

significant. 20

Having visited the canal while meeting in Washington in October 1941,

the board members were polled on the question by mail in February 1942.

All who responded were favorable. A month later, however, President

Roosevelt declared a moratorium on further national historic site

designations for the duration of the war. 21 The matter was dropped.

Although the canal did not become a national historic site, the Park

Service obtained Secretary Ickes's permission to place a "national historical

marker" where it entered Rock Creek in Georgetown. This plaque was

patterned on those installed at national historic sites and contained a brief

statement of the canal's history and significance. The District of Columbia

19Memorandum, Lee to Irving C. Root, Jan. 19, 1942, ibid.

2OMemorandum, Newton B. Drury to Members of the Advisory Board, Feb. 17, 1942, ibid.

21Ibid.; letter, Roosevelt to Ickes, Mar. 28, 1942, Historic Sites Survey file, NPS History

Division. The moratorium was evidently intended to apply to properties outside NPS jurisdiction

whose designation would entail new federal responsibilities. At that juncture, however, no one

was willing to press the issue.
CHAPTER mREE 41

chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution financed the plaque,

which was formally accepted in a ceremony at the site on June 20, 1942. 22

Planning for an extensive system of interpretive exhibits on the canal's

history had begun in late 1939. Sutton Jett envisioned "long and detailed

narrative markers" at frequent intervals along the restored section. "The

long twenty-three mile towpath, and the many points of access and visitor

concentration, demand a large number of markers if the story is to be

adequately told to all visitors, and if the system is to hold the attention of

the hiker and canoeist," he wrote Ronald Lee. "For only four markers to

a mile almost a hundred legends will be required. "23

Mercifully, Jett's proposal was pared down to 14 poster-sized narrative

exhibits, installed in September 1943. Even these were short-lived,

however. "The design and type of marker used was well received, and this

office had high hopes for this method of relating the history of the canal, "

NCP Assistant Superintendent Harry T. Thompson reported in 1950.

"Unfortunately, vandalism has made it necessary to almost abandon the

marker program. Nowhere in the National Capital Park system has the

public shown such little regard for park signs as along the towpath of the

canal. ,,24 The Great Falls Tavern was then undergoing the wholesale

rehabilitation called for a decade earlier and would assume the major

burden of historical interpretation when museum exhibits were installed

there in 1951.

Recreation and interpretation were combined when mule-drawn barge

trips were inaugurated in July 1941. Operated by the Welfare and

Recreational Association, Canal Clipper boarded passengers in

Georgetown, passed through Lock 4, and ran as far as Lock 5 before

returning. This was one of the first "living history" programs under Park

Service auspices, although the barge bore little resemblance to those used

historically. The excursions were popular and attracted much favorable

publicity for the canal. 25

Less popular among some Georgetown residents was the trash marring

the canal there. The NCP office received numerous complaints about this

22Memorandum, Newton B. Drury to Ickes, Mar. 11, 1942, C&O file 650.03, RG 79. The

plaque, which remains in place, was one of only two "national historical markers" ever fashioned.

The other had been given to Blair House, the future presidential guest house, in December 1940.

23Memorandum, Jett to Lee, Dec. 14, 1939, ibid.

24Letter, Thompson to Hillyer G. Norment, Sr., Oct. 30, 1950, C & a Canal January 1950-

December 1954 file, WNRC.

25pollowing their presentation of the national historical marker, the DAR ladies were treated

to a barge trip up the canal.
42 THE PARK SERVICE TAKES CHARGE

Historian T. Sutton Jett interpreting canal to barge passengers, 1941.

Canal Clipper passes Abner Cloud House, June 8, 1945.
CHAPTER THREE 43

situation but found it difficult to deal with. Litter floating down from the

feeder lock and deposited by canal neighbors was inevitable, Francis Gillen

told one persistent critic. "It must be remembered that the canal in the

.Georgetown area is operated as.a.commercial waterway [for.the mills] and _

not for its scenic or park value," he added, notwithstanding the recent

introduction of the barge trips there."

Another recreational activity that the Park Service sought to promote

was fishing. When it became known that the Service would acquire the

canal, Secretary of Commerce Daniel C. Roper wrote Ickes on behalf of his

department's Bureau of Fisheries to urge his active support of angling and

fish propagation. Responding for Ickes, Oscar Chapman declared that the

Service recognized the canal's fishing possibilities and would cooperate

with the Bureau of Fisheries to make the most of them. The bureaus

concluded a memorandum of agreement on the subject in July 1939. 27

Edwin L. Green, Jr., an assistant wildlife technician with the NPS

Wildlife Division, worked during 1939 on a fish program for the section of

the canal under restoration. He proposed developing fish rearing ponds

between Locks 14 and 15 and at a marsh by the canal below Widewater,

grading the canal bed at Spring Branch (above Great Falls) and above

Muddy Branch (near Pennyfield Lock) for additional shallow water on the

berm side, and creating a food fish rearing pond in the canal bed above

Violettes Lock (the upper limit of rewatering). "The construction of this

one item [the food fish pond] probably would do more to hold the

friendship of fisherman that are interested in the canal than anything else, "

Green declared. 28

Green left the Park Service early in 1940, however, and little was done

to follow through on his recommendations. By November 1941 the canal

was judged unsuitable for breeding game fish (perhaps from the realization

that it remained subject to flooding and would have to be drained

periodically for repairs). NCP then planned to stock it that winter at

Widewater and above Great Falls with fish large enough for harvest during

the coming year. The war intruded, but the plan was finally carried out in

26Letter, Gillen to Harry K. Boss, Mar. 10, 1942, file 1460/C&O-5, WNRC.

2'7Letter, Roper to Ickes, Apr. 7, 1938, C&O file 650.03, RG 79; letter, Chapman to Roper,

Apr. 19, 1938, ibid.; memorandum, Arthur E. Demaray to Chapman, July 20, 1939, ibid. (Just

as the agreement was concluded, the Bureau of Fisheries was transferred from Commerce to

Interior, where it would become part of the new Fish and Wildlife Service in 1940.)

28Memorandum, Green to Victor H. Cahalane, Oct. 10, 1939, ibid.
44 THE PARK SERVICE TAKES CHARGE

1946 when the Fish and Wildlife Service stocked the canal with bass,

crappie, sunfish, bluegills, and perch."

In September 1944 the Park Service permitted the Maryland Game and

Inland Fish Commission to impound water in the canal between Town

Creek and Lock 71 in Oldtown, a distance of 4.6 miles. The resulting

ponds, constructed in 1945, became known as Battie Mixon's Fishing Hole

after the Allegany County game warden who conceived the idea and

directed the volunteer sportsmen who did the work. They were stocked by

the state. With NPS permission, the Oldtown Sportsmen's Club made

additional improvements to the area in later years and sponsored an annual

fishing "rodeo." 30

Beyond occasional patrols by the U.S. Park Police and inspection trips

by other NCP representatives, the Park Service itself did little with the

upper canal. From the beginning of Service involvement, some bureau

officials and western Marylanders expressed concern about the low priority

given the great majority of the resource. The secretary of the Izaak Walton

League chapter in Brunswick, learning that the canal would be restored

only below Seneca, urged that rewatering be extended up to the next darn

at Harpers Ferry. In 1939 Howard E. Rothrock, NPS acting chief

naturalist, recommended restoration of the entire canal. "It has been stated

that nothing in or near Washington can compare in potential outdoor nature

educational opportunities with the canal as a whole ... ," he wrote.

"Stopping the geologic, biologic, and historic stories at Seneca is comparable to an arbitrary conclusion of a textbook at the end of the first few

chapters. The upper regions of the canal penetrate life zones and geologic

formations which are needed for the complete understanding of the area

traversed between portions below Seneca." 31

The National Capital Parks office was already receiving complaints

about mosquito breeding and odors from stagnant water, sewage, and other

dumping in the upper reaches of the canal. In August 1939 NCP Acting

Superintendent Frank T. Gartside sought to determine the official Park

Service position on the future of the canal above Seneca. NPS Acting

Director John R. White was unhelpful. "The general policy to be followed

appears to be not yet clearly defined," he replied. Associate Director

29Interior Department press release of Feb. 1, 1946, file 1460/C&O-5, WNRC.

3OLeUer, Arthur E. Demaray to E. Lee LeCompe, Sept. 15, 1944, Potomac Fish and Game

Club file, Office of Land Use Coordination, National Capital Region, NPS; permit to Oldtown

Sportsmen's Club, July 18, 1952, ibid.

3lLetter, C. R. Shewbridge to Arno B. Cammerer, Aug. 26, 1938, file 1460/C & 0 Canal,

C & 0 Canal NHP; memorandum, Rothrock to Acting Supervisor, Branch of Research and

Information, Aug. 2, 1939, C&O file 650.03, RG 79.
CHAPTER THREE 45

Arthur E. Demaray confirmed White's impression: "We had never

developed a policy but had intended that after the work to Seneca is

completed we would study the possibilities beyond that point. ,,32

- White solicited Frederic Delano's advice on the- subject. -Delano

referred the request to John Nolen, the NCP&PC planning director. Nolen

recommended that the Park Service devote all development funds then

available to the section below Seneca, undertaking only such work beyond

that point as was necessary to protect canal property. He favored

postponing any decision on development and use beyond Seneca until the

restored waterway was in use long enough to determine the need for

extending it to Point of Rocks and possibly further. Meanwhile, he

suggested, the Public Roads Administration (formerly the Bureau of Public

Roads) should be asked to review the studies begun in 1935 for a parkway

along the Potomac, and the Army Corps of Engineers should be asked to

consider the waterway and parkway development possibilities in connection

with its current study of flood control and power development in the

Potomac River Basin. Delano endorsed Nolen's recommendationsY

By this time William D. Byron, western Maryland's representative in

Congress, was pressing for restoration of the canal between Dams 4 and 5

as a WPA (Work Projects Administration) project. Byron called on Ickes

in October to complain about the delay in getting the project underway.

Asked for a status report, Frank Gartside cited the railroad reservation

problem: the government did not yet have sufficient title to restore the

waterway to minimum specifications (bottom width of 14 feet, depth of six

feet) throughout the proposed project area. He also doubted that "the

development of this section for local use would warrant the cost of

maintenance and restoration. ,,34

Politics nevertheless dictated support for the project. Conrad L. Wirth,

chief of the NPS Branch of Recreation, Land Planning, and State

Cooperation, appeared before the NCP&PC in November and secured its

endorsement. The Park Service would proceed, Byron was told, if he could

obtain the sponsor's contribution required for WPA projects--in this case,

$15,000 from the Washington County commissioners and the town of

Williamsport. By August 1940 the sponsors had pledged only $5,000,

32Memo, Gartside to Acting Director, NPS, Aug. 2, 1939, GWMP/C&O file 5<>0-10, RG 328;

memorandum, White to Gartside, Aug. 5, 1939, ibid.; letter, Demaray to White, Aug. 9, 1939,

C&O file 650.03, RG 79.

33Letter, White to Delano, Aug. 7, 1939, GWMP/C&O file 500-10, RG 328; letter, Delano

to Nolen, Aug. 22, 1939, ibid.; memorandum, Nolen to Delano, Sept. 11, 1939, ibid.

34Memorandum, Ickes to Demaray, Oct. 27, 1939, C&O file 650.03, RG 79; memorandum,

Gartside to Director, NPS, Nov. 8, 1939, GWMP/C&O file 500-10, RG 328.
46 THE PARK SERVICE TAKES CHARGE

however. The Interior Department sought a transfer of funds from the

WPA so that the project could go forward entirely with federal money, but

the WPA refused. The project went no further."

This was just as well, for the Park Service had its hands full caring for

the section of the canal just rewatered. In September and October serious

leaks were discovered just below Widewater. The CCC lowered the water

level, built dams above and below the leaks, and pumped out the remaining

water between them. The rock underlying the canal bottom was found to

be fractured, requiring removal of the sandy overlay and grouting to seal

the cracks. This major task, also handled by the CCC, halted canoeing

from that point down to Lock 5 for the rest of the season."

America's entry into World War II at the end of 1941 forced severe

cutbacks in Park Service operations. The C & 0 Canal, which was not

officially a unit of the national park system or even the national capital

parks system, was especially hard-hit. War mobilization brought an end to

the CCC program, on which the Service had relied for canal maintenance.

Troops occupied the vacated CCC barracks at Carderock and the Great

Falls Tavern to guard the intake works of the Washington Aqueduct, which

supplied the city's water.

Less than a year later, in October 1942, another major flood struck the

Potomac Valley. Although less severe than that of 1936, it ravaged much

of the 1939-40 canal restoration work. The large filled towpath

embankment at the lower end of Widewater again washed out, and the

Army took the opportunity to fence off the canal between there and Swains

Lock (Lock 21, the next above Great Falls). There was a break at Lock 7,

and damage to the feeder dam at Little Falls and other breaks below Lock

5 left Georgetown without canal water. The repair cost between Georgetown and Great Falls was estimated at $250,000. 37

Under wartime conditions only the portion below the Little Falls dam

could be repaired. The Corps of Engineers repaired the feeder area at Lock

5 so that water could reach an emergency pumping station it installed on the

canal to supply the Dalecarlia Reservoir if the conduit from Great Falls

were bombed or sabotaged. With a special appropriation obtained in

35Extract from minutes of 144th meeting, NCP&PC, Nov. 16-17, 1939, GWMP/C&O file

500-10, RG 328; letter, Elbert K. Burlew to Byron, Dec. 2, 1939, ibid.; letter, Burlew to F. C.

Harrington, Aug. 8, 1940, file 1460/C&O-5, WNRC; letter, Howard O. Hunter to Burlew, Aug.

14, 1940, ibid.

36p. E. Smith, "Report on Leaks Below Widewater," Oct. 18, 1940, file 1460/C&O-5,

WNRC.

37Memorandum, Arthur E. Demaray to Secretary of the Interior, Oct. 23, 1942, file

1460/C&O-5, WNRC.
CHAPTER TIiREE

CCC repairs towpath break at Widewater, September 10, 1940.

CCC recontructs towpath at Widewater, July 9, 1941.

47
48 THE PARK SERVICE TAKES CHARGE

March 1943, Corson & Gruman was awarded a $149,367 contract in June

to repair the feeder dam and perform other work needed to restore water to

the Georgetown mills by that fall. Work on the dam continued in 1944,

when a concrete cap was installed over two hundred feet of its length to

better hold its relaid stones in place."

At war's end in August 1945, the Park Service promptly began planning

and negotiating with the Corps of Engineers to accommodate the public at

Great Falls and to repair and rewater the canal from Widewater down to

Lock 5. A major cleanup job was required to clear fallen trees and brush

from the previously fenced area, normally one· of the heaviest used

stretches of the towpath. 39 Because the Widewater break could not then

be repaired, a dike was placed across the canal below it, and arrangements

were made to fill the canal from there down to Lock 5 with water from the

Washington Aqueduct. This was done in 1946, but the volume of water

that the Service was able to obtain from the Corps proved inadequate to

maintain a proper level in the canal. Work on the Widewater break did not

get underway until 1954 and was not completed until the fall of 1957.

Until 1946 the legality of funding such work was somewhat doubtful,

inasmuch as the C & 0 Canal was not an official park system unit and

lacked legislation authorizing appropriations for it. Working with the

Bureau of the Budget, the Park Service prepared a bill to rectify this

situation for the canal and miscellaneous other NPS holdings and activities

outside established park boundaries. "The activities for which definite

statutory recognition is here sought have, in the past, been authorized from

year to year in acts appropriating moneys for the National Park Service, "

Secretary Ickes wrote in transmitting the bill to Congress. "However, some

of these customary appropriation provisions may conceivably be vulnerable

to a point of order, based upon the absence of any express mention of the

particular activity concerned in the general language of the laws that they

are designed to implement." The bill, enacted without difficulty on August

1, 1946, legitimized future appropriations for the "administration,

protection, maintenance, and improvement of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. "40

38Ibid.; letter, Demaray to E. A. Schmitt, Dec. 4, 1942, file 14601 C&O-5, WNRC; letter,

Irving C. Root to Rep. Joseph Clark Baldwin, Apr. 2, 1943, ibid.; Letter, Root to Corson &

Groman, June 7, 1943, ibid.; Steven H. Lewis, "Stabilization Study, Little Falls Skirting Canal,

Maryland and District of Columbia," August 1966, History Division.

3'1IugoHabluetzell, oral history transcript, June 23, 1971, NPS Harpers Ferry Center Library,

Harpers Ferry, W. Va.

«>Utter, Ickes to Sam Rayburn, Feb. 7, 1947, in H. Rept. 2459, 79th Congress; Public Law

79-633, Aug. 7, 1946, U.S. Statutes at Large 60: 885.
CHAPTER FOUR

THE PARKWAY PROPOSITION

49

The 1942 flood, u-ndoing much of what the National Park Service had

lately done below Seneca, all but ended discussion of restoring the C & 0

Canal above that point. Clearly it would be trouble enough to maintain a

waterway along its lower 22 miles. What, then, to do with the remainder

of the canal, stretching another 162 miles to Cumberland?

As acquired, this long strip of real estate was virtually unmanageable

as parkland. Whereas the lower canal was buffered by lands being

purchased for the George Washington Memorial Parkway in Maryland and

the Palisades Parkway in the District of Columbia, the upper portion

enjoyed no such protection. The Park Service held only the canal

company's narrow right-of-way, averaging about 230 feet wide and thus

seldom extending much beyond the towpath embankment on the river side

and a like distance on the berm or inland side. Between the canal and river

was much private land, used for homes, summer camps, and agriculture,

to which many owners gained access along the towpath. Other private

development closely bordered the berm. Because the canal company had

made little effort to maintain the right-of-way after navigation ceased in

1924, intrusions by squatters and encroachments by neighboring owners

were common. In places farmers had run fences across the dry bed and

towpath so that their livestock could cross to and from the river.

Making this part of the canal suitable for public recreation and

enjoyment would require acquisition or control of the riverside land and

enough land on the berm for a scenic buffer. But there was no legal

authority to acquire more land above Great Falls, and appropriations for the

purpose were unlikely in any event. With few exceptions, Congress

required lands for federal parks to be donated until the 1960s (when it

authorized appropriations for land acquisition in the Cape Cod National

Seashore act of 1961 and earmarked federal revenues for the purpose in the

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965). In the case of the canal,

this meant that additional lands would have to be purchased and donated by

the state of Maryland--a remote prospect unless Maryland could be enticed

by some compensating federal benefit.

Even if the right-of-way were cleared of private intrusions and the

necessary lands acquired, it seemed unlikely that the dry canal would

attract enough recreational use to justify its development and maintenance

as national parkland. The Park Service prided itself as a people-serving

agency, and the numbers of people who would be served by proposed park

acquisitions and improvements weighed heavily in its calculations. The

congressmen who authorized and appropriated money for these activities
50 THE PARKWAY PROPOSITION

were also influenced by public use statistics. Hikers, bicyclists, birders,

and others who might enjoy the upper canal in its ruined, revegetated state

constituted a small and silent minority in those years.

As if these circumstances were insufficiently challenging to the

C & O's custodians, there loomed the real possibility that long stretches of

the canal would disappear from view. As directed by Congress in 1936 and

1937, the Army's Corps of Engineers surveyed the Potomac River basin for

flood control and other improvements. At the beginning of 1945 it

proposed a system of 14 multiple-purpose reservoirs on the Potomac and its

tributaries. Construction would begin with a 119-foot-high dam at

Riverbend, just above Great Falls, which would flood an area extending

nearly to Harpers Ferry (and impound the Monocacy River past Frederick).

Next would come a lOS-foot dam at Chain Bridge, flooding the Little Falls

area almost to Great Falls. Later Potomac dams would be built just below

Harpers Ferry, flooding the lower town and back past Shepherdstown; at

Rocky Marsh Run above Shepherdstown, flooding to Williamsport; at

Pinesburg above Williamsport, flooding to Hancock; and above Little

Orleans, flooding to Paw Paw. Such prominent canal features as the

Monocacy and Antietam aqueducts would be inundated along with 78 miles

of the towpath.'

Although the Chain Bridge and Riverbend dams and a small one at Bear

Island would submerge about 41 miles of the C & 0, the Corps report

noted, "most of this portion of the canal is now inundated by periodic

floods which makes effective maintenance most difficult and expensive."

The lake formed behind the Chain Bridge dam "would create an attractive

and much needed recreational area for a large portion of the inhabitants of

Washington." The Riverbend dam could be operated to enhance the flow

over Great Falls during summer daylight hours and could serve as the

planned bridge for the George Washington Memorial Parkway near that

point (page 8). Small locks at the Chain Bridge, Bear Island, and

Riverbend dams would allow pleasure craft to navigate from Washington

to Harpers Ferry. 2

The Park Service officially opposed the Corps plan. The reservoirs

with their drawdowns would poorly serve public recreation, Associate

IU.S. Department of War, Office of the Middle Atlantic Division Engineer, "Public Notice

Relative to Proposed Improvement of Potomac River and Its Tributaries," Jan. 1, 1945, copy in

files at Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park.

2Potomac River and Tributaries, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, Letter

from the Secretary ofWar transmitting a letter from the Chief of Engineers, United States Army,

dated March 8, 1946, submitting a report ... on a Preliminary Examination and Survey of the

Potomac River and Tributaries ... , H. Doc. 622, 79th Congress, May 28, 1946, p. 84.
POTOMAC RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

VA., W.VA., PA., MD., AND D.C.

PROJECTS CONSIDERED ICllll 0' Mil.'

'0 , 0 '0 ro WI 1,1 JTFt:EI~~~=-_-==':""~-=I:

THE BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HAR80RS

FEBRUARY 194~

poltl'S 0' ENGINEERS U. S. ARMY

e

boundar.,

-LEGENDPROJECT NAME) -,..-

<,

r-

!

II

.'AltTII!NT
52 THE PARKWAY PROPOSITION

Director Arthur E. Demaray declared, while "the adverse effects of the

dams on Federal park properties would greatly outweigh any possible

benefits. ,,3 At a public hearing in the Interior Department Auditorium on

April 3, 1945, only three persons out of more than 1,000 attending spoke

in favor of the plan; opposing speakers included most members of Congress

from the affected area." The opposition caused the chief of engineers and

the secretary of war to withhold endorsement of the plan, but the concerns

that had prompted it remained. Pressure for dams was sure to resurface.

If the canal corridor was to be retained and maintained as parkland in

the face of these problems and challenges, a development plan was needed

that would persuade Maryland to acquire and donate more land, lead to

substantial public use, and entail levels of public investment and support

sufficient to deter future reservoir plans. Devereux Butcher, executive

secretary of the National Parks Association, returned to the idea of canal

restoration. "It seems to me that one of the surest ways to keep the wouldbe dam builders of the Potomac licked is to repair the canal and develop it

as much as possible for recreation, " he wrote the superintendent of National

Capital Parks." With good reason, however, few if any Park Service

officials viewed this as feasible. They turned instead to another

development concept: that of a parkway.

A parkway road paralleling the canal as far as Great Falls was an

integral part of the George Washington Memorial Parkway development

plan, and in 1935 planners with the Park Service, the National Capital Park

and Planning Commission, and the Bureau of Public Roads had considered

its extension upriver (page 11). NPS landscape architect Malcolm

Kirkpatrick and NCP&PC landscape architect Thomas C. Jeffers had both

strongly opposed locating such a road on or alongside the canal. 6 Soon

after the Park Service acquired the canal, Under Secretary of the Interior

Harry Slattery advised Sen. Millard E. Tydings of Maryland (in a letter

prepared by the Service) that "a scenic highway along the route of the

canal" was not contemplated; rather, it was "the general plan to preserve

3Letter, Demaray to Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, Mar. 28, 1945, files, C & 0

Canal NHP.

"Memorandum, Demaray to Francis S. Ronalds, Apr. 4, 1945, ibid.

SLetter, Butcher to Irving C. Root, Dec. 21, 1945, Administration, Maintenance, and

Protection file 1460/C&O-5, National Capital Parks, Washington National Records Center,

Suitland, Md. Hereinafter cited as file 1460/C&O, WNRC.

6Memorandum, Kirkpatrick to Thomas Vint, Apr. 24, 1935, C & 0 Canal file, Office Files

of John F. Nolen, Jr., National Capital Planning Commission, Record Group 328, National

Archives, Washington, D.C.; Jeffers's concurrence on Nolen's copy.
CHAPTER FOUR 53

the area [above Seneca] for recreational usage and for the conservation of

wildlife. "7 After 1942, however, official sentiment began to shift.

In addition to the flood, pressures from Cumberland made preservation

----or-restoration--of-the-upper-canalan--increasingly .unlikelyprospect.... On ----- ----- ---

behalf of local interests, the Maryland General Assembly passed a

resolution in May 1941 requesting Congress and the secretary of the

interior to convey the former canal company lands within Cumberland to

the city for flood protection, highway construction, and "the elimination of

conditions, within the canal basin, detrimental to the health and comfort of

the citizens of said City." Two miles of the canal would be converted to

a road connecting with the local airport; another 2.12 miles would become

a riverside drive joining State Route 51. 8

The Park Service rejected the city's request, citing Corps of Engineers

plans for a levee along the upper portion and the uncertain state of its own

plans. After the flood, however, Service officials were more receptive to

such proposals. When Cumberland's city attorney met with NCP

Superintendent Irving C. Root in June 1943 to advocate a parkway drive

along the entire canal to Cumberland, Root was willing to consider it.?

In late 1945 the Corps had advanced its plan for flood protection for

Cumberland and neighboring Ridgeley, West Virginia, and sought Park

Service concurrence in those aspects of it affecting the canal property. The

dam that had fed the canal terminus would be removed, effectively

precluding rewatering of the 78 miles above Dam 5; a levee would bury the

last mile of the canal and towpath; and the grade of a former basin used as

a ballpark would be raised. "This Department is now confronted with the

necessity of making a decision as to the future use of the canal property in

the Cumberland area," Arthur Demaray wrote Secretary Ickes. "This

Service is of the opinion that, after eight years of administration and study,

the time has come when it would be advantageous to formulate a policy for

the recreational use of the canal as a whole. "10

7Letter, Slattery to Tydings, Jan. 23, 1939, C & 0 Canal file 650.03, National Capital Parks,

National Park Service, Record Group 79, National Archives, Washington, D.C. Collection

hereinafter cited as C&O file 650.03, RG 79.

8HouseJoint Resolution 8, May 29, 1941; memorandum, Irving C. Root to Newton B. Drury,

Oct. 13, 1941, C&O file 650.03, RG 79.

9Letter, Newton B. Drury to Charles M. See, Oct. 30, 1941, C&O file 650.03, RG 79; NCP

staff meeting minutes, June 2, 1943, file 1460/C&O, WNRC.

IOMemorandum, William G. Hayward, P. E. Smith, and Merel S. Sager to Irving C. Root,

Oct. 24, 1945, file 1460/C&O, WNRC; letter, Col. John M. Johnson to Root, 'Oct. 25, 1945,

ibid.; memorandum, Demaray to Ickes, Dec. 11, 1945, ibid.
54 THE PARKWAY PROPOSITION

Demaray cast the flood control project in positive terms: "The

proposal provides for a low levee along the top of the towpath, and the

filling in of the canal and its adjacent areas behind the levee which would

preclude the future use of the canal in the City of Cumberland for canal

purposes, but would provide much usable recreational land not subject to

inundation." He asked for approval to cooperate with the Corps on the

project. With respect to the overall canal property, he wrote: ''It is

believed that the 23 miles of restored canal should be ample to disclose to

the visiting public the historical aspects of the canal, and also should be

ample to actively maintain as a recreational area. The restoration and

maintenance of a greater area would involve great expense. The canal

property between Seneca and Cumberland, Maryland, has possibilities for

use as an easy grade, highly scenic parkway and many other park uses. ,,11

The Interior Department's assistant solicitor questioned the Park

Service's authority to transfer canal property to the Corps and to develop

a parkway rather than maintain or restore the canal. In response, NCP

Senior Attorney Sidney McClellan cited the authority for parkway

construction in the National Industrial Recovery Act (under which the canal

had been acquired) and a July 29, 1938, letter from PWA Administrator

Ickes to Secretary Ickes allotting $2.5 million for purchase of the C & 0

"and the construction of a parkway as well as the rehabilitation of the

existing canal as an historic site." Although the parkway referred to in the

allotment letter could not have been more than the George Washington

Memorial Parkway to Great Falls, present purposes were better served by

construing the reference more broadly. 12

"In view of the foregoing, it appears to me that the dominant thing

contemplated was the construction of a parkway," McClellan continued.

"I do not think that the phrase 'as well as the rehabilitation of the existing

canal as an historic site' was used with the intention that the entire canal

was to be restored." He cited the prohibitive cost of restoration and the

fact that the right-of-way was frequently too narrow for both the canal and

a parkway. Because the Park Service had authority to construct a parkway,

it had discretion to determine which portions of the canal would be restored

and which would be filled for the road. Also, it would necessarily have to

cooperate with the Corps on flood control to protect the property.

"Accordingly, there is no legal objection, in my opinion, to filling the canal

"Memorandum, Demaray to Ickes, Dec. 11, 1945, ibid.

I~emorandum, McClellan to Harry Edelstein, Jan. 10, 1946, ibid.
CHAPTER FOUR 55

W" ............

i th r1iTt

_ ....... _

~t...... thp- pointe: ..............here __ in.a.a ouestion ..... ~e: _... a sten ... -.I'''toward 'lV .a. .... it(! conversion "'...,••• '" ....... into'"

a parkway," McClellan concluded. 13

The proposal for cooperation with the Corps was made more specific

..- _.. as.to-what-the.Corps.would-be-permitted-to-do -on· canal-property..·N0 .land.----. . - - .-

would be transferred to the War Department (the Corps' parent agency),

and the Corps could be required to supply water to the canal downstream

from the filled area. When Ickes himself received the amended proposal,

however, he criticized the change of thinking that underlay it. "When we

acquired the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal property I thought that we were

buying it as a canal and not as a right of way for a road," he replied;"

Before the NPS could respond, Ickes resigned and left office on

February 15, 1946. Demaray thus made his case to Oscar L. Chapman; the

acting secretary. The canal, he wrote, would cost an estimated $10 million

to restore and at least $300,000 per year thereafter to maintain--sums

unlikely to be provided by Congress. In the absence of restoration, there

was no justification for opposing the flood control project, particularly as

it would improve recreational opportunities in Cumberland. A parkway to

Cumberland had not been decided upon but must be considered as an

option. Chapman agreed, signing his approval on March 29.15

The canal parkway readily attracted support in western Maryland, an

economically depressed region served by few good roads. Working with

the Park Service, 1. Glenn Beall, western Maryland's congressman,

introduced legislation in the next Congress for a feasibility study of the

proposal. Under Secretary Chapman recommended enactment of the bill

in a March 29, 1948, letter to the House Public Lands Committee: "Above

Seneca the canal has been so seriously damaged that it is believed that its

restoration for strictly recreational purposes by the Federal Government

would prove too costly. A cursory study would indicate that it might be

feasible, however, to construct a scenic highway along the route of the old

canal from Great Falls to Cumberland, Md. . . . The Potomac, with its

many picturesque rapids and lake-like pools walled in by wooded

mountainsides, constitutes a scenic wonderland now hidden from the eyes

of the millions of Americans who could enjoy its inspirational beauty if it

13Ibid.

14Memorandum, Demaray to Ickes, Jan. 24, 1946, ibid.; Ickes quote in memorandum,

Demaray to Oscar L. Chapman, Mar. 6, 1946, ibid.

ISMemorandum, Demaray to Chapman, Mar. 6, 1946, ibid.
56 THE PARKWAY PROPOSITION

were opened to their view through the establishment of the proposed

parkway. "16

Beall's bill passed the House and Senate without debate and was signed

into law on June 10. It authorized the expenditure of $40,000 for a "joint

reconnaissance study" by the Park Service and Bureau of Public Roads "to

determine the advisability and practicability of constructing a parkway

along the route of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, including a report of

estimated cost. "17

The institutional commitment to the parkway concept was by then

sufficient to leave little doubt as to the study's outcome. The NPS-BPR

report, transmitted to Congress in August 1950, declared that a parkway

would be both practical and advisable if the state of Maryland would donate

additional land for the right-of-way. It would provide a suitable approach

to the nation's capital, permit recreational developments along its route,

and enable full benefits to be realized from the federal investment in the

canal property. It would also contribute to civil defense, being a controlled

access road "well into the mountains with the assurance of rapid

uninterrupted traffic in time of need. "18

The road would have a 24-foot-wide pavement with eight-foot shoulders. For 22 of the 32 miles between Great Falls and Point of Rocks and

for the last three miles at Cumberland there would be two roadways,

straddling the canal where possible. Along the rewatered section above

Great Falls there were" tight spots aggregating in length about 2-1/2 miles"

where it would "be necessary to throw the canal back into the cliff to get

the rock needed for the initial roadway" and provide width for the second

roadway. 19 The report minimized the extent to which the canal prism

above the rewatered section would be obliterated, but the accompanying

drawings showed the road coinciding with the canal along much of its

length, being diverted to one side primarily at locks.

Dick Sutton, a Park Service architect on the parkway planning team,

had found the canal aqueducts in bad shape: "The stage has been reached

where on every structure the spandrels have either collapsed or are bulging

appreciably and will fail in a relatively short time unless immediate steps

are taken to correct the conditions." He recommended repairing most of

16JI.R. 5155, 80th Congress; letter, Chapman to Rep. Richard J. Welch in H. Rept. 1684,

80th Congress.

l1Congressional Record 94: 4636,6763; Public Law 80-618, U.S. Statutes at Large 62: 351. .

ISU.S. Congress, House, Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Report, H. Doc. 687, 81st Congress,

Aug. 16, 1950, pp. iii-iv.

19Jbid., p. 34.
CHAPTER FOUR 57

Proposed C & 0 Canal Parkway terminus in NPS parkway report, 1950.

them to carry the road; doing so would preserve them and would cost less

than new bridges. It was unlikely that money would otherwise be provided

to preserve them, he felt, and in some cases there were no good alternative

locations for bridges. He named the Catoctin, Antietam, Conococheague,

and Great Tonoloway aqueducts as being too deteriorated or unsuitably

positioned for the road; but the final report declared that all aqueducts

could be used. The road would also be run through the Paw Paw Tunnel. 20

In addition to serving recreational users, the parkway was expected to

attract much ordinary traffic seeking to bypass such congested centers as

Frederick and Hagerstown. 21 But it was justified primarily in terms of its

scenic, historical, and recreational attributes--sometimes in purple prose:

The embers of past historic conflagration still smolder along the path of the canal and

would glow anew with the first stir of public interest. The scenery runs the full cycle from

tranquil wide waters and pastoral river slopes to the greater excitement of the winding,

twisting river palisades and ultimately the scale of the mountain valley. This retinue of

interests holds attraction for the tourist camper, the sportsman and the day outing party in

all degrees from the novice to the sophisticate.

3lMemorandum, Sutton to Thomas C. Vint, Apr. 11, 1949, C&O file 650.03, RG 79;

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Report, p. 15.

2tChesapeake & Ohio Canal Report, p. 32. It was understood that under the terms of the

sales contract with the canal company receivers, commercial traffic could not use the parkway

without the consent of the B & 0 Railroad (ibid., p. 2; see p. 19 above).
58 THE PARKWAY PROPOSITION

The environment of the canal and river immediately generates in one an enthusiasm to

see these 170 miles of delightful scenery unfolded on parkway terms. The incentive to link

together the many discoveries that have been made is like the desire often experienced and

universally understood to transform the black and white of printed words to a production

in full color.P

The report cited the "well-established policy in the development of

parkways of this character" of states acquiring and donating the needed

lands. About a hundred acres per mile had been found necessary and

obtained in this manner for the Blue Ridge and Natchez Trace parkways.

The government already held about 28 acres per mile along the canal,

requiring a lesser commitment by Maryland to make up the balance of some

11,900 acres. "The additional lands ... are not of an expensive character

and it should not be difficult for the State to acquire them," the report

stated. 23

The cost of road construction was estimated at $16,162,000. The

project would also include restoration of selected canal features, including

rewatering of three segments totaling 26 miles, at a cost of $319,000;

restoration and repair of lockhouses and other historic buildings at a cost

of $104,000; and construction of new buildings and facilities, including a

headquarters and museum at Cumberland, costing $522,700. The grand

total came to $17,107,700. 24

Walter S. Sanderlin, a history professor who had written and published

his dissertation on the history of the C & 0, summarized the canal's history

in an appendix to the report. He concluded by endorsing the parkway

project as "best adapted for the achievement of such varying objectives as

the provision of recreation areas, the preservation of selected canal

structures as historic sites and the protection of the inherent beauty of the

valley. ,,25

Ronald F. Lee and Herbert E. Kahler, the ranking historians in the

Park Service, and T. Sutton Jett and Rogers W. Young, the Service historians who had been most closely involved with the canal, joined in the

endorsement. Young recorded their consensus after a meeting that May:

"We are in general agreement with the final conclusions set forth in the

draft of the report regarding the overall plan for the Parkway, the use of

historic structures, and the development proposed for the right-of-way of

22Jbid., p. 30.

:DIbid., pp. 41, 42.

24Ibid., pp. 40, 80-84.

25Ibid., p. 52.
CHAPTER FOUR 59

the .. a_ Olti .&.__Canal Wp feel ..&..... , _.a._ that ..........the_ b- aeneral .._.&. ... conclusions """ &&_.a.w..,....v ••.., .... r",f1",r-t "".&...1.__ " the '" .. "" thinkinz t..l .&..1 J. 6 Of..I.

all of the groups that have participated in this study of the proposed

Parkway, including the administrative personnel of National Capital Parks,

- ------- --- .the __Ser.vice,_and_the_Bureau_oLEublic_Roads,__ as_welLas--theeng-ineers,-- ---- - ----

landscape architects, architects, and historians. "26

The next step was to obtain legal authority to accept the needed lands

from Maryland. While the parkway report was still in draft, Representative

Beall introduced another bill for this purpose. The bill referred

presumptively to "present parkway lands" between Great Falls and

Cumberland and authorized donations "sufficient to increase the present

parkway width to an average of one hundred acres per mile for the entire

length of the parkway." Land exchanges were also.authorized, primarily

to permit a proposed swap of some canal land in Cumberland for some

B & 0 Railroad land along the canal. Again with Interior Department

support, the bill slid unopposed through Congress to become law on

September 22, 1950. 27 In effect, Congress had approved the parkway.

Only now were dissenting voices raised. On October 30 the

conservation director of the Izaak Walton League of America informed NPS

Assistant Director Conrad L. Wirth that some of the league's Maryland

members were "quite incensed over the proposals of the National Park e Service to build a road, or highway, along the C. and O. Canal," believing

that "the area could serv.e a far greater value if kept in a natural state." In

a response prepared by Sutton Jett, NCP Superintendent Edward J. Kelly

defended the bureau's plan: "In recommending the construction of a

parkway along this route, the National Park Service does not feel that it has

violated the principle of conservation for which it has long stood. Under

existing conditions, many miles of the canal right-of-way are now inaccessible for policing and fire protection, and use of the river and Federal

properties is limited largely to private individuals and clubs, many of which

have little regard for the wildlife and natural features of the area. The

construction of the proposed parkway under National Park Service policies

governing the conservation of natural and historical features would result

in a minimum disturbance of the area, and would at the same time make

26Memorandum, Young to Ronald F. Lee, May 12, 1950, file 1460/C & 0 Canal, C & 0

Canal NHP.

2'7JI.R. 8534, 81st Congress, May 17, 1950; letter, Dale E. Doty to Rep. J. Hardin Peterson,

Aug. 7, 1950, in H. Rept. 2834, 81st Congress; Congressional Record 96: 12920, 14667; Public

Law 81-811, U.S. Statutes at Large 64: 905.
60 ius PARKWAY PROPOSITION

this 160-mile strip of park land accessible for adequate protection and

conservation, and provide the necessary funds therefor. "28

The National Parks Association assembled a special committee to

review the parkway plan. Its report, issued in 1951, criticized the plan for

inadequate attention to natural values but did not reject the basic concept:

"The committee recognizes that it would be difficult if not impossible to

obtain funds from Congress to develop the C and 0 Canal for increased

recreation unless a unified plan of certain feasibility is presented.... The

parkway proposal represents such an overall plan, and suitably modified,

might enable. funds to be obtained that could be used to improve present

conditions and arrest deterioration. In the absence of a better overall

proposal, the committee does not at this time disapprove further exploration

of the parkway idea. "29

The ball was now in Maryland's court. In May 1951 the state's

General Assembly directed the State Planning Commission, the Board of

Natural Resources, and the State Roads Commission to study the parkway

proposal and the contribution that would be required from the state. A

joint committee comprising I. Alvin Pasarew of the State Planning

Commission, Joseph F. Kaylor and Ernest A. Vaughn of the Board of

Natural Resources, and Joseph D. Buscher of the State Roads Commission

was formed. NCP Associate Superintendent Harry T. Thompson became

the principal Park Service liaison to the committee. Strongly committed to

the parkway, Thompson took Vaughn and others on a "show me" trip along

the canal in July and vigorously promoted the project at every opportunity.30

Thompson had his work cut out for him. Vaughn, director of the

Maryland Game and Inland Fish Commission, and Kaylor, director of the

Department of Forests and Parks, lost no time in voicing their opposition.

They argued that parkway construction would destroy wildlife habitat, that

the completed road would present a serious hazard to wildlife, and that

Park Service regulations would keep hunters from reaching the Potomac."

28Letter, Robert O. Beatty to Wirth, Oct. 30, 1950, file 1460/C & 0 Canal, C & 0 Canal

NHP; letter, Kelly to Beatty, Nov. 3, 1950, ibid.

29Quoted in Irston R. Barnes, "Historic C & 0 Canal Threatened by Road, " National Parks

Magazine 27, no. 114 (July-September 1953): 136.

JOS.J. Res. 14 approved May 7,1951, Laws a/Maryland 1951; State of Maryland, "Report

of the Joint Committee on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Parkway," December 1952;

memorandum, W. Drew Chick to Harry T. Thompson, June 25, 1951, file 1460/C & 0 Canal,

C & 0 Canal NHP; memorandum, Thompson to Ben H. Thompson, July 25, 1951, ibid.

3lMemorandum, Chick to Thompson, June 25, 1951.
CHAPTER FOUR 61

At bottom, they were disturbed about the loss of state control over the lands

bordering "Maryland's river."

In January 1952 Alvin Pasarew, the state committee's chairman, wrote

__Secretary of the Interior O~Qar Chapman to seek clarification _on several

issues, including access for hunters, wildlife habitat protection, and rightof-ways for industrial development and public utilities. In a response

prepared by Thompson, Chapman gave positive assurances on all points.

But the Board of Natural Resources was not mollified. That June its

members unanimously voted to oppose the parkway as interfering with state

plans for developing forests, parks, and recreation areas and improving

wildlife habitat along the Potomac. Rather than having Maryland acquire

more land for the Park Service, they wanted the Service to transfer its

property above Great Falls to the state. 32

"It is now quite evident to the people in Maryland ... that the C & 0

Canal Parkway proposal is not the answer to a sound multiple land and

water use program for that area," Vaughn wrote Thompson after the

board's vote. His commission still found the parkway plan detrimental to

hunting, and it felt that the Park Service had underestimated the cost of

land acquisition. It joined the board in advocating "return" of the upper

canal to Maryland;"

Thompson had lobbied actively for Maryland support, speaking to civic

groups, urging them to petition their elected officials, even preparing proparkway resolutions for their adoption. 34 He was bitterly disappointed.

"Perhaps you have not yet received my letter of June 5, which explained in

the best English at my command that the State would retain title to and

manage and administer in its own way such areas as are considered

desirable for shooting purposes," he replied to Vaughn, enclosing letterhead

stationery of the secretary of the interior "on which the Maryland Game and

Inland Fish Commission may write its own ticket, stating in its own

language how it would prefer to manage the islands and mainland areas

along the Potomac River which your Commission proposes to add to the

park program." If it did so, he was confident that Chapman would be

"pleased to sign it. ,,35

nutter, Pasarew to Chapman, Jan. 3, 1952, in "Report of the Joint Committee on the

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Parkway," p. 25; letter, Chapman to Pasarew, Feb. 13, 1952, ibid.;

ibid., pp. 42-43.

33Letter, Vaughn to Thompson, June 11, 1952, file 1460/C & 0 Canal, C & 0 Canal NHP.

34See, for example, Thompson letter to Roger B. Farquhar, Montgomery County Historical

Society, May 12, 1952, ibid.

3SLetter, Thompson to Vaughn, June 17, 1952, ibid.
62 THE PARKWAY PROPOSITION

Thompson shared his frustration with Lester W. Towner, another

member of the natural resources board: "Those of us who are concerned

with the administration and the development of the Chesapeake and Ohio

Canal have all but begged in public on our knees in an effort to encourage

the Maryland Game and Inland Fish Commission to stand fast on a program

of its own choice and have offered every possible cooperation and

encouragement to the Department of Forests and Parks to join hands in

developing the recreational potentials of the Potomac River. Do you know

of anything else we can or should do?"36

"The devil of it is, those who are for it are not audible," Thompson

complained to the manager of the Automobile Club of Maryland, a parkway

supporter. "They will not petition their representatives in Congress and

until such time as those who are for it are as vigorous in their support as

the opponents, we are going to have tough sledding." As he portrayed the

struggle to the editor of the Cumberland Times, the project had acquired a

moral dimension: "Where the Parkway project is concerned, we should be

guided by the advice of Thomas Jefferson when he said, 'We must be

content to secure what we can get from time to time, and eternally press

forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men to do even

what is for their own good.' We have, I am convinced, a .cause worth

fighting for and I should much prefer to be on the side of working for a

cause that promises the greatest good for the greatest number instead of for

a cause that espouses a selfish and unneighborly attitude such as our friends

in Hagerstown seem to be pursuing. "37

The report of Maryland's parkway committee, issued in December

1952, reflected the divergent views of the participating agencies. The

Board of Natural Resources included in its opposing statement a letter by

Joseph Kaylor that lent some credence to Thompson's characterization of

his adversaries. "As head of the authorized park agency in the State and

one who is interested in recreational uses by Marylanders, I cannot say I

think the development of the Parkway would benefit the citizens of our

State," Kaylor wrote. "On the other hand it becomes a very questionable

project which could unload on the nearby Maryland countryside many

people from the District of Columbia who would create problems such as

we have not been confronted with in the past. Rather than buy the land to

be turned over for a Federal Park at a cost which is excessive at the present

36Letter, Thompson to Towner, July 10, 1952, in "Report of the Joint Committee on the

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Parkway," p. 47.

37Letter, Thompson to Leonard E. Kolmer, Oct. 16, 1952, file 1460/C & 0 Canal, C & 0

Canal NHP; letter, Thompson to J. William Hunt, Oct. 27, 1952, ibid.
CHAPTER FOUR 63

time, let us use the same funds to put our own State Parks and Recreation

Areas in order. . . ." 38

The board repeated the negative arguments, depicting the parkway as

--- - - ---- --a-costly-barrier-to-hunting-and-industrial-development~ -Again .appeattngto -- - -- ---- ---

anti-Washington sentiment, it cast the issue in terms of "whether we are to

have an expanded State program in parks and recreation areas, or to have

ones developed and controlled by the Federal government causing us to be

overrun by a new group who will overflow into nearby Maryland to further

add to our problems. ,,39

The State Planning Commission and State Roads Commission

collaborated in a somewhat more positive statement. "While this new

parkway ... is not as important as other roads in the over-all highway

planning of Maryland, if it could be secured by the State of Maryland

merely by the State furnishing the right of way and the Federal government

defraying all construction costs, it would ... be a very worthwhile

investment," they declared. But they could not firmly support it without

a better estimate of the land cost. They also called for further

consideration of water resource development and other recreational options

along the Potomac, presumably including dams and reservoirs. They

.. recommended that "no further action be taken by the State in support of any

• single-purpose development until the General Assembly and the Governor

authorize the undertaking and completion of a comprehensive study of the

Potomac River resource, which will indicate the best uses of the River for

all interests and citizens. "40

Thompson was invited to participate in the joint committee's report but

declined. To NPS Director Conrad L. Wirth he wrote, "I thought it

adequate to reply in the most gentlemanly manner possible in the

circumstances because we may have to live with the situation for some time

before Maryland comes to its senses. ,,41 He was not ready to quit,

however. While Frederick and Hagerstown tended to oppose the parkway,

fearing a loss of business from the bypass, support from Hancock to

Cumberland remained strong. In a strategic retreat, Thompson and his

Maryland allies now proposed to build the road only along the sixty miles

38"Report of the Joint Committee on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Parkway," p. 50.

39Jbid., p. 53.

4OJbid., pp. 61-63.

"Thompson to Wirth, Dec. 4, 1952, file 1460/C & 0 Canal, C & 0 Canal NHP.
64 THE PARKWAY PROPOSITION

between those points--at least at the outset. Between Great Falls and

Hancock the canal would be developed as a "walking parkway. "42

Thompson again worked energetically to win support in Maryland for

the modified plan, at the same time initiating a crash canal improvement

program to forestall criticisms about Park Service neglect of the canal and

efforts to transfer it to Maryland. On February 11, 1953, he visited

Annapolis with A. 1. Knox, NCP's legal officer, to help Maryland Assistant

Attorney General Joseph Buscher draft a parkway land acquisition bill,

introduced in the General Assembly by Sen. Robert Kimble. "I think I

have done all I can to help resolve the problem favorably," he wrote J.

Glenn Beall, now a U.S. senator, on March 3. "If we could just persuade

our friends in Annapolis, who represent Montgomery, Frederick, and

Washington Counties, to attach an amendment to Senator Kimble's bill

which would provide for the acquisition of the lands needed for the walking

parkway between Hancock and Great Falls, it would be a successful

day. ,,43

As enacted on March 27, the bill authorized up to $350,000 for land

acquisition only between Hancock and Cumberland. No lands were to be

acquired "unless and until the Congress of the United States shall have

enacted legislation providing permanent easement rights for the use of

water from the Potomac River to the State of Maryland, its political subdivisions, its industrial business units and its citizens," and no lands were

to be conveyed to the United States until the State Roads Commission had

assurance that the parkway would be built.r"

Senator Beall and Rep. DeWitt S. Hyde of Maryland had already

introduced the desired legislation in Congress, and it was signed into law

on August 1. It required the secretary of the interior "to grant perpetual

easements, subject to such reasonable conditions as are necessary for the

protection of the Federal interests, for rights-of-way through, over, or

under the parkway lands along the line of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal,

now or hereafter acquired," for specified utility purposes. Other easements

across the canal lands could be granted at the secretary's discretion. The

secretary was authorized to convey lands not needed for parkway purposes

to local jurisdictions for roads and other public facilities, "but not to the

extent of severing in any manner the continuity of the parkway lands from

Great Falls to and including the city of Cumberland, Maryland." The

secretary was also authorized to transfer lands to and accept lands from

42J..etter, Thompson to Alvin Pasarew, Feb. 9, 1953, file 1460/C&O, WNRC.

43Letter, Thompson to Beall, ibid.

44S.B. 211, Laws ofMaryland 1953.
CHAPTER FOUR 65

other federal agencies "for the purpose of facilitating the development,

administration, and maintenance" of the parkway."

The way now appeared ready for at least the sixty-mile parkway beyond

- Hancock. But-there were dissenters from even -this scaled-down scheme, - - .

which would affect the wild and scenic stretch of canal through the Paw

Paw bends. Irston R. Barnes, president of the Audubon Society of the

District of Columbia and nature writer for the Washington Post, had still

advocated restoration of the whole canal in a January article:

The prescription for the C. & 0. Canal is obvious. The people of the valley have a

priceless asset in the national park status of the canal. Let the National Park Service

acquire the private lands between the canal and the river. Let the canal be restored as a

highway for canoes, and perhaps for a few of the old barges. Let the towpath become a

country lane for hikers and cyclists. Restore the canal and its locks and lockhouses to

their nineteenth-century usefulness. Provide an abundance of small camp sites at intervals

of a few miles, equipped with safe drinking water, Adirondack shelters, fireplaces, and

simple sanitation facilities. Prepare the lockhouses as hostels for winter use ....

A limited number of access roads to the canal would allow the motorist to escape from

traffic and enjoy, but not destroy, the quiet beauty of the river country."

Anthony Wayne Smith, a CIO attorney active in the National Parks

Association, followed in April with a "Potomac Valley Recreation Project"

proposal along the same lines. An outspoken advocate, Smith called Harry

Thompson soon afterward and angrily accused him of inappropriate

lobbying for the parkway. "Tony ... declared himself violently opposed

to the Parkway program and stated if need be he would go to the Hill and

to the President to stop this and other silly projects," Thompson told

Conrad Wirth. "Our conversation, or perhaps I should say monologue,

ended with a bang of the telephone receiver preceded by the repeated threat

that he would now proceed to line up the fullest possible political support

at his command to fight the Park Service on this project. "47

The D.C. Audubon Society called a meeting at the home of Mrs.

Gifford Pinchot on May 7 to mobilize the opposition. Some fifty people

attended, including Irston Barnes, Shirley A. Briggs, and Constant

Southworth of the society; Howard Zahniser, executive secretary of The

Wilderness Society; and Smith. Smith attacked the Park Service plan for

the canal, charging that as soon as the parkway was built from Cumberland

to Hancock there would be pressure to continue it to Great Falls. The

4SPublic Law 83-184, Aug. 1, 1953, U.S. Statutes at Large 67: 359.

46Bames, ·C &°Canal Proposed as Recreation Park," Washington Post, Jan. 11, 1953,

clipping in file 1460/C&O, WNRC.

4'Memorandum, Thompson to Wirth, Apr. 28, 1953, ibid.
66 THE PARKWAY PROPOSITION

group voted to form the Potomac Valley Conservation and Recreation

Council, with Barnes as chairman, to fight the parkway and promote

conservation objectives for the valley. 48

Barnes further sounded the alarm in that summer's National Parks

Magazine, the National Parks Association journal. His article, "Historic

C & 0 Canal Threatened by Road," was sympathetic to the management

problems facing the Park Service. "In these circumstances it is not

surprising that the National Park Service pitched upon the highway as a

solution to secure the land between the canal and the river, to secure

greater public utilization of the area, to guard against damage by damming,

or being split up by secondary and purely local uses," he wrote. But he

faulted the bureau for a lack of imagination and initiative in offering and

pushing a suitable plan for preservation and recreational development:

"The threat to the C and 0 Canal lies in the proposed construction of a

motor highway from Cumberland to Hancock, and in the hidden plan to

extend that highway all the way to Washington. That the threat is now

upon us must be ascribed to the mistaken planning and misplaced zeal of

the National Park Service itself. The only way to save the canal is through

wide and vocal opposition to the plan, and thus to extricate the Service

from its own commitments. "49

Reinforcing the "hidden plan" suspicions, Thompson continued to

distribute copies of the 1950 parkway report. Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr.,

obtained one and reviewed it along with Barnes's article. "The adverse

criticism of the C & 0 Report by the National Park Service and the Bureau

of Roads seems to me on the whole well founded," he wrote Wirth. "A

high-speed thoroughfare for automobiles . . . would, I am sure, be a

wasteful use of a great recreational opportunity presented by the Canal

property. I hope it can be headed off. "so

Wirth's response, drafted by Thompson, insinuated that the prominent

landscape architect had been misled by the opposition. "By no stretch of

the imagination could a street wide strip of land that has been used for 75

years as a commercial trafficway be considered a wilderness as has been

suggested by those who advocate the development along the lines of the

National Parks Magazine article which insofar as I can determine advocates

the return of the old historic canal to the land with a disjointed and

48Dora A. Padgett, "Report on a Meeting Called by the Audubon Society of the District of

Columbia, on May 7, 1953, at the Home of Mrs. Gifford Pinchot, 1615 Rhode Island Avenue,

Washington, D.C., at 8 P.M.," ibid.

49Bames, "Historic C &°Canal Threatened by Road, " p. 135.

SOJ..etter, Olmsted to Wirth, Aug. 13, 1953, file 1460/C&O, WNRC.
CHAPTER FOUR 67

completely unmanageable spotting of recreational facilities along it. .. ,"

he wrote Olmsted. "I am sure you realize that a program of sufficient

magnitude to attract the support of great numbers of people is absolutely

essential for the protection of the Potomac River from future-darn-projects

which have been sponsored by the Corps of Engineers on several occasions

in the past. I think it safe to say that the Corps of Engineers will not rest

their proposals to dam the Potomac River so long as there is potential

current in it. -As a practical matter we in the park world must be braced to

protect the park values of the river with the most forceful arguments at our

command and in my opinion the proposals of Mr. Smith are woefully weak

in this respect. "51

Thompson professed to have no hidden agenda to extend the parkway

below Hancock. "You will find those who will argue and insist that we are

not sincere in this walking parkway idea and that it is only a blind to get

our foot in the door for the construction of a drive the entire length of the

river from Cumberland to Great Falls," he wrote another correspondent.

"I am willing to rest the case on developing this section of the canal as a

walking parkway without a road and let the future comparison between that

which is with road and that which is without road determine the future of

the towpath between Hancock and Great Falls." But the hidden agenda was

evident in another letter from Wirth to a longtime Park Service supporter:

"We fully intend to protect the C & 0 Canal and its historic values;

however, the river drive into Washington from Cumberland is most

important for the protection of the Potomac River from future dam projects

of the Corps of Engineers.... I am inclined to believe that the idea [the

1950 plan] went a little too far, however, minor adjustments can be made

in it which will, in my opinion, do what the conservationists and the

historians want us to do, and at the same time provide a parkway approach

from the west to Washington. ,,52

Wirth, a member of the National Capital Planning Commission,

encouraged support for the parkway there and within the broader National

Capital Regional Planning Council. The Washington Post responded with

a favorable editorial on January 3, 1954. Judging the canal "no longer

either a commercial or a scenic asset," it viewed the Park Service plan as

a good way to make the Potomac Valley accessible to sightseers, campers,

fishermen, and hikers. "The basic advantage of the parkway is that it would

5lLetter, Wirth to Olmsted, Oct. 20, 1953, ibid.

52J:.etter, Thompson to Leonard E. Kolmer, November 1953, ibid.; letter, Wirth to Harlan P.

Kelsey, Sept. 9, 1953, ibid.
68 THE PARKWAY PROPOSITION

enable more people to enjoy beauties now seen by very few," it

concluded. 53

The editorial proved a classic--for the opposing response it elicited.

The January 19 Post carried an evocative and challenging letter from U.S.

Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, a vigorous outdoorsman:

The discussion concerning the construction of a parkway along the Chesapeake and

Ohio Canal arouses many people. Fishermen, hunters, hikers, campers, ornithologists,

and others who like to get acquainted with nature first-hand and on their own are opposed

to making a highway out of this sanctuary. .

The stretch of 185 miles of country from Washington, D.C., to Cumberland, Md., is

one of the most fascinating and picturesque in the Nation. The river and its islands are

part of the charm. The cliffs, the streams, the draws, the benches and beaches, the

swamps are another part. The birds and game, the blaze of color in the spring and fall,

the cattails in the swamp, the blush of buds in late winter--these are also some of the glory

of the place.

In the early twenties Mr. Justice [Louis D.] Brandeis traveled the canal and river by

canoe to Cumberland. It was for him exciting adventure and recreation. Hundreds of us

still use this sanctuary for hiking, and camping. It is a refuge, a place of retreat, a long

stretch of quiet and peace at the Capital's back door--a wilderness area where we can

commune with God and with nature, a place not yet marred by the roar of wheels and the

sound of horns.

It is a place for boys and girls, men and women. One can hike 15 or 20 miles on a

Sunday afternoon, or sleep on high dry ground in the quiet of a forest, or just go and sit

with no sound except water lapping at one's feet. It is a sanctuary for everybody who

loves woods-sa sanctuary that would be utterly destroyed by a fine two-lane highway.

I wish the man who wrote your editorial of January 3, 1954, approving the parkway

would take time off and come with me. We would go with packs on our backs and walk

the 185 miles to Cumberland. I feel that if your editor did, he would return a new man

and use the power of your great editorial page to help keep this sanctuary untouched....54

Merlo Pusey, the editorial's author, and Robert H. Estabrook, the

editorial page editor, responded on January 21 with another editorial, titled

"We Accept":

Mr. Justice Douglas wrote in a most charming manner about the beauties of the

Potomac River and the old Chesapeake and Ohio Canal ....

Our idea, and that of at least some of the sponsors of the proposed C & 0 parkway,

we are sure, was not to make the littoral of the Potomac an artery of traffic. It is not the

place for motorists in a hurry. Rather, the parkway is designed to make the area

accessible in the way that the Skyline Drive has made the delights of the Blue Ridge Mountains accessible to many thousands of people who otherwise would have never been able

53"Potomac Parkway," Washington Post, Jan. 3, 1954, p. 4.

S4Reproduced in Jack Durham, "The C & 0 Canal Hike," The Living Wilderness 19, no. 48

(Spring 1954): 2.
70 THE PARKWAY PROPOSITION

Merlo Pusey, William O. Douglas, Edward Kelly, Douglas McKay, Harry T. Thompson (far

right) at Lock 6, March 27, 1954.

It having been decided to hike downstream, the B & 0 Railroad

provided a special car to carry Douglas's party and press representatives

from Washington to Cumberland on March 19. Senator Beall greeted them

upon arrival. A dinner with appropriate oratory ensued at the Cumberland

Country Club. The next morning the party were transported to begin the

hike at Lock 72 , some ten miles down, thus skipping the unsightly and

odoriferous remnant of the canal nearest the terminus. Th e Potomac

Appalachian Trail Club arranged to truck their heavy equi pment and

prepare most of their meals, and sportsmen's clubs along the route pro vided

nightly accommodations. 57

The hikers reached Seneca after seven days on the towpath and spent

the night at an Izaak Walton League clubhouse nearby. That eveni ng they

organized the C & 0 Canal Committee to pursue their objectives. Douglas

became chairman; the other members were Irston Barnes, George

Blackburn, Harvey Broome, William Davies, Rob ert Estabrook, Bernard

Frank, Olaus Murie, Sigurd Olson, Louis Shollenberger , Anthony Smith,

and Howard Zahniser.

57Durham, "The C & 0 Canal Hike"; W. Drew Chick, Jr. , "Report of Justice DouglasWashington Post Hiking Trip Along the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, March 20-27 , 1954, " C & 0

Canal NHP.
CHAPTER FOUR 69

to enjoy their vistas, to hike their trails, or to camp in their unspoiled woods and meadows....

We are pleased to accept Justice Douglas's invitation to walk the towpath of the old

canal--the entire 185 miles of it between Washington and Cumberland, if that meets with

- --- --- - ---IiTs pleasure.- -He-has·only to n-ame-the -time an,r Uie -starting-poinTofllie Journey-and-to -- - - - -- ---- - -

prescribe the equipment to be taken along. But it is only fair to warn the Justice that we

are already familiar with some parts of the beautiful country that will be traversed. We

are sufficiently enthusiastic about it to wear some blisters on our feet, but we do not

believe that this back-yard wilderness so near to Washington should be kept closed to those

who cannot hike 15 or 20 miles a day.55

News of the impending hike excited conservation leaders and

outdoorsmen from near and far. Douglas and the Post received letters from

numerous would-be participants; in the end, more than two dozen prepared

to join much if not all of the trek. Among them were Olaus J. Murie,

Harvey Broome, Bernard Frank, and Howard Zahniser, respectively

president, vice president, executive committee chairman, and executive

secretary of The Wilderness Society; Sigurd F. Olson and Anthony Wayne

Smith, president and executive committee member of the National Parks

Association; George F. Blackburn and John Schorr, president and

conservation chairman of the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club; Irston

Barnes and Constant Southworth of the D.C. Audubon Society; William E.

Davies of the U.S. Geological Survey; Louis W. Shollenberger, a CBS

radio newsman; and Walter Sanderlin, canal historian and history professor

at Washington and Jefferson College.

The Wilderness Society and Potomac Appalachian Trail Club organized

and provided logistical support for the hike, receiving full cooperation from

the Park Service notwithstanding their differences over the parkway

development. Harry Thompson met with Douglas in February, and on

March 4 W. Drew Chick, Jr., NCP's chief naturalist, attended a planning

meeting in the justice's chambers with Pusey, Murie, Zahniser, Olson,

Smith, Barnes, and Jack Durham (who had been engaged by The Wilderness

Society to handle arrangements and who prepared a comprehensive account

of the hike for the Spring 1954 issue of the society's journal, The Living

Wilderness). Thompson detailed Chick and U. S. Park Police Corporal

Samuel H. Hower, whose beat was the canal, to accompany and assist the

hikers. His cooperative posture reflected no change of heart, however. "I

doubt seriously if they will convince too many people by the demonstration

that the canal should be preserved only for the hikers," he wrote the editor

of the Cumberland Times. S6

55Ibid., p. 3.

S6Letter, Thompson to William Hunt, Mar. 18, 1954, file 1460/C&O, WNRC.
CHAPTER FOUR 71

Merlo Pusey, Harvey Broome, Olaus Murie, Robert Estabrook, Irston R. Barnes, William O.

Douglas aboard Canal Clipper, March 27, 1954.

On the next and last day, March 27, the hikers were met by large

crowds as they neared Washington. At Lock 6 they were greeted by

Secretary of the Interior Douglas McKay, NCP Superintendent Edward

Kelly, Thompson, and Sutton Jett. Below Lock 5 they boarded the muledrawn Canal Clipper and floated into Georgetown. Only nine of the party--

later dubbed "the nine immortals"--had remained afoot the entire distance

to that point: Douglas, Broome, Murie, Southworth, Grant Conway, Albert

E. Farwell, George F. Miller, Jack Permain, and Colin Ritter.

The real purpose of the hike was publicity, of course, and in this its

leaders were not disappointed. Aubrey Graves, country life editor of the

Post, had joined Pusey and Estabrook to report for their paper, and George

Kennedy covered the hike for the Evening Star. Associated Press accounts,

network radio and television news broadcasts, movie newsreels, and

illustrated stories in Time and Life magazines informed readers across the

nation of the canal, the event, and the controversy. S8

Estabrook and Pusey, whose editorial had triggered the hike, followed

with another on March 31. While not abandoning the parkway concept,

they now proposed some significant modifications:

~Ibid.
72 ins PARKWAY PROPOSITION

In one important respect we have changed our minds. The 1950 plan ... called for

a parkway along the towpath, and in some places along the bed, of the old Chesapeake &

Ohio Canal. Apart from the desirability of leaving some areas in their natural state, this

would be a much bigger undertaking than we had supposed. The amount of fill required

to make the canal bed usable would be enormous. . . .

At the same time, there are a number ofscenic sectors where a parkway would do little

harm and would be an attraction for persons who do not have the stamina for long hikes.

. . . Existing roads, such as Maryland Route 51 and River Road, would form the nucleus

for a parkway in some areas. In others a parkway could be built along the top of the bluff

to give beautiful panoramas without disturbing the canal and towpath preserve....

In view of the above considerations we propose that:

1. The Park Service plan be substantially modified to avoid encroachment on the best

of the natural areas, to preserve as much as possible of the towpath and canal bed and to

shorten distances where the river meanders....

2. Stress be placed on developing picnic grounds as well as access roads into the

natural areas. The canal itself ought to be restored as a canoeway where feasible. Special

attention should be given to historic sites, including access from a canal parkway to such

spots as the Antietam Battlefield.

3. Inducements be given local communities to clean up the parts of the canal preserve

and river front now polluted and littered with trash--notably the unsightly stretches around

Hancock and Brunswick.

4. The possibility be investigated of obtaining matching funds from Maryland for

access roads. Both a walking trail and a parkway should spur tourist trade and should

bring motels, hostels, and stores....59

The next month Justice Douglas sent Secretary McKay the preliminary

recommendations of his C & 0 Canal Committee. They did not differ

greatly from those in the latest Post editorial. The committee also favored

a parkway from Cumberland to Washington "following existing state,

county, and federal aid roads where practicable, perhaps at places parallel

to, but not on the canal proper." Declaring that "the canal property should

be developed as a recreational area," they proposed restoring and

rewatering more of the canal for canoeing and fishing, establishing

campsites with shelters and other facilities every ten miles, and providing

new and improved access roads tied into the parkway system. They sought

more federal land for the campsites and for "effective management and

control of the entire property. "60

From McKay's warm and conciliatory reply, there seemed to be few if

any differences between the current government program and that of the

conservationists. "I was delighted to find that the suggestions presented by

your committee so closely parallel those of this Department in so many

particulars," he wrote Douglas. "Indeed, it appears that there is complete

59"C & 0 Canal: A Report, " reproduced in Durham, "The C & 0 Canal Hike," pp. 23-24.

6IJ..etter, Douglas to McKay, Apr. 22, 1954, file 1460/C&O, WNRC.
CHAPTER FOUR 73

agreement on the major objectives to be achieved." He called the

government's parkway plans "quite preliminary" and promised full

consideration of the committee's views as planning proceeded. 61

- Douglas wrote again in June, enclosing a-subcommittee report laying __

out a proposed Potomac Valley Motor Trail. It followed existing roads

except between Paw Paw and Hancock, where a new road not disturbing the

canal would be built. He and the committee were especially impressed with

the scenic qualities of that region and suggested that it be set aside as Paw

Paw National Park."

With his western Maryland political base in mind, Senator Beall

meanwhile continued to press for action on the parkway above Hancock as

previously planned and supported by the state. "The Republican Administration and the Republican Congress should receive the credit for starting

construction on this project," he wrote McKay in late April. The secretary

thereupon solicited President Dwight D. Eisenhower's support in a letter

prepared by Harry Thompson. "Every precaution will be taken to insure

that the parkway will not be destructive of the canal where it can be

avoided," he wrote. "Senator Beall and I are quite anxious to get the

planning work done between Cumberland and Hancock so that when funds

are available this section can be started on whatever plan is approved

without too long a delay." Based on this letter, Beall announced that

McKay had approved the parkway. 63

This did not square with the conciliatory posture adopted toward the

conservationists, and the Park Service diplomatically disavowed Beall's

claim. In correspondence with Olaus Murie, Conrad Wirth distanced

himself from the parkway plan, noting that it had been prepared before he

became director. "I have purposely held up any action on it because of the

opposition to it until I can look into it personally," he wrote. To avoid the

adverse implications of the C & 0 Canal Parkway designation, he agreed

with a suggestion to label it the Potomac River Parkway instead."

Vocal public sentiment ran strongly against the canal parkway in the

months after the Douglas hike. Among numerous protests received by the

Interior Department and the Park Service was an eloquent and insightful

one from Irving Brant, a longtime conservation activist. "The one word

6JLetter, McKay to Douglas, May 4, 1954, ibid.

62Letter, Douglas to McKay, June 19, 1954, ibid.

63Letter, Beall to McKay, Apr. 27,1954, ibid.; letter, McKay to Eisenhower, April 30, 1954,

ibid.; Beall press release, May 9, 1954, ibid.

64Letter, Wirth to Murie, Apr. 15, 1954, ibid.; Wirth note on memorandum, John Nolen, Jr.

to Wirth, May 13, 1954, ibid.
74 THE PARKWAY PROPOSITION

that applies to every aspect of the canal today is intimacy," Brant wrote.

"There is intimacy in the canal itself, in its towpath, its old locks and

lockhouses, in the trees that overlay it, in its relationship to bluffs and

river, in the wildlife one finds along it. A motor parkway would destroy

this utterly. "65

In January 1955, responding to the preponderant opposition and his own

doubts, Wirth appointed a committee to restudy the development of the

canal from Great Falls to Cumberland. The committee was chaired by Ben

H. Thompson, chief of the NPS Division of Cooperative Activities, and

included Harry Thompson, Chief Naturalist John E. Doerr, Chief Historian

Herbert Kahler, Thomas C. Vint, chief of the Division of Design and·

Construction, and Lloyd Meehean, assistant to the director of the Fish and

Wildlife Service.

At their initial meetings the members considered Anthony Wayne

Smith's Potomac Valley Recreation Project proposal and the

recommendations of Douglas's C & 0 Canal Committee. Harry Thompson

discredited the idea of building the parkway above Hancock on the bluffs

back from the canal, noting that this would entail many expensive bridges

and much higher land acquisition costs. Ben Thompson noted that the

existing roads paralleling the canal elsewhere lacked the essential character

of a scenic recreational parkway and could not properly serve as such.

There was agreement that a feasible and genuine parkway would have to

accord generally with the 1950 plan.

The committee toured the canal from Cumberland to Harpers Ferry in

March, then tried to decide whether the 1950 plan should be pursued.

Harry Thompson remained its strongest advocate, declaring it necessary to

"serve a full cross section of the public" and arguing that "anything less

than a multipurpose or embracing theme of development would not ... be

acceptable to the legislative authorities in the State of Maryland." If the

parkway were to be dropped, he thought the canal above Seneca should be

disposed of. Vint was less enthusiastic about the parkway, judging the

ideal to be a linear national park without a road, but he saw no way of

obtaining the needed lands without it. "Unless some means can be found

to find a source of funds for land acquisition on the ideal basis, I would

favor continuing with the parkway plan," he declared. "In the long run the

important thing is to keep the river bank in public ownership. "66

With Meehean abstaining, the three remaining committee members

formed a bare majority against the parkway. Echoing Irving Brant, they

65Letter, Brant to Douglas McKay, June 14, 1954, ibid.

66"fhompson and Vint memorandums accompanying "Progress Report of Committee Making

a Study of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal," July 1, 1955, C & 0 Canal NHP.
CHAPTER FOUR 75

saw the road as destroying "the intimate character of the canal-river strip,"

whose values were "of the foreground type, which can best be enjoyed by

activities that bring the user into intimate contact with nature and the

historic structures, as contrasted with the-background or grand scale type

of landscape values that can best be enjoyed by motoring." They

advocated improving and maintaining the towpath as a national trail for

both hiking and bicycling. They recommended rewatering as much of the

canal as possible and varying the treatment of the unwatered sections. (The

1950 report had proposed that most of the dry bed be cleared and planted

in grass, producing a result now seen as "monotonous, destructive of

wildlife habitats, and recreationally inferior. ")67

"The committee recognizes that if ... it should be decided not to build

the proposed parkway road, the problem of land acquisition will have to be

worked out on new and hitherto untried grounds," its report declared. "We

believe that we do not underestimate the complexity and uncertainties of

that venture." Because there was still no likelihood of acquiring lands

other than by state donation, the majority recommended adoption of the

"more flexible national recreation area concept" from Seneca to Cumberland. The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Recreation Area could

encompass state park and wildlife management areas and permit hunting,

thus catering to those Maryland interests who had opposed the parkway.

A five-member advisory board representing history, biology, landscape

architecture, state parks, and state fish and game conservation would be

appointed by the secretary of the interior for the national recreation area,

which would be administered as a separate unit of the national park system

in NPS Region Five (headquartered in Philadelphia);"

Not surprisingly, the committee's recommendations did not satisfy

Senator Beall and the western Marylanders who were counting on a new

road beyond Hancock. Pressures from that direction led Wirth himself to

conduct another field inspection of the area in early 1956. At the end of

February he met with Secretary McKay, Beall, and Representative Hyde.

The result was official endorsement of a Chesapeake and Ohio Canal

National Historical Park along with an associated but separate parkway

west of Hancock. The park, extending from the Great Falls terminus of the

George Washington Memorial Parkway to the vicinity of Cumberland,

would encompass up to 15,000 acres. Measures for stabilization of its

historic features, public use development and access, and land acquisition

would be proposed as part of Mission 66, a ten-year capital improvement

program designed to upgrade Park Service facilities and services in time for

67Jbid., pp. 4, 17.

68Jbid., pp. 2, 8.
76 THE PARKWAY PROPOSITION

the bureau's fiftieth anniversary in 1966. .The parkway, about 25 miles

long and requiring some 2,500 acres, would connect Route 51 near Paw

Paw with Long Ridge Road near Woodmont. 69

Ben Thompson presented this solution at Harpers Ferry in April to a

group marking the second anniversary of the Douglas hike. Inasmuch as

it favored basic elements of the C & a Canal Committee's plan, it was well

received by that audience. In an editorial, the Washington Post also

approved the Park Service plan to preserve the canal intact and build the

scenic parkway "well back from the canal. ,,70

As Ben Thompson's committee had recommended in their national

recreation area proposal, the national historical park and parkway would be

administratively separated from the canal below Seneca and placed under

the Region Five office in Philadelphia. There were several reasons for

dividing the canal in this fashion.

First, national historical parks and other units of the national park

system were generally overseen by regional offices. National Capital

Parks, having many components but still classed as a single unit of the

system, was anomalous in that its superintendent reported directly to the

NPS director rather than a regional director. But it was not yet a regional

office supervising other parks classed as separate units. If part of the canal

was to become a national historical park and thus a full-fledged unit of the

system, contemporary practice dictated its assignment to the nearest

regional office. Leaving the lower canal out of the national historical park

and within NCP was justified by its location in and near Washington--

NCP's traditional service area.

Even without these organizational factors, the division served Park

Service purposes. Opposition to' the federal land acquisition and parkway

development plan in Maryland had stemmed in part from rural antipathy to

a perceived influx of urban troublemakers. Drawing the national historical

park to exclude the lower canal and managing it from outside NCP would

have the desirable effect of distancing it from Washington.

Finally, the canal parkway controversy was not altogether over. The

parkway on and along the canal between Great Falls and Cumberland had

been laid to rest. But plans for a parkway road along the restored canal

below Great Falls--part of the George Washington Memorial Parkway--

remained active. To minimize objections to this road, it was expedient to

69·Statement by Conrad L. Wirth, Director, NPS, Concerning the Proposed Chesapeake and

Ohio Canal National Historical Park and Parkway, Maryland, for Presentation to the State of

Maryland Board of Natural Resources, March 19, 1956,· C & 0 Canal NHP.

'lO·Potomac for the Future," Washington Post, May 1, 1956, p. 24.
CHAPTER FOUR 77

have the national historical park begin above the point where the road

would end.

As recounted earlier, the George Washington Memorial Parkway

.concept.had.originated.with the McMillan_Commission_inI90 I._The 1930 _

Capper-Cramton Act had authorized land acquisition (including acquisition

of the canal to Point of Rocks) and road construction on both sides of the

river to just above Great Falls, where a bridge would link the Maryland and

Virginia sections. By the mid-1950s most of the land for the Maryland

section had been acquired, but the road there had not proceeded beyond the

drawing boards.

The alignment of this road section had been a matter of concern for

some years. In 1943 H. E. Van Gelder, a Park Service landscape architect,

argued that between the District of Columbia line and Cabin John Creek,

"no location is possible which would not more or less severely damage the

steep wooded slopes above the canal, and be so close to it as to be

objectionable through noise and smoke." Two years later he reiterated his

concern: "In all but the section from Cabin John Bridge to Cropley, such

construction would be so detrimental to the scenery of the canal and the

river gorge that the basic idea of building a parkway on these steep hillsides

so close to the canal should be seriously reconsidered, and improvement of

existing Conduit Road [MacArthur Boulevard] substituted for it. ,,71

Using MacArthur Boulevard posed other difficulties, and by 1954 plans

were readied for a separate road between it and the canal. In early 1955

the House of Representatives approved a $655,000 appropriation to grade

the road during the coming fiscal year. Previously unfamiliar with these

plans, some of those who had opposed the canal parkway now intervened

to fight the project in the Senate.

Adm. Neill Phillips, representing the D.C. Audubon Society, the

Progressive Citizens Association of Georgetown, and the Potomac

Appalachian Trail Club, appeared before the Senate subcommittee on

Interior Department appropriations in April. "This proposed section of 4-

lane dual highway on the banks of the C. & O. Canal is one more example

of the pernicious philosophy that has grown up in some Government circles

since the war that an easy solution to Washington's traffic problems lies in

shoving superhighways through our magnificent parks," he testified. He

declared that the road would crowd the canal, passing between it and the

Lock 5 lockhouse and destroying its scenic, historic, and recreational

attributes. He asked the subcommittee to deny the appropriation and

"Memorandum, Van Gelder to Chief of Planning, Aug. 12, 1943, George Washington

Memorial Parkway--Maryland file, Office of Land Use Coordination, National Capital Region,

NPS; memorandum, Van Gelder to Harry T. Thompson, June 12, 1945, file 1460/ C&O-5,

WNRC.
78 ttte PARKWAY PROPOSITION

request a restudy of the road alignment that would consider using

MacArthur Boulevard and the parallel trolley line to Glen Echo. Howard

Zahniser followed in opposition. Recalling the previous year's protest

against the canal parkway above Great Falls, he urged that the restudy

initiated in response be extended to the George Washington Memorial

Parkway.F

The Park Service defended its plan. "The projected parkway does not

encroach on the canal nor does it occupy the canal cross-section as has been

reported incorrectly from time to time," Acting Director Hillory A. Tolson

wrote the Senate committee chairman before the hearing. "The towpath;

the historic lock houses, and the adjoining canal lands along the river will

continue to remain, as they now exist, as a recreational waterway." MacArthur Boulevard was an unsuitable alternative, he declared, being a

restricted Corps of Engineers work road atop the Washington Aqueduct

with subdivision developments on both sides. At the hearing, Director

Wirth testified that the road would come no closer than 125 feet to the

canal. He was forced to revise this claim in a subsequent written

submission. Of the 10.8 miles of road between the D.C. line and the

proposed bridge above Great Falls, 4.1 miles would be less than 120 feet

from the canal. In two places, near Brookmont and Glen Echo, the

pavement would be twenty feet from it. 73

Following the hearing, the Senate Appropriations Committee directed

that the Park Service obligate no money on the parkway between the D.C.

line and Cabin John. The House-Senate conference committee on the

appropriation bill deleted this prohibition, allowing funds to be obligated

on condition that "maximum possible protection shall be provided to

maintain the C. & O. Canal and the lands bordering it in their natural

state." The parkway opponents then went to Sen. James E. Murray of

Montana, chairman of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee,

who obtained a promise from Secretary McKay to delay parkway construction until the National Capital Planning Commission had studied alternate

locations."

Irston Barnes, head of the D.C. Audubon Society and the Potomac

Valley Conservation and Recreation Council, carried on the struggle during

nu.S. Congress, Senate, Interior Department and Related Agencies Appropriations/or 1956,

Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, 84th Congress, 1st Session

(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1955), pp. 879, 884.

13Letter, Tolson to Sen. Carl Hayden, Apr. 1, 1955, ibid., p. 674-75; ibid., pp. 676, 685.

74S. Rept. 261, 84th Congress, p. 11; H. Rept. 731, 84th Congress, p. 7; April L. Young,

"Saving the C and 0 Canal: Citizen Participation in Historic Preservation,· M.A. thesis, George

Washington University, 1973, p. 40.
CHAPTER FOUR 79

1955-1956 with anti-parkway articles in the Audubon Society's Atlantic

Naturalist and National Parks Magazine. The council's Survey of the

Potomac River Situation, published in 1956, continued the attack: "With

~. -~ curious.inconsistenc}'-,_the.NPSstillpersistsjn .pushingplansfor the.park-. _~_~ __ . _ __

way, which would greatly impair, along the lower canal, the very principles

which it has espoused for the upper region. The anomaly is striking, for

if it were necessary to single out only one part of the canal for

preservation, the area near the city of Washington would clearly be the

most significant because it offers natural conditions so close to the city. ,,75

This time, however, the parkway foes were fighting a losing battle. The

road had been planned for a quarter-century, and the federal and state

governments had each provided some $715,000 to acquire nearly 1,500

acres for the project in Maryland. The opposition was too little and too

late. Reporting on its study of alternatives in August 1957, the National

Capital Planning Commission agreed with the Park Service that the

conversion of MacArthur Boulevard to parkway use was infeasible. "The

location as now established was selected upon the basis of placing it

everywhere as far away from the canal and towpath on the side away from

the river, as the land acquired for the purpose will permit," the NCPC

report stated."

Work on the Maryland leg of the George Washington Memorial'

Parkway began soon afterward. Progress was delayed by construction of

the Potomac Interceptor Sewer, serving Dulles International Airport and the

Potomac Valley downstream, in the early 1960s. The sewer was run under

portions of the road and the canal, which had to be dewatered for a time

between Widewater and Brookmont. By 1965 the parkway was completed

from the District line to a junction with MacArthur Boulevard west of the

Navy's David Taylor Model Basin. A jurisdictional controversy with the

D.C. government stalled its connection to Canal Road at Chain Bridge until

1970. The spanning of the Potomac by the Capital Beltway at Cabin John

in the early 1960s, plus land acquisition problems that halted the Virginia

7SBarnes, "The C & 0 Canal Highway," Atlantic Naturalist 11 (September-October 1955):

3; Barnes, "A New Era for the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, " National Parks Magazine 30 (JulySeptember 1956): 110-16; Potomac Valley Conservation and Recreation Council, Survey ofthe

Potomac River Situation (Washington: Potomac Valley Conservation and Recreation Council,

1956), p. 2.

76Quoted in Potomac Valley Council, "National Capital Planning Commission Report to

Senator Murray Shows Canal Parkway Has No Function," 1957, 5-page paper in C & 0 Canal

files, National Parks and Conservation Association.
80 THE PARKWAY PROPOSITION

parkway leg at the Beltway, effectively killed plans for the parkway bridge

above Great Falls and extension of the Maryland leg to that point."

In its impact on the canal, the George Washington Memorial Parkway

road in Maryland--redesignated the Clara Barton Parkway by Congress in

1989 to eliminate confusion with the unconnected Virginia leg--generally

confirmed the judgment of its opponents. Notwithstanding Park Service

assurances that the lockhouses would remain, the frame lockhouse at Lock

5--built in 1853 and rehabilitated in 1939--was razed in 1957 for parkway

construction. The Lock 7 lockhouse, oldest on the canal, was spared only

by cantilevering the westbound roadway over the eastbound one in the tight

space between the house and the Glen Echo bluff. (During the same

period, the original stone lockhouse at Lock 13 was demolished in 1961 so

that the Beltway's Cabin John Bridge could be built directly over the lock.)

Visually and audibly, the road impinges on the canal for most of its length.

The Clara Barton Parkway is a useful and attractive road, providing

access to the canal and glimpses of its scenic and historic features for many

who might otherwise miss them. It also serves to illustrate how the C & 0

Canal Parkway might have affected much longer stretches of the canal, had

not public sentiment been mobilized so effectively against the National Park

Service.

71Telephone interview with Raymond L. Freeman, Oct. 19, 1989.
CHAPTER FIVE

THE PARK CAMPAIGN

81

-The-aedsionifi -1956-ro'pushtora -Ch-escrp-ea:ke-crn-d-Ohio-Ca:nal-NationaI--

Historical Park with an associated over-mountain parkway west of Hancock

was soon translated into legal form. Sen. J. Glenn Beall and Rep. DeWitt

S. Hyde of Maryland introduced identical bills, drafted by the National

Park Service legislative office, that July. It was too late for action on them

during that Congress, so the legislators reintroduced the bills at the beginning of the 85th Congress in January 1957.

Beall's S. 77 and Hyde's H.R. 1145 called for the park to encompass

existing NPS land of up to 4,800 acres from the planned George

Washington Memorial Parkway terminus above Great Falls to a point

determined by the secretary of the interior in or near Cumberland, plus

additional land bringing the park to as much as 15,000 acres, acquired by

the secretary "in such manner as he may consider to be in the public interest." The secretary would be permitted to exchange land at Cumberland

excluded from the park for desired land elsewhere. The parkway,

connecting Maryland Route 51 near Paw Paw with Long Ridge Road near

Wood mont via Town Hill Ridge, would be part of the park but was

exempted from the 15,000-acre limitation. Its right-of-way, not to exceed

an average of one hundred acres per mile, could be acquired only by donation. Boundaries were left to administrative discretion; the secretary was

required only to file a map showing the park area at the National Archives

within five years.

NPS Director Conrad L. Wirth sent Hyde a letter intended for public

circulation to ease local concerns about the proposal. The legislation, it

noted, expressly reaffirmed the 1953 law insuring rights of access across

the canal to the Potomac for Maryland communities and industries. The

park would not affect Maryland's jurisdiction over the river and its islands.

Although hunting would be prohibited within the park, the Park Service

would permit hunters to cross the park to get to the river, and fishing

would continue in the canal and river. Wirth also took pains to distinguish

the scenic over-mountain parkway authorized in the bills from the defunct

canal parkway proposal. 1

The Public Lands subcommittee of the Senate's Committee on Interior

and Insular Affairs held a hearing on S. 77 on June 12. Testifying in favor

of the bill, Wirth promised to work out the park boundary in cooperation

'Letter, Wirth to Hyde, Feb. 13, 1957, in Background Book, Proposed Chesapeake and Ohio

Canal National Historical Park, 87th Congress, Chesapeake and Ohio-Canal National Historical

Park.
82 THE PARK CAMPAIGN

with Maryland officials, leaving areas essential for hunting in state control.

Devereux Butcher of the National Parks Association appeared in support,

although he regretted the exclusion of the canal below Great Falls from the

park. Anthony Wayne Smith testified for the bill on behalf of the C & 0

Canal Association, formed in 1956 as an expansion of the previous C & 0

Canal Committee. He too had some reservations, particularly about the

suggestion that the Cumberland end of the canal might be relinquished.

Supporting testimony or statements were also received from the National

Wildlife Federation, the Wildlife Management Institute, The Wilderness

Society, the Nature Conservancy, the Audubon Society of the District of

Columbia, the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources, the Izaak Walton

League, the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club, the Progressive Citizens

Association of Georgetown, and the Cumberland Chamber of Commerce. 2

Not everyone wanted the park, however. Ernest A. Vaughn, director

of the Maryland Game and Inland Fish Commission, and Joseph F. Kaylor,

director of Maryland's Department of Forests and Parks, were no happier

about the current plan than they had been about the canal parkway. Vaughn

testified that the park would restrict public access to the Potomac and close

several thousand acres to hunting. Kaylor reported his five-member

Commission on Forests and Parks firmly opposed to the idea of a federal

"barrier" along the river.

The Maryland Board of Natural Resources, on which both served,

submitted a negative statement. "It should be apparent that exclusive

dedication of this long shoreline to public recreation is as extremely

lopsided as would be its exclusive dedication to industry, " it declared. "No

one wants another Pittsburgh, but neither can western Maryland afford the

extravagance of a 190-mile public park." It called the prohibition of

hunting "the kind of thing too many Americans have had to accept from

federal bureaucracies in the interests of 'everyone.'" In lieu of the park,

it wanted segments of the canal property transferred to Maryland for the

extension of state parks, hunting grounds, and industry. 3

Opposition was also heard from organizations interested in public

power development on the Potomac. The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the Virginia Association of Electric Cooperatives, and the

Choptank Electric Cooperative hoped for revival of the Riverbend Dam

project (page 50) and saw the park as interfering with that objective.

Charles A. Robinson, Jr., testified for the National Rural Electric CooperaZU.S. Congress, Senate, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Historical Park, Hearing before the

Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 85th Congress,

1st Session, on S. 77, June 12, 1957 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1957).

3Ibid., pp. 12, 65-66.
CHAPTER FIVE 83

tive Association: "The enactment of S. 77 at this time would very likely

preclude multiple-purpose development of the river in the Washington area.

It would constitute the sacrifice of a substantial portion of the functional

~benefits of multiple purpose development such as water supply, pollution

abatement, and electric power, in exchange for a nonfunctional aesthetic

benefit not necessarily related to any plan of integrated resource

utilization. "4

Following the hearing, the Corps of Engineers informed the Senate

committee that it would have no objection to the bill if a proviso like that

in the Capper-Cramton Act were added expressly allowing for future dam

and other river development (page 8). Wirth was displeased.

"Preservation of the Canal property against all encroachments--including

water impoundment projects along the main stem of the Potomac River--is

an integral part of the proposal to give the area National Historical Park

status," he argued." But the committee sided with the Corps, amending the

bill to provide "that designation of lands for Chesapeake and Ohio Canal

National Historical Park purposes shall not debar or limit, or abridge its

use for such works as Congress may in the future authorize for

improvement and extension of navigation, or for flood control or irrigation

or drainage, or for the development of hydro-electric power or other

purposes. "

The committee's report clarified its intent: "S. 77 provides continued

authority in the Secretary of the Interior to grant easements through, over,

or under the park lands. The right of Congress to authorize in the future

use of the lands for other purposes is expressly restated. . .. The two

provisions make clear that it is not intended by S. 77 to freeze the long

strip of canal land occupying much of Maryland's Potomac River bank,

against other developments. "6

The Senate passed the amended bill on August 29. But the Maryland

Board of Natural Resources remained averse, officially reaffirming its

opposition in October. And the responsible House subcommittee, chaired

by Rep. Gracie Pfost of Idaho, a public power advocate, showed no sign of

acting. In a May 1958 editorial, the Washington Post accused Pfost of a

"blocking operation" by failing even to schedule hearings. Urging House

action, the Post approvingly noted the Senate's amendment allowing for

4Ibid., p. 44.

SLetter, Maj. Gen. E. C. Itschner to Sen. James E. Murray, Aug. 5, 1957, ibid., p. 4;

memorandum, Wirth to Legislative Counsel, July 26, 1957, file LS8, C & 0 Canal Parkway,

C & 0 Canal NHP.

6S. Rept. 1145, 85th Congress, Aug. 27, 1957, pp. 1-3.
84 THE PARK CAMPAIGN

dams if necessary: "Washington's ever-increasing demands for water make

these precautions essential. "7

The House Public Lands subcommittee finally took up the Senate and

House bills in an extended hearing beginning June 30, 1958.

Representative Hyde began by characterizing the proposed park as "the

poor man's national park" because it would "probably be the only extensive

national park in the United States that several million people can reach

without planning a long trip and with little or no expense." After urging

supporting witnesses to be brief in view of the lateness of the session, he

expressed confidence that the committee would "agree with the members of

the other body and unanimously approve this bill." The acerbic Rep.

Wayne N. Aspinall of Colorado, then presiding, took exception. "As a rule

in this committee we do not accept unanimously what the other body does,"

he retorted. "We reserve to ourselves the right to make our own

determination, and my colleague well knows that. "8 Indeed, Hyde's

confidence proved ill-founded.

Dams were again a dominant issue. The Senate Public Works

Committee had recently requested a restudy of the Potomac basin by the

Corps of Engineers, and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River

Basin had published a report by Abel Wohlman, a consulting engineer, that

recommended a series of dams to supplement Washington's water supply,

mitigate pollution by flushing action, and control flooding. Representative

Pfost asked Hyde whether the committee should not wait for the Corps

study before approving park legislation. Having indicated his willingness

to accept the Senate amendment, Hyde contended that "the question of a

dam and the problems with relation thereto will be exactly the same with

or without the establishment of this area as a national park." Pfost thought

otherwise. "I believe this committee has been reluctant to infringe upon

national park areas with storage dams built which will flood out an area

after it has been acquired for park purposes, and I think it is one of the key

points in this piece of legislation," she responded. "If the bill is passed,

I think we must make it unmistakably clear that there would be no

"Congressional Record 103: 16499; "Board Raps Canal Park," Baltimore Sun, Oct. 22,1957,

clipping in file 1.58, C & 0 Canal Parkway, C & 0 Canal NHP; "Pass the Park Bill, " Washington

Post, May 11, 1958, p. E4.

au.S. Congress, House, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, Hearings

before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 85th

Congress, 2d Session, on S. 77 and H.R. 1145, June 30, July 1, 15, Aug. 13, 14, 15, 18, 1958

(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1959), pp. 6-7.
CHAPTER FIVE 85

withholding of river development as future demands require it simply

because this committee saw fit to establish a park. "9

In his testimony, Director Wirth sought to reassure both the state park

- - -------and-game interestsand--the-river--development--proponents.-- -The-Park----- - - --- ---

Service was willing to guarantee in the legislation the right of hunters to

cross the canal and the right to place duck blinds adjacent to park property.

It would not develop visitor use facilities interfering with hunting and

wildlife propagation areas. It would acquire only those lands essential for

preservation and public enjoyment of the canal and its immediate environs

and for access to the river where it was within a quarter-mile of the canal.

Wirth was now willing to accept the Senate amendment: "I think I would

just as soon have it in if it satisfied the people in their thinking because

Congress has all those authorities anyway." Rather than blocking future

dam construction, he suggested, land acquisition for the park would mean

that less land would have to be purchased later for reservoirs. 10

While Hyde, Wirth, and most other park supporters were willing to live

with the Senate amendment, the National Wildlife Federation, The

Wilderness Society, and the C & 0 Canal Association objected to it. Their

refusal to compromise reinforced the doubts of the development advocates.

James L. Grahl of the American Public Power Association cited the recent

defeat of the proposed Echo Park Dam in Dinosaur National Monument

following a national campaign by conservationists. "The Senate amendment

would have legal effect, but we are fearful that the opponents of

multipurpose river development would use the existence of a Chesapeake

and Ohio Canal National Historical Park as a major weapon against vitally

needed dams," he testified. "In fact, it might well be conjectured that one

of the principal reasons for the introduction of this bill ... is to block the

construction of storage reservoirs on the Potomac River at any time in the

future. "11

Clay L. Cochran of the AFL-CIO was equally perceptive: "Various

conservation, recreation, and sporting groups unite readily to oppose the

invasion or abolition of national park areas once established and this is as

it should be. The inclusion of language indicating that creation of a

national park would not foreclose future development is unlikely to be

effective. We recall very clearly that the proclamation creating Dinosaur

National Monument provided for future water-resource development; yet

when the upper Colorado storage-project bill was under consideration,

9Jbid., p. 16.

1000id., pp. 21, 108, 110.

"Ibid., p. 143.
86 THE PARK CAMPAIGN

recreation, sporting and conservation groups opposed authorization of Echo

Park Dam as though no such provision existed. The very fact that we are

in agreement with the general principle that national parks should be

inviolate compels us to take a strong position against passage of any bill

which might hamper the full development of the Potomac. "12

The hearing continued sporadically through August 18. Pfost's

subcommittee then referred the bill to the full Interior and Insular Affairs

Committee, which met on August 20 to act on it but adjourned for lack of

a quorum. Representative Hyde saw this denouement as deliberate. So did

the Washington Post. "Never was a bill strangled with more finesse," the

Post editorialized. "The public power groups which opposed it must be

gloating. ,,13

The battle was rejoined at the beginning of the 86th Congress in 1959.

Sen. 1. Glenn Beall reintroduced the version of his bill that had passed the

Senate in 1957, again numbered S. 77. In the House, Rep. John P. Saylor

of Pennsylvania, a strong park supporter on the Public Lands subcommittee, introduced H.R. 953, identical to the unamended Senate and House

bills of the preceding Congress. Rep. John R. Foley of Maryland, Hyde's

successor, introduced H.R. 2331, identical to Beall's S. 77. Foley and Rep.

Richard E. Lankford of Maryland then introduced two other bills, H.R.

5194 and H.R. 5344, further modified to appease the river development

forces. Under them, the secretary of the interior would be required to

consult at least annually with the secretary of the army and the commissioners of the District of Columbia and spend no money for park development

unless reasonable benefits could be realized before affected lands were

taken for other purposes. The secretary of the army would be required to

submit to Congress a report with recommendations for the Potomac basin

within three years; until six months after the report was submitted, lands

as far as Brunswick could not be improved for park purposes at all. 14

The House now took the lead, holding hearings in March and April.

In letters to the committee, the Army and the D. C. commissioners favored

the latter bills while Interior favored the former ones. Under Secretary of

the Interior Elmer F. Bennett wrote that H.R. 5194 would diminish the

secretary's existing authority to improve the canal below Brunswick and

12Jbid., p. 153.

13WSuffocation,WWashington Post, Aug. 21, 1958.

14U.S. Congress, House, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, Hearings

before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 86th

Congress, 1st Session, on H.R. 953, H.R. 2331, H.R. 5194, and H.R. 5344, Mar. 23,24,25,

26, Apr. 20,21, 1959 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1959).
CHAPTER FIVE 87

severely hinder development of the entire park. The objective of not

spending unduly in areas subject to possible inundation, he argued, could

be achieved within existing budgetary and appropriations procedures."

-- -- -- --------Witnesses-at--the-hearing-divided--along-similar-lines,--with-most-pal'k- - - -- ----- --

proponents strongly objecting to H.R. 5194 and its twin. Conrad Wirth

stated his preference for no bill rather than one forbidding improvements

below Brunswick. Spencer M. Smith, Jr., and Orville W. Crowder of the

Citizens Committee on Natural Resources, Stewart Brandborg of the

National Wildlife Federation, Sigurd F. Olson of the National Parks

Association, and William C. Grayson of the D.C. Audubon Society also

spoke against what some characterized as water and power bills rather than

park bills. Grayson, who like most of the conservationists favored Saylor's

H.R. 953, urged its amendment to specify the preservation of natural as

well as historic and scenic features because his organization had "not

always found the National Park Service sensitive to the importance of

preserving natural values." Ironically, he also favored removing all trees

from the canal prism to restore and rewater the entire canal. 16

As executive officer of the National Capital Park and Planning

Commission, Maj. U. S. Grant III had urged preservation of the canal as

early as 1926 (page 7). More recently Grant, an Army engineer retired as

a major general, had publicly opposed the Echo Park Dam. Now president

of the American Planning and Civic Association, Grant appeared in support

of H.R. 953. The Riverbend Dam, he argued, was unnecessary and would

be cost-effective only with a hydroelectric power component. He favored

an unsullied park "to preserve this marvelous area of scenic beauty and

historic interest for future generations to enjoy and give them the

opportunity to find in this part, that relief from the pressures and urgencies

of city life which our harried population so much needs. . .. No other

nation's capital has such an opportunity to hold such a scenic and educational area in its immediate vicinity. "17

On the other side, the Corps of Engineers, while supporting the bills

that went the furthest to accommodate it, was still uncomfortable with any

park authorization. Rep. Albert C. Ullman of Oregon, a Corps ally, drew

out the Corps' witness, Col. George B. Sumner, on the subject:

ISIbid., pp. 6-8, 9-10, 17-18.

16Ibid., pp. 108-09, 116-17, 189,227.

l'Ibid., pp. 161-62.
88 THE PARK CAMPAIGN

Ullman: "And you feel, if the Secretary of the Interior got ahold of this canal with the

label of a national historical park, at some future date if you wanted to build this

[Riverbend] dam, you might run into a little opposition.... "

Sumner: "Let me say, I think there would be a lot of people who would think we were

being very, very mean to suggest flooding out a national historical park. "

Ullman: "Almost un-American to flood out a historical park of this type, would it not

be?"

Sumner: "I think it would be an unfortunate thing to have to go through that. "

Ullman: "You could foresee, in other words, a real fight in order to get such

authorization? "

Sumner: "Let me not say with whom I think the fight would be; let me say I think

there would be a fight. [Laughter.]"18

During the first week of the hearing, representatives of the Park

Service, the Corps, and the Bureau of the Budget met to work out a

compromise. The Budget Bureau sent the House committee the result of

their efforts, a suggested amendment to Foley's H.R. 2331: "Expenditures

for park installations and improvements shall be made only after

determination by the Secretary of the Interior that they are reasonably

justified by the benefits expected to accrue therefrom prior to the time

when the lands proposed to be developed would be likely to be needed to

carry out, if authorized, the plans and recommendations to be filed by the

Secretary of the Army with the Congress.... "19

Ultimately, however, the committee amended H.R. 2331 by deleting the

language from the 1957 Senate amendment and substituting a broader provision offered by John Saylor as Section 4: "Any portion of the lands and

interests in lands comprising the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National

Historical Park shall be made available upon Federal statutory authorization

for public nonpark uses when such uses shall have been found, in consideration of the public interest, to have a greater public necessity than the uses

authorized by this Act. "20

The committee included the Budget Bureau language in its report on the

bill, along with a letter from Under Secretary Bennett promising

compliance with it and endorsing the amended H.R. 2331. The report

stated the committee's expectation that Interior would consult periodically

with the Corps and the D.C. government "so as to permit proper limitations

to be placed upon development expenditures within areas of possible

conflict." It went out of its way to reassure those still worried that the park

would thwart river development: "The committee contemplates that the

ISfuid., p. 51.

19Letter, Philip S. Hughes to Rep. Wayne N. Aspinall, Mar. 27, 1959, ibid., p. 176.

~. Rept. 682, 86th Congress, July 16, 1959.
CHAPTER FIVE 89

enactme... t of u R "-:13 1 I. ",,,.U "".U,L .I. ~..l.. ,. ~.J .J., Qas amended and 1 1 ,11U +l.~ Lite subsequent .3U i) U~ 1 actions '"' J. J 0&1. the LJ c

Secretary of the Interior in acquiring lands and filing the final map of the

park, will not in any way prejudice the subsequent consideration, in due

-course,-of any proposednonpark-uses-of-the-park-Iandvas-the interests-of - -

the public may dictate. . .. The principles of multiple resource use and

adjustments in use are firmly incorporated in the laws and tradition of the

country and are in accord with all sound thinking. ,,21

The committee reported the bill to the full House in July, but any

victory celebration would have been premature. Rep. Michael J. Kirwan

of Ohio, chairman of the House subcommittee on Interior appropriations,

felt that there was already enough federal parkland around Washington. In

January 1960, at a hearing on the NPS budget containing $200,000 for

C & 0 Canal projects, Kirwan warned Wirth of his opposition to the park

bill. When the bill finally reached the House floor on May 19, Kirwan and

Clarence J. Brown of Ohio attacked it. Brown, citing the cost of land

acquisition and especially the parkway, called it "one of the most wasteful

and unneeded proposals" he had seen. Kirwan sided with the dam

proponents. "We should not be authorizing the purchase of another 10,000

acres of parkland in this area at the same time we are appropriating funds

to survey the need for these reservoirs," he argued. "The Corps of

Engineers is spending $1. 5 million to make this study, and yet this bill

would give the go-ahead to buy and develop 10,000 additional acres of

parks that will stand in the way of necessary development of the reservoirs

for water storage." Only Foley spoke in favor of the bill. The House

rejected it by a vote of 134 to 227. 22

The next day Senator Beall's office began an effort to salvage the

legislation by deleting all cost features from the Senate bill. Wirth told

Beall that elimination of the parkway would not be critical, but loss of land

acquisition authority for the park proper would render park status meaningless. With Interior's reluctant support, the Senate Interior committee

amended S. 77 to permit land acquisition by donation only, to delete the

parkway and allow only park-type access roads, and to adopt Section 4 of

the amended House bill in lieu of the earlier language accommodating river

development. "Senate sponsors of the proposal believe that the Senate

measure, with the authorizations for enlargement and parkway construction

2IIbid., pp. 7-10.

22TJ.S. Congress, House, Department ofthe Interior and RelatedAgenciesAppropriationsfor

1961, Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, 86th Congress, 2d

Session (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1960), p. 925; Congressional Record 106:

10706-10.
90 THE PARK CAMPAIGN

deleted, will be approved by the House if passed by the Senate, " the Senate

committee stated in its report. 23

The Senate passed the amended bill without debate on June 23, and it

was referred to the House Interior committee. It got no further. Resentful

of what he thought was the priority given projects around Washington, Rep.

Walter E. Rogers of Texas twice blocked moves to take up the bill,

preventing it from being considered and reported to the full House. It died

with the expiration of the 86th Congress."

On January 18, 1961, two days before he left office, President Dwight

D. Eisenhower used the executive authority granted by the 1906 Antiquities

Act to proclaim the C & 0 Canal lands between Seneca and Cumberland a

national monument. Recommended to Eisenhower by Secretary of the

Interior Fred A. Seaton, the proclamation gave this portion of the canal

status as a unit of the national park system but had little practical effect.

It authorized no expansion or development and carried with it no funding.

It also contained a provision that nothing in it was "intended to prejudice

the use of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Monument for such

works as the Congress may hereafter authorize for municipal and domestic

water supply, navigation, flood control, drainage, recreation, or other

beneficial purposes. ,,25

After their second defeat in Congress, most park supporters welcomed

what they considered a modest gain. Their happiness was short-lived.

Concerned members of Congress, notably Wayne Aspinall, now chairman

of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, took offense at the

executive action, judging it an assault upon their prerogative to establish

national park areas. 26 Aspinall, who had not been opposed to the park

23Letter, Wirth to Beall, May 24, 1960, C & 0 Canal National Historical Park file, NPS

History Division; S. Rept. 1632, 86th Congress, June 21, 1960, pp. 1-3.

24Congressional Record 106: 14030. Rogers was unhappy about the expenditure of nearly

$300,000 on the Old Stone House in Georgetown, which he thought lacked historical value.

"Now if the folks in my district wanted to do something like this, the Park Service would say,

'That's fine. You go right ahead and do it,'" he told a reporter. "We'd probably have to take

up a collection of dimes from the schoolchildren. The Federal Government has not been too

anxious to help us out back home." (James R. Carberry, "Death of Bill Creating Canal Park Laid

Largely to Texas Congressman," Washington Post, Sept. 4, 1960, p. B2.)

2SProclamation 3391, Federal Register, Jan. 24, 1961; memorandum, Seaton to Eisenhower,

Dec. 5, 1960, Dwight D. Eisenhower Library, Abilene, Kans.

2ASAlthough the proclamation authority in the Antiquities Act was still valid, its use had been

avoided since 1943, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt proclaimed Jackson Hole National

Monument in Wyoming after Congress refused to add the land to Grand Teton National Park.

Congress retaliated by denying appropriations for the national monument and banning future use
CHAPTER FIVE 91

bill, did not object to the substance of the proclamation, which was largely

symbolic. Had he and his committee been consulted on it beforehand, he

might have accepted it. But he had not been, and the breach of courtesy

poisoned- his attitude toward the national monument and succeeding park

bills for years thereafter. 27

The national monument proclamation and the way it was sprung at the

end of a lame duck administration left the dam proponents even more

distrustful of the Park Service, cited in the press as having initiated the

proclamation to block the Riverbend Dam. (The quoted disclaimer had

been inserted by the Budget Bureau at the insistence of the D.C.

government and the Department of the Army.) The parallel with Dinosaur

National Monument, also created by executive order under the Antiquities

Act, and the defeated Echo Park Dam was apparent. The hostile reaction

from both park opponents and park sympathizers jealous of congressional

prerogatives led the new administration to distance itself from the action.

President John F. Kennedy's interior secretary, Stewart L. Udall, said it

had "created some very serious problems." Although the Park Service had

prepared and supported the proclamation, Wirth told the Senate Public

Lands subcommittee that its issuance had been "decided by higher

authority" and denied that the Service had recommended it. 28

At the beginning of the 87th Congress, two weeks before the monument

proclamation, Senator Beall again introduced as S. 77 the stripped-down

parkbill approved by the Senate in the previous Congress. A month after

the proclamation, Rep. Charles McC. Mathias, Jr., of Maryland, John

Foley's successor, introduced H.R. 4684. Similar in most respects, it

provided for incorporating the national monument in the national historical

park and restored language allowing for land purchases as well as donations

to bring the park up to 15,000 acres.

With Aspinall averse to House action, the Senate Interior committee

and its Public Lands subcommittee resumed the lead, holding a hearing on

S. 77 on April 12. Secretary Udall sent a letter recommending its

of the proclamation authority in Wyoming. As a result of the controversy and its consequences,

the creation of national monuments was left to congressional initiative in all but one

noncontroversial instance between 1943 and 1961.

27Jnterview with Gilbert M. Gude, Nov. 20, 1989.

28letter, Arthur B. Focke (Budget Bureau) to Attorney General, Jan. 12, 1961, Eisenhower

Library; "Ike's Move Hinders Park Status for C & 0 Canal, Udall Claims," Washington Post,

Feb. 8, 1961, p. A6; U.S. Congress, Senate, C. & O. Canal National Historical Park, Hearing

before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 87th

Congress, 1st Session, on S. 77, Apr. 12, 1961 (Washington: Government Printing Office,

1961), p. 22; telephone conversation with Wirth, June 13, 1990.
92 THE PARK CAMPAIGN

amendment along the lines of Mathias's bill. The D.C. commissioners

made clear that darns would be required on the Potomac to augment the

metropolitan water supply but were satisfied with the assurance provided

in Section 4 (page 88). "Reservoir storage is considered essential for

development of a dependable and adequate water supply for the increasing

needs of the Washington area and such reservoirs as are ultimately found

indispensable may occupy part of the lands encompassed in the/proposed

park," Secretary of the Army Elvis J. Stahr, Jr., wrote. He preferred that

the park bill be deferred pending completion of the Corps' water resources

development study, but he withheld objection to it "in view of Section 4.29

Testifying for his bill, Beall expressed pleasure with Eisenhower's

proclamation and Udall's support for the park. He was agreeable to

amending the bill to conform to H.R. 4684. He recognized that a darn or

darns might have to inundate part of the park and agreed that the record

should be clear on that point.

The public power interests were not persuaded. Alex Radin, general

manager of the American Public Power Association, and Charles Robinson

of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association urged delay until the

Corps study was complete or amendment of the bill to provide more

explicitly for river development and preclude park improvements below

Brunswick in the interim. Robinson argued that the Riverbend reservoir

would provide much greater recreational opportunity than the park without

a reservoir. Both cited the successful opposition to the Echo Park Darn as

cause for stronger language than Section 4. 30

In reporting out the bill, the Senate committee amended it to match the

House version and added a $1.5 million authorization for land acquisition.

(The Park Service had claimed this sum was sufficient for the 10,200 acres

required to reach the 15,000-acre ceiling, even though it calculated to less

than $150 per acre.) The committee report sought once again to satisfy the

darn and public power advocates by documenting the intent behind Section

4, renumbered Section 3: "Section 3 is intended to assure that the

establishment of the Chesapeake and Ohio National Historical Park [sic]

will not bar or create a prejudice against any essential project proposed to

Congress, including Great Bend [sic] or any other recommended by the

Corps of U. S. Army Engineers in its pending report. It is the further

understanding that the National Park Service will not, pending approval of

a plan for the Potomac to meet the needs of the area, construct facilities

within any portion of the park prospectively necessary for other uses which

29Senate Hearing on S. 77, 1961, pp. 2-3, 7.

:lOJbid., pp. 8-14, 57-70.
CHAPTER FIVE 93

win not, in the period prior to other use, provide benefits at least equal to

the cost. "31

The amended bill again passed the Senate without debate on August 2,

- -only--to- Ianguish .inrthe -House-under---Wayne-AspinaU's -custody;---- ------

Representative Mathias unsuccessfully prodded the Interior committee's

chairman for action in April 1962. That July the New York Times called for

an end ttf- delay, suggesting that the proposed park would become "the

Central Park for the Eastern seaboard's coming megalopolis." As the 87th

Congress neared adjournment in September 1962, the House National Parks

subcommittee (formed from the previous Public Lands subcommittee)

finally held a brief hearing on it and recommended it to the full Interior

committee." It went no further. The chairman had not forgiven.

Beall and Mathias introduced in the next Congress bills like that last

passed by the Senate, but Aspinall's attitude discouraged any action on

them in either house. After Beall's defeat for reelection in 1964, Mathias

continued to sponsor park bills through the 90th Congress (1967-68)

without success. But he helped keep hope for the park alive, and other

circumstances ultimately shifted the balance in its favor. Foremost among

them was the fate of the Potomac river development plan.

The Corps of Engineers issued a summary of its long-awaited Potomac

Basin restudy in May 1962. It proposed 16 dams on the Potomac and its

tributaries. The Riverbend Dam had been lowered and moved back to

Seneca, making it less efficient but presumably less controversial. It would

be the only dam affecting the park, flooding about six miles of the canal."

The opposition was not mollified. Justice William O. Douglas attacked

the Corps summary at a National Parks Association conference, calling it

"an insult to the layman's intelligence" because it insufficiently justified the

Seneca Dam. The Corps' full Potomac River Basin Report, released in

April 1963, came under heavy fire at a public hearing that September in

Washington's Departmental Auditorium. Anthony Wayne Smith, now

president of the National Parks Association, argued that clean water could

be provided at less cost by water treatment than by large reservoirs, and

that relatively small earthen dams at the headwaters would suffice for flood

control; Representative Mathias spoke out against a large dam at Seneca

31S. Rept. 648, 87th Congress, July 28, 1961, pp. 1-3.

32Congressional Record 107: 14442, 108: 0514; letter, Mathias to Aspinall, Apr. 10, 1962,

file 1460/C&O General, C & 0 Canal NHP; "Saving the Potomac" (editorial), New York Times,

July 22, 1962.

33U.S. Army Engineers District, Baltimore, Summary, Potomac River Basin Report

(Baltimore: U.S. Army Engineers District, 1963).
94 THE PARK CAMPAIGN

or anywhere else below Harpers Ferry. Nor were the public power

interests pleased: the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association still

wanted the Riverbend Dam for its power generating potential. 34

Secretary Udall sympathized with the dam opponents. After meeting

with them, he advised President Lyndon B. Johnson against endorsing the

controversial Corps plan and recommended a more broadly based Potomac

Basin study under his auspices. Johnson readily agreed, asking Udall to

prepare a program to clean up the river, protect its natural beauty by scenic

easements and other measures, provide recreational facilities, and complete

the George Washington Memorial Parkway on both banks. The President

announced the new study in his 1965 State of the Union Address and

expounded on it in a special message to Congress on natural beauty that

February. "The river rich in history and memory which flows by our

Nation's Capital should serve as a model of scenic and recreational values

for the entire country," he stated. 35

Udall formed a Federal Interdepartmental Task Force on the Potomac

to work with an advisory committee representing the Potomac Basin states.

In January 1966 he endorsed and sent Johnson its Potomac Interim Report

to the President. The report opposed building the Seneca Dam "at this

time" but recommended that the area it would flood be left undeveloped

"for any future needed public use." It favored three new dams on the Town

Creek, Sideling Hill, and Little Cacapon tributaries in addition to the

previously authorized Bloomington Dam beyond Cumberland. And it

recommended a Potomac Valley Historical Park, encompassing the C & 0

Canal National Monument and other lands in Maryland, Virginia, and West

Virginia, to achieve a "permanent green sheath" for the Potomac."

More than two years later, following extensive efforts by NPS and

other government planners, Udall came forth with a revised plan for the

Potomac. The first part of it called for a Potomac National River of 67,000

acres from Washington to Cumberland, again incorporating the national

monument. Both sides of the river and its islands would be purchased in

fee, scenic easements would be acquired inland, and local governments

would be encouraged to adopt strict master plans and zoning ordinances to

34April L. Young, •Saving the C and 0 Canal: Citizen Participation in Historic Preservation,"

M.A. thesis, George Washington University, 1973, pp. 64-66; Board ofEngineers for Rivers and

Harbors, Corps of Engineers, "Public Hearing on the Potomac River Basin Report,· 1: 6-10.

35Young, "Saving the C and 0 Canal,· pp. 82-83; H. Doc. 78, 89th Congress, Feb. 8, 1965.

36Federal Interdepartmental Task Force on the Potomac, Potomac Interim Report to the

President (Washington: Department of the Interior, 1966).
CHAPTER FIVE 95

control adjacent land use. Unless specifically authorized by Congress, no

new dams would be allowed within the national river's boundaries."

Udall's transmittal of a draft Potomac National River bill to Congress

- - --- ---- .on.March 8, 19_68,_coincided withanotherpresidential messageendorsing__

the proposal. That October Udall publicized the balance of his plan in The

Nation's River: The Department of the Interior Official Report on the

Potomac. The report called for dams at Sixes Bridge on the Monocacy

River, Verona, and North Mountain in addition to those recommended in

the 1966 interim report. 38 '

The Potomac National River and associated proposals generated much

-controversy. Some conservationists felt betrayed by Udall on the dams.

Farm organizations and real estate interests that had joined with the

conservation groups against the Corps' dams also disliked the amount of

land acquisition and control called for. Opposition was especially strong

in West Virginia. No member of Congress from there or Virginia joined

in sponsoring the Potomac National River legislation. Douglas accused

Udall of "delusions of grandeur" for abandoning the canal park in favor of

the larger scheme, widely viewed as unworkable. While not denouncing

the national river, the National Parks Association, the Citizens Committee

on Natural Resources, and the C & 0 Canal Association continued to favor

separate authorization of the C & 0 Canal National Historical Park. 39

In fact, the national river proposal may have helped the cause of the

park by making it appear innocuous by comparison. To some previous

opponents in Maryland, the park now appeared a desirable alternative.

Declining to support the national river, Mathias worked skillfully to assure

western Marylanders that their interests would be protected and furthered

by his park legislation, which now provided for an advisory commission

representing the affected state and local jurisdictions. Simultaneously,

efforts by the Park Service's national monument staff to improve public

relations were achieving considerable success (as will be discussed

later);"

J1Letter, Udall to Hubert H. Humphrey, Mar. 8, 1968, C & 0 Canal NHP file, Home Papers,

NPS History Collection, Harpers Ferry, W. Va.; "Secretary Udall Proposes 195-Mile Potomac

National River," Department of the Interior News Release, Mar. 12, 1968, ibid.

J8{].S. Department ofthe Interior, TheNation's River: The Department ofthe Interior Official

Report on the Potomac (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1968).

:WYoung, "Saving the C and 0 Canal," p. 87; Marie Ridder, "Capital Newsmakers: William

O. Douglas ... Walk Along with Him," Washingtonian, April 1970, p. 24.

40Jnterview with Carrie Johnson, Jan. 31, 1990; interview with John Frye, Feb. 1, 1990.
96 THE PARK CAMPAIGN

Mathias, who became a U.S. senator with the 9lst Congress in 1969,

and Representatives John Saylor, Samuel S. Stratton of New York, and

Rogers C. B. Morton, Gilbert M. Gude, and 1. Glenn Beall, Jr., of

Maryland introduced park bills in the first session of that Congress. Udall,

whose commitment to the Potomac National River had led him to oppose

the last park bills, was out of office. Walter J. Hickel, President Richard

M. Nixon's interior secretary, did not immediately endorse either the park

or the national river (for which bills were also introduced). Hickel's

position was critical, for the Senate Interior committee would not waste its

time on the park bill without prior action by its House counterpart, whose

chairman would act--if at all--only upon learning where the new

administration stood.

In the spring of 1970 it was rumored that Hickel was about to endorse

the national river. Anthony Smith urged his support for the park instead.

"If the C & 0 Canal project continues to be involved in the Potomac

National River project, it will never get anywhere, because the Potomac

National River project, as proposed by Secretary Udall will never get

anywhere," he wrote Hickel. (Smith's argument for the park would not

have helped its cause in western Maryland: seeking to tie it to the

administration's urban initiative, he described it as "primarily for the

benefit of the city people of the Washington Metropolitan area. ") Mathias,

Gude, and other park proponents hastily arranged a meeting in Hickel's

office, explained to him why the national river was then impolitic, and

advised him to take an evolutionary approach starting with the park. The

secretary was persuaded. On May 27 he communicated his support for the

C & 0 Canal National Historical Park to Wayne Aspinall."

Gude and Saylor called on the chairman. His mood had mellowed, a

circumstance colleagues attributed to the old widower's recent remarriage.

He agreed that the national river was infeasible and thought the park a

reasonable alternative. He promised to hold hearings. 42

After the change of administrations in January 1969, NPS Director

George B. Hartzog, Jr., (Wirth's successor in 1964) had sought to position

his bureau to move in whatever direction Hickel chose. That April he had

obtained a resolution from the secretary's Advisory .Board on National

"Leuer, Smith to Hickel, Apr. 6, 1970, C & 0 Canal files, National Parks and Conservation

Association; Carrie Johnson interview; letter, Hickel to Aspinall, May 27, 1970, in U.S.

Congress, House, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, Hearings before the

Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

91st Congress, 2nd Session, on H.R. 658 and Related Bills, Aug. 11 and 13, 1970 (Washington:

Government Printing Office, 1970), p. 12.

4'Gude interview.
CHAPTER FIVE

•

97

Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings, and Monuments supporting establishment

of the national historical park "at this time" as a first step toward the

national river. John M. Kauffmann, a Park Service planner who had

worked on the national river project, was asked to redo the park plan in

line with this thinking. Kauffmann's plan for land acquisition and

development was largely complete that October.

The park would now include the entire canal from Georgetown to

Cumberland (as was called for in the current bills and Mathias's bill in the

preceding Congress). Its boundary, drawn on a map, encompassed 20,239

acres, of which 12,156 acres were privately owned. No additional land was

to be acquired from Rock Creek to just above Great Falls and from North

Branch to Cumberland; in between, the park would take in everything

between the canal and river and much inland acreage. The land cost was

estimated at $19,472,605 if Maryland proceeded with plans to acquire

2,000 acres within the boundary; otherwise $909,832 more would be

needed. Development was expected to cost $47 million. "Essentially, the

boundary map, the development plan, and the land and development·

estimates reflect a decision to split the Potomac National River plan

lengthwise," one reviewer commented;"

The House hearing ran through two days in August 1970, late in the

9Ist Congress: In his opening remarks Aspinall mentioned his opposition

to Eisenhower's national monument proclamation ("it was not done in

accordance with the wishes of Congress") but blamed past inaction on park

bills on "a fight between the conservationists, conservation for land,

conservation for recreation, conservation for water." He understood that

those differences had now been resolved. 44

John Saylor's bill, H.R. 658, was the primary focus of attention.

Among other provisions, it provided for the secretary of the interior to

undertake a comprehensive title search and cadastral survey to fix the

present federal boundary and distribute the results to all adjoining

landowners and governmental bodies. (Numerous disputes had arisen over

private land claims.) Private owners of land between the park and the river

would be guaranteed access to their land for agricultural purposes, and

hunters would be allowed to cross the park with unloaded weapons at any

point. The old language allowing for "public nonpark uses," e.g., dams,

upon congressional authorization was repeated. Appropriations of $3

million during each of the first three fiscal years "and such sums as may be

necessary thereafter" would be authorized.

43Hickel To Aspinall, May 27, 1970; memorandum, Robert L. Steenhagen to Theodor R.

Swem, Oct. 29, 1969, file L1425, C & 0 Canal NHP.

44House Hearings on H.R. 658, 1970, p. 17.
98

o

THE PARK CAMPAIGN

The Interior Department proposed a number of amendments. In his

letter to Aspinall, Hickel recommended setting the park boundary

legislatively by reference to Kauffmann's map. He objected to the title

search and survey provision, which he said would encourage land disputes

and entail unnecessary costs. He requested deletion of the land access

provision, stating Interior's intent to acquire all private land between the

canal and the river. He wanted hunters to cross "at locations designated by

the Secretary" for control and safety purposes. He recommended deletion

of the "public nonpark uses" language as unnecessary. And he asked for

much larger land acquisition and development appropriations in line with

the NPS estimates."

Senator Mathias testified to the urgency of action in the face of rising

land values. "This is the last blow of the trumpet as far as the C. & O.

Canal is concerned," he said. "The key to the salvation of the Potomac

River is to pass this bill and to establish this park as the vertebrae upon

which the State and local and private effort can build so that we can

preserve the river." On behalf of a vocal constituency, he stressed the

value of sportsmen's clubs in protecting the river and expressed hope that

they might be left undisturbed. "In the 10 years I have been in Congress

I don't suppose I have had any constituent problem which was more

troublesome than the problem of access to the Potomac River across the

C. & O. Canal property," he commented."

Testifying for the Park Service, Director George Hartzog justified the

plan to acquire all land between the canal and river. Because the park was

viewed as the first step toward the Potomac National River, he said, the

Service did not want to pay severance costs associated with partial land

acquisition now and return later to purchase the rest. The development

plan he described was extensive. The entire canal would be restored to

varying degrees, and half of it would be rewatered. There would be

numerous facilities for boating, camping, picnicking, and other recreational

activities, with associated access roads and parking areas. 47

Conservation group representatives joined in supporting the park but

voiced concern about the proposed level of development. Spencer Smith

of the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources urged that priority be

given to canal restoration over parking and supplementary services.

Anthony Smith of the National Parks and Conservation Association objected

to plans for "sizable parking lots" serving "large motorboat areas" on the

4SLetter, Hickel to Aspinall, May 27, 1970, ibid., pp. 12-13.

46House Hearings on H.R. 658, 1970, p. 59.

4'%id., pp. 40, 51.
CHAPTER FIVE 99

river: "It would be a bitter irony if as a result of a successful effort to

protect the Canal lands as a Park, the public were to find its good refuge

destroyed by the noise-makers, pursuant to plans developed by the very

agency of the Government entrusted with protection." .Colin Ritter,

president of the C & 0 Canal Association, and Grant Conway, representing

the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club, likewise minimized the need for

development. Shirley A. Briggs of the Audubon Naturalist Society and the

Rachel Carson Trust criticized the damage wrought by the Park Service

with herbicides and with heavy equipment used for towpath repairs at

Widewater. She urged that the legislation give natural values equal weight

with historic and recreational values to prevent such abuses in the future. 48

Maryland's Department of Forests and Parks now favored the park,

with some reservations. Its director, Spencer P. Ellis, wanted to be sure

that the park boundary would not take in the Potomac, as the Park Service

map seemed to allow. Maryland planned to acquire riverfront lands in

connection with the Green Ridge State Forest in Allegany County, Fort

Frederick State Park in Washington County, and McKee Beshers Wildlife

Management Area in Montgomery County and wanted the ability to lease

canal lands within each project. The state also wanted permission to lease

other portions of the national historical park between the canal and river so

hunting could continue there.

The last request upset Aspinall. "It doesn't matter whether it is under

lease to the State," he retorted. "I am not about to support legislation

which permits hunting in any national park.... This is one thing that has

caused a lot of trouble here and I thought this issue had been resolved. "

Ellis was not in a position to press the matter and backed down. Rep. Roy

A. Taylor of North Carolina, the subcommittee chairman, helped him save

face by agreeing that the park's south boundary should be the mean low

water mark on the north bank of the Potomac."

The most noteworthy aspect of the 1970 park hearings was the virtual

disappearance of opposition. Effective public relations work by Mathias,

NPS staff, and others had done much to allay fears and win friends in

western Maryland and Annapolis. The dam lobby was nowhere to be seen.

The demise of the Seneca Dam proposal, moribund since 1963, was

confirmed when the Army's chief of engineers declined to endorse it in

048Jbid., pp. 68, 79, 92, 100.

49Jbid., pp. 120-26.

/
]00 THE PARK CAMPAIGN

1969. 50 So remote had prospects of any new dam along the length of the

park become that the committee readily accepted Hickel's recommendation

to delete the "public nonpark uses" provision long demanded by river

development proponents.

On October 1 the committee recommended to the full House a "clean

bill" (H.R. 19342) combining elements of H.R. 658, certain of Hickel's

recommendations, and other amendments. The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal

Development Act, as it was titled, would establish the Chesapeake and Ohio

Canal National Historical Park "to preserve and interpret the historic and

scenic features of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, and to develop the

potential of the canal for public recreation, including such restoration as

may be needed." The park boundaries were to be "as generally depicted"

on Kauffmann's map; the exact boundaries were to be established and

announced to property owners on the inland side of the canal within 18

months of enactment. State-owned lands would be included only if donated

or managed under a cooperative agreement making them subject to national

park policies. Lands that Maryland planned to purchase and on which

cooperative agreements were negotiated could not be acquired before two

years, giving the state first rights. The secretary of the interior was also

to consider state and local development and use plans affecting the park

vicinity and act compatibly with them "wherever practicable."

Valid existing rights and permits were not to be adversely affected by

the act. The 1953 law directing the secretary to grant utility easements

across the canal was not expressly reaffirmed, as it had been in earlier

bills; rather, the secretary was given discretion to permit other uses and

crossings of the park "if such uses and crossings are not in conflict with the

purposes of the park and are in accord with any requirements found

necessary to preserve park values." Hunters were authorized to cross with

unloaded weapons at locations designated by the secretary, as Interior had

requested.

The bill also established a 19-member Chesapeake and Ohio Canal

National Historical Park Commission, its members to be appointed by the

secretary for five-year terms. Two members would be appointed from

recommendations from the government of each affected Maryland county

(Montgomery, Frederick, Washington, Allegany); two would be appointed

from recommendations from the chief executive of the District of Columbia

and each adjoining state (Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia); and three

would be appointed at the secretary's initiative. The secretary or his

5Ot.etter, William E. Trieschman, Jr., (Corps of Engineers) to Richard L. Stanton, Sept. 17,

1975, Potomac National River file, NPS Legislation Division. The secretary of the Army

followed suit in May 1970 when he transmitted the Corps's 1963 PotomacRiver BasinReport to

Congress.
CHAPTER FIVE 101

designee was to meet and consult with the commission at least annually "on

general policies and specific matters related to the administration and

development of the park." Earlier language requiring the secretary to

~- consult before establishing park regulations was stricken, making clear that

the commission was to playa purely advisory rather than administrative

role. The commission would expire after ten years.

The bill authorized $20.4 million for land acquisition, as Interior

requested, but only $17 million of the $47 million sought for development.

With the lower figure, derived from the Park Service development plan for

the first three years, the committee responded to the conservationists'

concerns about overdevelopment and guaranteed that the plan would

undergo further scrutiny if and when the agency returned for more money."

The House passed the bill without amendment on October 5--the first

time a C & 0 park bill cleared that body. (Only Rep. H. R. Gross of Iowa,

a crusader against most new federal spending, stood in opposition.) The

bill then went to the Senate, whose Interior committee held a pro forma

hearing on December 15 and reported it favorably on December 21. In response to some potentially troublesome questions from Sen. Clinton P.

Anderson of New Mexico, the committee report further emphasized that the

park would stop at the river's edge: "Nothing in this bill is intended or

shall be construed to extend the jurisdiction of the Secretary over the

Potomac River itself...." It also affirmed the applicability of the 1953

easements law to the national historical park. 52

Fortunately for the park proponents, those seeking these assurances did

not insist on amending the bill with them. Senate passage of an amended

bill would have required its return to the House for concurrence. Further

House action so close to adjournment was unlikely. By keeping the bill

unaltered, it was ready for presidential signature after the Senate approved

it without dissent on December 22. President Nixon signed it into law on

January 8, 1971. 53

The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Monument and the canal

property from Seneca down to Rock Creek, comprising some 5,250 acres,

jlH. Rept. 91-1553, 91st Congress.

j2Congressional Record 116: 34852; S. Rept. 91-1512, 91st Congress. The Senate committee

report was written by Carrie Johnson, a member of Senator Mathias's staff, at the request of the

committee staff (Johnson interview).

j3CongressionalRecord 116: 43245; Public Law 91-664, U.S. Statutesat Large 84: 1978-80.
102 THE PARK CAMPAIGN

were now the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park. The

tasks of acquiring another 15,000 acres and developing the park to best

preserve its values and serve the public lay ahead.
CHAPTER SIX

EXPANDING THE PARK

103

-The i971 act finally gav-e the National Park Service the authority and

means--with subsequent appropriations--to enlarge its narrow canal right-ofway into a viable park. Land acquisition was the primary purpose of the

legislation and became the first priority following its enactment.

The act did not inaugurate Park Service real estate dealings along the

canal, however. There had been some previous additions in the three

decades since the railroad had conveyed the canal. There had also been

moves to alienate some of what the Service had then acquired.

Cumberland, it will be recalled, had tried to obtain the canal property

within the city limits in 1941 (page 53). Once the Service became

committed to the parkway concept, it was willing to relinquish portions of

this property in exchange for other lands fulfilling its needs.

In September 1953, at the request of Sen. 1. Glenn Beall, Associate

Superintendent Harry T. Thompson of National Capital Parks met in

Cumberland with representatives ofits chamber of commerce, the Maryland

State Roads Commission, and Pittsburgh Plate Glass. PPG was planning

a plant in the Mexico Farms area and wanted part of the canal property for

a railroad siding. "The essence of the conference was to the effect that the

National Park Service would cooperate fully with the Cumberland Chamber

of Commerce and with the industrial firm since the canal proper between

Lock 75 for a distance of approximately 1-112 miles upstream ... was

scheduled for abandonment as a canal, and that we would encourage the

Chamber of Commerce to proceed on the assumption that all of the land

between the Western Maryland Railroad and the river might be made

available to the industrial plant and that the National Park Service would

endeavor to locate the parkway eastward of the B & 0 Railroad tracks,"

Thompson reported. 1

Previously, du Pont had decided against locating a plant near

Hagerstown, citing complications in getting access to needed river water

from the Park Service. This public relations fiasco, as Thompson

characterized it, figured in Hagerstown's opposition to the parkway.

Thompson's eagerness to cooperate with Cumberland and PPG was

'Memorandum, Thompson to files, Sept. 28, 1953, file 14601C&O General, National Capital

Parks, Washington National Records Center, Suitland, Md. Hereinafter cited as file 1460/C&O,

WNRC.
104 EXPANDING THE PARK

designed to demonstrate that the parkway would not impede Maryland's

economic development. 2

By the time the Corps of Engineers' Cumberland-Ridgely flood control

project got underway in the mid-1950s, the Park Service had essentially

written off the canal above Lock 75 (the last lift lock) at North Branch.

The Corps was permitted to fill in the last mile of the canal and a former

basin used as a ballpark and obliterate the inlet lock at the terminus. The

Western Maryland Railway extended track across the terminus site, and a

new connection between the Western Maryland and B & 0 railroads further

altered the scene. Remaining portions of the canal in Cumberland were

silted, overgrown, and laden with raw sewage; Robert C. Horne of NCP

described conditions there as "frightful" in a 1956 inspection report. 3 The

first national historical park bills, drafted by the Service soon afterward,

provided for the disposal of canal lands above North Branch in "exchange

for lands desired elsewhere.

The B & 0 Railroad was interested in a land exchange because it had

built some of its track in Cumberland on canal property and had neglected

to reserve those sections when the government acquired the canal in 1938.

The Park Service was most interested in obtaining an acre of B & 0 land

in Harpers Ferry where the fire engine house occupied by John Brown and

his raiders had stood. It also wanted B & 0 parcels totaling 25 acres at or

near Tuscarora, Point of Rocks, and Knoxville, including some of the land

that the railroad had reserved for additional trackage. 4

The railroad would not part with the latter, but negotiations proceeded

on the Cumberland and Harpers Ferry tracts. When the park bills

containing the necessary land exchange authority stalled, Senator Beall

inserted an exchange provision in pending legislation adding the Storer

College property to Harpers Ferry National Monument: "To facilitate the

acquisition of the original site of the engine house known as John Brown's

'Fort' and the old Federal arsenal, the Secretary of the Interior is hereby

authorized to exchange therefor federally owned park lands or interests in

lands of approximately equal value in the vicinity of Cumberland,

Maryland, which he finds are no longer required for park purposes. lIS

2Memorandum, Thompson to Conrad L. Wirth, Oct. 27, 1953, file 1460/C&O, WNRC.

3Memorandum, Home to files, June 27, 1956, C&O Administration and Protection file,

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park.

"Memorandum, George A. Palmer to Conrad L. Wirth, May 7, 1957, C & 0 Canal Parkway

file 1.58, C & 0 Canal NHP.

5Public Law 86-655, U.S. Statutes at Large 74: 520.
CHAPTER SIX 105

This legislation was enacted without difficulty on July 14, 1960, but the

exchange negotiations faltered thereafter. The B & 0 wanted all the canal

property above North Branch and sought to replace a railroad bridge over

. - --the-canal-between--I::;ocks--93-and-74with-filHhat would--severthe-canal. -InJune 1962 Director Conrad L. Wirth responded with the Park Service's

position. The terminus of park development would be at Lock 75;

therefore, the railroad would not be permitted to sever the canal below that

point. The Service would require additional land from the B & 0 for its

park development at North Branch, and it was unwilling to cede all its land

above that point to the railroad, preferring to transfer or lease land not

needed for actual railroad development to Cumberland or Allegany County

for recreation. 6

Competing requests for canal property in Cumberland and the B & 0's

merger with the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad led to another hiatus in

negotiations. They resumed in 1965 but soon encountered further

obstacles. Richard L. Stanton of the NPS Lands Division discovered what

he termed a fraudulent appraisal equating the value of the lands to be

exchanged. As reappraised by Stanton, the property to be given the

railroad was worth far more than that to be received by the government.

In November 1966 John M. Kauffmann, a chief planner for what would

become the Potomac National River proposal, discouraged alienation of

canal land above North Branch because of its expected role in that project.

The Park Service was now willing to quitclaim only those lands actually

occupied by the railroad (three sections totaling about 15 acres) in exchange

for the engine house site, while the railroad continued to press for

additional canal lands for its future expansion. By 1969 the negotiations

had again reached an impasse."

That January the Service exchanged the ballpark tract in Cumberland,

comprising 16.2 acres, for 183.55 acres of Maryland land under State

Roads Commission jurisdiction. With Rep. Charles McC. Mathias's

6Wirthposition cited in memorandum, Richard L. Stanton to Donald E. Lee, Aug. 17, 1965,

in "Chesapeake & Ohio 1965" file L1425, C & 0 Canal NHP.

'Interview with Richard L. Stanton, June 8, 1989; memorandum, Joseph R. Prentice to

Regional Director, Northeast Region, NPS, Oct. 26, 1966, John Brown Fort file Ll425, NCP,

WNRC; memorandum, Stanton to Regional Director, National Capital Region, NPS, ibid.;

"Briefing Paper, B & 0 Railroad Land Exchange, " attached to memorandum, William Penn Mott,

Jr., to Secretary ofthe Interior, Apr. 5, 1989, copy in C & 0 Canal National Historical Park file,

NPS History Division. Prentice, superintendent of Harpers Ferry National Monument, pressed

for acquisition of the engine house site in 1966-1967 because the engine house, then located on

the former Storer College grounds, had to be moved to make room for the Service's new

Interpretive Design Center. The failure to consummate the exchange meant that the structure had

to be relocated on another site.
106 EXPANDING THE PARK

support, Cumberland had sought the ballpark tract for industrial

development since 1964. The Service stalled on this request because its

negotiations with the B & 0 for Cumberland lands had priority; meanwhile,

the SRC encroached upon the tract for an approach to the Cumberland

Thruway. This led to its exchange in 1969 for land the SRC had acquired

for Interstate 70 between Great Tonoloway Creek and Millstone. 8

Efforts to acquire a 338-acre tract between the canal and MacArthur

Boulevard below Great Falls got underway in 1958. This Maryland Gold

Mine tract, so called from the name of a gold mine there sporadically active

from 1867 to 1940, lay within the authorized jurisdiction of the George

Washington Memorial Parkway. The parkway road was still expected to

extend to Great Falls, and the tract was needed for the purpose. In

addition, the U. S. Geological Survey, with the support of the Park Service

and the National Capital Planning Commission, planned to use part of the

tract for a new headquarters and research center. 9

The Service sought a donation from Paul Mellon's Old Dominion

Foundation to acquire the tract in 1959, but that effort failed. In 1964

Margaret Johnson, the owner, sold it to Herman Greenberg's Community

Builders, Inc. Greenberg applied for rezoning to develop the property,

whose value had increased with the construction of the Potomac Interceptor

Sewer through it. The Service began purchase negotiations; when

agreement could not be reached, the government condemned the tract on

July 14, 1965, and was assessed $2,012,111 for it by the court."

The government did not use the tract as planned. The parkway road

was not built beyond a junction with MacArthur Boulevard more than a

mile to the east. The Geological Survey headquarters proposal was

successfully opposed by the Civic League of Brookmont, Maryland, and

Rep. Henry S. Reuss of Wisconsin, who noted that the national capital

area's Policies Plan for the Year 2000 prescribed such development in

corridors away from the Potomac. 11 (The Geological Survey subsequently

built in Reston, Virginia.) The undeveloped tract was included within the

!Letter, R. C. Petersen to Edwin M. Dale, June 11, 1964, Cumberland Chamber of

Commerce file L1425, C & 0 Canal NHP; letter, Mathias to Dale, June 29, 1965, ibid.;

memorandum, Richard L. Stanton to Regional Director, NCR, Oct. 17,1968, C & 0 Canal 1968-

69 file LI425, C & 0 Canal NHP; Stanton interview.

9Memorandum, Conrad L. Wirth to Chairman, NCPC, May 2, 1958, C & 0 Canal--Great

Falls Park file, Office of Land Use Coordination, National Capital Region, NPS; GWMP--Gold

Mine Tract file, ibid.

lOOWMP--Gold Mine Tract file, Office of Land Use Coordination.

lIIbid.
CHAPTER SIX 107

George Washington Memorial Parkway and remained there after

establishment of the C & 0 Canal National Historical Park, but it has been

managed as part of the latter in practice.

-- - - Along much of the canal, the uncertain status of-boundaries and land

titles severely impeded park management. The C & 0 Canal National

Monument (above Seneca) had more than three hundred miles of boundary,

of which less than a third had been surveyed and even less had been

marked. "This has given rise to an untenable situation with respect to

management, development and use of canal lands, and has allowed encroachments, trespass and overlapping claims to land ownership to continue

at the expense of our public image and in defiance of our public responsibilities," Superintendent W. Dean McClanahan complained in 1967. 12

McClanahan was especially concerned about the lack of title data. "In

spite of 29 years of public ownership, we still do not know exactly what the

Federal Government's rights, titles and interests in and to these lands

actually amount to," he noted. "In some instances there is real doubt that

the Government has sufficient title to adequately administer or even claim

ownership to various tracts of land that are essential to provide continuity

of public access and use." 13 Above Dam 4 where the towpath ran along

the riverbank, for example, riverside properties owned by William B.

McMahon and Jacob Berkson were unencumbered by recorded deeds to the

canal company. In the absence of land acquisition authority above the

George Washington Memorial Parkway limits, however, title searches or

litigation that might bolster private claims to canal lands had low priority.

Resolution of boundary and title issues awaited enactment of the national

historical park legislation.

On December 23, 1970, a day after the Senate cleared the legislation

for the President's signature, Dick Stanton, then chief of the Office of Land

Acquisition in the Park Service's Eastern Service Center, outlined an

acquisition strategy for the park: "Except for approved development areas,

we do not feel that there should be any roadblocks to an orderly, scheduled

land acquisition program. It should simply begin on either end of the 184-

mile strip and proceed up or down the canal. The title, access, and squatter

problems will be systematically eliminated through direct purchase

acquisition or condemnation.... One of the matters which the Directorate

feels very strongly about, is to absolutely avoid any tendency to buyout of

l2Memorandum, McClanahan to Regional Director, NCR, Feb. 17, 1967, C & 0 Canal NM

Boundary Adjustments & Survey file, NCP, WNRC.

IlIbid.
108 EXPANDING THE PARK

priority by serving special interest groups or individuals who, through some

means or other, manage to create a great deal of heat. "14

Following enactment of the park legislation, the Park Service's

legislative office held an "activation meeting" on January 25, 1971, to

identify responsibilities and procedures for implementing it. Land

acquisition was a major topic. The legislation required that "the exact

boundaries of the park" be established and announced within 18 months.

Because a metes and bounds description could not be completed that soon,

it was decided to depict the boundary on portfolios of tax maps to be filed

with the land, records of the affected counties by May 1. Stanton's office

would draft letters for NCP General Superintendent Russell E. Dickenson

to send to each landowner on the berm (inland) side of the canal indicating

generally what part of his or her land fell within the boundary. Dickenson

would tell Stanton's office what interest was desired in each tract (fee

simple or easement) and which purchases were of highest priority. Stanton

agreed to set up a lands office in the area by May 1. IS George W. Sandberg, appointed land acquisition officer, found quarters at Fort Detrick in

Frederick, Maryland.

That September the Park Service informed Maryland's congressional

delegation of its acquisition policy and plan for the canal. Of 47 planned

developments, 34 would need additional private lands. These lands would

be purchased in fee, with the owners allowed to retain occupancy pending

development. All lands between the canal and river (except those

containing public utility plants) would be purchased in fee; here improved

residential property owners could retain 25-year or life tenancies and clubs

could retain rights for 25 years. Farmlands between the canal and river

could be retained for a period of years or leased back for agricultural

purposes; compatible commercial properties could be leased back under

special use permits.

Owners on the berm side would be given the option of fee or easement

purchase. Easements would restrict their properties to their present uses

or low-density residential development removed from the canal, flood

plains, and steep slopes. Where there was less than a hundred feet of

public ownership on the berm side, the Park Service would seek sufficient

interest in adjacent private land to permit public access and the maintenance

of screening vegetation. The Service hoped to protect about 25 percent of

14Memorandum to NCP General Superintendent Russell E. Dickenson, C & 0 Canal Land

Acquisition Policies file, Office of Land Use Coordination.

UMemorandum, Joe Holt to Dickenson, Jan. 25, 1971, C & 0 Canal NHP file, History

Division.
CHAPTER SIX 109

the private lands within the authorized park boundary by less-than-fee

interests. 16

Land acquisition did not move as swiftly and methodically as hoped.

Progress was slowed by difficulties with a mapping contract and public

opposition to the many development areas in the park's master plan that

were to receive priority. The proposed level of development was sharply

criticized by the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park

Commission after it was organized in December 1971; as a result, the

master plan was scrapped and a major new planning effort inaugurated.

Affected landowners were not notified until the spring of 1972. When

acquisition finally began thereafter, it proceeded on an "opportunity

purchase" basis: land was bought first from those who were eager to

sell. 17

Some thought purchases should continue to be made only from willing

sellers. At a public meeting on the new park plan in Brunswick in June

1972, landowner John Staub of Dargan Bend argued that the Park Service

should take better care of what it had before taking property from those

who wanted to keep it. "What we don't approve of is dealing with our

federal government on a take it or leave it basis, bargaining, so to speak,

with a gun at our heads or our backs... ," he said. "We don't like the

idea, and we do not intend to kiss the boot that kicks us from our land. "18

Previously, Mary Miltenberger, a park commission member from

Allegany County, had proposed that counties be encouraged to set up

historic districts along the canal to control development and thereby lessen

the need for land acquisition. Goodloe E. Byron, western Maryland's

congressman, introduced a bill incorporating both viewpoints in April 1972.

It would suspend the government's power to condemn improved properties

for the park where local authorities had approved protective zoning

satisfactory to the secretary of the interior. 19 The Park Service opposed

this "Cape Cod formula" (so called from its initial use at Cape Cod

16Letters, Raymond L. Freeman to Sen. Charles McC. Mathias, Jr., et aI., Sept. 16, 1971,

C & 0 Canal Land Acquisition Policies file, Office of Land Use Coordination.

l7Memorandum, Philip O. Stewart to Pank E. Defendorf, Jan. 28, 1972, C & 0 Canal Land

Acquisition Policies file, Office of Land Use Coordination; memorandum, Richard L. Stanton to

Russell E. Dickenson, Apr. 14, 1972, ibid.

"Transcript, "Public Information Meeting to Discuss the Future of the Chesapeake and Ohio

Canal National Historical Park," Brunswick, Md., June 7, 1972, Office of Land Use Coordination.

19J'ranscript, C & 0 Canal National Historical Park Commission meeting, Jan. 15, 1972, p.

101, C & 0 Canal NHP; H.R. 14515, 92nd Congress.
110 EXPANDING THE PARK

National Seashore) on the canal, fearing that it could prevent the acquisition oflands needed for park development. Byron's bill made no progress

then or in the next Congress, after which he dropped it.

Tropical storm Agnes, which devastated the canal soon after the

Brunswick meeting, had a positive effect on the land acquisition program:

those who were flooded out were less inclined to resist the government's

purchase offers. By the end of 1972 acquisition was well underway. The

Service had then identified 1,009 private tracts totaling 11,513 acres and

had purchased 104 of them totaling 1,732 acres for $2,494,819. John G.

Parsons, an NCP planner who was leading the new park planning effort,

played a key role in deciding what property interests should be acquired'

based on projected park development, topography, existing uses, and other

such criteria. 20

Dick Stanton, now associate director for cooperative activities at NCP

and Parsons' boss, helped resolve many policy issues as they arose. It was

decided that the Service would not purchase land up to the authorized

boundary if doing so would entail major severance costs and meet no real

need. Properties between the canal and river would be appraised as if their

owners had legal access across the canal, but the NPS reserved the right to

adjust such access for the benefit of the park where the owners retained

occupancy or use. Properties accessible only via the towpath would be

acquired without retained rights to avoid vehicular use of the towpath."

Riverfront land acquisition was complicated by the uncertainty of

ownership between the high and low water lines. The government sought

to purchase to the low line, but title companies would only insure private

sellers' titles to the high line because of possible claims by Maryland

beyond that point. To resolve the problem, Stanton arranged to have

sellers warrant titles to lands above the high line and quitclaim titles below.

The Service would thereby control the intervening strip unless a court later

decided that Maryland owned to the high line, in which case the state might

be persuaded to donate its holding."

The NCP lands division set terms for all scenic easement acquisitions

in September 1972. On lands subject to scenic easements, only permanent

single-family residences could be constructed and occupied, although

2llC & 0 Canal Land Acquisition Policies file, Office of Land Use Coordination;

memorandum, James F. Sewell to Pank E. Defendorf, Feb. 7, 1973, ibid.

2

l

Transcript, C & 0 Canal National Historical Park Commission meeting, May 13, 1972, pp.

103-04.

22Memorandum, Stanton to Russell E. Dickenson, May 9, 1972, C & 0 Canal Land

Acquisition Policies file, Office of Land Use Coordination; Stanton interview.
CHAPTER SIX 111

camping vehicles were permissible for temporary occupation. No new

structure could rise more than forty feet or be built on slopes steeper than

twenty percent. Except for basement excavations and footings, wells and

septicfacilities, and required road construction, no change in the character

of the topography or disturbance of natural features would be allowed.

There could be no cutting of non-hazardous trees larger than six inches in

diameter at breast height. There could be no "accumulation of any trash or

foreign material which is unsightly or offensive" and no signs exceeding

certain specifications. All existing buildings could be maintained; if

damaged or destroyed, they could be rebuilt or replaced in the same

locations after approval of plans by the secretary of the interior or his

designee if they were at least two hundred feet from the inland edge of the

canal prism. 23

Certain of these and other easement terms were amended and

interpreted in the light of experience. Mrs. Drew Pearson's house in

Potomac was less than a hundred feet from the canal prism. She was

permitted to replace an appurtenant structure there in February 1973, and

a general policy of reviewing such requests was adopted. At the same time,

swimming pools and patios were added to the list of allowable improvemerits."

Easements were often difficult to enforce. Edwin M. ("Mac") Dale,

canal superintendent from 1957 through 1965, had worked on the Blue

Ridge Parkway, where the Park Service had pioneered this method of landuse control. "Don't ever get involved with scenic easements--they are a

snare and a delusion," he later told Dick Stanton. "You either own it or

you don't." William R. Failor, superintendent from 1972 to 1981, found

it hard to educate his staff about easement terms and limits and to maintain

sufficient contact with landowners, especially new ones, to remind them of

restrictions. 25

Enforcement of the tree cutting restriction was especially difficult. As

Failor admitted, many owners violated it with impunity over the years.

Ultimately, one went too far. In March 1985 park rangers discovered that

134 trees had been cut down on government property in fee ownership and

adjoining property covered by a scenic easement in Potomac. The latter

23Attachment to memorandum, Pank E. Defendorf to James F. Sewell, Sept. 6, 1972, C & 0

Canal Land Acquisition Policies file, Office of Land Use Coordination.

24Memorandum, Richard L. Stanton to James F. Sewell, Feb. 21, 1973, C & 0 Canal Land

Acquisition Policies file, Office of Land Use Coordination.

25Stanton interview with Dale, Feb. 3, 1987, tape at C & 0 Canal NHP; Failor interview with

author, Feb. 1, 1990.
112 EXPANDING ttm PARK

belonged to Isaac Fogel, who had hired a tree service to improve his view

of the river. Fogel was indicted in August 1988 and convicted in February

1989 on two counts: aiding and abetting the conversion and disposition of

United States property, and aiding and abetting the removal of timber. He

was fined $25,000, sentenced to 3-112 years in prison (all but 15 days in a

halfway house was suspended), and made to perform three hundred hours

of community service." The conviction was important for its deterrent

effect on others who might be tempted by the high premium on riverview

properties in Potomac to follow Fogel's example.

The land acquisition program proceeded vigorously through the mid1970s, with the occasional protests common to government takings of

private property. The owners of a subdivision lot on Praether's Neck (the

area within the large riverbend bypassed by Four Locks) complained to

Representative Byron in October 1973 about the Service's "land grab."

They had been told that they had to sell and could rent back for only two

years thereafter, whereas the Potomac Fish and Game Club below Williamsport would be allowed to remain for 25 years. NCP Director Manus

J. (Jack) Fish, Jr., explained that continued residence in the subdivision

would be incompatible with Park Service plans for restoration of the

historic scene and a visitor use and environmental study area. In acting on

the park legislation, he noted, Congress had favored special consideration

for sportsmen's clubs, most of which were removed from planned visitor

facilities. 27

In November 1974 Maryland's two U.S. senators wrote the secretary

of the interior to urge that 25-year leasebacks negotiated thereafter contain

an option for an additional 25-year period at fair market rental. The

primary intended beneficiary was the Potomac Fish and Game Club, with

which negotiations were about to begin. Acting Secretary John C. Whitaker replied that the granting of such options would be unfair to previous

sellers and would unduly impede future park management. He promised

that the government would be liberal with Potomac Fish and Game: while

limiting it to 25 years on the river side of the canal, the Park Service would

acquire only a scenic easement on the club's inland property. Dissatisfied,

the club again brought its considerable influence to bear, with the result

that acquisition of its riverside property was deferred "for lack of funds"

26Memorandum, Linda Toms to Barry Mackintosh, Feb. 12, 1990, C & 0 Canal NHP file,

History Division. As manager of the park's Palisades District, Toms played a key role in building

the case against Fogel, for which the C & 0 Canal Association gave her its William O. Douglas

Award.

2'7Letter, George J. Brothers to Byron, Oct. 3, 1973, C & 0 Canal-Dam 4 file, Office of

Land Use Coordination; letter, Fish to Byron, Oct. 24, 1973, ibid.
CHAPTER SIX 113

in October 1975. Ultimately, Dick Stanton concluded an agreement with

the club in 1986 whereby the Service would not acquire the riverside

property as long as the club did not increase its development. 28

Whites Ferry, near Poolesville, became another exception to the policy

of acquiring fee title to all land between the canal and the river. The

proprietors of the ferry, the last on the Potomac, indicated that they would

leave if the Park Service took the 2.62-acre tract containing the operation,

and the Service had no desire to go into the ferry business. "I really feel

that the best thing we could do on Whites Ferry would be just to bypass the

whole proposition," Stanton told John Parsons in 1976. "The public is

being served and we always have the option at some later date to buy the

land if the ferry is discontinued or a bridge built by the State." Acquisition

of the ferry tract was not pursued. The operators had an informal

arrangement with the Service beginning in 1975: they maintained one of

their two picnic areas, for which they charged a fee, on canal property; in

return, they mowed the grass and picked up trash along the canal. The

Service formalized this arrangement in a special use permit in the mid1980s, when the operators built a large picnic pavilion on park property. 29

The park's annual report for 1975 described the land acquisition

program as "near completion." As of that May, 1,205 tracts had been

identified for fee or easement acquisition, of which only ninety remained

to be negotiated. Condemnation proceedings were underway on 189 tracts.

About a quarter of these were "friendly" condemnations to clear titles; the

rest were forced by owners holding out for higher prices or better

occupancy or easement terms than the government was willing to offer. 30

By the end of 1977 the Park Service had spent the $20.4 million

authorized for land acquisition in the 1971 park act and obtained most of

the lands and interests that it had planned to acquire under the act. It then

held 12,640 acres in fee and scenic easements on another 1,164 acres, for

a total of 13,804 acres. Not included was most of Praether's Neck, which

remains the largest privately held area between the canal and river within

the authorized park boundary. A small but critical exclusion was 2,200

~tter, Sens. Charles McC. Mathias, Ir., and 1. Glenn Beall, Jr., to Rogers C. B. Morton,

Nov. 11, 1974, C & 0 Canal Land Acquisition Policies file, Office of Land Use Coordination;

letter, Whittaker to Mathias and Beall, Ian. 10, 1975, ibid.; letter, Richard L. Stanton to John N.

Sterling, Oct. 31, 1975, C & 0 Canal-Sportsmen's Clubs file, Office of Land Use Coordination;

telephone conversation with lames D. Young, Nov. 21, 1990.

29Memorandum, Stanton to Parsons, June 16, 1976, C & 0 Canal--White's Ferry file, Office

of Land Use Coordination; Young conversation.

30Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Annual Report, 1975; Transcript,

C & 0 Canal Commission meeting, May 10, 1975, p. 15.
114

The Western Maryland Railway in West Virginia.

EXPANDING ttm PARK

linear feet of towpath along the slackwater above Dam 4 claimed by Jacob

Berkson, owner of the adjoining property. After protracted negotiations,

Berkson finally donated the strip for tax purposes in 1986. 31

A significant addition to the park beyond the boundary authorized in

1971 was a 34-mile stretch of the Western Maryland Railway between

Woodmont and North Branch. The merger of the Western Maryland with

the parallel B & 0 Railroad in the Chessie System eliminated the need for

this stretch, and the Interstate Commerce Commission approved its

abandonment in February 1975. About four miles of the abandoned

section, which traversed the sweeping Potomac bends below Paw Paw,

West Virginia, lay within the park boundary--in places directly alongside

the canal. Six of the remaining thirty miles lay in West Virginia, in three

discrete segments reached by six Potomac bridges. Three tunnels, one

nearly a mile long, cut through mountain ridges on the Maryland side of the

bends.

The Park Service wanted the abandoned right-of-way primarily to

prevent private parties from acquiring and developing it. It could also be

used for a scenic bicycle trail, and parts of it would enable better access by

patrol and maintenance vehicles to isolated portions of the towpath. The

Service obtained authority to acquire the right-of-way in the omnibus

National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, which revised the park

boundary "to include approximately 600 additional acres" and authorized

another $8 million for land acquisition--enough for other outstanding

31Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Annual Report, 1977; interview with

Richard L. Stanton, Feb. 27, 1990.
CHAPTER SIX 115

purchases as well as the right-of-way, which the Service had appraised at

$650,000.32

The legislation did not specifically mention the Western Maryland

Railway or expansion of the park into West Virginia, where opposition- to

federal acquisition had been instrumental in blocking the Potomac National

River. Riverfront landowners and officials in Morgan County, West

Virginia, did not become fully aware of the Service's plans until 1980,

when final purchase negotiations were underway with the railroad. They

were not pleased.

Jack Fish, regional director of the Service's National Capital Region

(as the National Capital Parks office was retitled in 1975), attempted to

mollify them at a meeting of the Morgan County Commission that August.

He claimed that the Service was acquiring the West Virginia segments of

the right-of-way only because of the railroad's desire to sell the abandoned

route in toto. (In fact, the Service had never sought less than the entire

stretch.) Two landowners voiced concern about people crossing the

railroad bridges from Maryland and trespassing on private lands. Another

feared that the government would be able to condemn existing crossing

easements over the right-of-way, thereby acquiring effective control of

lands between it and the river. Viewing the acquisition as an entree to the

Potomac National River--never officially dropped--they were not satisfied

by Fish's promise to barricade the bridges, "mothball" the West Virginia

segments, allow present access across them by adjoining owners to

continue, and work toward their management by the state or county under

a cooperative agreement.

Dayton Casto, a county leader, summed up local feelings about the

Service's acquisition plan: "Let me tell you, it was the best kept secret

since the atom bomb. . .. This thing didn't come up until just the last

three months that we have known.... You have the Park Service over in

Hancock saying we're going to make a hiker-biker across here, and then

you are saying you are going to mothball it. Now which one do we believe? You say you are not going to get any more land, and yet you have

an official position that says you are preparing legislation on the Potomac

National River. These things are confusing us and making us unhappy. "33

Under continued political pressure, the Service was forced to agree to

relinquish fee title to the West Virginia segments to adjoining owners.

32Memorandum, Ira J. Hutchison to Legislative Counsel, July 14, 1978, C & 0 Canal--

Western Maryland Railway file, Office of Land Use Coordination; Public Law 95-625, Nov. 10,

1978, U.S. Statutes at Large 92: 3467.

33Record of Morgan County Commission meeting, Aug. 7, 1980, C & 0 Canal--Western

Maryland Railway file, Office of Land Use Coordination.
116 EXPANDING tue PARK

When it acquired the right-of-way from the railroad on January 2, 1981, the

deed and payment for the West Virginia segments were placed in escrow

for ninety days, during which it negotiated terms with the owners. But the

Service placed restrictions on what could be done with the land and

required that all ofit be conveyed simultaneously. The owners were unable

to act in concert, and the Service took title on April 1. Thereafter it

offered special use permits to the owners, under terms that none found

sufficiently advantageous to accept. The Service barricaded the bridges,

making them difficult but not impossible to cross; a proposal to remove

them in 1983 after one person was killed and another badly injured in falls

was not seriously pursued. 34 The 34-mile right-of-way, although

overgrown, remains intact, requiring only several millions in federal funds

and a revolution in West Virginia attitudes to fulfill its outstanding

potential for a scenic bikeway.

Nearly a decade after the Western Maryland acquisition, the Park

Service obtained another railroad right-of-way at the other end of the canal.

The B & D's Georgetown Branch discontinued service in May 1985 when

its last customer, the General Service Administration's West Heating Plant

in Georgetown, shifted to delivery of coal by truck. The line ran along the

river side of the canal from Key Bridge west to its bridge over the canal

and Canal Road near Arizona Avenue, thence along the heights above the

canal en route to Bethesda and Silver Spring, Maryland. There was much

discussion of using the Bethesda-Silver Spring segment for light rail

passenger service and some thought of extending this to Georgetown, but

most interested parties favored only a hiking and biking trail for the

Bethesda-Georgetown segment.

. As with the Western Maryland, the Service was eager to acquire the

right-of-way along the canal to prevent its private acquisition and development and to install a paved bicycle trail, which would be especially

valuable here to separate bicycle traffic from pedestrians on the heavily

used towpath just above Georgetown. Working with the Service and the

National Park Foundation, Kingdon Gould III, a wealthy Washington

businessman, bought the Washington portion of the right-of-way for $11

million in November 1989. Having obtained $4 million for the acquisition

in fiscal 1990, the Service and the foundation arranged to lease the right-ofway from Gould until Congress appropriated another $7 million the

34Minutes, C & 0 Canal Commission meetings, Jan. 3, 1981, Apr. 18, 1981, Sept. 16, 1981,

Sept. 18, 1982, Mar. 3, 1984.
CHAPTER SIX 117

following year. On November 20, 1990, Gould transferred 4.3 miles of the

line totaling some 34 acres to the Service. 35

The park boundary legislated in 1971 authorized no land acquisition

_________bey.ond_NorthBranch,_someeightmiles below the historic-canal terminus..

"in Cumberland. The Service's prior decision to terminate park

development at North Branch, the extent ofresidential and industrial development on lands bordering the canal property beyond that point, and the

recurring pressures from the railroad and Cumberland interests to cede

rather than enlarge park holdings made this decision a logical one.

Mary Miltenberger, one of Allegany County's two representatives on

the park commission, did not agree. At the commission's first meeting in

December 1971, she complained that the Service's plan to make North

Branch the western gateway to the park would deprive Cumberland of

much-needed tourist income. With her encouragement, Cumberland's city

council passed a resolution in May 1972 favoring a boundary expansion

above North Branch, a position endorsed by the park commission that July.

That December Maryland's U.S. senators, 1. Glenn Beall, Jr., and Charles

McC. Mathias, Jr., held a hearing on the matter at Allegany Community

College. Those present were generally supportive. 36

In December 1973 Senators Beall and Mathias and Gilbert Gude,

Montgomery County's representative in Congress, introduced legislation to

include within the park boundary above North Branch an additional 1,200

acres, of which not more than half could be acquired in fee. The bills also

directed a visitor center to be established at or near the canal terminus; the

Western Maryland Railway station there was envisioned to serve this

purpose. But Goodloe Byron, western Maryland's congressman, declined

to cosponsor the legislation without assurance that all affected landowners

were in agreement--a virtual impossibility."

Asked to comment on the legislation in August 1974, Jack Fish avoided

taking an explicit position but called attention to the developed nature of

the area in question, implicitly questioning its suitability for addition to the

park. He suggested a study of the proposal by an outside planning group

that did not share NCP's ties to the expansion proponents. In response,

3.SCSX Georgetown Spur file, Superintendent's Office, C & 0 Canal NHP. A few hundred

feet of the right-of-way at the District line, adjoining the Dalecarlia water filtration plant, went

to the Corps of Engineers.

36J'ranscript, C & 0 Canal Commission meeting, Dec. 20, 1971, p. 36; memorandum, Manus

J. Fish, Jr., to NPS Associate Director, Legislation, Aug. 16, 1974, C & 0 Canal NHP file, NPS

Legislation Division.

37S. 2841 and H.R. 12111, 93rd Congress; transcript, C & 0 Canal Commission meeting,

Sept. 29, 1973, p. 241.
118 EXPANDING THE PARK

Russell Dickenson, then NPS deputy director acting for the Service,

recommended against the expansion bills while expressing support for a

study authorization. Although Beall and Mathias reintroduced their bill in

July 1975, Congress never moved further to expand or study expansion of

the park above North Branch. 38

The Chessie System still wanted title to at least those canal lands in

Cumberland occupied by its tracks, and the Park Service still wanted the

railroad's property at Harpers Ferry where the engine house occupied by

John Brown had stood. Negotiations resumed in 1986 with Chessie's

successor, the CSX Corporation. As of 1991, the Service was willing to

transfer four tracts used by the railroad totaling 15.04 acres and grant a'

perpetual easement for the railroad's bridge over the canal at North Branch.

In return, it sought all of the historic U. S. Armory site at Harpers Ferry,

including the land occupied by the existing railroad station. A

controversial proposal for a new parkway along the canal in Cumberland

that would use part of the land involved there complicated matters

somewhat, but the exchange authorized by Congress in 1960 appeared

closer than it had for some time."

At the end of 1990, the boundary of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal

National Historical Park encompassed 19,237 acres. The Park Service held

fee title to 12,713 acres and scenic easements on 1,356 acres, for a total of

14,069 acres under its ownership or control. The state of Maryland and

other public jurisdictions held another 2,528 acres, much of it in Green

Ridge State Forest and Fort Frederick and Seneca Creek state parks. The

balance, 2,640 acres, remained in private hands."

38Memorandum, Fish to NPS Associate Director, Legislation, Aug. 16, 1974, C & 0 Canal

NHP file, NPS Legislation Division; memorandum, Dickenson to Legislative Counsel, Oct. 15,

1974, ibid.; S. 2182, 94th Congress.

39"Briefmg Paper, B & 0 Railroad Land Exchange"; interview with John Parsons, Mar. 2,

1990.

«I"National Park Service Listing of Acreages as of 12/31/90," NPS Land Resources Division.
CHAPTER SEVEN

PLANNING THE PARK

119

After the National Park Service abandoned its plan to build a p-arkway

along the canal in 1956, it was again faced with deciding how to develop

and otherwise treat the canal property above Seneca. Every park was

supposed to have a master plan for development and use. The Service

completed such a plan for the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National

Monument in 1964, but the unsettled status of the national historical park

proposal limited its value. A hasty replanning effort accompanied the park

proposal's revival in 1969, but there was strong opposition to the resulting

development plan once the park bill had passed. A new effort followed,

culminating in the mid-1970s in a general plan enjoying broad support.

In the spring of 1956 George Thompson, a recreation planner in the

Service's Philadelphia regional office, surveyed the canal and prepared

recommendations for land acquisition and recreational developments along

it. The Philadelphia office assumed administrative oversight of the canal

above Seneca from National Capital Parks in September 1958, and in April

1959 Assistant Regional Director George A. Palmer, William R. Failor, a

planner with that office, and Edwin M. ("Mac") Dale, superintendent of

what was then called the C & 0 Canal National Historical Park Project,

reconnoitered the canal from Cumberland to Harpers Ferry. Their purpose

was to review Thompson's recommendations for acquisition and locate

areas for immediate development.

Failor stressed the need for a comprehensive study of existing nonrecreational canal uses, which predominated nearly everywhere beyond

Harpers Ferry, before general development planning. He recommended

disposing of the canal above North Branch because it passed through "a

hodge podge of uses with no zoning protection." Palmer was opposed to

any such disposal of canal property, viewing it as a bad precedent. 1 (As

has been seen, that controversy would continue.)

Dale's maintenance force was then clearing vegetation and other

obstructions from the towpath and portions of the canal bed. Palmer

commented that another season of work would probably make it possible to

drive the entire towpath without a break except at certain aqueducts. But

he was unhappy with the lack of aesthetic sensitivity displayed in some

instances. "One of the saddest looking sections of the Canal is that cleared

by National Capital Parks in 1957," he wrote the regional director. "The

'Memorandum, Failor to Regional Director Daniel J. Tobin, Apr. 24, 1959, historical files,

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park; memorandum, Palmer to Tobin, May 6,

1959, ibid.
120 PLANNING THE PARK

Canal and towpath were stripped clean and the sprouts are now coming up

to five or six feet. By summer, they will be ten. The result is that this

section of the canal doesn't have an abandoned look, it has a neglected

look. The sections cleared by Superintendent Dale are better, because he

did leave some selected trees along the towpath. I believe we should go

even further in planning for clearings by leaving clumps of trees, breaking

the monotony by varying the degree of thinning, and generally presenting

a more pleasing appearance than just raw canal. "2

Palmer wanted to stop further clearing until it had been determined

through master planning which sections of the canal would be developed

and how. He also wanted to leave evidence of flood devastation: "Just

below Lock 33 at Harpers Ferry, I would not touch the ruins of the Canal

because here, more than at any other point, the destruction illustrates ...

one of the principal reasons for its eventual closing. "3

The master plan for the national monument was prepared by the Park

Service's Eastern Office of Design and Construction in Philadelphia and

approved by Acting Director Jackson E. Price on August 28, 1964. It

outlined the many problems caused by the lack of adequate boundary data,

adverse neighboring development, and encroachments. The park could not

be effectively administered, it declared, without a clearly defined boundary

extended for resource protection and development of administrative and

visitor facilities. It called for extensive recreational developments and

proposed rewatering many stretches of the canal, including the 13-mile

stretch from Lock 71 in Oldtown through the Paw Paw Tunnel to Lock 62. 4

Much of the proposed development was carried forward into the 1968

Potomac National River plan, which John M. Kauffmann "split lengthwise"

in 1969 for the boundary map and development outline accompanying the

successful national historical park legislation (page 97). Proposed

development in the first year after enactment included a major visitor center

complex at North Branch and canal restoration, boat ramps, and other

amenities at North Branch and Brunswick. The second year would see a

visitor center, marina, and campsites at Praether's Neck, new visitor

facilities at Hancock, Williamsport, and Edwards Ferry, and restoration of

several aqueducts, locks, and lockhouses. Restoration of historic features

and development of new facilities, including more boat ramps,

2Memorandum, Palmer to Tobin, May 6, 1959, C & 0 Canal NHP.

3Ibid.

41he Master Planfor Preservation and Use, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Monument,

Maryland, copy at C & 0 Canal NHP.
CHAPTER SEVEN 121

campgrounds, picnic areas, and comfort stations, would continue at the

same level during the next three years."

As noted previously, some conservation groups expressed displeasure

with !he _e~t~Qtofp-rQPQ~e_q_cley~IQPJ11~!1U:ll!ringJh~_h~~rlngt9n the__p-ark _

legislation in 1970, and Congress cut the authorized development

appropriation from $47 million to $17 million. This was not necessarily

meant to curtail the Park Service's plans, but it would require the Service

to return to Congress for an increase in the development ceiling after the

$17 million had been appropriated and spent. Following enactment of the

legislation in January 1971, Kauffmann proceeded to incorporate his

development outline in a new master plan for the expanded park. The

ambitious plan called for 25 boat launch facilities accessible by automobile,

31 group camps with a total capacity of 6,000, and nearly 3,000 picnic

sites. These and other developments were designed for a day-use visitor

capacity of 53,500.

Copies of the master plan "were, somehow, obtained by the private

sector and circulated to the public without the authorization of the National

Park Service," in Dick Stanton's words. Quite apart from the plan's

content, the impression of secrecy did not bode well for its acceptance.

Justice William O. Douglas wrote Anthony Wayne Smith, president of the

National Parks and Conservation Association: "I understand the Park

Service has decided on three parking lots being located between the Canal

and the River--and that all their plans are secret!! That is par for the Park

Service. We should start hollering! "6

"We are already hollering," Smith replied, enclosing a copy of a letter

he had sent Assistant Secretary of the Interior Nathaniel P. Reed: "The

procedures being followed by the National Park Service with respect to the

old C & 0 Canal are an outrage and violate all the purposes for which the

protectors of the Canal have been fighting for over 17 years. We are

simply not going to put up with this kind of thing by the National Park

'Development schedule accompanying letter, Walter J. Hickel to Wayne N. Aspinall, May 27,

1970, in U.S. Congress, House, Chesapeake and OhioCanalNationalHistorical Park, Hearings

before the Subcommittee on National Parks ofthe Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 91st

Congress, 2nd Session, on H.R. 658 and Related Bills, Aug. 11 and 13, 1970 (Washington:

Government Printing Office, 1970), p. 16.

6Stanton, •A National Park Service Review of the Goals, Efforts, and Accomplishments of

the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission,· November 1976, C & 0

Canal Commission file, Office of Land Use Coordination, National Capital Region, NPS; letter,

Douglas to Smith, Sept. 16, 1971, C & 0 Canal files, National Parks and Conservation

Association.
122 PLANNING THE PARK

Service and the Department of the Interior. . .. I think you have an

obligation to see that this nonsense is stopped. "7

The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission

had been viewed by the Service as the appropriate forum for public

involvement in the master plan. Unfortunately, the commission was not

organized until nearly a year after enactment of the park legislation.

Kauffmann spoke on the plan at its first meeting on December 20, 1971.

"We have to, first, recognize the limitations of the park," he said. "It is

long and narrow and full of fragile resources. It is going to be a very

difficult task to administer this, to develop it wisely and properly for the

type of uses which you can expect in this urbanized region in the future. ,,~

His plan proposed a variety of conditions: the canal would be rewatered

for as much as half its length, left naturally overgrown in other areas, and

maintained in grass near communities to present a town park appearance.

The first large proposed development upriver from the already

developed section below Seneca was at Edwards Ferry. Here the plan

called for a marina building and dock for a hundred boats. Reaction from

commission members was negative. Grant Conway of Montgomery County

complained about the noise and pollution from power boats and existing

efforts to accommodate them: "The Park Service has already put so many

ramps in the river that people can't hear themselves talk in their yards near

the river." Kauffmann argued that the proposed marinas were intended to

concentrate power boating in limited areas rather than to increase it, but the

critics were unpersuaded."

Conway and Rome F. Schwagel of Washington County also expressed

concern about the planned extent of rewatering, which would require much

tree removal and other disturbance of naturally regenerated areas. NCP

Director Russell E. Dickenson defended the rewatering on historical

grounds, but no commission members voiced support. The commission did

agree on the importance of stabilizing the aqueducts to maintain the

continuity of the towpath, a concern heightened by the partial collapse of

the Seneca Aqueduct three months before. The members voted unanimously for a motion by Justice Douglas, attending as "special adviser to the

commission, ".that aqueduct restoration receive priority. 10

'Letter, Smith to Reed, Sept. 14, 1971, C & 0 Canal files, NPCA.

ll'franscript, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission meeting, Dec.

20, 1971, p. 15, C & 0 Canal NHP.

9Jbid., pp. 23-25.

1000id., pp. 35,49.
CHAPTER SEVEN 123

After the meeting Assistant Secretary Reed, who had been present,

relayed his reaction to Kauffmann: "My reading of the Advisory Board

meeting was that the priority is to protect the Canal and the locks. Repair

. _~b~ daJ1lag~ andlast and least ~consJrucLvisitor facilities. _'--' . Unl~ss I ~~ .

wrong, the Canal should not be developed for heavy use mass recreation.

Bicycling, walking, canoeing, limited, low development, low density

camping are the features the Advisory Board wants. Unless your Master

Plan reflects this objective, there will be years of strife ahead. "11

A fresh start was called for. Kauffmann moved on to other

assignments, and John G. Parsons, a dynamic young landscape architect and

planner at NCP headquarters, was charged with developing a new park plan

"acceptable to the National Park Service, the Commission, and the public,"

as Dick Stanton later wrote. 12

During May and June 1972 the Service held five public information

meetings, in Washington and each of the four Maryland counties containing

the park, to discuss the planning effort and obtain public comment.

Parsons and his colleagues distributed a draft "study plan" for the park, and

one of them remained available for two days after each meeting. A total

of some 1,500 people attended, and about fifty took advantage of the

opportunities for further discussion.

The National Parks and Conservation Association was among those

commenting on the study plan. NPCA supported its proposal to provide

only walk-in camping but found too much development emphasis remaining

elsewhere. It opposed the plan's call for a new developed area at Watts

Branch in Potomac, expansion of parking to accommodate 150 cars at

Violettes Lock, marina services at Edwards Ferry, and a footbridge across

the Potomac at Harpers Ferry. 13

At a meeting of the park commission that July, Carl Linden and Alan

Franklin of the C & 0 Canal Association presented their group's position

on park development. They wanted nothing that would encourage or

support recreational activities not directly related to the canal, including

drive-in campgrounds, picnic grounds, and walk-in campgrounds accessible

from parking areas like that at Antietam Creek. "It should be a park

developed for those who are willing to walk into it," Franklin said. Harry

"Memcrandum, Reed to Kauffmann, Dec. 22, 1971, C & 0 Canal Commission file, Office

of Land Use Coordination.

12wA National Park Service Review of the Goals, Efforts, and Accomplishments of the

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission. W

13WStatement on the C & 0 Canal National Historic Park Study for Preservation, Management

and Use, WJune 1972, C & 0 Canal files, NPCA.
124 PLANNING THE PARK

Rinker, president of the Pennsylvania Canal Society, disagreed. He saw

the park as the national canal park, catering not just to area residents but

to people coming from afar by car. He wanted more vehicle access and

development for those visitors, who might lack the time or ability to hike

long distances. 14

Partly in response to such differing demands, Parsons developed a

zoning concept for the park. At a commission meeting that September he

unveiled his plan to divide the park into five categories, ranging from

major interpretive zones to primitive zones. The former would be the most

developed and accessible; the latter would be the most untouched and

remote. In addition to reflecting the park's diversity, the zones would be

used to control visitor use. In major interpretive zones, sufficient parking

would be provided to allow as many as three hundred people per mile; in

primitive zones, the target maximum was 25 per mile. IS

The zoning concept was incorporated in a "Preliminary Draft Master

Plan," which won the commission's endorsement in January 1973. The

draft was widely circulated. There were more public meetings and more

public input. The Washington Post editorialized on the Park Service

planning effort following the twentieth anniversary Justice Douglas Hike in

April 1974: "As Justice Douglas has often said, the traditional strategy has

been, 'First save the canal from the parkway, then save it from the Park

Service.' This may be easier than it used to seem, for the National Park

Service has been listening to public sentiment and has apparently abandoned

earlier plans to 'improve' the park by adding large marinas, plug-in

campgrounds and other intrusive facilities. In concert with the Maryland

congressional delegation, the Park Service is now focusing on obtaining

sufficient money for repairs and restoration. "16

The Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park General Plan

was endorsed by the park commission in July 1975 and officially approved

by NCP Director Manus J. (Jack) Fish, Jr., in January 1976. It began by

defining the park's management objectives: to "preserve the atmosphere

of past times and enduring natural beauty and safeguard historic remains

and natural features," to "impart to visitors an understanding and

appreciation of an historic way of life blended into the natural setting of the

Potomac Valley," and to "develop the potential of the park's recreation

l"Transcript, C & 0 Canal Commission meeting, July 8, 1972, pp. 50-60.

IYfranscript, C & 0 Canal Commission meeting, Sept. 9, 1972.

16"A Milestone for the C & 0 Canal," May 2, 1974.
CHAPTER SEVEN 125

resources for safe yet stimulating enjoyment by the visitors within limits

compatible with the other two management objectives. "17

The general plan divided the park into 32 sections, each assigned to one

of the five zones. Six sections totaling 10.4 miles--at Georgetown, Great

Falls, Seneca, Williamsport, Four Locks, and North Branch--were assigned

to Zone A, the National Interpretive Zone. Here the emphasis would be on

historical restoration and interpretation, with vehicular access and facilities

to accommodate the largest numbers of visitors. Zone B, the Cultural

Interpretive Zone, applied to ten segments totaling 23.4 miles. They would

also focus on cultural resources, but with less development. Zone C, the

Short-Term Recreation Zone, was "designed to serve the general towpath

user seeking a leisurely stroll of 2 to 6 hours in a natural setting." Six

segments totaling 39.1 miles were so classified. Zone D, the Short-Term

Remote Zone, was the category for seven segments totaling 61.8 miles,

each intended to provide "an undisturbed day in a natural setting." Zone

E, the Long-Term Remote Zone, applied to three segments totaling 49.6

miles, the longest being a 29.5-mile stretch from Hancock through the

lower Paw Paw Bends to Lock 62. These would serve "those who seek a

near wilderness involvement with the environment." 18 The idea of

controlling visitor use by setting explicit carrying capacities for the various

zones did not find its way into the plan.

A chart depicted the kinds of facilities that would be suitable in the

various zones. Boat concessions could go in Zones Band C, for example,

while hiker-biker campgrounds would be appropriate in Zones C, D, and

E. The existing drive-in campgrounds at McCoys Ferry, Little Orleans,

and Spring Gap were to be phased out "when private enterprise meets the

demand." (They were still present 15 years later.) Twenty-four miles of

the canal, comprising the 13 Zone A and B segments outside the alreadywatered 22 miles below Seneca, were proposed for rewatering; where

engineering studies found this infeasible, the bed would be cleared of

natural vegetation, sodded, and mowed.

The park commission's influence was apparent in the plan's strong

statement about development priorities: "It is imperative that higher

priority be given to the stabilization and restoration of historic structures

than to new development. If this is not done, the danger of losing these

fragile, limited, nonrenewable resources, for which the park has been

established, becomes apparent. . .. No new visitor use facilities will be

constructed until emergency flood rehabilitation and aqueduct stabilization

11Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park General Plan (Washington, D.C.:

National Park Service, 1976), pp. 1-2.

l8Jbid., pp. 21-23.
126 PLANNING iue PARK

work has been funded and further research on stabilization and restoration

of the cultural resources has occurred." 19

A chapter titled "Sectional Concepts" addressed each of the 23 sections

with suggestions for its treatment. It was prefaced with the caveat that "the

concepts here may change significantly and will not be implemented until

a sectional development plan for the entire section is completed." These

plans, to be undertaken with "complete public involvement," would dictate

all development beyond the restoration work then in progress after tropical

storm Agnes. The Great Falls section was slated for initial attention. 20

The Great Falls section was the most heavily used area of the canal,

outside Georgetown. It was made so by its location in the Washington

metropolitan area and its many attractions: the falls themselves, canal

barge trips running through the uppermost of five closely spaced locks, the

historic Great Falls Tavern, the picturesque Widewater section of the canal,

the rugged Billy Goat Trail along the river's Mather Gorge, the river's

suitability for whitewater canoeing and kayaking, and the scenic quality of

the area as a whole. The National Capital Team of the Park Service's

Denver Service Center began work in 1978 on the area's development

concept plan or DCP, as the sectional development plans were titled. The

planners held two public hearings in the vicinity in late 1979 and produced

a draft in mid-1980.

The draft identified a range of problems, including inadequate facilities

to meet recreational demands; inadequate interpretation of the canal and

tavern, the nearby Maryland Gold Mine, and the historic Washington

Aqueduct running beneath the area; conflicts between hikers and bikers on

the congested towpath; an interrupted stretch of the towpath at the head of

Widewater; a lack of access to view the falls after Agnes swept away a set

of bridges to Olmsted Island in 1972; poor circulation patterns; inadequate

office space in the tavern, rest room facilities, and food concession service;

and a run-down hiker-biker campground at Swains Lock. After presenting

five alternative programs for addressing these and other concerns, it

described a preferred course of action.

Under the recommended plan, a dock for the canal barge would be built

below Lock 20, which would remain operational for the barge trips.

Access and circulation would remain essentially unaltered. The parking

lots at Swains Lock and opposite Old Anglers Inn (below Widewater) would

be paved and striped but not expanded. A twenty-car parking area would

be added near the Maryland Gold Mine. To limit crowding, overflow

parking would not be allowed. Cyclists would be required to walk their

I%id., p. 24.

2OJbid., pp. 23-24, 41.
CHAPTER SEVEN 127

bicycles between Widewater and the Great Falls Tavern during peak visitation periods. The towpath at the head of Widewater would ultimately be

restored; meanwhile, a wooden walkway begun there would be completed.

_____ Tht~J?rlcfg_~s_!~ _Olm~t~~_I~l~Ilg WQ!!l~_ h~:n~pla,ceg-,- __ T~e_ campground at. _

Swains would be retained. The lockhouse at Lock 16 would be

rehabilitated to house seasonal park employees. Administrative offices on

the second floor of the tavern would be moved to a historic stone house

nearby that had been built and used by the Corps of Engineers; two

adjacent modern houses would be razed upon their expected transfer from

the Corps to the Park Service. 21

The towpath by Widewater, periodically scoured and washed out by

floods, had been a bone of contention for several years. At the House

hearing on the park bill in 1970, conservation group representatives

criticized work then underway to reconstruct part ofit; the Park Service appeared to them to be building a road rather than a path." In the spring of

1976, in conjunction with towpath repair work necessitated by the 1972

tropical storm Agnes, the park began to construct a 270-foot-long wooden

bridge over a rocky stretch below Lock 15. Edwin F. Wesely, a commission member from Montgomery County, considered the bridge intrusive and

unnecessary and sounded the alarm among the conservation community.

Most other commission members and conservationists had less quarrel

with the structure itself than with the Service's failure to consult the park

commission and other interested parties before proceeding with it.

(Because the park was in the National Register of Historic Places, the

Service was required to consult the District of Columbia's or Maryland's

state historic preservation officer and the federal Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation on all projects affecting it.) The Service suspended

construction of the bridge and brought the issue before the commission that

May. There John Parsons confessed the error of the 1970 work while

defending the present project: "We were doing an insensitive, lousy fill job

at Widewater, and I'm glad that the conservationists stopped us. . .. I

think we've heeded that advice, and we have built something with a great

deal of sensitivity to the resources." Superintendent William R. Failor

argued that the bridge was necessary to maintain the continuity of the

21WFinding ofNo SignificantImpact, Environmental Assessment, Great Falls Park, Chesapeake

& Ohio Canal National Historical Park, Development Concept Plan, W in C & 0 Canal

Commission minutes file, July 19, 1980, C & 0 Canal NHP.

22U.S. Congress, House, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, Hearings

before the Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation of the Committee on Interior and

Insular Affairs, 91st Congress, 2nd Session, on H.R. 658 and Related Bills, Aug. 11 and 13, 1970

(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1970), pp. 92, 107.
128 PLANNING THE PARK

towpath and did not constitute the kind of new development requiring a

sectional development plan or DCP. But the Service agreed to go no further with it until could be fully addressed in such a planning effort."

When the commission reviewed the draft DCP in October 1980, the

proposal to complete the bridge over the rocks again came under criticism,

as did several other ingredients of the plan. Four commission members

formed a committee to review the draft and propose revisions. The

committee recommended against completing the bridge, favoring instead "a

staggered path effect which would reflect the natural terrain" pending

ultimate restoration of the towpath to its historic condition. It opposed the

new parking area or any other development on the gold mine tract. It urged

some treatment other than asphalt and striping for the parking areas at

Swains Lock and Old Anglers Inn to maintain their rural character. It

advocated retaining the modern Corps of Engineers houses as employee

residences. The commission endorsed its committee's recommendations

that December. 24

Superintendent Dick Stanton shared a draft "record of decision" on the

DCP with the commission in April 1981. It appeared to incorporate most

of the commission's views. Only the exterior of the lockhouse at Lock 16

would be restored; employees would be housed in the modern residences if

they were transferred to the Park Service. The parking area at Old Anglers

Inn would be paved and striped to increase its efficiency; nothing was said

about that at Swains. The forty-car parking area nearest the Great Falls

Tavern would be removed to provide a more appropriate setting for the

tavern. The existing pullout for cars near the intersection of Falls Road

and MacArthur Boulevard would be slightly improved to provide better

access to trails in the Gold Mine Tract and "present a more park-like

entrance portal." The "staggered path effect" would be tried at Widewater;

if it proved satisfactory, the Service would consider removing the bridge

and extending the new treatment the entire distance."

Regional Director Jack Fish approved the DCP that summer, but

Stanton told the commission that no money would be available to implement

it anytime soon. A decade later, nothing had been done about the parking

areas or the rocky stretch at Widewater. The park requested $325,000 in

1989 to restore 875 feet of towpath there, but the project lacked sufficient

23Interviewwith Carrie Johnson, Jan. 31, 1990; transcript, C & a Canal Commission meeting,

May 22, 1976, pp, 119-21, 152.

24Minutes, C & a Canal Commission meetings, Oct. 18 and Dec. 6, 1980.

2SMinutes, C & a Canal Commission meeting, Apr. 18, 1981.
CHAPTER SEVEN 129

priority for funding. 26 The Service did acquire and occupy the Corps

houses and a garage building, freeing space in the tavern, and it partially

restored the exterior of the Lock 16 lockhouse. It built a dock for the canal

_____ barge below Lock 20,~~ it J)roceeded with J)lans to reJ)lace the bridges to

the falls overlook on Olmsted Island. The change most evident to Great

Falls visitors by the end of 1990 was the inauguration of a $3-per-car fee

that November. Collected at the entrance to the parking area, it was

expected to help control public use and lessen overcrowding.

The next development concept planning effort addressed the last ten

miles of the canal running though North Branch and Cumberland. Terry

Langlois, a Denver Service Center planner who had worked on the Great

Falls DCP, began the Cumberland/North Branch DCP in 1979 and

presented three alternatives to the park commission in July 1980. The

commission members from Allegany County and local officials favored the

alternative leading to the greatest development, estimated to cost more than

$10 million; unlike those from wealthy Montgomery County, they were

eager to attract more visitors to lift their depressed economy. At the

commission's request, Cumberland and Allegany County appointed a study

team headed by commission member John D. Millar to make recommendation to the planners. In April 1981 Millar reported "overwhelming e support" for rewatering from Spring Gap to a waste weir a mile below the

terminus, a distance of more than ten miles."

The Park Service planning team concluded that the rewatering and other

improvements favored by the community could not feasibly be

accomplished within ten years (the general rule guiding what went into a

DCP). Obtaining sufficient water, relocating the roads and storm drains

crossing the canal, and funding the work involved posed major problems.

While proposing engineering feasibility studies of rewatering, the planners

gave first priority to restoration of the Evitts Creek Aqueduct. They also

favored exterior restoration of the lockhouse at Lock 72, removal of a road

and bridge crossing the canal at Lock 74, adaptive use of the Lock 75

lockhouse at North Branch as a ranger office and visitor contact facility,

and redevelopment of the former Western Maryland Railway station at the

terminus by the city of Cumberland to house a visitor information exhibit

on the canal."

26Minutes, C & 0 Canal Commission meeting, Sept. 16, 1981; Widewater Towpath file,

Superintendent's Office, C & 0 Canal NHP; interview with James D. Young, Jan. 18, 1990.

21Minutes, C & 0 Canal Commission, July 19, 1980, and Apr. 18, 1981.

28R,ecord of Decision in file, C & 0 Canal Commission meeting, Dec. 5, 1981.
130 PLANNING ttts PARK

The Cumberland/North Branch DCP as approved and published in

October 1982 reflected these views. Under continued pressure from the

community, however, it was revised in May 1983 to express greater support

for rewatering in the near term. "As a minimum, the canal would be

rewatered between Locks 72 and 75 (1.2 miles) and between Evitts Creek

Aqueduct and Candoc (1.34 miles)," it declared. "Lock 75 would be an

appropriate location for a floating barge. Other areas that prove to be

feasible would be rewatered. ,,29

The Park Service opened an information center in the Cumberland

railroad station in May 1985. It performed some stabilization work on the

Evitts Creek Aqueduct, and with funds obtained through the efforts of Rep:

Beverly B. Byron in 1989, it installed dikes and flooded a section of the

canal in Cumberland to test its water-holding ability. But the greatest

chance of achieving the extensive and permanent rewatering sought by the

community appeared to lie in a new proposal for yet another canal parkway

(page 176).

The Williamsport section of the canal was next to receive development

planning attention. The planners began work there in late 1980 and

completed its DCP in August 1982. The DCP prescribed actions to be

undertaken in two phases. Phase I actions included stabilizing the

Conococheague Aqueduct, restoring an old trolley power station for use as

a visitor contact and management facility, restoring the exterior of the

Cushwa Warehouse and outlining the former canal turning basin next to it

in stone, restoring Lock 44 and its lockhouse, conducting an engineering

feasibility study of rewatering, and rewatering the canal from Lock 44 to

the Conococheague Aqueduct. The historic Bollman Bridge over the canal

would be closed to motor vehicles and only vehicles carrying disabled

persons would be allowed to reach the river on Potomac Street, with the

result that Riverfront Park would be inaccessible by car to all but the

disabled. In Phase II, the canal would be rewatered east of Lock 44, if

feasible, to permit locking through a barge; the turning basin would be

restored and rewatered; and the existing boat ramp in Riverfront Park

would be removed. 30

The park commission approved the Williamsport DCP but expressed

concern that the Bollman Bridge not be closed until an alternate route was

available. Community opposition to the actions affecting Riverfront Park

mounted, and in December 1982 the commission requested removal of any

29Development Concept Plan for the Cumberland/North Branch Area, Chesapeake & Ohio

Canal National Historical Park (National Park Service, 1983), p. 5.

3ODevelopment Concept Plan and Assessment for the Williamsport, Maryland, Section of

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park (National Park Service, August 1982).
CHAPTER SEVEN 131

reference to closing the bridge and relocating the boat ramp. The Service

heeded the commission's advice in a revised edition of the DCP, issued in

May 1983. 31

__ ._ __ _ _ rl!~_ Phas~ I re5VCite[iQg_ ~~~~~~e..§sJ!lU~ cQl11P~!~<! ill_the !!!id...: l~~]s~ _

Thanks to Beverly Byron and Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, the Service's 1991

appropriation earmarked $2.3 million for rewatering in Williamsport,

Hancock, and Brunswick. Williamsport's share of the money would be

used to begin Phase II, including excavation and restoration of the turning

basin, continued rewatering past Lock 44 to a Potomac Edison access road,

and restoration of the lock to operating condition."

Work on a DCP for the Brunswick section got underway in 1981. The

Service's major problem there was the use of the towpath for vehicular

access to a town-operated campground and a sewage treatment plant

between the canal and river. Between the canal and the town center lay a

large Chessie System railroad yard. The Service initially sought, without

success, to have this traffic rerouted along railroad property. 33

A draft of the DCP, circulated in August 1982, called for the

Brunswick section to be rezoned from B to A if the town and the railroad

developed "a high quality living museum of the railroad era." Under Phase

I of the proposed development, towpath traffic west of Maple Avenue

would be eliminated except for a crossing to the state-owned boat ramp

under the U.S. Route 17 highway bridge, Lock 30 would be stabilized, and

the lock gates would be restored. Under Phase II, a new road crossing the

canal at Maple Avenue and running parallel with it east to the sewage

treatment plant and campground would allow removal of the remaining

towpath traffic. The boat ramp under U.S. 17 would be eliminated and its

function shifted to the campground ramp. The canal would be rewatered

if engineering studies demonstrated the feasibility of doing so.

The park commission asked that the proposals to rezone the section and

eliminate the boat ramp be stricken; thus revised, the DCP was published

in February 1983. It was amended in April 1988 to incorporate a

description of the Brunswick Waterfront Project, a product of the

Brunswick Revitalization Committee in cooperation with the Park Service

and the park commission. The addition specified the responsibilities of the

town and the Service for upgrading the area over a three-year period; the

3lMinutes, C & 0 Canal Commission, Sept. 18, 1982, and Dec. 4, 1982; Development

Concept Plan for the Williamsport Area, Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park

(National Park Service, May 1983).

3~elephone conversation with James D. Young, Dec. 13, 1990.

33Minutes, C & 0 Canal Commission, Dec. 5, 1981.
132 PLANNING THE PARK

town was to provide signing and publicity and take steps to enhance the

approach to the park. 34

During the summer of 1989 the park raised part of the canal berm at

Brunswick and tapped the town's water supply to fill the canal there.

Brunswick agreed to turn its water intake system over to the park when a

planned replacement system became operational. 35

The Service undertook a DCP for the Georgetown section in 1985-86.

The planning effort there was complicated by redevelopment proposals for

the Georgetown waterfront, most of which lay outside the park boundary.

The park commission endorsed a DCP draft in May 1986. It was

subsequently approved by outside review bodies, and the D.C. Council

adopted a resolution recommending that city-owned waterfront lands be

transferred to the Service. With no new development proposed for the

great majority of the park, there was little pressure or need for

development concept planning elsewhere.

34Minutes, C & 0 Canal Commission, Sept. 18, 1982; Development Concept Plan and

Assessment Amended To Include the Brunswick Waterfront Project for Brunswick, Maryland,

Section of Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park (National Park Service, April

1988).

3

S

Young conversation, Dec. 13, 1990.
CHAPTER EIGHT

MANAGING THE PARK

133

For much of its tenure under -the National Park Service, the Chesapeake

and Ohio Canal was an administrative anomaly. Acquired as a public

works project, it lacked status as a unit of the national park system for

more than two decades. For a decade thereafter, most but not all of it held

such status as a national monument; the rest remained part of the George

Washington Memorial Parkway and National Capital Parks. The two parts

were managed by different superintendents for 17 years; for eight of those

years they reported to different regional offices. Even after the park

achieved administrative unity under a single superintendent, its elongated

nature and varied environment and clientele posed unusual management

challenges.

After the Park Service acquired the canal in 1938, the District of

Columbia portion (4.7 miles long) fell within the Potomac Palisades

Parkway component of National Capital Parks, the segment from the District line to just above Great Falls (about eleven miles) lay within the

George Washington Memorial Parkway's jurisdiction, and the remainder,

outside any legally authorized park entity, was informally classed as an

NCP "reservation. "I The superintendent of National Capital Parks (C.

Marshall Finnan to August 1939, Irving C. Root from January 1941 to July

1950) oversaw the whole with the aid of NCP staff and the United States

Park Police, an arm of NCP.

As noted earlier, the Park Service focused its early efforts on restoration of the canal from the inlet lock below Seneca to Rock Creek in

Georgetown. Beginning in 1941, NCP staff members made periodic inspection trips along the canal above Seneca. Associate Civil Engineer William

G. Hayward traveled there that spring. He found the B & 0 Railroad

dumping trash, cinders, and miscellaneous fill on canal property in the

Cumberland area--a practice that continued over the years despite repeated

complaints to railroad officials. Because there were insufficient park

policemen for the task, Hayward suggested that five old canal company

(Memorandum, Hillory A. Tolson to Arthur E. Demaray, Aug. 18, 1944, C & 0 Canal file

650.03, National Capital Parks, National Park Service, Record Group 79, National Archives,

Washington, D.C. Although the legal authority for the George Washington Memorial Parkway,

the Capper-Cramton Act of 1930, authorized federal acquisition ofthe entire canal property below

Point of Rocks, the parkway itself extended only from the D.C. line to just above Great Falls.
134 MANAGING THE PARK

supervisors be hired to patrol the canal and watch for such encroachments,

but this was not done.?

Amid the general curtailment of park activities during the war years,

the Service could devote little attention to the upper canal. NCP did form

a C & 0 Canal Real Estate Board to handle leases and permits. Mary A.

McColligan, its chairman, and Frances J. Worthington, a realty specialist,

went on inspection trips accompanied by Walter H. Sconyers, a Park Police

private then assigned to canal patrol work. The board continued into the

1950s, when William Hayward served on it with the two women.

Park Police officers were the only uniformed Park Service representatives on the upper canal during this period. In April 1951 Sgt. Thomas C:

Tingle and Pvt. Samuel H. Hower hiked from Cumberland to Seneca in a

patrol designed to attract press coverage and promote the Service's parkway

proposal. They reported general support for the parkway except from those

who feared "the removal of their summer cottages and other privileges they

now enjoy." On a routine inspection that November, Hower discovered "a

very foul condition" near the terminus in Cumberland: "A sewer of

considerable capacity empties into the canal, runs across the canal and into

the river. The odor is terrible. ,,3 In March 1954 Hower was detailed to

assist Justice William O. Douglas's anti-parkway hike, which avoided

Cumberland's degradation by beginning at North Branch. Later that year

Pvt. Roland A. Fallin was posted at Harpers Ferry and given the upper

canal as his beat.

National Capital Parks remained a unitary organization, without

subordinate superintendents for its various components, until 1965. It did

have personnel assigned primarily to manage particular areas, and in

January 1953 Associate Superintendent Harry T. Thompson, then lobbying

hard for the parkway, proposed that a capable custodian be appointed for

the entire canal. He would be stationed in Williamsport or some other

central location, become completely familiar with the canal, supervise all

improvements, and serve as the canal's primary contact with the public.

ZMemorandum, Hayward to Francis F. Gillen, Apr. 12, 1941, "Inspection Trips, C & 0

Canal" file, National Capital Parks, Washington National Records Center, Suitland, Md.;

memorandum, Gillen to Sidney McClellan, Oct. 22, 1943, Administration, Maintenance, and

Protection file 1460/C&O-5, NCP, WNRC; letter, Irving C. Root to Chief Engineer, B & 0

Railroad, Oct. 27, 1943, ibid.

3Memorandum, Tingle and Hower to Chief, U.S. Park Police, May 10, 1951, Inspection Trips

file, WNRC; memorandum, Hower to Chief, U.S. Park Police, Nov. 14, 1951, C & 0 Canal

January 1950-December 1954 file, WNRC.
CHAPTER EIGHT 135

NPS Director Conrad L. Wirth endorsed the proposal, but no action was

taken on it. 4

Instead, when Wirth abandoned the canal parkway for the national

historical park proposal in 1956, he decided to break the canal

administratively at Seneca. The restored portion would remain with NCP.

The remainder--the part proposed for national historical park designation--

would receive its own superintendent reporting to the NPS regional director

in Philadelphia. As noted previously (page 76), this division would allow

NCP to retain the canal segment within its traditional service area while

removing the national historical park to the nearest regional office charged

with overseeing discrete units of the national park system.

The Region Five office in Philadelphia immediately became involved

in planning for the park, sending George Thompson to survey the canal

above Seneca for recreational development opportunities in the spring of

1956. In May 1957, anticipating early enactment of the recently introduced

park legislation, Regional Director Daniel J. Tobin recommended

establishment of a park headquarters. He favored Hagerstown for its

central location reasonably near the canal, its access via U.S. Route 40, and

its accommodations for families. Ben H. Thompson, head of planning

activities in the Service's Washington office, recommended setting up a

full-time park staff for planning and operations even if the legislation did

not clear the current Congress. S

Director Wirth followed their recommendations. On August 11, 1957,

he appointed Edwin M. ("Mac") Dale superintendent of the Chesapeake and

Ohio Canal National Historical Park Project with headquarters at

Hagerstown. Dale's new domain remained under NCP for another year,

during which time he reported officially to the NCP superintendent but

dealt extensively with Philadelphia. On September 1, 1958, he and his area

of responsibility were formally transferred to Region Five. The canal was

administratively divided one hundred feet downstream from the first culvert

above the Seneca Aqueduct, leaving the sandstone mill and quarry beyond

Seneca Creek under NCP. "Visitor use of the Canal to that point is more

urban than wilderness type and breaks rather sharply at Seneca," NCP

Superintendent Harry Thompson wrote Wirth to explain the line of

4Memorandum, Thompson to Wirth, Jan. 22, 1953, with Wirth endorsement, C & 0 Canal

January 1950-December 1954 file, WNRC.

SMemorandum, Tobin to Conrad L. Wirth, May 23, 1957, Chesapeake & Ohio Canal

Parkway file L58, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park; memorandum, Thompson

to Wirth, June 5, 1957, ibid.
136

Edwin M. Dale

MANAGING me PARK

demarcation." President Dwight D. Eisenhower's January 18, 1961,

proclamation of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Monument

ratified this division by setting the monument's lower boundary at this

point.

Mac Dale, a Virginia native, had served as chief ranger on the Blue

Ridge Parkway and as the first superintendent of Harpers Ferry National

Monument. He had two major tasks: to establish a firm Park Service

presence along the canal, reclaiming parts of it from private

encroachments; and to build public support for the proposed national

historical park.

Unfortunately, these tasks were not mutually supportive. Dale made

many appearances before civic organizations and other groups to promote

the park and ease fears that it would bar Marylanders from the Potomac.

But his efforts to crack down on neighboring landowners, squatters, and

others using canal property for their own purposes (sometimes unwittingly

where the boundary was unclear) generated hostility. He was accused of

a dictatorial attitude and of regarding people along the river as the enemy.

He did succeed in clearing the towpath of fences and eliminating many

other adverse uses. John C. Frye, a longtime canal supporter, later

6Memorandum, Thompson to Wirth, Sept. 4, 1958, C & 0 Administration and Protection file,

C & 0 Canal NHP. The division gave Dale and Region Five less than the national historical park

in the pending legislation, wherein it extended below Seneca to the projected George Washington

Memorial Parkway terminus above Great Falls.
CHAPTER EIGHT

W. Dean McClanahan

137

recalled Dale as "the ramrod type" who "accomplished so much with so

little--the right person at the right place at the right time. "7

Dale's public relations problems hurt him with his superiors, whose

priority was getting the park legislation passed. In turn, he became

frustrated by their seeming lack of support for his efforts to build and

maintain a traditional park regime. After he had worked long and hard to

curtail certain privileges of the Potomac Fish and Game Club, for example,

Regional Director Ronald F. Lee yielded to an appeal for leniency from the

club's president. Dale retired from his job and the Service on December

31, 1965, somewhat embittered by such experiences. 8

W. Dean McClanahan became the second superintendent of the C & 0

Canal National Monument on January 30, 1966. McClanahan had been a

ranger at several parks in the Southwest, superintendent of Pipestone

National Monument in Minnesota, and most recently a forester in the

Natural History Division at Park Service headquarters. Four months later,

on June 1, the national monument portion of the canal returned to the

Service's National Capital Region, as the National Capital Parks

organization was retitled in 1962. (The NCP designation was temporarily

restoredbetween December 1969 and October 1976, but the regional office

and organization remained.)

"lnterview with Dale by Richard L. Stanton, Feb. 3, 1987, tape at C & a Canal NHP; Donald

R. Frush in transcript, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission meeting,

May 12, 1973, C & a Canal NHP; interview with William Clark, Feb. 15, 1990; interview with

Carrie Johnson, Jan. 31, 1990; interview with Frye, Feb. 1, 1990.

'Dale interview; letter, Dale to George Hicks, May 24, 1987, C & a Canal NHP.
138 MANAGING THE PARK

The canal segment that had stayed under NCP/NCR had continued to

be managed from NCP headquarters for a time. In March 1957, trash

dumping in Georgetown and other maintenance problems prompted NCP

Superintendent Edward J. Kelly to establish the Committee for Improving

the Restored Portion of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. It consisted of

George W. Harding, chief of NCP's Horticulture and Maintenance Branch;

John B. Thomas, public health consultant; Hugo Habluetzel, a horticulturalist based at Great Falls; Chief Harold F. Stewart of the Park Police;

Cornelius W. Heine, a historian with the Public Use Branch; and W. Drew

Chick, Jr., NCP's chief naturalist. The committee's purpose was to

recommend and arrange for basic improvements in maintenance, operations;

and enforcement of park regulations--activities for which a park staff would

normally be responsible.

In May 1965, what was then the National Capital Region was

reorganized into subordinate superintendencies. NCR's part of the canal

came under Superintendent Floyd B. Taylor of the George Washington

Memorial Parkway, whose boundary encompassed most of it. The national

monument's transfer to NCR a year later was a significant step toward

administrative reunification, but the canal would remain divided under two

park superintendents for eight more years. 9

Mac Dale had strengthened Park Service authority along the upper

canal but ruffled neighboring sensibilities in the process. Building on what

Dale had accomplished, Dean McClanahan took a more conciliatory tack

to win friends for the national monument and support for the park

legislation.

Soon after his arrival, McClanahan suggested at a Potomac Valley

planning meeting in Hagerstown that hunting might be appropriate at

certain times and places within the monument. The Washington Post

vigorously opposed the idea and condemned its source in an editorial: "Our

indignation mounted and then boiled over into incredulity when we noted

that the suggestion came, not only from the hunters, but also from W. Dean

McClanahan, the new superintendent of the National Monument." NPS

Assistant Director Howard W. Baker disowned the suggestion in letters to

protesting park supporters, but the exchange surely helped McClanahan in

western Maryland. 10

9N"PS Director George B. Hartzog, Jr., approved the transfer "in order that the entire area

may be administered as one unit" (memorandum to regional directors, NCR and Northeast Region,

May 13, 1966, C & 0 Administration and Protection file, C & 0 Canal NHP).

IO"C & 0 May Open to Hunters," Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1966; "Hunting in the Park?"

editorial, Washington Post, Apr. 7, 1966; letter, Baker to Anthony W. Smith, June 1, 1966,

C & 0 Canal files, National Parks and Conservation Association.
CHAPTER EIGHT 139

Dale had begun to develop public use facilities along the canal,

including the campground at Antietam Creek, several hiker-biker

campgrounds, and the boat ramp and access at Four Locks. McClanahan

_greatly_acce1erated_the construction or.boat ramps, campgroynd_~,_parIgng

areas, and access roads (described more fully in the next chapter). By

opening the canal and river to greater public use, this development program

went far to dispel old notions of the canal park as a barrier. 11

McClanahan's public relations skills were especially evident in his

dealings with community organizations. Encountering resistance from

adults, he adopted the old tactic of working through their children. He

conceived the idea of Boy Scout canal hikes, with hikers receiving patches

for completing segments of the towpath. This C & 0 Canal Historic Trail

program was inaugurated in May 1967 with four Scout camporees, the

largest at the Antietam Creek campground with 750 participants including

Rep. Charles McC. Mathias, Jr. Its success prompted the Boy Scouts of

America's Baltimore Area Council to publish 184 Miles of Adventure:

Hiker's Guide to the C & 0 Canal in 1970. Park rangers presented programs in Washington County schools and YMCA camps, then led classes

and camp groups on canal hikes. For family groups McClanahan inaugurated Saturday evening campfire programs at Antietam Creek; a majority

of the 1,800 who attended the 13 programs given during 1967 were local

people who came just for the programs. The superintendent and his staff

continued with numerous presentations to civic and church groups.

McClanahan found garden clubs and other women's organizations especially

receptive; women, he judged, were less opposed to the Service's presence

and purposes than men. 12

McClanahan's efforts to improve public access to the canal and river,

increase public use along them, and cultivate good community relations did

much to raise the standing of the Park Service in western Maryland. Carrie

Johnson, an aide to Mathias closely involved with the park legislation,

judged those efforts instrumental in overcoming opposition to it."

Upon his assignment to the canal, Mac Dale had set up headquarters in

the Earle Building at 74 West Washington Street in Hagerstown. The office

moved to 479 North Potomac Street in 1961 and to 120 North Potomac

Street in 1965. Under a general Park Service program of clustering

geographically related park units, administration of the C & 0 Canal

IlInterview with Robert W. Bell, Feb. 1, 1990.

l2Robert W. Bell, "Parks Are for People" (five-page paper), Sept. 29, 1967, C & 0 Canal

NHP; telephone interview with McClanahan, Feb. 28, 1990.

13Johnson interview.
140 MANAGING ius PARK

National Monument was combined with that of Antietam National

Battlefield Site (and the Harpers Ferry Job Corps Center) on December 17,

1967. Dean McClanahan inherited the superintendency of the AntietamC & 0 Canal Group, as the new organization was known, and moved his

headquarters to the recently built visitor center at Antietam soon afterward.

He liked the group arrangement, which enabled him to shift personnel and

other resources between areas to meet special needs. 14

The enactment of the national historical park legislation on January 8,

1971, prompted no immediate organizational change. Although the entire

canal was now a single unit of the national park system, the former national

monument portion remained under the Antietam-C & 0 Canal Group, while

the lower portion continued under George Washington Memorial Parkway

administration. This was the only time in Park Service history when one

contiguous park system unit was divided between two superintendents.

Floyd Taylor retired as superintendent of the parkway on June 27, 1971,

to be succeeded by David A. Ritchie on July 25.

McClanahan's development orientation, having helped the park cause,

now got him into difficulty. In 1970 he had installed a boat ramp and

parking area above Dam 4 and begun to widen the eroded towpath upstream

along Big Slackwater so maintenance and patrol vehicles could traverse it.

In July 1971 Jacob Berkson, an adjoining landowner who claimed title to

the towpath along his river frontage (pages 107 and 114), complained about

increased motorboat noise and damage to natural surroundings from the

ongoing towpath work. When Berkson's attorney threatened a suit to

enjoin the project on grounds that the Park Service had not complied with

environmental and historic preservation laws, NCP Director Russell E.

Dickenson agreed to stop the work and review the matter. Investigators

sent by the Service's Washington headquarters concluded that the towpath

was not being widened beyond its historic dimensions. IS

That September, while the work was suspended, the park proceeded

with_ a similar towpath improvement project along the slackwater above

Dam 5. At one narrow point a rock cliff was blasted, fill was dumped into

the river, and the towpath was surfaced with concrete. The Potomac Valley

Conservation and Recreation Council organized a "walk-in" to protest the

"ruthless destruction of natural beauty," Rep. Gilbert Gude wired NPS

Director George B. Hartzog, Jr., to urge consultation with interested

14McCIanahan interview. Antietam's staff were less happy with the arrangement, which cost

them space in the visitor center and effectively subordinated their park to the canal.

15Letters, Oscar S. Gray to Dickenson, July 20 and Sept. 8, 1971, C & 0 Canal files,

National Parks and Conservation Association; memorandum, Ernest A. Connally to Dickenson,

Sept. 9, 1971, ibid.
CHAPTER EIGHT 141

parties, and Berkson sought and obtained a court restraining order that held

up all work on the canal for a time. The case was finally resolved on

August 24, 1972, when Berkson accepted the Service's formal promise to

follow all applicable legal compliance requireIlle~~hereafter~~~_

- - The . imbroglio further- -hurt-the Service's reputation among

conservationists, following as it did the much-criticized towpath filling

project at Widewater in 1970. When Assistant Secretary of the Interior

Nathaniel P. Reed made a wry reference to it at the first meeting of the

Chesapeake and Ohio National Historical Park Commission in December

1971, John Frye responded sharply: "I'd like to say, Mr. Secretary, that

the episode of trimming the trees and bulldozing the towpath really turned

out not to be funny. In fact, it turned out to be a real tragedy, I think,

because that set the work of this commission back about 15 years....

This mistake was made not so much from the environmental standpoint or

the historic standpoint but from the fact that it turned public opinion

completely around and we now have a hostile public whereas six months

ago we didn't. Now we've almost got to start all over again. 1117

The controversy irreparably weakened McClanahan's position. On

August 20, 1972, he was transferred to a staff assignment at NPS

headquarters and replaced by William R. Failor. Failor, a Penn State

graduate, had joined the Service's Eastern Office of Design and Construction as a landscape architect in 1956. From 1959 to 1968 he held various

planning .positions in the Philadelphia regional office, the Bureau of

Outdoor Recreation, NCR, and the Service's Washington Planning and

Service Center. He came to the canal from the superintendency of National

Capital Parks-Central, the NCP unit responsible for Washington's

monumental core.

Failor became the first superintendent of the entire park on July 1,

1974, when David Ritchie relinquished the lower part to him. The

Antietam-C & 0 Canal Group was simultaneously disbanded, making the

canal Failor's sole responsibility.

With a new superintendent appointed for Antietam and space at a

premium there, canal headquarters could not long remain at Antietam. The

acquisition of Ferry Hill for the park that April appeared to answer the

need. This 39-acre property next to the canal at Sharpsburg across the

Potomac from Shepherdstown, West Virginia, had a historic house and

16Bulletin, Potomac Valley Conservation and Recreation Council, Oct. 11, 1971, C & 0 Canal

files, NPCA; telegram, Gude to Hartzog, Oct. 7, 1971, ibid.; Berkson et al. v, Morton et al.,

Civil No. 71-1085B, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland; Ann Cottrell Free, "The

C & 0 Canal: Disneyland or Muirland?" Washingtonian, December 1971, p. 15.

l1'franscript, commission meeting of Dec. 20, 1971, p. 33, C & 0 Canal NHP.
142 MANAGING THE PARK •

•

William R. Failor

•

/

outbuildings well suited for headquarters purposes. The only problem was

that the previous owner, who operated a restaurant in the house, insisted on

retaining use of the house and five acres for four years. The Service tried

to buy his retained right, but he demanded too high a price. As a result,

the park set up temporary headquarters in trailers at the rear of the property." James D. Young, the park's resource manager, moved there from

Antietam at the end of 1974, but Failor and most of the staff did not complete the move until October 1976. After the previous owner's right of

occupancy terminated in March 1979, the park converted the historic Ferry

Hill house to offices. The long-awaited final move to them took place in

April 1980.

Unification of the park under a single superintendent was followed by

its internal division into three administrative districts. The Palisades

District initially covered the lower 22 miles from Georgetown to Seneca;

its boundary was extended to Mile 31 at Edwards Ferry in 1976. The

Piedmont District ran from the Palisades District first to Mile 99 at

Williamsport, then to Mile 106 below Dam 5. The Allegany District

covered the remaining distance to Cumberland. Each had a district ranger

and a maintenance supervisor reporting to a chief rang er (then titled chief,

"The Ferry Hill purchase price was $252,000. The Service appraised the retained right at

$9,000. Frederick W. Morrison, the owner, wanted $50,000 for it; the Service would go no

higher than $35,000, even though it estimated the cost of the temporary trailer complex at

$266,000. Memorandum, Richard L. Stanton to Phillip O. Stewart, Oct. 2, 1974, C & a Canal

National Historical Park file, NPS History Division; memorandum, John E. Cook to Manus J.

Fish, Jr., Oct. 22, 1974, ihid.

•

•
CHAPTER -EIGHT 143

interpretation, recreation and resource management, or IR&RM) and a chief

of maintenance at headquarters.

The greatest difficulties with this seemingly rational organization had

to do with the Palisades District. For a number of reasons related to its -~~ -- ----- - --- --- --- _._._- - ---

different background and distinct character, it did not merge smoothly with

its two counterparts in a well-coordinated park administration.

The U.S. Park Police had lost its patrol jurisdiction above Seneca when

that part of the canal left National Capital Parks in 1958. It did not regain

that jurisdiction when the upper canal returned to NCR in 1966, and it now

saw its rivals in green--the law enforcement rangers--invading its turf

below Seneca. A tense relationship developed between Palisades District

Ranger James F. Martin and the park policemen assigned to his district but

not under his control. On one occasion an officer arrested him for carrying

a gun."

Martin's successor in the early 1980s, Michael Brown, continued to

sense what he termed the "paranoia" of the Park Police. He also found the

Palisades District poorly supported by the distant park headquarters. The

George Washington Memorial Parkway had kept the maintenance employees

it wanted when the lower canal left its jurisdiction, and District Maintenance Supervisor Donald O. Foster received little help from Dale B. Sipes,

the chief of maintenance. The perceived lack of support from Sharpsburg

inclined the Palisades District's personnel to bypass that office, exacerbating a tendency that was probably inherent given the district's urban/suburban character, high visibility and use, relationships with the George

Washington Parkway and Park Police, and proximity to the regional office.

In effect there were two parks in uneasy confederation: the upper two

districts, largely rural and undeveloped, looking to Sharpsburg; and the

heavily used and developed Palisades District, exceeding many discrete

national park system units in stature, often dealing directly with

NCP/NCR. 20

Superintendent Failor faced many other management challenges.

Among them were the C & 0 Canal National Historical Park Commission

and Richard L. Stanton.

Failor, who had spent much of his career planning for park

development and who had lately supervised the major national parklands in

19Telephone interview with Harry A. DeLashmutt III, Feb. 28, 1990.

»relephone interview with Michael Brown, Feb. 28, 1990; interview with James D. Young,

Jan. 25, 1990; interview with William R. Failor, Feb. 1, 1990; telephone interview with Richard

G. O'Guin, Feb. 28, 1990.
144 MANAGING THE PARK

the nation's capital, was a firm believer that "parks are for people. "21 He

saw the canal accordingly--much as Dean McClanahan had. The most

active members of the park commission, on the other hand, judged natural

and historic preservation more important than development to attract and

serve increased public use. Nancy Long, the commission's first chairman,

soon became critical of what she viewed as Failor's insensitivity to park

resources and failure to consult interested parties before undertaking

various projects (such as the towpath bridge at Widewater).

As NCP's assistant director for cooperative activities from February

1972 to June 1977, Dick Stanton was the principal Park Service liaison with

the commission. A forceful and dramatic personality, Stanton cultivated

the members and aligned himself with their predominant philosophy,

making little effort to hide his disregard for Failor in the process. Failor

privately accused Long and Stanton of trying to manage the park; Stanton

readily accepted the charge as it applied to him. According to the canal's

chief ranger at the time, the two "drove Failor bananas--they ran the park,

there was no doubt about that." After Stanton left NCR and Long's term

as chairman expired in 1977, Failor found relations with the commission

more to his liking. 22

For the most part Failor got along well with the public. He was

ultimately undone by internal management problems. ChiefRanger Richard

G. O'Guin charged Dale Sipes with using government property and

maintenance employees for his personal gain. The case was not

satisfactorily resolved, and staff morale suffered. Failor was also hurt by

a discrimination complaint filed by the head of the park's Young Adult

Conservation Corps camp, even though he was finally exonerated. These

and other difficulties contributed to his reassignment to NCR headquarters

as regional chief of interpretation, recreation, and visitor services on

January 24, 1981. 23

Failor's successor was none other than his old adversary, Dick Stanton.

Stanton's association with the canal had begun when he came to work for

the Park Service in its lands office in 1965. He briefly headed the

Service's Concessions Management Division before moving to NCP in 1972

as assistant director for cooperative activities. After leaving NCR in 1977,

he served successively as regional director of the Service's Mid-Atlantic

Region in Philadelphia and North Atlantic Region in Boston. His

unhappiness in the latter post combined with his longstanding love of

21Failorinterview.

22Failorinterview; interview with Stanton, Feb. 27, 1990; DeLashmutt interview.

DO'Guin interview; Young interview; Frye interview.
CHAPTER EIGHT

Richard L. Stanton

145

canoeing in the Potomac Valley led him to accept NCR Regional Director

Jack Fish's offer of the canal superintendency, even though it entailed a

demotion. Stanton arrived on duty February 8.

Stanton enjoyed good relations with the park commission, the C & 0

Canal Association, and most of the park's other constituencies. According

to Carrie Johnson, commission chairman from 1982 to 1987, his policy was

one of II aggressively coopting the commission II by actively courting its

members and keeping nothing from them . Although some complained that

he paid more attention to the river than the canal, the Potomac canoe trips

he organized for Rep. Beverly Byron and other influential parties did much

to win friends and funds for the park."

Evidence that Dale Sipes was continuing to make personal use of park

equipment and staff under Stanton prompted Sipes's exile to the Harpers

Ferry Job Corps Center. The positive effect of this action on park morale

was not furthered by Stanton's controversial management style, which

caused much unhappiness among his subordinates. Many found him overly

demanding, uncommunicative, and unappreciative, and rifts developed at

the highest levels of the park organization. He was thought to take little

interest in the Palisades District, heightening its sense of alienation from

headquarters. Ultimately he concluded that the district could not be run

from Sharpsburg, and in 1987 he approved a new organization there headed

by a district manager. Under this arrangement all Palisades personnel

including the district ranger and maintenance supervisor came under Linda

Toms, formerly the park's administrative officer. Toms served capably in

the new position, but the district manager organization was unpopular at

24Johnson interview; Frye interview; letter, Linda Toms to Barry Mackintosh, May 29, 1991,

C & 0 Canal NHP file, History Division .
146

Thomas O. Hobbs

MANAGING THE PARK

headquarters. Deprived of direct responsibility for the most developed and

visited part of the park, the chiefs of law enforcement, maintenance, and

interpretation there felt threatened by their loss of stature. Stanton

encouraged Toms to deal directly with the regional office on many matters,

heightening the sense of a park divided.P

Stanton retired on August 31, 1989, convinced that his overall record

had made "the last eight years ... the best for the park. It Nancy Long

praised him as Ita dedicated, determined, and devoted park steward who

strongly resisted attempts to undermine the integrity of the park, It and most

park supporters undoubtedly agreed with her positive evaluation. 26

Continuing to reside in Hagerstown, he was elected to the board of the

C & 0 Canal Association and promised to remain active in park affairs.

Assistant Superintendent James D. (ltJ.D. It) Young acted as superintendent until December 17, when Thomas O. Hobbs took over. Hobbs, a

West Virginian, had joined the Park Service in 1962 as a ranger at Mesa

Verde National Park. He held other ranger positions at Kennesaw

Mountain National Battlefield Park and Acadia National Park before

serving as superintendent of Bryce Canyon National Park from 1976 to

2SStanton interview; Young interview; Frye interview; interview with Gordon Gay, Feb. 15,

1990.

26Stanton interview; Long, •Superintendent Stanton Retires,· Along the Towpath (C & 0 Canal

Association newsletter), September 1989, p. 1.
CHAPTER EIGHT 147

1980 and chief ranger at Yellowstone National Park from 1980 to 1985. He

came to the canal from the superintendency of Isle Royale National Park.

Hobbs's affable, low-key manner was well received among the park

staff and the park's outside constituencies. After Linda Toms left her

Palisades position for an assignment in Alaska, he reappraised the district

manager arrangement and returned Palisades to organizational parity with

the other districts. From NCR Regional Director Robert Stanton, he obtained official recognition that rangers with law enforcement commissions

had equal standing with the Park Police in Palisades. He gave J.D. Young

special liaison responsibilities with the district to insure that it got the

support it needed from headquarters. Cooperation improved and tensions

diminished, giving cause for optimism that the park might yet become truly

integrated.F

Any survey of the park's management must take into account the role of

the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission over

the years. The first commission for a national park system area resulted

from the Cape Cod National Seashore act of 1961. When the canal park

legislation went through a decade later, the idea was still quite new, and

Park Service managers were still largely unaccustomed to involving outsiders in their decision-making.

The legislation required the secretary of the interior or his designee

"from time to time but at least annually [to] meet and consult with the

Commission on general policies and specific matters related to the

administration and development of the park." It set a ten-year life span for

the commission and five-year terms for its 19 members, who would receive

no pay beyond compensation for expenses. The secretary's initial

appointees were Nancy Long, Caroline Freeland, and Donald R. Frush,

appointed directly; J. Millard Tawes and Vladimir Wahbe, recommended

by the governor of Maryland; John G. Lewis and Thomas W. Richards,

recommended by the governor of Virginia; Burton C. English and Louise

Leonard, recommended by the governor of West Virginia; James G. Banks

and Joseph H. Cole, recommended by the mayor of Washington, D.C.;

Ronald A. Clites and Mary Miltenberger, recommended by the Allegany

County commission; Kenneth R. Bromfield and James H. Gilford,

recommended by the Frederick County commission; Grant Conway and

Edwin F. Wesely, recommended by the Montgomery County council, and

John Frye and Rome C. Schwagel, recommended by the Washington County

commission. The secretary was empowered to name the chairman from

among his three at-large appointees. He selected Long, a Glen Echo civic

vrelephone interview with Hobbs, Jan. 16, 1991.
148 MANAGING THE PARK

Thefirst park commission with NPS officials, January 29,1972. Standing: Richard Stanton,

James Guilford, Dean McClanahan, Kenneth Bromfield, James Banks, Jack Fish, Edwin

Wesely, Louise Leonard, Ronald Clites, Vladimir Wahbe, Rome Schwagel, David Ritchie,

John Frye. Sitting: Caroline Freeland, Mary Miltenberger, Grant Conway, Nancy Long,

Donald Frush, John Lewis.

activist who had volunteered in Charles Mathias's and Gilbert Gude's

political campaigns and had raised funds to purchase the historic Dentzel

carousel at Glen Echo Park.

In the early years the commission met nearly every month. The park's

general plan was its primary agenda item; it also dealt extensively with land

acquisition and development issues. Not surprisingly, some members were

more knowledgeable and involved than others. Also not surprisingly,

members and Park Service staff formed differing opinions of the

commission's value. Park officials thought that a few members, especially

Long and Edwin Wesely, intervened unduly in park operations. Long

sensed that the commission was "a very difficult pill for the Park Service

to swallow." She found the Service uncommunicative and Dick Stanton

combative at first. Stanton admitted that the Service did not readily accept

the commission, but he and most other officials came to appreciate its

usefulness during the planning process, when it became a vital medium for

public involvement."

The second commission, appointed December 21, 1976, included six

holdovers from the first. Donald Frush was now chairman; Nancy Long

28Failor, Young, Frye, Johnson, Stanton interviews; interview with Long, Feb. 26, 1990.
CHAPTER EIGHT 149

and Constance A. Morella were the other at-large members. From

Maryland, JamesB, Coulter replaced Millard Tawes. Margaret Dietz and

Dorothy T. Grotos now represented Virginia. Dayton C. Casto, Jr., and

Silas F._Starr.y~represente.d Weli Virginia._~ockwood]!.(Adam) Foster -- - --- - ._-

and Lorenzo W. Jacobs, Jr., represented the District; Donald Shannon

replaced Jacobs in October 1979. From Allegany County came John Millar

and Bonnie Troxell, from Frederick County James Gilford and Wilhelmina

Pohlmann, from Montgomery County Edwin Wesely and Kenneth S. Rollins

(replacing the deceased Grant Conway), and from Washington County R.

Lee Downey and John Frye. With the park's general plan complete and

land acquisition largely so, the new group met less frequently; its first

meeting was delayed until April 1977. As noted, it became active in

development concept planning at the end of the decade.

As the commission's January 8, 1981, expiration date neared, Congress

amended the park act to extend its existence for another ten years;" The

new commission did not meet until September 1982. Carrie Johnson was

chairman, joined by Polly Bloedorn and Carl L. Shipley at large.

Constance Lieder accompanied James Coulter from Maryland. Joan

LaRock and Elise B. Heinz represented Virginia; the West Virginians were

William H. Ansel and Silas Starry. Barry Passett succeeded Donald

Shannon from the District. Montgomery County was represented by

Marjorie Stanley and Barbara Yeaman. Edward K. Miller replaced John

Frye from Washington County. The other two county delegations were unchanged.

The fourth commission, sitting at this writing, assembled after a year's

hiatus in September 1988. The slippage was indicative of the commission's

declining role. Sheila Rabb Weidenfeld was chairman; Dorothy Grotos and

Samuel S. D. Marsh were the other at-large members. Keith A. Kirk and

James F. Scarpelli represented Maryland, Elise Heinz and Charles P.

Poland, Jr., represented Virginia, and Thomas F. Hahn and Ralph

Albertazzie represented West Virginia. Allegany County sent Josephine L.

Beynon and Robert L. Ebert, Montgomery County sent Nancy Long and Jo

Reynolds, and Washington County sent Edward Miller and Sue Ann

Sullivan. The District and Frederick County returned their previous

delegations. With the commission due to expire in January 1991, Congress

gave it another ten-year extension in 1990. 30

Park Service officials and commission members polled in 1990 on the

commission's usefulness rated it positively, for the most part. Although he

chafed under the Long-Stanton regime through the mid-1970s, Bill Failor

29J»ublic Law 96-555, Dec. 19, 1980, U.S. Statutes at Large 94: 3260.

3OJ>ublic Law 101-320, July 3, 1990, U.S. Statutes at Large 104: 292.
150 MANAGING THE PARK

recalled the commission's value in developing the general plan, fostering

communication with local groups and individuals, and impeding unwanted

proposals. J.D. Young deemed it a worthwhile adjunct to a strung-out park

serving diverse constituencies. He cited the role of members in lobbying

Interior Department officials and members of Congress for funds and

helping defend park policies in their jurisdictions. Dick Stanton considered

the commission an asset during most of his tenure in the regional office and

park. But he judged the current membership overly beholden to local

interests, especially in Allegany County, and felt the commission had

outlived its usefulness."

John Frye thought the commission should have been allowed to expire

after its first ten years (his term of service), when the planning and, land

acquisition processes were largely completed. During that period he found

it valuable in redirecting planning away from the initial emphasis on

recreational developments, which could not have been maintained with

available resources. As a commission member with close ties to many in

Washington County, he had served as an occasional intermediary between

landowners seeking more lenient terms and park land acquisition

personnel. 32

Carrie Johnson appreciated how Nancy Long had established the

commission as an active working group. She noted the value of having

members with local connections to get things done. Unlike Park Service

employees forced to go through channels, members could bring problems

directly to the attention of the secretary of the interior and members of

Congress. When Dick Stanton reported in 1982 that three aqueducts were

in danger, she relayed the need for funds to Secretary James G. Watt and

money was forthcoming. Three years later she was able to speak directly

to Secretary Donald Paul Hodel about another $2 million in park needs.

She believed that the Service recognized the commission as "a terribly

useful sounding board and a terribly useful shield" during her chairmanship;"

Nancy Long thought the commission had been especially valuable in

influencing the park's general plan, in helping to block numerous proposals

for adverse development, and in serving as a forum for public involvement.

The practice she had begun of holding meetings in different communities

along the canal had encouraged public involvement and familiarized

members with the whole canal. Unlike Stanton and Frye, she felt that the

31Pailor, Young, Stanton interviews.

32prye interview.

33Johnsoninterview.
CHAPTER EIGHT 151

commission was still greatly needed in the face of increasing development

pressures along the length of the park. 34

Despite occasional frictions, the park has clearly benefitted from the

existence of the commission and the commitment of its most dedicated

members. Here, as in so many other national park system areas, private

citizens have been vital partners with park managers in determining the

overall public interest and working to achieve it.

34Long interview.
Tonoloway Creek Aqueduct stabilization, 1976.
CHAPTER NINE

DEVELOPING THE PARK

153

Affer acquiring tile cananii 1938, life NatiofiaIParlcServiclnransfo~rmed~-­

its lower 22 miles from a flood-ravaged ruin to a restored waterway with

operable locks. No comparable restoration project would be undertaken

elsewhere. For the most part, later development work on the canal itself

was limited to repairing flood damage and stabilizing aqueducts, locks, and

other structures to slow their further deterioration. The cleanup of

acquired lands and the addition of modest visitor use facilities constituted

the most visible park development above Seneca.

While the canal parkway plan was alive, the Park Service did little to

improve and maintain the towpath and canal bed in the unrestored portion.

After 1956, when the Service abandoned the parkway and sought support

for the national historical park, it devoted more serious attention to these

primary resources. The National Capital Parks budget for fiscal 1957

included $91,300 for clearing and grubbing the canal. Approved by

Director Conrad L. Wirth, the program entailed removing all growth less

than two inches in diameter and cutting and poisoning the stumps of all

larger trees. Initial work was scheduled for areas adjoining Whites Ferry,

Brunswick, Shepherdstown, Williamsport, Hancock, Little Orleans, Paw

Paw, Old Town, and Cumberland. 1

As the first year's work neared completion, Orville W. Crowder and

Grant Conway of the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club protested the

clearing of the canal bed beyond areas that were to be immediately

rewatered or otherwise developed. Ben H. Thompson, chief of the NPS

Division of Recreation Resource Planning, toured the denuded areas and

agreed with them. "Such clearing tends to lead to a monotonous sameness

and to destroy variety that should be preserved," he wrote Wirth. "As soon

as the trees are cleared, sunlight and the movement of air results in drying

up the canal bed, the necessity of spraying new trees and shrubs beginning

to grow becomes evident, and the net result will be long stretches of grassy

canal that have to be mowed. These long grassy stretches are no more

interesting than the grassy strips between divided highways and they are

almost sterile insofar as any wildlife or natural habitat values are

concerned." He recommended that clearing be stopped until the Service

had developed a detailed plan for preservation, development, and use.

'Memorandum, Robert C. Home to Conrad L. Wirth, July 23, 1956, C & 0 Administration

and Protection file, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park.
154 DEVELOPING THE PARK

Wirth concurred. 2 Most of the cleared sections were allowed to

revegetate, meanwhile exhibiting the "neglected look" rued by George

Palmer in 1959 (page 120).

A primary Service goal was to restore and maintain the continuity of

the towpath, which neighboring landowners and others had crossed with

livestock fences and cut to drain sections of the canal and cross with roads.

The only sections that had received much maintenance since the end of

canal navigation in 1924 were those used for vehicular access to adjoining

properties--a use incompatible with park objectives. As noted, Mac Dale

did much to open and improve the towpath during his superintendency of

the upper canal. His maintenance crews removed fences, cut trees and

brush, and filled several gaps. In many instances the Service had granted

vehicular use and fencing permits that could not be discontinued

immediately, but required gates and stiles made fences remaining in the

early 1960s less obstructive. 3

Dale and his successors sought to render the towpath navigable by park

maintenance and patrol vehicles as well as hikers and cyclists. This

objective, unexceptionable from a management standpoint, caused

occasional problems with those less attuned to operational requirements.

The projects at Widewater in 1970 and above Dams 4 and 5 in 1971 elicited

the strongest reactions. The specter of bulldozers converting a trail into a

road, destroying trees, and scarring the surroundings brought cries of protest from nature-loving constituents unsympathetic to arguments that the

towpath was historically broad and bare and that vegetation would soon

cover the scars.

The towpath became a frequent topic of discussion at meetings of the

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission.

Concerned members perceived a continuing tendency by park management

to make it too roadlike and surface it with non-native materials like bluestone. In May 1980, with Park Service support, the commission adopted

a resolution to guide towpath treatment. It called for the towpath to be

considered as a continuous historic resource, whose restoration and

maintenance should conform insofar as practical to the conditions

documented in a 1974 report on the canal prism by NPS historian Harlan

D. Unrau. In accordance with Unrau's findings, the towpath would be

maintained to an average width of twelve feet and to an elevation two feet

2Memorandum, Thompson to Wirth, June 5, 1957, C & 0 Canal Parkway file 1.58, C & 0

Canal NHP.

3Edwin M. Dale, "Historic Structure Report, Part I, Towpath, C & 0 Canal," 1961; copy in

NPS History Division.
CHAPTER NINE 155

above the historic water line using shale, bankrun gravel, and other

indigenous surfacing materials."

In the 1950s the NPS installed several primitive campgrounds along the

canal. None had drinking water or met usual Service standards. Mac Dale

inaugurated the hiker-biker campground system, developed the Antietam

Creek campground, and installed the Four Locks boat ramp and access in

the early 1960s. He contracted with a well driller to provide drinking

water.

Recreational development climaxed under Dean McClanahan. With

labor from the Harpers Ferry Job Corps Center and special "accelerated

public works" funding during fiscal 1969, the park added drive-in

campgrounds and boat ramps at Fifteenmile Creek and McCoys Ferry;

access roads and boat ramps at Little Tonoloway Creek, Taylors Landing,

Snyders Landing, Dam 4, and Dargan Bend; an access road and parking

area at Dam 5; and 21 more hiker-biker campgrounds. The park's large

routed wooden entrance signs and concrete mileposts were installed during

the same period.

Several of the lockhouses were still occupied in the postwar years;

these and others underwent a variety of treatments. The frame lockhouse

at Lock 5, rehabilitated in 1939 and last occupied by Julia King, was razed

in 1957 for George Washington Memorial Parkway road construction. NCP

rehabilitated the Lock 610ckhouse for employee housing in the early 1960s.

Its occupant in the early 1970s was Thomas F. Hahn, author of the popular

Towpath Guide to the C & 0 Canal, then supervising canal interpretation

at Great Falls.

The lockhouse at Lock 7, rehabilitated in 1939, was occupied by NCP

Chief Naturalist Donald Edward McHenry during the war and by U. S. Park

Police officers through the 1950s. Construction of the parkway road left

it accessible only via the towpath and thus unsuitable for employee

occupancy. In 1977 the vacant house was "adopted" by the Bethesda

Jaycees and Junior Suburban Women's Club, who funded a new roof for it

the next year. When preservation professionals at Park Service

headquarters complained that the rough cedar shakes used were historically

4Minutes, C & 0 Canal Commission meeting, May 17, 1980; Unrau, "Historic Structure

Report, The Canal Prism Including Towpath with Canal Berm and River Revetments, W March

1974, C & 0 Canal NHP.
156 DEVELOPING THE PARK

Lockhouse at Lock 6 before restoration.

inaccurate, Regional Director Jack Fish apologized but declined to order

their replacement before the roof's expected life span."

The lockhouses at Locks 8, 11, and 13, never modernized, remained

occupied under permit through the mid-1950s. The first two were

ultimately vacated and boarded up; the last was razed in 1961 for

construction of the Capital Beltway. A later frame house at Lock 14 was

also demolished. The Service rehabilitated the Lock 10 lockhouse,

occupied through the 1950s without plumbing, together with that at Lock

6 in the early 1960s. The Lock 6 and 10 lockhouses were the only ones

serving as park employee residences at this writing.

One other lockhouse also serves as a residence--that at Lock 21, or

Swains Lock. The canal's only continuously occupied "lockhouse is home

to Frederick and Virginia Swain. Virginia is Frederick's mother and the

widow of Robert Swain, son of the canal company's last locktender there.

sPaul Hodge, "Historians Raise the Roof Over Shingles," Washington Post, Aug. 23, 1979,

p, Md.5.; letter, Fish to Robert R. Garvey, Jr., Aug. 6, 1979, C & 0 Canal NHP file, History

Division. "The rusticated cedar shake is the invention of 20th century developers and belongs on

a steak house on Rte. 1, not an historic building," NPS historical architect Hugh Miller told the

Post reporter.
CHAPTER NINE 157
158 DEVELOPING THE PARK

After acquiring the canal, the Park Service permitted the Swains to remain

for a monthly rent of five dollars. When NCP tried to raise the rent to $21

in 1959, Robert complained to an influential friend, Justice William O.

Douglas. Douglas intervened with Director Wirth , and the rent was

adjusted to $10 "on the basis of service to the Government, resulting from

the occupancy of the house by a man who is familiar with the Canal, as

well as the public service he provides through the rental of boats to the

park patrons." After Robert died in 1967, the Service negotiated a

concession arrangement with his widow and son , who thereafter paid a

higher but still modest annual fee reflecting their occupancy and income

from canoe and boat rentals and refreshment sales. The Swains installed

utilities and modernized the interior of the lockhouse themselves."

Most other lockhouses remained vacant and received only enough repair

to keep them intact, although a few have been used at one time or another.

The Service permitted law enforcement and fish management personnel of

the Maryland Game and Inland Fish Commission to use the Lock 25

lockhouse at Edwards Ferry in the 1950s. On spring, summer, and fall

6Letter, Conrad L. Wirth to Douglas, May 13, 1959, Swain, Lockhouse 21, Contract file C38,

C & 0 Canal NHP; Angus Phillips, "Life in a Lockhouse on the C & 0 Canal," Washington

Post, Jan. 10, 1985, p. Md.!.
CHAPTER NINE 159

weekends since 1975, Girl Scout groups have recreated domestic life with

period costumes and furnishings at the Lock 24 (Rileys Lock) lockhouse at

Seneca. The Service reconstructed the deteriorated log house at Lock 75

in 1978-79 and has opened it to the public on special occasions. Unfortunately, fire destroyed three vacant lockhouses of frame construction:

those at Lock 26 (Woods Lock) in 1969, Lock 74 in 1976, and Lock 54 in

1981.

The Paw Paw Tunnel and its immediate surroundings had to be repaired

on several occasions. An NCP inspection in April 1956 revealed fallen

brick, cavities in the towpath, and gaps in the handrail within the tunnel.

The timber-framed towpath outside the downstream end was rotten and

required total replacement, and a rock slide had obliterated part of the

towpath beyond the wooden section. Director Wirth ordered full repair at

a cost of $30,000, and NCP maintenance forces carried out the work that

summer." The rock walls of the cut at the downstream end remained

unstable, and in 1968 some 15,000 cubic yards of shale slid down to block

much of the tunnel's portal, carrying away part of its facade. The Service

cleared the slide in 1976-77 but had to let a $494,000 contract for more

stabilization and clean up at both portals in 1979. The wooden towpath

leading from the downstream portal was replaced again at that time.

Before enactment of the park legislation, the canal's managers had

given priority to recreational development. Spurred by the park

commission, emphasis shifted to preservation of the canal's historic

resources after 1971. Preservation needs greatly exceeded available funds,

so creativity was called for. At a commission meeting in May 1972, Edwin

F. Wesely asked if it would be possible "to tie the canal somehow in with

the Bicentennial," inasmuch as parks commemorating the American

Revolution were slated for special funding in the coming years. NCP

Director Russell E. Dickenson did not think he could get the canal on the

official bicentennial list but promised to take advantage of the opportunity

should it arise. 8

A month later, on June 23-25, tropical storm Agnes delivered the

Potomac Valley's greatest flood since 1936. The flood waters seriously

eroded 66 miles of the towpath and berm wall. There were 19 major breaks

below Seneca and nine above, ranging from twenty to 195 feet long. The

longest was in the historically unstable towpath embankment at Widewater,

which washed out to a depth of 21 feet. Twenty-two culverts suffered

major damage, one disappeared, and 140 of them were blocked with silt and

1Memorandum, Harry T. Thompson to Ben H. Thompson, May 14, 1956, C & 0

Administration and Protection file, C & 0 Canal NHP.

8'J'ranscript, C & 0 Canal Commission meeting, May 13, 1972, p. 37.
160 DEVELOPING THE PARK

Restoration work below Paw Paw tunnel, 1956.
CHAPTER NINE 161

Jack Fish, Frank Zarb (Office ofManagement and Budget), Russell Dickenson, and Rogers

Morton surveying flood damage at Lock 16, July 1972.

debris, threatening further flooding and canal erosion from the streams they

carried. Many of the aqueducts and locks were damaged, and many bridges

were swept away. Among the latter were five steel footbridges installed in

1969 for access from the towpath below Lock 18 to the Great Falls

overlook on Olmsted Island . Thousands of trees were uprooted, numerous

private cottages washed onto park property, and access roads, picnic areas,

and parking lots were heavily silted, damaged, and destroyed."

Secretary of the Interior Rogers C. B. Morton surveyed the destruction

in July. In the following months he approved the transfer of $400,000 from

other projects for repairs and pledged his support for restoration of the

canal to its pre-Agnes condition.'? Because considerably more money was

needed for the purpose, he also approved the park's inclusion on the list of

bicentennial areas, despite its lack of relationship to the Revolution.

To plan and oversee the work, Park Service officials established the

C & 0 Canal Restoration Team as a special field unit of the National

Capital Parks Team of the Denver Service Center (the primary Service unit

providing and contracting for arch itectural, engineering, and planning

9"Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Assessment of Damage as ofJune 30,

1972," C & 0 Canal Flood of 1972 file, Office of Land Use Coordination, National Capital

Region , NPS.

'OJ..etter, Russell E. Dickenson to Sen. Henry M. Jackson, Apr. 27, 1973, C & 0 Canal NHP

file, History Division; transcript, C & 0 Canal Commission meeting, Nov. 4, 1972, p. 21.
162 DEVELOPING THE PARK

services). Organized in September 1973 under Richard G. Huber's

leadership, the restoration team occupied park structures at Seneca and

Williamsport. The urgency of its mission was heightened by the collapse

of the center and west span of the Catoctin Creek Aqueduct on October 30

after heavy rains. This was the second such disaster of the decade--the

Seneca Aqueduct's west span had collapsed on September 11, 1971,

requiring emergency stabilization of the remaining structure and

construction of a bridge to restore towpath continuity across the gap in

early 1972.

The restoration team identified those canal features most in need of

stabilization and repair and contracted for design and construction services

as necessary. The park's bicentennial program ultimately comprised 27

projects completed by July 1976 at a total cost of $4,250,000. Contractors

carried out 14 of them; park maintenance crews undertook the rest.

Constituting the most extensive work on the canal since the prewar

restoration below Seneca, the projects ranged from wall repairs in

Georgetown to aqueduct stabilization near Cumberland. A summary follows. 11

1. Wall Stabilization, Lock 3 (Mile 0.5): In 1975 part of the canal

wall by Lock 3 collapsed in the wake of blasting for an adjoining Inland

Steel office building and subsurface parking garage. The restoration team

prepared plans and specifications for repairs, carried out by the park

maintenance force. Successive building construction in Georgetown

contributed to further destabilization of canal walls there, leading to a more

extensive wall reconstruction project west of Wisconsin Avenue in 1979-81.

2. Towpath Restoration, Foundry Branch to Lock 5 (Miles 1.3-5.0):

Working under a $437,462 contract, C. W. Stack & Associates of

Newington, Virginia, filled breaks, reestablished the historic towpath grade

and width, and repaired the canal bed in 1973-74. Following the contract

work, the park built a walkway over the 350-foot-Iong canal spillway east

of Chain Bridge. This heavily used towpath section was the first to be

restored to historic grade after Agnes. Completion of the work enabled the

canal to be rewatered below the Lock 5 inlet in August 1974.

3. Towpath Restoration, Lock 5 to Lock 10 (Miles 5.0-8.7): Here the

park maintenance force continued the work done under contract below.

4. Little Falls Creek Culvert, Berm Bank Stabilization (Mile 4.8):

After Little Falls Creek breached the berm embankment in 1975, fill was

placed over its culvert and the 96-inch Potomac Interceptor Sewer running

within the embankment. Another freshet in the spring of 1976 revisited the

lIThe summary is taken from Merrill J. Mattes, Landmarks of Liberty: A Report on the

American Revolution Bicentennial Development Program of the National Park Service

(Washington: National Park Service, 1989), pp. 16-29.
CHAPTER NINE 163

damage, at which point the berm was rebuilt with gabions (rock-filled steel

baskets) tied to reinforced concrete piles.

5. Repairs to Breaks, Widewater Area (Miles 12.4-13.45): Agnes

drained Widewater through two large breaks, one eighty feet long and I?

feet deep, the other 195 feet long and 21 feet deep. Park maintenance

crews plugged the gaps with fill compacted on and around gabion cores.

More gabions were placed along the curve at the lower end of Widewater

where the larger break had occurred to forestall erosion of the fill from

wave action. An inoperative waste weir designed to help control the water

level was renovated. The project cost more than $300,000. As previously

noted (page 127), the park's effort to bridge a rocky stretch at the head of

Widewater was halted by a public protest in the spring of 1976.

6, 7. Repairs to Locks 15 and 16 (Miles 13.45 and 13.63): The flood

waters scoured the earth around the bypass flumes of both locks to bedrock

level, leaving the berm side masonry completely exposed. All lock gates

were swept away, and stones were dislodged from the lock walls. Study

revealed that the locks had not been restored to their original height in

1938-40. Enough stone was recovered from Widewater to replace all

missing stones in Lock 16, and a band of brick--historically used for

repairs-was added beneath the capstones to raise the lock to its proper

elevation. Concrete, used by the canal company in repairing Lock 15,

served the same purpose there. Timbers lagged to the tops of the dams

adjoining the locks raised the dams correspondingly. The masonry on the

back of the berm lock walls was pargeted, the pool areas behind the dams

were filled and graded, and riprap was placed at the upstream end of each

berm wall to curb erosion during future floods. New gates and hardware

were installed at both locks, and the towpath by them was raised to its

historic grade. Park maintenance crews carried out all work for an estimated $295,000.

8. Restoration of Stop Lock, Level 16 (Mile 13.77): Berma Road,

running along the inland side of Widewater, enabled hikers and bicyclists

to bypass the rocky and occasionally severed towpath past Widewater, but

there was no safe connection across the canal at the upper end. A $29,380

contract with Curtin & Johnson, Inc., of Washington in late 1973 provided

a bridge over the stop lock above Lock 16 and an earth ramp down to the

towpath. A second contract for $128,301 with the Chantilly Construction

Company of Chantilly, Virginia, in early 1975 enabled the functional

restoration of the stop lock and adjoining guard wall, which were designed

to divert flood waters descending the canal into the Potomac. Because the

earth ramp would now impede flood diversion, it was removed and replaced

by a wooden stairway.

9. Muddy Branch Culvert Repair (Mile 19.7): Working under a

$60,000 contract in 1973-74, Curtin & Johnson uncovered and pargeted
164 DEVELOPING THE PARK

much of the culvert barrel, reconstructed the headwall and wingwalls at its

outflow end, made lesser repairs at its inflow end, placed riprap upstream

for stabilization, and repaired five hundred feet of towpath.

10. Little Monocacy Creek Culvert Repair (Mile 41.97): This twentyfoot-diameter culvert suffered complete failure of its inflow headwall and

16 feet of its barrel. The remainder of the barrel had large voids, and there

were several missing ringstones and a large cavity at the outflow. Repair

work prescribed by Dewberry, Nealon & Davis of Fairfax, Virginia, under

a $17,746 engineering design contract was carried out by Paul E. Lehman

of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, in 1975 at a cost of $95,642. Reinforced

concrete was extensively used in the reconstruction and repairs, although

a number of missing stones were recovered and reinstalled. Upon

completion of the contract work, the park maintenance force reconstructed

the canal bed over the culvert.

11. Monocacy River Aqueduct Repair and Stabilization (Mile 42.2):

The collapse of a wingwall and the loss of coping stones in the 1972 flood

further weakened the canal's largest aqueduct. Federal Highway Administration engineers designed stabilization measures, and after a false start

with one contractor, the project was awarded to Chantilly Construction for

$334,135. The aqueduct's trunk was regraded to drain outward, and a

waterproof membrane was placed to keep water from percolating down

through the structure. Reinforcing rods were imbedded to hold the

ringstones of the seven 54-foot arches. Unfortunately, funds were

inadequate for the major rebuilding required to fully stabilize the aqueduct.

It was therefore necessary to compress it in a corset of horizontal timbers

and vertical steel channels on each face of the structure tied together by

steel rods running across its top and through its arches.

12. Catoctin Creek Aqueduct Stabilization (Mile 51.5): The collapse

of the center and west span left the east arch and wingwalls and west

abutment intact but vulnerable to further damage. The aqueduct was

already missing its berm parapet and much masonry from all arches, and

the westerly wingwall on the berm side was weakened by erosion from

Catoctin Creek. The restoration team awarded a $9,000 design contract to

Robinson Engineering of Falls Church, Virginia, and a $351,802 construction contract to the John Driggs Company of Camp Springs, Maryland.

Stabilization work, carried out in 1974-75, included grouting voids, placing

steel anchor rods, replacing stones retrieved from the creek, and repointing

the masonry. The westerly creek embankment upstream from the aqueduct

was riprapped with limestone. A concrete beam bridge was installed

parallel to the aqueduct to link the severed towpath, but it lasted only until

another flood in 1976. Towpath travelers were again directed to take an

eight-mile detour via a state highway bridge until the U.S. Army supplied

a Bailey bridge replacement in 1980.
CHAPTER NINE 165

13. Little Catoctin Creek Culvert Repair (Mile 52.51): The inflow

headwall, 57 feet of the 16-foot-diameter culvert barrel, and the foundation

on one side collapsed in the flood. Few stones from them could be

recoveredvrequiring reconstruction of the missing sections in reinforced

concrete. The outflow headwall and wingwalls were repaired with

recovered stones. Dewberry, Nealon & Davis designed the project for

$17,746; Cobar Construction Company of Annandale, Virginia, carried it

out for $97,055 during 1975. After the contract work, the park maintenance force reconstructed the canal bed and berm embankment.

14. Towpath Continuity, Level 34 (Mile 61.6): Agnes breached the

guard lock at Dam 3, across from Harpers Ferry, washing out the canal and

towpath to a depth of five feet. The restoration team decided to retain the

towpath break and span it with a forty-foot bridge to provide a flood relief

valve in this area of recurring failure. Park maintenance personnel

performed the work.

15, 16, 22. Stabilization of Guard Locks 4, 5, and 6 (Miles 84.5,

106.8, and 134.1): These guard locks were designed to protect the canal

from the flooding of impounded river water and allow boats to pass

between the canal and river. The original flood control gates of each lock

had been lost previously and replaced by bulkheads that were now

deteriorating and leaking. The corrective work, designed by Dewberry,

Nealon & Davis for $61,947 and accomplished during 1975 by Plummer

Construction of Hagerstown for $310,174, entailed extensive repairs to the

locks and replacement of the bulkheads with removable cast-in-place concrete panels.

17. Stabilization ofLock 48 (Mile 108.8): The walls of Lock 48, one

of the "four locks" where the canal cuts across Praether's Neck, were

slowly collapsing inward. The park had installed wood cribbing in the lock

in 1964, but this could not withstand the force of compression. Rather than

rebuilding the lock at an estimated cost of $200,000, the park maintenance

force filled it with earth, leaving the capstones exposed.

18. Mule Barn Restoration, Four Locks (Mile 108.92): The last mule

barn on the canal partially collapsed in 1974. James Askins, chief of the

restoration team's branch at Williamsport, supervised its disassembly and

reconstruction with new and reused beams and boards.

19. Parkhead Level Culvert and Waste Weir Repair (Mile 119.78):

Here as in several other places, the canal company had built a waste weir

atop a culvert for canal drainage. Both had fallen into serious disrepair.

Park maintenance personnel dismantled the weir and part of the culvert

barrel, rebuilt the weir on concrete supports to relieve the culvert of its

weight, rebuilt the barrel and filled voids with concrete, and repointed all

stone masonry.
166 DEVELOPING THE PARK

20. Tonoloway Creek Aqueduct Stabilization (Mile 122.9): The west

abutment of the aqueduct no longer rested on bedrock, the single arch

displayed extensive cracks and missing soffit stones, and the upstream face

and wingwalls were badly damaged. Working under a $206,066 contract

in 1975-76, William P. Bergan of Morrisville, Pennsylvania, shored the

arch with steel beams and corseted the faces with wood and steel beams

held in place by steel tie rods. Timber bulkheads constructed along both

sides contained fill placed over the arch to keep it in compression.

21. Stabilization of Lock 54 (Mile 134): A failing foundation and

voids in the walls rendered the lock highly unstable. As at Lock 48, a park

maintenance crew filled it with earth in 1974 to prevent its collapse.

23. Woodmont Culvert Repair (Mile 135): The ten-foot-diameter

culvert had been built on a timber foundation, which was no longer

supported at the outflow end because the underlying soil had washed out.

Park maintenance personnel dismantled the unstable portion, installed

concrete footings, and rebuilt the barrel and outflow headwall and

wingwalls with stone and concrete in 1974-75.

24. Sideling Hill Creek Aqueduct Stabilization (Mile 136.6): The

upstream parapet, wingwalls, and arch face were badly damaged. An

$18,930 design contract with Dewberry, Nealon & Davis and a $32,490

construction contract with C. W. Stack & Associates led to stabilization

measures like those taken at the Tonoloway Creek Aqueduct. Following

the contract work in 1975, park maintenance personnel placed earth dikes

across the canal above and below the aqueduct to restrict water from saturating its rubble fill.

25. Fifteenmile Creek Aqueduct Stabilization (Mile 140.8): The

aqueduct was still largely intact but bulging. The project, designed by

Dewberry, Nealon & Davis for $21,048 and carried out by Paul E.

Lehman, Inc., for $147,787, entailed excavating the fill over the arch,

sealing the exposed masonry with shotcrete, installing a dike across the

canal above the aqueduct and internal drains to carry off water seeping

through the trunk, and replacing missing capstones along the berm parapet.

26. Town Creek Aqueduct Dewatering (Mile 162.3): Although the

aqueduct was in serious condition, bicentennial program work here was

limited to construction of a new concrete dike and rehabilitation of a waste

weir to keep water out of the structure from the rewatered section of the

canal just upstream. The aqueduct itself received stabilization treatment in

1977.

27. Evitts Creek Aqueduct Stabilization (Mile 180.7): The upstream

side of the smallest and most westerly aqueduct was in an advanced state

of deterioration, aggravated by water seepage and winter freezing action.

Following a $21,057 design contract with Dewberry, Nealon & Davis, C.

W. Stack & Associates undertook a $58,097 stabilization project in 1975-76
CHAPTER NINE 167

using the methods adopted for the Tonoloway and Sideling Hill aqueducts.

A park maintenance crew then built dikes across the canal at each end of

the structure. The park performed further repair work on the berm

wingwalls in 1983.

In 1977, following the bicentennial program, the C & 0 Canal Restoration

Team's branch in Williamsport was superseded by the Williamsport

Preservation Training Center. Like its forerunner, the training center was

headed by Jim Askins and quartered in the Cushwa Warehouse, a historic

canal-side building acquired for the park. The center developed a threeyear internship program to train preservation specialists throughout the

national park system. With its great variety of preservation needs and

project opportunities, the canal park was an ideal location for the facility.

In October 1987 oversight of the center shifted from the Denver Service

Center to the Harpers Ferry Center, the Park Service's headquarters for

museum activities and interpretive media. Askins retired in 1989 and was

succeeded by Thomas McGrath in 1990.

The bicentennial restoration program left much undone, including replacement of the bridges to the Great Falls overlook on Olmsted Island.

Projects to preserve the canal's historic features and restore the towpath for

public use had priority, and there was some sentiment that the crowded

Great Falls area might be better off without the added attraction of the falls

overlook. (A picnic area at Great Falls was removed in 1973 in an effort

to reduce crowding there.) The Great Falls Development Concept Plan

approved in 1981 called for the bridges to be replaced, but there was still

no prospect of action.

Local initiative took over in 1985 when William E. Hanna, Jr., a

Montgomery County Council member, advanced a plan to obtain bridge

funding from Maryland, the county, and private contributors as well as

Congress. Another flood that November postponed action on Hanna's

proposal, but he persisted, and in August 1989 the Park Service formally

endorsed it. The county assumed responsibility for accepting all

contributions and designing and constructing the bridges. Maryland

appropriated $200,000, the county and Congress each appropriated

$100,000, and private parties contributed the balance of the estimated

$500,000 project cost. 12 If all went as planned, Great Falls visitors would

be able to view the falls again by the twentieth anniversary of Agnes.

By coincidence, Hanna's funding proposal for the Olmsted Island

bridges came just as the Service installed a new footbridge across the

l2Minutes, C & 0 Canal Commission meeting, Nov. 23, 1985; Olmsted Island Bridges file,

Superintendent's Office, C & 0 Canal NHP.
168 DEVELOPING THE PARK

Potomac at Harpers Ferry. Attached to one of the old B & 0 Railroad

bridges there, the bridge afforded Harpers Ferry's many visitors safe and

easy access to the canal for the first time. Towpath use in the Lock 33 area

rose significantly as a result. Congress designated the bridge the Goodloe

E. Byron Memorial Pedestrian Walkway in honor of the late Maryland congressman, who had suffered a fatal heart attack while jogging on the

towpath below Lock 38 on October 12, 1978. 13

The November 1985 flood did less damage to canal structures than

Agnes, but it scoured much of the towpath and deposited vast quantities of

debris between Oldtown and Seneca. Superintendent Dick Stanton closed

most of the park for an extended period to buttress his appeal for

emergency funds, even though many parts were usable within a short time.

His appeal was successful: as had Agnes, the flood galvanized support for

the park within the administration and Congress, eliciting enough money

to restore it to better condition than before. At the suggestion of NPS

Director William Penn Mott, Jr., Stanton and his staff also organized a

massive volunteer cleanup effort. Secretary of the Interior Donald Paul

Hodel endorsed the program as part of his "Take Pride in America" campaign and participated in its opening at the Potomac Fish and Game Club

on June 1, 1986. By the end of August more than 7,000 Boy Scouts, Girl

Scouts, and other volunteers had joined in. Stanton later accepted a "Take

Pride in America" award for the cleanup activity from President Ronald

Reagan in a Rose Garden ceremony. 14

With the lands acquired for the park came many buildings. Those

postdating the canal's operation were generally removed unless they could

serve some park management purpose. Earlier buildings, part of the

historic scene during the canal navigation period, warranted preservation.

A few, like the Cushwa Warehouse at Williamsport, could be adapted to

serve Park Service needs. Unfortunately, there were no evident uses for

many of the historic farmhouses and other structures acquired along the

canal. If they were not already in poor condition, they soon became so

once vacated and neglected. In the struggle for funds to preserve the canal

itself, there was little chance of obtaining government money for peripheral

buildings.

The alternative was help from outside. The Friends of Great Falls

Tavern, organized in Potomac in 1973, donated money and volunteer labor

in the following years to help restore and maintain that key structure.

Beginning in 1977, as noted above, Bethesda civic groups funded

13Public Law 99-192, Dec. 19, 1985, U.S. Statutes at Large 99: 1329.

14Interview with John Frye, Feb. 1, 1990; interview with James D. Young, Jan. 25, 1990;

interview with Carrie Johnson, Jan. 31, 1990; interview with George H. Hicks, Feb. 15, 1990.
CHAPTER NINE

Secretary Hodel launches volunteer flood cleanup, June 1, 1986.

169

preservation work on the Lock 7 lockhouse. Another significant instance

of outside help involved the Abner Cloud House.

The Abner Cloud House, on Canal Road two miles above Georgetown,

was built in 1801 and is the oldest standing structure along the canal. The

Park Service obtained it in 1957 under the acquisition authority for the

Potomac Palisades Parkway (the George Washington Memorial Parkway's

counterpart within the District of Columbia). Because the stone house was

not a canal structure, was in deteriorated condition, and appeared unlikely

to serve any public or management purpose, there was some sentiment in

NCP for demolishing it. A staff recommendation to this effect in 1962 was

not followed, nor was a 1966 proposal to renovate it for employee

housing. IS Action awaited a proposal in 1975 from Chapter III of the

Colonial Dames of America.

The Colonial Dames chapter, represented by Polly Logan , a

Washington socialite, and Helen Byrd, sister-in-law of Sen. Harry F. Byrd,

Jr., initially proposed to contribute some $50,000 toward the restoration of

the house, following which it would furnish and occupy its two upper

stories as a clubhouse. Logan reduced the figure to $20,000 at a park

15Abner Cloud House file in C & 0 Canal NHP files, History Division.
170 DEVELOPING THE PARK

commissron meeting in September 1975. Nancy Long, the commission

chairman, expressed some concern about advancing the restoration project

ahead of established priorities but did not dissent from the commission's

consensus in favor of seeking federal funds for it. With the aid of the wellconnected Colonial Dames, the Service obtained $150,000 for the house

from Congress in its fiscal 1976 appropriation, after which it negotiated a

cooperative agreement with the chapter. 16

The agreement required the Colonial Dames to contribute only $16,000,

and Long became highly critical of what she called the park's "sweetheart

deal" with a restricted membership group. "How many individuals or

organizations are able to obtain a public building rent-free for ten years,

with an option for renewal, for . . . only $16,000']" she wrote

Superintendent Bill Failor in September 1976. "National Capital Parks

appears to regard the $150,000 in public monies obtained through influence

in the Congress as a direct contribution from the Colonial Dames, Chapter

III." Still, the house would not have been restored without the chapter's

involvement. Long did gain a requirement that the chapter open the upper

floors of the house to the public at least six days a year. 17 As part of the

restoration project, the above-ground basement fronting on the canal was

renovated to serve the public as an information facility.

Among the most significant structures acquired under the national

historical park legislation was McMahon's Mill, adjoining the towpath

along the slackwater above Dam 4. The three-story gristmill, of heavy

timber-frame construction on a limestone base, dated from the early 19th

century. The park's general plan, written in 1975, described its condition

as "remarkably good" and suggested that it might be restored to operation.

The Park Service acquired title to the property in January 1976, but

William B. McMahon, the former owner, retained use of the mill for

storage until the spring of 1981. Jim Askins then examined it, pronounced

it "in an advanced state of disrepair," and estimated that $101,600 would

be required to stabilize it."

McMahon wrote Interior Secretaries James G. Watt, William P. Clark,

and Hodel between 1983 and 1985 to complain of Service negligence in

allowing the mill to deteriorate. He sought to repurchase or lease it and

"Transcript, C & 0 Canal Commissionmeeting, Sept. 13, 1975; C & 0 Canal--Abner Cloud

House file, Office of Land Use Coordination.

17Letter, Long to Failor, Sept. 11, 1976, C & 0 Canal--Abner Cloud House file, Office of

Land Use Coordination; Paul Hodge, "Restoration on the Canal: Dispute Among the Ruins, "

Washington Post, Nov. 25, 1976.

18Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park General Plan (Washington, D.C.:

National Park Service, 1976), p. 63; C & 0 Canal NHP file, History Division.
CHAPTER NINE 171

convert it to a restaurant. The Service denied his request, but the attention

focused on the mill spurred the park to stabilize its exterior and some of its

interior in 1986. 19

Legislation passed by Congress in 1980 authorized the Service to lease - - - -- -- --liistofic-propert{es to private- parties ancCretcilii -the -proceeds- to d-efrayadministrative and maintenance costs." This provision offered new hope

for historic buildings along the canal that were unneeded for management

or visitor use purposes and stood low on the priority list for government

preservation funding.

A 19th-century frame house at Lock 22, Pennyfield Lock, fell into this

category. Occupied until the Service acquired it in the mid-1970s, the

Pennyfield house deteriorated rapidly thereafter. Superintendent Stanton

identified it as a candidate for leasing, and in 1985 the National Capital

Regional Office invited proposals from parties willing to restore the house

as a private residence. A local developer was willing to do so if he were

given the property rent-free for ten years. The park commission endorsed

this plan in September 1986 despite some concern about "privatizing" part

of the park."

Action was then delayed by objections from a local Sierra Club chapter,

which complained that the developer was receiving too much acreage with

the house, and by technical concerns about the restoration plans from

Maryland's historic preservation officer. After these hurdles were finally

overcome, worsening economic conditions led the developer to withdraw.

By 1991 the house was in such bad shape that Superintendent Tom Hobbs

recommended its demolition."

The Pennyfield house episode did not encourage use of the 1980 leasing

authority elsewhere in the park. Meanwhile, however, making creative use

of a 1970 law authorizing contracts in support of "living exhibits and

interpretive demonstrations, "23 the park leased out four other houses

acquired during the 1970s that contributed to the canal's historic scene: the

19Letter, McMahon to Watt, Jan. 10, 1983, C & 0 Canal NHP file, History Division; letter,

Stanley T. Albright to McMahon, Aug. 22, 1985, ibid.

2OSection 111, National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980, Public Law 96-515,

Dec. 12, 1980, U.S. Statutes at Large 94: 3000.

21Minutes, C & 0 Canal Commission meeting, Sept. 20, 1986.

22Minutes, C & 0 Canal Commission meeting, June 10, 1989; telephone conversation with

John Blair, Feb. 4, 1991.

23General Authorities Act of Aug. 18, 1970, Public Law 91-383, U.S. Statutes at Large

84: 825.
172 DEVELOPING ttte PARK

Barr house by Lock 38, the Burnside house above McMahon's Mill, the

Shank house near Dam 5, and the Anthony house at Pearre. Occupancy

best served their preservation, and this law also allowed the lease receipts

to go toward their upkeep.

Few national parklands are more vulnerable to the effects of adjoining

development than the long, narrow C & 0 Canal. Dealing with potential

and actual development alongside the park has been a major concern of

Park Service managers over the years.

As noted earlier, fears in Maryland that an expanded federal presence

along the Potomac might impede access to the river led to the 1953 law

requiring the granting of public utility easements and authorizing the

granting of other rights across canal lands (page 64). As part of its brief

for the national historical park legislation in 1959, the Service cited the

easements granted to that time: to the city of Rockville, for a water intake

structure and pipeline below Swains Lock; to the Washington Suburban

Sanitary Commission (WSSC), for a water intake structure and pipelines

near Watts Branch; to the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, for gas

pipelines crossing farther upstream between Swains and Penny field locks;

to the Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO), for water pipelines and

a cable crossing at Dickerson; to the city of Hagerstown, for water

pipelines at Williamsport; to the American Telephone and Telegraph

Company, for an underground telephone cable at Williamsport; to the

Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, for sewerage, a utility tunnel, and access

across canal land below Cumberland; to the Cumberland and Allegany Gas

Company, for gas lines at Cumberland and Mexico Farms; to the city of

Cumberland, for sewerage. 24

When WSSC proposed to construct its river intake and filtration plant

near Watts Branch, three-quarters of a mile above Swains Lock, in 1957,

Director Wirth expressed concern to WSSC'schairman about the facility's

visual effect on the canal. After meeting with NPS officials, WSSC

engineers modified their design to the Service's satisfaction. Much

community opposition to the project remained, and Ira N. Gabrielson,

president of the Wildlife Management Institute, joined Potomac citizens in

urging the Service and the Interior Department to deny WSSC the access

rights it needed. In response, Assistant Secretary of the Interior Roger

Ernst cited the 1953 legislation requiring the department to grant utility

easements subject to reasonable conditions for protection of the federal

24U.S. Congress, House, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, Hearings

before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 86th

Congress, 1st Session, on H.R. 953, H.R. 2331, H.R. 5194, and H.R. 5344, Mar. 23, 24, 25,

26, Apr. 20,21, 1959 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1959), p. 30.
CHAPTER NINE 173

interest, described WSSC's cooperation in minimizing the facility's impact,

and declared that alternate locations in the vicinity would entail no lesser

effect. Obtaining official Service clearance in May 1958, WSSC built the

Watts Branch plant during the next two years. 25 _ In the late 1970s,_ again

following negotiations with and approval from the Service, it added a new

river intake structure linked to the main plant by a bridge across the canal

and towpath. The concrete addition, designed by architect Paul Speiregen

and completed in 1981, included informational panels on the canal and

river.

The Service became involved with PEPCO's Dickerson project in 1956.

In conjunction with its new power plant there, the company proposed to

acquire land on both sides of the canal, build a 12-foot dam across the

Potomac feeding water into an intake structure, and lay two pipes under the

canal to the plant inland. Although they were unhappy about the impact of

the project, Service officials gave PEPCO the permission necessary for it

to begin work in mid-1957. 26 Maryland's U.S. senators introduced bills

in each Congress through the early 1960s to sanction the dam, which would

flood seven acres of parkland; but opposition from Virginia and conservation interests blocked action on the legislation, and the dam was never

built.

In the early 1970s PEPCO sought permission from state and county

authorities to greatly enlarge its Dickerson facility. By this time much

flyash residue from the coal-burning plant had washed into the canal,

raising the ire of park supporters. Eager to improve its standing with the

park and the community, PEPCO agreed to clean, restore, and rewater

more than a mile of the canal in 1973 and did so the following year. Dick

Stanton and Assistant Secretary of the Interior Nathaniel P. Reed nevertheless opposed PEPCO's request for a zoning exception to construct two 850-

foot exhaust stacks. But the county appeals board approved the exception,

and PEPCO built one of the stacks within four hundred feet of the towpath

~Memorandum, Wirth to T. Earle Bourne, Nov. 25, 1957, Adjacent Property file

1460/C & 0 Canal, C & 0 Canal NHP; letter, Gabrielson to Fred A. Seaton, Feb. 24, 1958,

ibid.; letter, Ernst to Gabrielson, Mar. 25, 1958, ibid.; letter, Harry T. Thompson to John T.

Bonifant, May 21, 1958, ibid.

26Memorandum, Ben H. Thompson to Conrad L. Wirth, Jan. 31, 1956, C & 0 Canal--

Dickerson Power Plant file, Office of Land Use Coordination; memorandum, Harry T. Thompson

and Ben H. Thompson to Wirth, June 11, 1957, ibid.
174 DEVELOPING THE PARK

in 1976. 27 (The second stack, to serve a future plant addition 2,000 feet

from the towpath, was not built.)

In 1967 another power company, Potomac Edison, requested an

easement across the canal for a high-voltage interstate transmission line.

The line would have a visual impact on Harpers Ferry, Antietam, and the

Paw Paw Bends area of the canal and proposed Potomac National River.

Responding to objections from Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall,

Potomac Edison proposed a new alignment that would avoid these areas but

more severely affect the canal and river in the Dam 4 area, where the line

would parallel the south bank for more than a mile about 1,000 feet from

the bank. Udall accepted the realignment in March 1968.28

A year later, the owners of a tract to be crossed by the line paralleling

the river offered to give the government a scenic easement on their property

to preclude Potomac Edison from condemning a right-of-way across it,

thereby forcing the company further back from the river. Acting on legal

advice that the Interior Department had no authority to acquire an easement

there, especially one that appeared to satisfy a private interest, Assistant

Secretary Leslie L. Glasgow declined the offer. He urged Potomac Edison

to move the line voluntarily, but the company refused, and he would not

insist that it change the alignment Udall had accepted. On July 1, 1969,

Interior granted Potomac Edison the permission it sought to cross the canal

below Dam 4. 29

At this point the House Committee on Government Operations launched

an investigation of the power line's impact and Interior's response to the

permit application. Its report, issued in May 1970, concluded that the

department could have done more to protect the canal. It recommended

improved procedures for the review and approval of such projects--

procedures like those soon adopted under the recently enacted National

Environmental Policy Act. The investigation had no effect on Potomac

Edison's alignment but did prompt the addition of an extra tower to lower

the line's profile as viewed from the towpath. 30

2'7Letter, Stanton to Peter H. Benzinger, Sept. 19, 1974, C & 0 Canal--Dickerson Power Plant

file, Office of Land Use Coordination; letter, Reed to Chairman, Montgomery County Board of

Appeals, Feb. 5, 1974, ibid.; Board of Appeals Opinion, Case No. S-235, Petition ofthe Potomac

Electric Power Company, June 20, 1974, ibid.

28U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Government Operations, The Potomac Edison

Company's High Voltage Transmission Line and Its Esthetic Impact on the Chesapeake & Ohio

Canal National Monument, H. Rept. 91-1083, May 13, 1970, pp. 4-5.

29Ibid., pp. 7-10.

3OJbid.
CHAPTER NINE 175

The extensive redevelopment of lower Georgetown during the 1970s

and 1980s had a significant impact on the canal there. New offices, stores,

and restaurants brought more people to the area, increasing park use.

When-nine developers of properties along the canal sought permission to

use park land for construction, access, and other purposes benefiting their

enterprises, the Park Service was able to obtain benefits in return. For

example, the builders of the Four Seasons Hotel agreed to set that building

thirty feet back from the park boundary and resurface the adjoining towpath

between the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway and 29th Street in brick.

Between Thomas Jefferson and 30th streets, Inland Steel's Foundry Mall

development on the south side of the canal included space for a park visitor

facility, opened in 1976. The facility was later moved to a booth in the

mall's lower level.

A canal-side plaza across from this development became the site of a

memorial to Justice William O. Douglas. On March 15, 1977, President

Jimmy Carter approved legislation dedicating the canal and towpath of the

park to Douglas with a suitable memorial "in grateful recognition of his

long outstanding service as a prominent American conservationist and for

his efforts to preserve and protect the canal and towpath from

development. "31 The memorial took the form of a bronze bust of Douglas

sculpted by Wendy Ross, a Service employee at Glen Echo, mounted on a

granite pedestal. Douglas was present at the unveiling ceremony on May

17, 1977. The park also added references to the Douglas dedication on its

large routed wood entrance signs.

In the Canal Square development west of 31st Street, an old brick

warehouse along the canal was rehabilitated as a restaurant and retail sales

building. In 1969, in exchange for an annual rental payment, the Service

permitted the developer to build a promenade deck on park property

overlooking and accessible from the towpath. By the mid-1980s the deck

had deteriorated and become a hangout for teenage drinkers, and

Superintendent Stanton and the park commission opposed renewal of the

permit. The owner corrected the problems and appealed to Director Mott,

who judged the deck a desirable public amenity and extended the permit in

1988.32

In 1983 Washington Harbour Associates and the Western Development

Corporation began negotiations with the Service in connection with a major

development they planned on the Georgetown waterfront. Part of the

31Public Law 95-11, u.s. Statutes at Large 91: 21.

32Letter, Nash Castro to Canal Square Associates, Apr. 7, 1969, C & 0 Canal 1968-69 file

L1425, C & 0 Canal NHP; minutes, C & 0 Canal Commission meetings, Feb. 28, 1987, and

Dec. 3, 1988.
176 DEVELOPING ttte PARK

proposed development was a hotel and office building occupying the tract

between 30th Street and Rock Creek--the "Parcel G" on which the Service

had received a twenty-foot height limitation easement when it acquired the

canal in 1938 (page 19). If the Service would relinquish the easement, the

developer would pay to restore the canal tidelock at the mouth of Rock

Creek, improve park lands along the creek and river, grant public access

and facade easements within the development, and perpetually maintain

certain park improvements. 33

Georgetown civic activists opposed to private waterfront development

disliked the Washington Harbour plans and lobbied against the proposed

agreement. Among the opponents at a Service hearing in January 1984 was

John Nolen, Jr., who had been actively involved with the canal's

acquisition and development as chief planner for the National Capital Park

and Planning Commission in the 1930s. Rather than bartering the height

easement away, the Service should seek full title to the parcel, Nolen

argued. But there was little chance that Congress would appropriate funds

to buy this tract or the developer's land between 30th and 31st streets

sought by the opposition. Finding the exchange equitable and in the public

interest, Regional Director Jack Fish approved it in October 1984. 34 An

opposing group sued, but its lower court victory in May 1985 was overturned on appeal that October.

Under the agreement, Washington Harbour Associates contributed $1

million for the development of a riverfront park west of 31st Street and

$275,000 for restoration of the tidelock. The central Washington Harbour

complex and the park were subsequently completed, but economic factors

and a change of management delayed construction on the parcel east of 30th

Street, and the tidelock contribution remained in escrow with the National

Park Foundation. Neither the private development nor the tidelock

restoration was imminent at this writing.

At the other end of the park, yet another canal parkway proposal

loomed. In 1988 Maryland's State Highway Administration advanced plans

for a new road improving access from Cumberland to South Cumberland

and the municipal airport. The road would have occupied part of the last

mile of the canal that had been buried by the Corps of Engineers flood

control project in the 1950s. The Park Service, with the support of the

park commission, opposed this alignment, and the State Highway

Administration responded in 1989 with an alternative "canal parkway"

33Memorandum, John Parsons to Jack Fish, Oct. 16, 1984, Washington Harbour Associates

file, Office of Land Use Coordination.

34Letter, Nolen to Jack Fish, Mar. 9, 1984, Washington Harbour Associates file, Office of

Land Use Coordination; memorandum, Fish to Thomas Regan, Oct. 16, 1984, ibid.
CHAPTER NINE 177

concept developed by EDAW Associates. The road would now run

alongside the canal on property occupied by two CSX railroad tracks--

property thai was in Service ownership and figured in the proposed

exchange for CSXproperty in Harpers Ferry (page 118). Where it directly

abutted the canal, it would be supported by a retaining wall ten to 15 feet

high. The road embankment could serve as a flood control levee, allowing

the last 4,900 feet of the canal to be excavated and rewatered. To illustrate

how the road would relate to the canal, State Highway Administrator Hal

Kassoff cited the stretch of Canal Road beside the canal above

Georgetown;"

The C & 0 Canal Association and some past and present members of

the park commission opposed the canal parkway. Canal Road, with its

heavy commuter traffic directly opposite the towpath, was something they

did not want to duplicate in Cumberland. But a majority of commission

members voted to support further study of the concept by the state.

Ownership of land needed for the parkway gave the Service a strong

negotiating hand, and Regional Director Robert Stanton took advantage of

it. In correspondence with Kassoff, he conditioned Service cooperation

with the study on commitments from the state, CSX, and the Corps of

Engineers designed to maximize benefits and minimize harm to the park.

While not endorsing the parkway, Service officials were hopeful that it

could lead to a net gain for the canal in Cumberland."

35Minutes, C & 0 Canal Commission meetings, Sept. 10, 1988, and lune 10, 1989.

36Minutes, C & 0 Canal Commission meeting, Sept. 9, 1989; letters, Stanton to Kassoff, Oct.

S, 1989, and Ian. 9, 1990, Cumberland Canal Parkway file, Office of Land Use Coordination;

Eugene L. Meyer, "Preservationists Balk at Plan for C & 0 Parkway," Washington Post, Ian. IS,

1990, p. B1; interview with lames D. Young, Ian. 18,1990; telephone conversation with Thomas

Hobbs, Ian. 16, 1991.

CHAPTER TEN

USING THE PARK

179

A park, according to standard dictionary definitions, is a tract of land set

aside for public recreational use. This primary purpose is what

distinguishes parks from other land reservations, such as wildlife refuges,

set aside primarily for the protection of particular resources. This is not

to say that other reservations cannot also accommodate recreational use,

and it is certainly not to say that parks need not protect resources. The

language of the 1916 act of Congress creating the National Park Service

still obtains: the Service is to conserve park features and provide for their

enjoyment by the public "in such manner and by such means as will leave

them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." While not for

everyone doing everything they wish everywhere at every time, parks are

indeed for people.

The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal served public recreation long before

it became a park. At the beginning of the century the McMillan

Commission noted its use "by pleasure seekers in canoes, and by excursion

parties in various craft." In 1934, a year after the Park Service assumed

responsibility for the national capital park system, a Service historian

reconnoitering the canal reported considerable recreational activity: "The

canal towpath is much used by hikers. On weekends, at any season of the

year, people may be seen singly and in groups walking along the canal,

particularly between Great Falls and Washington." 1

Recreational use there surged after the Park Service acquired the canal

in 1938 and restored and rewatered the portion below Seneca. The damage

from the 1942 flood and the closing of the canal in the Great Falls area

during World War II sharply curtailed towpath traffic, which was never

high along most of the canal. Service leaders saw the lack of public use

above Seneca as a threat to the canal's viability as a park in the face of

conflicting development pressures. This concern figured heavily in the

1950 parkway proposal.

The highly publicized hike led by Justice William O. Douglas in 1954

to mobilize opposition to the parkway succeeded both in achieving that goal

and in stimulating more of the public to follow the hikers' example. After

the Service dropped the canal parkway scheme in 1956 and sought to win

support for national historical park legislation, it did much more to improve

IU.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on the District of Columbia, The Improvement ofthe Park

System ofthe District ofColumbia (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1902), p. 96; Edna

M. Colman, "The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal," 1934, 4-page paper in file 1460/C & 0 Canal,

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park.
180 USING THE PARK

the towpath for hikers and cyclists and provide recreational facilities along

the way. These improvements enabled the park to capitalize on the soaring

public interest in backpacking, bicycling, and physical fitness during the

next decade.

The canal helped launch this movement, still with us, in early 1963.

On February 9, a month after President John F. Kennedy established the

President's Council on Physical Fitness and challenged Americans to

become more physically active, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy set

out from Great Falls at 4 a.m. and hiked fifty miles in 17 hours. He took

the towpath as far as Point of Rocks, then headed inland toward Camp

David. (Four other administration officials fell by the wayside.) The attorney general's feat attracted much notice, and a fifty-mile-hike craze swept

the country. In later years other government notables would exercise

regularly on the towpath. President Jimmy Carter ran once or twice a week

from Fletcher's Boathouse to Lock 5 and back. Vice President George

Bush, sometimes joined by Barbara Bush and their dog, often ran. from

Lock 10 down to Lock 6 in the mid-1980s. 2

The C & 0 Canal Association, an outgrowth of the C & 0 Canal

Committee formed at the end of the Douglas hike, was organized in 1956

as a general membership group open to all with an interest in the canal.

Under its aegis, Douglas led a one-day hike along a section of the towpath

each spring to generate support for the park legislation. Associationsponsored commemorative hikes continued after 1971. On the twentieth

anniversary in 1974 and every five years thereafter, participants have gone

the full length of the canal. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor kicked off the

35th anniversary hike, completed by 29 participants, in 1989. 3

Orville Crowder, one of the canal association's early leaders, hiked the

towpath with a measuring wheel to help position mileposts and locate

features in canal company records. Crowder established the association's

level walker program, wherein members volunteer to walk prescribed levels

or other segments of the canal at least twice a year to collect minor trash

and report other deficiencies and conditions to the association and the park

superintendent. Following tropical storm Agnes in 1972, the level walkers,

then led by Thomas F. Hahn, helped report the flood. damage. The level

walker program has continued active in the early 1990s under the leadership

of Karen M. Gray, an association vice president.

2Jerry Doolittle, "Craze for 50-Mile Hikes Started By President's Fitness Challenge,"

Washington Post, Feb. 11, 1963, p. AI; telephone conversation with John W. Magaw, U.S.

Secret Service, Apr. 25, 1991.

3Along the Towpath (C & 0 Canal Association newsletter) 21, no. 3 (June 1989): 1.
CHAPTER TEN 181

Members of the C & 0 Canal Association, the Friends of Great Falls

Tavern, and other park users have donated time and effort in many more

ways. In 1990, 961 volunteers contributed 7,256 hours of service to the

park. They cut brush, cleared vegetation from historic structures, picked

up litter, led nature walks, staffed information desks, and presented musical

programs during special events. The Girl Scouts' weekend interpretation

of 19th-century canal life at Rileys Lock, led by Joan Paull, was sufficiently popular with participants and visitors to be repeated at the historic

Knode house at Lock 38.

Mule-drawn barge trips have catered to the more typical park user.

Canal Clipper, operated by the Welfare and Recreational Association,

began service in Georgetown in July 1941. As many as eighty passengers

boarded the barge above Lock 3, rose through Lock 4, and traveled as far

as Lock 5 before returning. Canal Clipper was replaced in the spring of

1961 by the larger John Quincy Adams, holding up to 125 people and

featuring a snack bar, built and operated by GSI (Government Services

Inc., successor to the Welfare and Recreational Association). It lasted only

eleven years, being destroyed by Agnes in 1972.

A second Canal Clipper built of reinforced concrete was launched in

Georgetown in the fall of 1976. During the 1977 season (May through

October) it made 305 trips and carried 17,751 passengers. Prolonged canal

repairs in Georgetown beginning in 1979 prompted its relocation to Great

Falls. There it succeeded the small John Quincy Adams II, which had

operated from 1967 through the early 1970s. The Morris and Gwendolyn

Cafritz Foundation donated $180,000 for a new Georgetown barge,

launched in September 1982 after completion of the repairs there. Georgetown, as it was christened, and the second Canal Clipper remain in service

at this writing. Both are operated by the Park Service, which charges fees

to make them self-sustaining. The two barges carried 35,974 visitors in

1990, 16,190 in Georgetown and 19,784 at Great Falls.

The barges became excellent vehicles for interpreting canal history.

Standard narrative talks ultimately gave way to "living history"

presentations in which costumed employees reenact 19th-century life on the

canal. Of course, no description of how a lock worked can match the firsthand experience of floating from one level to another.

Yet another boat materialized at the other end of the canal in the mid1970s. With the encouragement of the park, a private group called C & 0

Canal, Cumberland, Inc., began raising funds in 1973 for a 93-foot boat.

A naval reserve unit prefabricated it the next year at the Allegany County

Vocational-Technical Center. It was intended to float on a rewatered

section of the canal between Candoc and Wiley Ford, but when the prospect

of rewatering that section dimmed, the sponsors completed its assembly on

private land opposite Lock 75 at North Branch, where rewatering appeared
182 USING THE PARK

more likely. The Cumberland was dedicated there on July 11, 1976. The

park later acquired the land on which the boat sat and issued a special use

permit to C & 0 Canal, Cumberland, for its "operation." Rewatering never

occurred and the boat remained high and dry (after holes were drilled in its

bottom to drain collected water). The Cumberland has nevertheless served

a useful interpretive purpose, for it more nearly approximates a historic

canal packet than do the floating barges downstream. It is the centerpiece

of "Canal Days," an annual festival sponsored by C & 0 Canal,

Cumberland.

In 1973 the park opened a small visitor center in Hancock. In 1985 it

acquired space in the former Western Maryland Railway Station in

Cumberland, close by the buried canal terminus. Both visitor facilities

received good historical exhibits and have been effective dispensers of

information to upper canal users.

Park visitors have been served by several concessions. GSI (now Guest

Services Inc.) operated the Georgetown barge until 1972. It continues to

rent canoes, boats, and bicycles at the Harry T. Thompson Boat Center,

next to the canal tidelock at the mouth of Rock Creek, and it operates a

food concession at Great Falls. Fletcher's Boathouse, between the canal

and river above Georgetown, has long rented canoes, boats, and bicycles

to park patrons. So has the Swain family at Swains Lock, the next above

Great Falls. The Parks and History Association, a nonprofit cooperating

association serving most National Capital Region parks, sells publications

and other park-related items at the Georgetown, Great Falls, Hancock, and

Cumberland visitor centers. The proceeds help support park interpretation

and other visitor services.

The Park Service works hard to compile visitor statistics, which help

buttress requests for funds and staff by showing how many people are using

the parks. The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park poses

a major challenge in this regard, for its elongated nature and abundance of

uncontrolled access points make accurate counts impossible. The park's

counting method in the mid-1980s resulted in figures of 4,900,841 total

visits in 1986 and 6,048,335 in 1987. The method was then revised,

producing presumably more realistic figures of 2,074,721 in 1988,

1,991,207 in 1989, and 1,965,828 in 1990. (All figures are for visits

rather than individual visitors, who may be counted repeatedly as they

appear at different times and in different places.)

Whatever the totals, there is no doubt about the continuing disparity of

public use within the park. In 1990 the Palisades District, extending only

one-sixth of the park's length, counted 1,499,028 visits--more than threequarters of the total. Palisades had 48,360 visits per mile (concentrated

most heavily in Georgetown and at Great Falls)', while the rest of the park

had 3,030 visits per mile. Although some might wish for a more equitable
CHAPTER TEN 183

dispersion of visitors, this pattern is to be expected given Palisades'

relationship to the Washington metropolitan area and the special scenic and

recreational appeal of the canal's restored section. And for those seeking

a different kind of park experience, the relative solitude-of the upper canal

is highly desirable.

A few visitors travel the full length of the canal, using the hiker-biker

campgrounds en route. More travel over extended distances, some of them

also camping for a night or two. Other campground users are drawn

primarily by the river's recreational opportunities. The park recorded

42,998 overnight stays by such visitors in 1990. Of course, the great

majority of visitors come for less than a day at a time to walk, cycle, fish,

boat or canoe, watch birds, and otherwise enjoy small segments of the park.

All of them, from the casual day-tripper to the full-length tramper, are

beneficiaries of an extraordinary public commitment to preserve 184 miles

of canal and riverfront in largely undeveloped condition. President

Franklin D. Roosevelt and Justice Douglas played key roles leading to this

outcome, as did farsighted members of Congress, Interior Department officials, and conservation groups. Like most great things, the Chesapeake and

Ohio Canal National Historical Park was achieved only with great effort.

Recalling the opposition and envisioning what might have befallen

Maryland's Potomac riverbank, Gilbert Gude, who sponsored the successful

park bill in the House, still marvels at the park's existence. Others

involved with the struggle and those who just enjoy this special place today

might well echo Gude's assessment: "Amazing. "4

4Interview with Gude, Nov. 20, 1989.

APPENDIX

LEGISLATION

[PUBLIC LAW 618-80TH CONGRESS]

[CHAPTER 435-2D SESSION]

[H. R. 5155]

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to have made by the Public Roads

Administration and the National Park Service a joint reconnaissance survey

of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal between Great Falls, Maryland, and Cumberland, Maryland, and to report to the Congress upon the advisability and

practicability of constructing thereon a parkway, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives ofthe

United States of America in Oonqress assembled, That there is hereby

authorized t.o be expended from the appropriations made to the

National Park Service for parkways the sum of $40,000 for the purpose of making a joint reconnaissance study by the Public Roads

Administration and the National Park Service of the federally

owned Chesapeake and Ohio Canal between Great Falls, Maryland,

and Cumberland, Maryland, to determine the advisability and practicability of constructing a parkway along the mute of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, including a report of estimated cost.

Approved June 10, 1948,

[PUBLIC LAW 8Il-81sT CONGRESS]

[CHAPTER 987-2D SESSION]

[H. R. 85341

AN ACT

To 'authorize the acceptance of donatlons. of land to supplement present parkway lands alongLhetline of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal between Great

Falls and Cumberland, Maryland.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States 0/ America i'(l- Oongress assembled, That the Secretary

of the Interior IS authorized to accept on behalf of the United States

donations of land and interests in land in the State of Maryland as

additions to present parkway lands along the line of the Chesapeake

and Ohio Canal, between Great Falls and Cumberland, Maryland.

The lands to be acquired shall be sufficient to increase the present

parkway width to an average of one hundred acres per mile for the

entire length of the parkway. The title to real property acquired

pursuant to this Act shall be satisfactory to the Attorney General of

the United States.

SEC. 2. The Secretary is also authorized to accept land and interests

in land for the parkway and, in his discretion, to convey in exchange

therefor former Chesapeake and Ohio Canal property now under his

administrative jurisdiction or other property accepted by him for

the purposes of this Act. In any land exchanges consummated pursuant to this Act, the value of the federally owned property conveyed

shall not exceed the value of the property accepted by the Secretary.

SEC. 3. All property acquired pursuant to this Act shall be administered by the Secretary in accordance with the provisions of the Act of

August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535; 16 U. S. C., 1946 edition, sec. 1-3),

entitled "An Act to establish a National Park Service, and for other

purposes".

Approved September 22, 1950.

185
186 LEGISLATION

Public Law 184 - 83d Congress

Chapter 310 - 1st Session

H. R. 5804

AN ACT

Tn authorize the Kecrt.'tary of the Interior to /.rrant easements for rlghtR-of-way

throujrh. over, and under the parkway land alonll: the line of the Cheaapeake

lind Oblo Canal. and to autborlze an eXl."banll:e of lanu with other Federal

del'artmentR and al:enclea. and for other purposes,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress aRsem1Jled That the Secretary Chesapeake and

of the Interior is hereby authorized and direct;d to grant perpetual Ohio Canal.

easements, subject to such reasonable conditions as are necessary for Easements tor

the protection of the Federal interests, for rights-of-way through over, r1ghts-ot-wa,y.

01' under the parkway lands along the line of the Chesanke and Ohio 67 Stat. 359.

Canal, now or hereafter acquired, for the purposes 0 electric, tele- 67 Stat. 360.

phone, and telegraph lines or conduits, gas, oil, and water pipelines,

tunnels, and water conduits, or for other utility purposes incident to

industrial, commercial or agricultural use, or to the supply of water

for domestic, public, or any other beneficial use, where it is intended to

use such rights-of-way for anyone or more of the purposes hereinabove named.

SEC. 2. No part of said easements shall be used for any other than

the purposes for which they are granted, and in the event of any breach

of this restriction, or in the t'vt'nt of any failure to observe the conditions in said easements, either of which shall continue for a period of

ninety days after notice thereof, or in the event the said easement is

abandoned for the purf.oses granted, the entire interest herein authorized to begranted shal , upon a declaration to that effect by the Secretary of the Interior, revert to the United States.

SEC. 3. The Secretary of the Interior shall cause an appraisal to be

made of the fair market value of the said easements, including the

resulting damage, if any, to the residue of the parkway lands, which

appraisal, after approval by the Secretary of the Interior, shall be

paid in cash by the grantees requesting the easement as the consideration for said easements when granted by the United States.

SEC. 4. The Secretary of the Interior is further authorized, in his

discretion, to grant perpetual easements, subject to such conditions

us are necessary for the protection of the Federal interest, for rightsof-way through, over, or under the parkway lands along the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, now or hereafter acquired, for railroad tracks

or for other utility purposes: Provided, That such easements may be

granted in exchange for the relinquishment of existin~ easements

across land now or hereafter in Federal ownership within the parkway: Provided further, That the Secretary may cause an appraisal to

be made of the value of such easements and may require payment to

be made by the grantee as'provided in section 3 of this Act: Provided

further, That no part of said easements shall be used for any other than

the purposes for which they are granted, and in the event of any

breach of this restriction, or in the event of any failure to observe the

conditions in said easements, either of which shall continue for a

period of ninety days after notice thereof, or in the event the said

easement is abandoned for the purposes granted, the entire interest

herein authorized to be granted, upon a declaration to that effect by

the Secretary, shall revert to the United States.

SEC. 5. The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized, in his COllveyanoes.

discretion, when in the best interest of the United States, to convey,

at the fair market value, to counties and municipalities for roads,

streets, highways, or other municipal facilities, by J>roper deed or

instrument, any lands or interests in lands of the United States within

the parkway along the line of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, under
APPENDIX

Pub. Law 184

'I'l'lUIIIter ot

.tuM.dioti GIl.

67 S'kt. 360.

67 Siat. 3at.

- 2 -

187
188

Title 3-THE PRESIDENT

Proclamation 3391

ESTABLISHING THE CHESAPEAKE AND

OHIO CANAL NATIONAL MONUMENT, MARYLAND

By the President of the United States

of America

A Proclamation

WHEREAS by deed of September 23,

1938, the United States acquired from

the Receivers ot the Chesapeake and

Ohio Canal Company certain lands. together with all appurtenances thereunto

belonging, known as the Chesapeake and

Ohio Canal; and

WHEREAS since September 23, 1938,

such lands have been administered and

protected by the Department of the Interior through the National Park Service: and

WHEREAS, by section 2 of the act of

Congress approved June 8, 1906 (34 Stat.

225), the President of the United States

Is authorized "in his discretion, to declare by· public proclamation historic

landmarks. historic and prehistoric

structures, and other objects ot historic or scientific interest that are situated

upon the lands owned or controlled by

the Government of the United States to

be national monuments, and may reserve l>S a part thereot parcels ot land. the

limits ot which in all cases shall be con- flned to the smallest area compatible

with the proper care and management

ot the objects to be protected"; and

WHEREAS the Chesapeake and Ohio

Canal is of historic and scient11lc interest. and historic structures and objects

at scient11lc interest are situated upon

Ute landa thereof:

NOW. THEREPORE, I, DWIGHT D.

EISBNBOWBR. President of the United

States of America. by virtue of the au- thority Yested in me by section 2 of the

act of June 8. laoS. 34 Stat. 225 (lis

U.s.C. 431> • do proclaim that, subject to 1_valid exJattnc rights. there la hereby Net and Bet apart .. a national

DUIIlUDlent. to be known as the Cheeapeab and 0bI0 Canal NattoDal MGDumea&. tat pertkm of tile propertJ now

oWDeCl tw tile United 8tateI and ac.. quInd 8r It under tile said died of

8t1*1Dber II, 1111, wbIab .....from

C8mber~1lar7laDd. to alDeatica 100 f_~·~ .. ftn* .... .... tbe_......-- __.

LEGISLATION

ment hereby established containing approximately 4.800 acres. The said deed of September 23, 1938, is

recorded in the land records of the

County of Allegany, Maryland, in Book

R.J. No. 181 at Folio 603, of the County

of Washington. Maryland, in Book No.

207 at Folio 575, of the County of Frederick, Maryland, In Book No. 414 at Follo

245 te.. and of the County of Montgom- erv. Maryland, in Book No. 638 at Follo

76. Detailed maps of the Chesapeake

and Ohio Canal property, consisting of

15 rolls prepared by B. F. Mackall, are on file with the Director, National Park

Service, Washington, D.C., and the

Superintendent of the Chesapeake and

Ohio Canal Project in Hagerstown.

Maryland.

Warning is hereby given to all unau- thorized persons not to appropriate, injure. destroy, deface. or remove any

feature of this monument and not to

locate or settle upon any of the lands

reserved by this proclamation.

The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Monument shall be supervised,

managed, and controlled in accordance

with the act of Congress entitled "An Act

To Establish a National Park Service,

and for Other Purposes," approved August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 5351, and acts

supplementary thereto and amendatory

thereof, including the act ot September

22, 1950 (64 Stat. 905), and the act of

August 1. 1953 (67 Stat. 359).

Nothing in this proclamation is intended to prejudice the use of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Monument for such works as the Congress

may hereafter authorize for municipal

and domestic water supply. navigation.

flood control, drainage. recreation. or other beneficial purposes.

IN WITNESS WHER1!:OP. I have hereunto set my hand and caused tile Beal

ot the United states of America to be

afllxed.

DONE at the City of Washington t.hla

eighteenth day of January 10 the year of

our Lord D1Deteen hundred and

[SLU.l stxty-one and of the Independence of the United 8ta&e1 of

America the ODe hundred and e1ghtrftfth.

DwJCDIT D. ElsDBown

B1the PrSdent:

ClmftWrA ......

Seerdarl at ..... 1• .8. Doc. 11~. Jaa••• 11l11;

ie:ll .....
APPENDIX

•.;

'V ,

Public Law 91-664

9lst Congress, H. R. 19342

January 8, 1911

189

To t'lItabllNi and d"."lop the Ch"88peeke and Ohio ('anal Xational Historical

Park, and tor other PU11M*!&

He it enacted by the Senate and House 01 Repruentatit'eB 01 tM

United Statu of Am.erica in Congre811 assembled, That this Act shall

be known as the "Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act".

DEFINITIONS

SEC. 2.As used in this Act-

(a) "Park" means the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, as herein established.

(b) "Canal" means the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, including its

towpath.

(c) "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Interior.

(d) "State" means an:)'State, and includes the District of Columbia.

(e) "Local government" means any political subdivision of a State,

including a county, municipality, city, town, township, or a school or

other spacial district created pursuant to State law.

(f) "Pel'8Oll." means any individual, partnership, corporation, pri-

,-ate nonprofit organization, or club.

(C) "lAndowner" means any person, local government, or Slate

ownmg, or on reasonable grounds professing to own, lands or interests

in lands adjacent to or in the vicinity of the park.

EBTABUSHJaNT OF PARII:

SBC. 3. (a) In order to preserve and interpret. the historic and

8C8Dic features of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, and to develop

the potential of the canal for public recreation, including_ such

restoration as may be needed, there is hereby established the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, in the States of

Maryland and West Virginia and in the District of Columbia. The

park 18 initially established shall comprise those particular properties in Federal ownerahip, containing ~roximatelY five thouand

two hundk'ed and fifty acres, including Oee properties along the

line of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal in the State of Maryland

and appurtenances in the State of West Virginia designated as the

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Monument, and those

erties alonKthe line of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal between

Creek in the District of Columbia and the terminus of the Chesapeake

and Ohio Canal National Monument near the mouth of Seneca Creek

in thl'l State of Maryland. The boundaries of the })ark shall be as general!J depicted on the drawing entitled "Boundary Map, ProPc-d Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park," in

Ii.. &beet&, numbered CHOR 01.000, and dated October 1969, which

is on file and available for public inspection in the offices of the

National Park Service, Department of the Interior: Provided, That no lands owned by any State shall be included in the boundaries

of the park-

(l) unl.- they are donated to the United States, or (2) until a written cooperative ~ent is negotiated by

the 9flcretary whieh urnI'M the administration of such lands in

aooordance with establiahed administrative policies fO':' national

parb,and

Chesapeake and

Ohio Canal

Deve10pnent

Aot.

Boundaries.

84 STAT. 1978

84 STAT. 1979
190

Pub. Law 91-664 - z -

LEGISLATION

January 8, 1971

(3) until the terms and conditions of such donation or cooperntive agreement have been. forwarded to the Committees Oil

Interior and Insular Affairs of the United StatesHouse of Heprcsentatives and Senate at least sixty days prior to being executed.

The exact boundaries of the park shall be established, published. and

otherwise publicized within eighteen months after the date of this

Act and the owners of property other than property lying between

the canal and the Potomac River shall be notified within said period as to the extent of their property included in the park.

(b) Within the boundaries of the park, the Secretary is authorized

to acquire lands and interests therein by donation, purchase with

donated or appropriated funds, or exchange. hut 1)(' shall refrain from

acquiring, for two years from the date of the enactment of this Act,

any lands designated on the boundary map for acquisition by any

State if he has nesotiated and consummated a written cooperative

agreement with such Sta,te pursuant to subsection (a) of this section.

COOPERATIVE AGREF.MENTS

SEC. 4. The Secretary shall take into account comprehensive 10('.a1 or State development. land use. or recreational plans affecting or relating

to areas in the vicinity of the canal, and shall. wherever practicable.

consistent with the purposes of this Act, exereise the authority granted

by this Act in a manner which he finds will not conflict with such local or State plans. ACCF.Il8

SEC. 5. (a) The enactment of this Act shall not affect adversely any

valid rights heretofore existing. or any valid permits heretofore issued,

within or relating to areas authorized for inclusion in the park.

(b) Other uses of park lands, and utility. highway. and railway

crossings, may be authorized under permit by the Secretary, if such

uses and crossings are not in conflict with the purposes of the park and are in accord with any requirements found necessary to preserve park

values.

(c) Authority is hereby granted for individuals to cross the park

by foot at locations designated by the Secretary for the purpose of

j!;aining access to the Potomac River or to non-Federal lands for

S4 STAT. 1979 hunting £urti:or Provided, That while such individuals are within

84 STAT. 1980 the bOun aries 0 the park firearms shall be unloaded, bows unstrung.

and dogs on leash. AOVIBORY COMIIIMION

Eetabl1etal!Dt. Sze. 6. (a) There is hereby established a Chesapeake and Ohio

Canal National Historical Park Commission (hereafter in this Beetion referred to as the "Commissicn").

(b) The Commission shall be composed of nineteen members

appomted by the Secretary for terms of live years each, as follows:

(1) Eight members to be appointed from recommendations submitted by the boards of commissioners or the county councils, as

the case may be, of Montgomery, Frederick, Washington, and Alle~ny Counties, Maryland, of which two members shall be

appomted from recommendations submitted by each such board

or council, as the case may be;

(2) Eight members to be appointed from recommendations submitted by the Governor of the State of Maryland, the Governor
APPENDIX

January 8. 1971 - 3 - Pub. Law 91-664

191

84 STAT. 1980

of the State of West VIrginia. the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Commissioner of the District of

Columbia, of which two members shall be appointed from recommendations submitted by each such Governor or Commissioner, as the case may be; and

(3) Three members to 00 appointed by the Secretary, one of

whom shall be designated Chairman of the Commission and two

of whom shall be members of regularly constituted conservation

organizations.

(c) Any va<~ancy in the Commission shnll be filled in the same manner in which the orillinal appointmp,nt WILS made.

(d) Members of the Commission shall sene without compensation, as such, but the Secretary is authorized 10 pay, upon vouchers signed

by the Chainnan, the expenses reasonably incurred by the Commission

lind its members in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act.

(e) The Secretary, or his designee, shall from time ·to time but at

least annually, meet and consult with the Commission on general

policies and specific matters. related to the administration and development. of the park.

(f) The Commission shall act and advise by aflinnative vote of a

majority of the members thereof,

(g) The Commission shall cease to exist ten years from the effective

date of this Act.

ADMINISTRATION AND APPROPRIATIONS

SEC. 7. The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park

shall be administered by the Secretarv of the Interior in accordance

with the Act of August 25,1916 (30 Stat. 535; 16 U.~.C. 1,2-4), as 39 Stat. ~~5.

amended and supplemented,

SEC. 8. (a) Any funds that may bea vailable for purposes of administrat ion of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal property may hereafter

be used by the:Secretary for the purposes of the park.

(b) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be

neeessarv to carry out the provisions of this Act, not to exceed

$20,400/100 for land acquisition and not to exceed $17,000,000 (1970

prices for development, plus or minus such amounts, if any, as may

he justified by reason of ordinary fluctuations in construction costs as indicated by engineering cost indices applicable to the types of con- Ftruction involved herein.

Approved·January 8. 1971.

lEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

IIlUSE REPORT No. 91-1553 (CCIIIIll. on Interior and Insular Affairs).

SEJIATE REPORT No. 91-1512 (COIIIII. on Interior and Insular Atfail'11).

CONGRESSIONAL RICORD, Vc>l. 116 (1970):

Oct. 5, oonsidered and passed Heuse.

0.0. 22, oons1dered and passed Se..te.
192 LEGISLATION

An Act to dedicate the canal and towpath of the Chesapeake

and Ohio Canal National Historical Park to Justice William

O. Douglas, and for other purposes. (91 Stat. 21) (P.L. 95-11)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives ofthe United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled, That the canal and towpath of the Chesapeake and

Ohio Canal National Historical Park are hereby dedicated to Justice William O. Douglas in grateful recognition of his long outstanding service as a prominent

American conservationist and for his efforts to preserve

and protect the canal and towpath from development.

SEC. 2. In order to carry out the provisions of this Act,

the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed

to provide such identification by signs, including, but not

limited to changes in existing signs, materials, maps,

markers, interpretive programs or other means as will

appropriately inform the public of the contributions of

Justice William O. Douglas.

SEC. 3.; The Secretary of the Interior is further authorized and directed to cause to be erected and maintained, within the exterior boundaries of the Chesapeake

and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, an appropriate

memorial to Justice William O. Douglas. Such memorial

shall be ofsuch design and be located at such place within

the park as the Secretary shall determine.

SEC. 4. There are authorized to be appropriated such

sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of

this Act.

Approved March 15, 1977.

Legislative History:

House Report No. 95-38 (Carom. on Interior and Insular Affairs}.

Congressional Record. VoL 123119771: Feb. 24, considered and passed Senate. Mar. 2. considered and passed House.

An Act to authorize additional appropriations for the acquisition

of lands and interests in lands within the Sawtooth National

Recreation Area in Idaho. (92 Stat. 3467) (P.L. 95-625)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress

assembled,

TITLE III-CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL

NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

* * * * * * * SEC. 320. Section 8(b) of the Act of January 8, 1971

(84 Stat. 1978) is amended by changing "$20,400,000"

to "$28,400,000". The boundaries of the park are revised

to include approximately 600 additional acres: Provided,

however, That such additions shall not include any properties located between 30th Street and Thomas Jefferson

Street in the northwest section of the District of Columbia.

* * * * *

Approved November 10, 1978.
APPENDIX

100 STAT. 114-1 PUBLIC LAW 99-456-0CT. 8. 1986

193

Public Law 99-456

99th Congress

An Act

Oct. 8. 1986

[5. 1;66]

Appropriation

authorization.

To designate the Cumberland te~inu.s of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National

Historical Park in honor of J. Glenn Beall. Sr.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled, That (a) the Cumberland terminus of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National

Historical Park is hereby dedicated to J. Glenn Beall, Sr. in grateful

recognition of his outstanding efforts to preserve and protect the

canal and towpath from development.

(b) In order to carry out the provisions of this Act, the Secretary of

the Interior is authorized and directed to provide such identification

by signs, including changes in existing signs. materials, maps, markerst or other means as will appropriately inform the public of the

contributions ofJ. Glenn Beall, Sr.

(c)The Secretary of the Interior is further authorized and directed

to cause to be erected and maintained, within the exterior boundaries of the Cumberland terminus of the Chesapeake and Ohio

Canal National Historical Park. an appropriate memorial to

J. Glenn Beall, Sr. Such memorial shall be of such design and be

located at such place as the Secretary shall determine.

(d) There are authorized to be appropriated up to $25,000 to carry

out the purposes of this Act.

Approved October 8. 1986.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY-S. 1;66:

SENATE REPORTS: No. 99-340 IComm. on Energy and Natural Resources),

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 132 (1986):

Aug. 1. considered and passed Senate.

Sept. 24. considered and passed House.
ADMINISTRATIVE CHRONOLOGY

NCPINCR IREGION V

All under Supt., NCP

1955

1960

1965

GEORGETOWN - SENECA

5/23/65 Under GWMP

Supt. Floyd B. Taylor

, SENECA - CUMBERLAND

I .....---+---,-- 8/11/57 C & 0 Canal NHP Project, Supt. Edwin M. Dale

9/1158 To Phila. Regional Office (Region Five)

1/18/61 C & 0 Canal

National Monument proclaimed

1/30/66 Supt. lv. Dean McClanahan

..--i----6/1/66 To National Capital Region

12/17/67 Antietam - C & 0 Canal Group

1970

1975

1980

1985

7/25/71 GWMP ~.....---__ 1/8/71 C & 0 Canal NHP enacted

Supt. David A. Ritchie

8/20/72 Supt. William R. Failor

.....r-o+---&- 7/1/74 C & 0 Canal NHP unified under Failor;

Antietam - C & 0 Canal Group disbanded

2/8/81 Supt. Richard L. Stanton

1990

12/17/89 Supt. Thomas O. Hobbs
APPENDIX

PRINCIPAL PARK OFFICIALS

Superintendents

195

Edwin M. Dale

W. Dean McClanahan

William R. Failor

Richard L. Stanton

James D. Young (Acting)

Thomas O. Hobbs

GWMP superintendents over canal below Seneca

Floyd B. Taylor

David A. Ritchie

Assistant Superintendent

James D. Young

Management Assistants

Robert W. Bell

A. W. Anderson

Administrative Officers

Robert Robertson

James F. Beck

Linda Toms

Peggy Morris

Chris Streng

Chiefs of Maintenance

Dale B. Sipes

Claude Caraway (Acting)

Dan Hostler (Acting)

Kenneth May

Chief Rangers

Robert W. Bell

George Church

Harry A. DeLashmutt

Richard G. O'Guin

Harvey D. Sorenson (Acting)

Elaine D'Amico

8/57 - 12/65

1/66 - 8/72

8/72 - 1/81

2/81 - 8/89

9/89 - 12/89

12/89 -

5165 - 6/71

7/71 - 6/74

1/77 - 7/91

8/70 - 10/71

11/71 - 6/74

1972 - 5/76

10/76 - 8/81

11/81 - 4/87

11/87 - 5/88

10/88 -

1971 - 2/85

2/85 - 6/85

6/85 - 12/87

1/88 -

7/62 - 8/70

10/70 - 12/73

4/74 - 4/77

7/77 - 8/82

8/82 - 8/84

8/84 - 6/85
196

David Murphy

Michael Mastrangelo

Keith Whisenant

PRlNCIPAL PARK OFFICIALS

6/85 - 8/87

8/87 - 3/91

7/91 -
197

SOURCES CONSULTED

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, Sharpsburg, Maryland

Adjacent Property file 1460/C & 0 Canal.

Background Book, Proposed Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, 87th Congress.

C & 0 Administration and Protection file.

C & 0 Canal file L1425.

C & 0 Canal 1968-69 file L1425.

C & 0 Canal Association. Along the Towpath (newsletter).

C & 0 Canal Parkway file L58.

Chesapeake & Ohio 1965 file L1425.

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Annual Report, 1975.

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Annual Report, 1977.

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission meeting transcripts 1971-76, meeting

minutes 1977-90.

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park General Plan. Washington: National Park

Service, 1976.

Chick, W. Drew, Jr. "Report ofJustice Douglas-Washington Post Hiking Trip Along the Chesapeake

and Ohio Canal, March 20-27, 1954."

CSX Georgetown Spur file, Superintendent's Office.

Cumberland Chamber of Commerce file L1425.

Dale, Edwin M., taped interview by Richard L. Stanton, Feb. 3, 1987.

Dam 4 and 5 file.

Development Concept Plan and Assessment Amended to Include the Brunswick Waterfront Project for

Brunswick, Maryland, Section ofChesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park. National Park

Service, April 1988.

Development Concept Plan and Assessmentfor the Williamsport, Maryland, Section ofChesapeake &

Ohio Canal National Historical Park. National Park Service, August 1982.

Development Concept Planfor the Cumberland/North Branch Area, Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National

Historical Park. National Park Service, 1983.

Development Concept Plan for the Williamsport Area, Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical

Park. National Park Service, May 1983.

Durham, Jack. "The C & 0 Canal Hike." The Living Wilderness 19, no. 48 (Spring 1954).

File 1460/C & 0 Canal.
198

File 1460/C&O General.

SOURCES CONSULTED

The Master Planfor Preservation and Use, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Monument, Maryland,

1964.

National Park Service. "Progress Report of Committee Making a Study of the Chesapeake and Ohio

Canal," July 1, 1955.

Olmsted Island Bridges file, Superintendent's Office.

Sanderlin, Walter S. The Great National Project: A History of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1946.

Swain, Lockhouse 21, Contract file C38.

U.S. Department of War, Office of the Middle Atlantic Division Engineer. "Public Notice Relative

to Proposed Improvement of Potomac River and Its Tributaries," Jan. 1, 1945.

Unrau, Harlan D. "Historic Structure Report, The Canal Prism Including Towpath with Canal Berm

and River Revetments," March 1974.

Widewater Towpath file, Superintendent's Office.

Wirth, Conrad L. "Statement by Conrad L. Wirth, Director, NPS, Concerning the Proposed

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park and Parkway, Maryland, for Presentation to the

State of Maryland Board of Natural Resources, March 19, 1956."

Young, April L. "Saving the C and 0 Canal: Citizen Participation in Historic Preservation." M.A.

thesis, George Washington University, 1973.

Department of the Interior Library, Washington, D.C.

Barnes, Irston R. "The C & 0 Canal Highway." Atlantic Naturalist 11 (September-October 1955).

Eisenhower, Dwight D. Proclamation 3391 Establishing the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National

Monument, Maryland. Federal Register, Jan. 24, 1961.

Federal Interdepartmental Task Force on the Potomac. Potomac Interim Report to the President.

Washington: Department of the Interior, 1966.

Ickes, Harold L. The Secret Diary ofHarold L. Ickes. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954.

Johnson, Lyndon B. Natural Beauty of Our Country. H. Doc. 78, 89th Congress, Feb. 8, 1965.

Maryland (State). "Report of the Joint Committee on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Parkway,"

December 1952.

U.S. Congress. Congressional Record.

U.S. Congress, House. Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Report. H. Doc. 687, 81st Congress, Aug. 16,

1950.

U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations. Department ofthe Interior and Related Agencies

Appropriationsfor 1961, Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, 86th

Congress, 2d Session. Washington: Government PrintingOffice, 1960.

U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Government Operations. The Potomac Edison Company's High

Voltage Transmission Line and Its Esthetic Impact on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National

Monument. H. Rept. 91-1083, May 13, 1970.
199

u.s. Congress, House, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Chesapeake and Ohio Canal

National Historical Park, Hearings before the Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation of the

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 91st Congress, 2d Session, on H.R. 658 and Related Bills,

Aug. 11 and 13, 1970. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1970.

u.S. Congress, House, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Chesapeake and Ohio Canal

National Historical Park, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on

Interior and Insular Affairs, 85th Congress, 2d Session, on S. 77 and H.R. 1145, June 30, July 1, 15,

Aug. 13, 14, IS, 18, 1958. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1959.

u.S. Congress, House, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Chesapeake and Ohio Canal

National Historical Park, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on

Interior and Insular Affairs, 86th Congress, 1st Session, on H.R. 953, H.R. 2331, H.R. 5194, and

H.R. 5344, Mar. 23,24,25,26, Apr. 20, 21, 1959. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1959.

u.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Appropriations. Interior Department and Related Agencies

Appropriationsfor 1956, Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, 84th

Congress, 1st Session. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1955.

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on the District of Columbia. The Improvement ofthe Park System

ofthe District of Columbia. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1902.

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. C. & o. Canal National Historical

Park, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and Insular

Affairs, 87th Congress, 1st Session, on S. 77, Apr. 12, 1961. Washington: Government Printing

Office, 1961.

u.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Chesapeake and Ohio Canal

Historical Park, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and

Insular Affairs, 85th Congress, 1st Session, on S. 77, June 12, 1957. Washington: Government

Printing Office, 1957.

U.S. Department of the Interior. The Nation's River: The Department ofthe Interior Official Report

on the Potomac. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1968.

U.S. Department of War. Potomac River and Tributaries, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and

Pennsylvania. Letter from the Secretary of War transmitting a letter from the Chief of Engineers,

United States Army, dated March 8,1946, submitting a report ... on a Preliminary Examination and

Survey of the Potomac River and Tributaries ... , H. Doc. 622, 79th Congress, May 28, 1946.

U.S. Serial Set (reports on bills).

u.S. Statutes at Large.

Dwight D. Eisenhower Library, Abilene, Kansas

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Monument proclamation file.

Harpers Ferry Center Library, National Park Service, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia

Barnes, Irston R. "Historic C & 0 Canal Threatened by Road." National Parks Magazine 27, no. 114

(July-September 1953).

Barnes, Irston R. "A New Era for the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal." National Parks Magazine 30,

no. 126 (July-September 1956).

C & 0 Canal file, Robert C. Horne Papers.
200 SOURCES CONSULTED

C & 0 Canal files, National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA) records.

Free, Ann Cottrell. "The C & 0 Canal: Disneyland or Muirland1" Washingtonian, December 1971.

In C & 0 Canal files, NPCA records.

Habluetzell, Hugo. Oral history transcript, June 23, 1971.

Potomac Valley Conservation and Recreation Council. Survey of the Potomac River Situation.

Washington: Potomac Valley Conservation and Recreation Council, 1956. In C & 0 Canal files,

NPCA records.

Ridder, Marie. "Capital Newsmakers: William O. Douglas ... Walk Along with Him."

Washingtonian, April 1970. In C & 0 Canal files, NPCA records.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. "Public Hearing on the

Potomac River Basin Report," September 1963. In C & 0 Canal files, NPCA records.

U.S. Army Engineers District, Baltimore. Summary, Potomac River Basin Report. Baltimore: U.S.

Army Engineers District, 1963. In C & 0 Canal files, NPCA records.

History Division, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

C & 0 Canal National Historical Park file.

Dale, Edwin M. "Historic Structure Report, Part I, Towpath, C & 0 Canal," 1961.

Historic Sites Survey file.

Land Resources Division, "National Park Service Listing of Acreages as of 9/30/90."

Lewis, Steven H. "Stabilization Study, Little Falls Skirting Canal, Maryland and District of

Columbia," August 1966.

Mattes, Merrill J. Landmarks of Liberty: A Report on the American Revolution Bicentennial

Development Program ofthe National Park Service. Washington: National Park Service, 1989.

Legislation Division, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

C & 0 Canal NHP file.

Potomac National River me.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Public Library, Washington, D.C.

C & 0 Canal clipping me.

Evening Star (microfilm).

Washington Post (microfilm).

National Archives, Washington, D.C.

C & 0 Canal me 650.03, National Capital Parks, National Park Service, Record Group 79.

Correspondence of Office of Trustees, C & 0 Canal Company, Record Group 79.
201

George Washington Memorial Parkway/C & 0 Canal file 500-10, National Capital Planning

Commission, Record Group 328.

Office Files of Frederic A. Delano, National Capital Planning Commission, Record Group 328.

Office Files of John F. Nolen, Jr., National Capital Planning Commission, Record Group 328.

Office of Land Use Coordination, National Capital Regional Office, National Park Service,

Washington, D.C.

C & 0 Canal--Abner Cloud House file.

C & 0 Canal--Dam 4 file.

C & 0 Canal--Dickerson Power Plant file.

C & 0 Canal--Great Falls Park file.

C & 0 Canal--Sportsmen's Clubs file.

C & 0 Canal--Western Maryland Railway file.

C & 0 Canal--Whites Ferry file.

C & 0 Canal Commission file.

C & 0 Canal Flood of 1972 file.

C & 0 Canal Land Acquisition Policies file.

Cumberland Canal Parkway file.

George Washington Memorial Parkway--Maryland file.

GWMP--Gold Mine Tract file.

Potomac Fish and Game Club file.

"Public Information Meeting to Discuss the Future of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National

Historical Park, Brunswick, Md., June 7, 1972" (transcript).

Washington Harbour Associates file.

Washington National Records Center, Suitland, Maryland

Administration, Maintenance, and Protection file 1460/C&O-5, National Capital Parks, National Park

Service.

C & 0 Canal January 1950-December 1954 file, National Capital Parks, National Park Service.

C & 0 Canal NM Boundary Adjustments & Survey file, National Capital Parks, National Park Service.

File 1460/C&O General, National Capital Parks, National Park Service.

Inspection Trips, C & 0 Canal file, National Capital Parks, National Park Service.

John Brown Fort file L1425, National Capital Parks, National Park Service.
202

Personal Sources

Blair, lohn. Feb. 4, 1991.

Brown, Michael. Feb. 28, 1990.

Clark, William. Feb. 15, 1990.

Davies, William E. Feb. 6, 1990.

DeLashmutt, Harry A., III. Feb. 28, 1990.

Failor, William R. Feb. 1, 1990.

Freeman, Raymond L. Oct. 19, 1989.

Frye, John C. Feb. 1, 1990.

Gay, Gordon. Feb. IS, 1990.

Gude, Gilbert M. Nov. 20, 1989.

Hicks, George. Feb. IS, 1990.

Hobbs, Thomas O. Ian. 16, 1991.

Johnson, Carrie. Ian. 31, 1990.

Long, Nancy C. Feb. 26, 1990.

Magaw, John W. Apr. 25, 1991.

McClanahan, W. Dean. Feb. 28, 1990.

O'Guin, Richard G. Feb. 28, 1990.

Parsons, John G. Mar. 2, 1990.

Stanton, Richard L. June 8, 1989; Feb. 27, 1990.

Wirth, Conrad L. June 13, 1990.

Young, lames D. Ian. 18, Ian. 25, Nov. 21, Dec. 13, 1990.

SOURCES CONSULTED
203

INDEX

Abner Cloud House, 42, 169-70

Adams, John Quincy, 1 _ _ _

Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic

Sites, Buildings, and Monuments, 40, 96-97

Agnes (1972 tropical storm), see Floods

Albertazzie, Ralph, 149

Albrecht, George J., 18

Allegany District, 142

American Planning and Civic Assn., 87

American Public Power Assn., 85, 92

Anderson, Clinton P., 101

Ansel, William H., 149

Antietam Aqueduct, 50, 57

Antietam Creek, 139, 155

Antietam-C & 0 Canal Group, 140, 141

Antiquities Act, 90, 91

Appalachian Parkway, 11

Askins, James, 165, 167, 170

Aspinall, Wayne N., 84, 90-91, 93, 96, 97,

98,99

Audubon Society of D.C. (Audubon Naturalist

Society), 65, 69, 77, 78-79, 82, 87, 99

Baker, Howard W., 138

Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, I, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9,

12-20,21,25,26,29,31,57,59,103,104-

05, 106, 114, 116, 133, 168

Banks, James, 147, 148

Barges, 41, 42, 71, 178, 181-82

Barnes, Irston R., 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 78-79

Bartsch, Paul, 35

Battie Mixon's Fishing Hole, 44

Beall, J. Glenn, 55, 56, 59, 64, 70, 73, 75,

81, 86, 89, 91, 93, 103, 104

Beall, J. Glenn, Jr., 96, 117, 118

Bell, J. Franklin, 6, 7

Bennett, Elmer F., 86, 88

Berkson, Jacob, 107, 114, 140, 141

Bethesda Jaycees, 155

Beynon, Josephine L., 149

Bicentennial (American Revolution) program,

159, 161-67

Blackburn, George F., 69, 70

Bloedorn, Polly, 149

Blue Ridge Parkway, 58, 111

Boy Scouts, 139

Brandborg, Stewart, 87

Brant, Irving, 73-74

Briggs, Shirley A., 65, 99

Bromfield, Kenneth R., 147, 148

Broome, Harvey, 69, 70, 71

Brown, Clarence J., 89

Brown, Michael, 143

Brunswick, 120, 131-32

Budget, Bureau of the, 15, 48, 88, 91

Burnham, Daniel H., 5

Buscher, Joseph D., 60, 64

Bush, Barbara, 180

_Bush, George, 180

Butcher, Devereux, 52, 82

Byrd, Helen, 169

Byron, Beverly B., 130, 131, 145

Byron, Goodloe E., 109-10, 112, 117, 168

Byron, William D., 45

C & 0 Canal Association, 82, 85, 95, 99, 112,

123, 145, 146, 177, 180, 181

C & 0 Canal Committee, 70, 72, 74, 76, 82,

180

C & 0 Canal, Cumberland, Inc., 181-82

C & 0 Canal Restoration Team, 161-62, 167

Cabin John, 22, 77, 78

Cafritz (Morris and Gwendolyn) Foundation,

181

Cammerer, Arno B., 18,23,33

Canal Clipper (barge), 41, 42, 71, 178, 181

Cape Cod National Seashore, 49, 109, 147

Capital Beltway, 79, 80, 156

Capper, Arthur, 8

Capper-Cramton Act, 8, 14, 19,77, 83

Carderock, 31, 34, 36, 46

Carter, Jimmy, 175, 180

Casto, Dayton C., Jr., 115, 149

Catoctin Aqueduct, 57, 162, 164

Chapman, Oscar L., 33, 55, 61

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Co., 1-2, 7, 13,

14, 18,20,21,25,36,49

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National

Historical Park Commission, 100-01, 109,

122-23, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130-31,

132, 141, 143-44, 145, 147-51, 154, 159

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical

Park General Plan, 124-26, 170

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National

Monument, 90-91, 101, 107, 119-20, 136,

137, 139-40

Chesapeake and Ohio Transportation Co., 2

Chick, W. Drew, Jr., 69, 138

Citizens Committee on Natural Resources, 82,

87, 95, 98

Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), 11, 12-

13, 18, 31, 34-36, 46- 47

Clara Barton Parkway, 80

Clark, William P., 170

Clites, Ronald A., 147, 148

Coates, Robert M., 34

Cochran, Clay L., 85

Coldren, Fred G., 6-7

Cole, Joseph H., 147

Collingswood, George H., 35

Colonial Dames of America, 169-70

Concessions, 31, 32, 38, 125, 158, 182

Conococheague Aqueduct, 57
204

Conway, Grant, 71, 99, 122, 147, 148, 149,

153

Corps of Engineers (U.S. Army), 6, 45, 46,

48,50-52,53,54-55, 67, 78, 83, 84, 87-88,

89, 91, 92, 93-94, 95, 99-100, 104, 127,

128, 129, 176-77

Corson & Gruman Co., 36, 48

Coulter, James B., 149

Cramton, Louis C., 7-8

Crowder, Orville W., 87, 153, 180

CSX Corporation, 118, 177

Cumberland, 6, 53-55, 56, 57, 58,59,70,81,

82,103-06,117-18, 129-30, 133, 134, 172,

176-77, 182

Cumberland, The (barge), 182

Cumberland Chamber of Commerce, 82, 103

Cummings, Homer, 14

Cushwa Warehouse, 167, 168

Dale, Edwin M. (Mac), 111, 119, 135-37,

138, 154, 155

Dam 3, 23, 165

Dam 4, 2, 22-23, 45, 107, 140, 154, 155, 174

Dam 5, 2, 22--23, 45, 53, 140, 154, 155

Daughters of the American Revolution, 40-41

David Taylor Model Basin, 6, 79

Davies, William E., 69, 70

Delano, Frederic A., 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15,

16, 17,25,33,37,38,45

Demaray, Arthur E., 24, 26, 45,51-52,53-54

Denver Service Center, 126, 129, 161, 167

Development concept plans, 126-32

Dickenson, Russell E., 108, 122, 140, 159,

161

Dietz, Margaret, 149

Dinosaur National Monument, 85, 91

District of Columbia Paper Mills, 22

Doerr, John E., 74

Douglas, William 0., 68-73, 74, 93, 95, 121,

122, 124, 134, 158, 175, 179, 180, 183

Downey, R. Lee, 149

Durham, Jack, 69

Easements, crossing, see Permits

Easements, scenic, 19,25-26,29,94, 108-09,

110-11, 112, 113, 118, 176

Ebert, Robert L., 149

Echo Park Dam, 85, 86, 87, 91, 92

Edwards Ferry, 120, 122, 123, 158

Eisenhower, Dwight D., 73, 90, 92, 97

Ellis, Spencer P., 99

English, Burton C., 147

Ernst, Roger, 172

Estabrook, Robert H., 68-69,70,71-72

Evening Star, 38, 39, 71

Evitts Creek Aqueduct, 129, 130, 166-67

Failor, William R., 111, 119, 120, 127, 141-

44, 149-50, 170

Fallin, Roland A., 134

INDEX

Farwell, Albert E., 71

Federal Emergency Administration of Public

Works, 9, 17, 19,22

Fernald, Bert M., 6

Ferry Hill, 141-42

Fifteenmile Creek, 155

Fifteenmile Creek Aqueduct, 166

Finnan, C. Marshall, 33, 133

Fish, Manus J. (Jack), Jr., 112, 115, 117,

124, 128, 145, 148, 156, 161, 176

Fish and Wildlife Service, 43, 44

Fisheries, Bureau of, 43

Fletcher's Boathouse, 180, 182

Floods: 1886, 2; 1889, 2; 1924, 2, 6; 1936,

13,14; 1942,46,49,53,179; 1972 (Agnes),

110,126,127,159-61,163,180,181; 1985,

168, 169

Fogel, Isaac, 112

Foley, John R., 86, 88, 89, 91

Forests and Parks, Md. Dept. of, 60, 62, 82,

99

Foster, Donald 0., 143

Foster, Rockwood H. (Adam), 149

Four Locks, 21,125,139,155, 165

Frank, Bernard, 69, 70

Franklin, Alan, 123

Frederick, 57, 63

Freeland, Caroline, 147, 148

Friends of Great Falls Tavern, 168, 181

Frush, Donald R., 147, 148

Frye, John C., 136, 141, 147, 148, 149, 150

Gabrielson, Ira N., 172

Gartside, Frank T., 44, 45

General plan, 124-26, 170

Geological Survey, U.S., 69, 106

George Washington Memorial Parkway, 7, lOn, 19,31, 33, 37, 49, 52, 54, 76-80, 81,

94,106,107,133,140, 143, 155, 169

Georgetown, 2, 13, 16, 22, 31, 40, 48, 125,

132, 138, 162, 175-76, 181; see also Mole

Georgetown (barge), 181

Gilford, James H., 147, 148, 149

Gillen, Francis F., 39, 43

Girl Scouts, 159, 181

Glasgow, Leslie L., 174

Godfrey, Arthur, 33

Gorman, Arthur P., 24

Gould, Kingdon III, 116-17

Government (Guest) Services Inc. (GSI), 38,

181, 182

Grahl, James L., 85

Grant, U.S. III, 7,87

Graves, Aubrey, 71

Gray, Karen M., 180

Grayson, William C., 87

Great Falls,S, 7, 8, 33, 36, 38, 50, 125,

126-29,167, 181, 182

Great Falls Tavern, 32-33, 36, 38, 41, 46,

126, 127, 128, 129, 168
Green, Edwin L., Jr., 43

Greenberg, Herman, 106

Gross, H. R., 101

Grotos, Dorothy T., 149

Gude, Gilbert M., 96, 117, 140, 148, 183

Habluetzel, Hugo, 138

Hagerstown, 57, 62, 63, 103, 135, 139

Hahn, Thomas F., 149, 155, 180

Hamilton, George E., 9

Hancock, 63, 64, 120, 131, 182

Hanna, William E., Jr., 167

Harding, George W., 138

Harpers Ferry, 50, 76,104-05,118,120,123,

134, 168

Harpers Ferry Job Corps Center, 140, 145,

155

Hartz, Roger S. B., 20, 25, 26

Hartzog, George B., Jr., 96-97, 98, 138, 140

Hayward, William G., 133-34

Heider, Lewis G., 31, 34

Heine, Cornelius W., 138

Heinz, Elise B., 149

Hickel, Walter J., 96, 98,100

Historic Sites Act, 15

Hobbs, Thomas 0., 146-47, 171

Hodel, Donald Paul, 150, 168, 169, 170

Hoover, Herbert C., 8

Horne, Robert C., 104

Howe, Frederic C., 9-10

Hower, Samuel H., 69, 134

Huber, Richard G., 162

Hyde, DeWitt S., 64, 75,81,84,85,86

Hyde, Dorsey W., 7

Ickes, Harold L., 10, 11, 12, 14,17, 19,20,

26, 37-38, 40, 45, 48, 53, 54, 55

Interpretation, 41, 42,125,139,159,181,182

Isle Royale National Park, 13

Izaak Walton League, 44, 59, 70, 82

Jacobs, Lorenzo W., Jr., 149

Jeffers, Thomas C., 52

Jett, T. Sutton, 23, 36-37, 38, 40,41,42,58,

59,71

John Quincy Adams (barge), 181

Johnson, Carrie, 101, 139, 145, 149, 150

Johnson, Lyndon B., 94

Jones, Jesse, 17

Junior Suburban Women's Club, 155

Justice, Department of, 12, 13

Kahler, Herbert E., 58, 74

Kassoff, Hal, 177

Kauffmann, John M., 97, 98, 100, 105, 120,

121, 122, 123

Kaylor, Joseph F., 60, 62-63, 82

Kelly, Edward J., 59, 70, 71, 138

Kennedy, George, 71

Kennedy, John F., 91, 180

205

Kennedy, Robert F., 180

Kimble, Robert, 64

King, Julia, 22, 36, 155

Kirk, Keith A., 149

Kirkpatrick, Malcolm, 52

Kirwan, Michael J., 89

Knox, A. J., 64

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, 49

Langlois, Terry, 129

Lankford, Richard E., 86

LaRock, Joan, 149

Lee, Ronald F., 15,23,40,41,58, 137

L'Enfant, Pierre Charles, 5

Leonard, Louise, 147, 148

Lewis, John G., 147, 148

Library of Congress, 23

Lieder, Constance, 149

Linden, Carl, 123

Little Falls, 1, 7, 46-48

Little Orleans, 125

Lock 1, 33, 34

Lock 4, 41, 181

Lock 5, 36, 41, 46, 48, 77, 80, 155

Lock 6, 155, 156

Lock 7, 36, 37, 46, 80, 155

Lock 8, 156

Lock 10, 36, 156

Lock 11, 156

Lock 13, 80, 156, 157

Lock 14, 43, 157

Lock 15, 163

Lock 16, 127, 128, 129, 161, 163

Lock 20, 32, 38, 126

Lock 21 (Swains), 46, 126, 127, 128, 156-58,

182

Lock 22 (Penny field), 43, 171

Lock 23 (Violettes), 35, 43

Lock 24 (Rileys), 159, 181

Lock 25, see Edwards Ferry

Lock 26 (Woods Lock), 159

Lock 54, 159, 166

Lock 74, 159

Lock 75, 104, 105, 159, 181

Logan, Polly, 169-70

Long, Nancy C., 144, 146, 147, 148, 149,

150, 170

MacArthur Boulevard, 77, 78, 79, 106

Marsh, Samuel S. D., 149

Martin, James F., 143

Maryland Game and Inland Fish Commission,

44, 60, 61, 62, 82, 158

Maryland Gold Mine tract, 106-07, 126

Master plan, 120

Mathias, Charles McC., Jr., 91, 92, 93, 95,

96,97,98,99,105,117, 118, 139, 148

McClanahan, W. Dean, 107, 137-41, 144,

148, 155

McClellan, Sidney, 54-55
206

McColligan, Mary A., 134

McCoys Ferry, 125, 155

McGrath, Thomas, 167

McHenry, Donald Edward, 36, 38, 39, 155

McKay, Douglas, 70, 71, 72-73, 75, 78

McKim, Charles F., 5

McMahon, William B., 107, 170-71

McMahon's Mill, 170-71, 172

McMillan, James, 5

McMillan Commission, 5, 7, 77, 179

Meehean, Lloyd, 74

Mellon, Paul, 106

Meyer, Bernard R., 24

Mikulski, Barbara A., 131

Millar, John D., 129, 149

Miller, Edward K., 149

Miller, George F., 71

Miller, Hugh, 156

Miltenberger, Mary, 109, 117, 147, 148

Mission 66, 75

Mole (Georgetown), 13, 19,25-29,176

Monocacy Aqueduct, I, 17,50, 164

Monocacy River, 50

Moore, Charles, 5

Morella, Constance A., 149

Morton, Rogers ·C. B., 96, 161

Mott, William Penn, Jr., 168,175

Murie, Olaus J., 69, 70, 71, 73

Murray, James E., 78

National Archives, 23, 24, 81

National Capital (Park and) Planning

Commission, 6-12, 14-16,25,33,37-38,39,

45, 52, 79, 106

National Capital Parks/Region (NCP/NCR),

31, 39, 40, 41-45, 76, 115, 119, 133-35,

137-38, 143, 144, 146

National Industrial Recovery Act, 9, 19, 54

National Park Foundation, 116, 176

National Parks (and Conservation) Assn., 52,

60,65,66,69,87,93,95,121,123

Natural Resources, Md. Board of, 61, 62-63,

82,83

National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn., 82-

83,92,94

National Wildlife Federation, 82, 85, 87

Nature Conservancy, 82

New York Times, 93

Nicolson, George L., 7, 9, 20

Nixon, Richard M., 96, 101

Nolen, John, Jr., 11, 12,33,45,176

Norris, George W., 6

North Branch, 104, 105, 117-18, 119, 120,

125, 129-30, 181

O'Connor, Sandra Day, 180

O'Guin, Richard G., 144

Oldtown, 44, 120

Oldtown Sportsmen's Club, 44

Olmsted, Frederick Law, Jr., 5, 66-67

INDEX

Olmsted Island bridges, 126, 127, 129, 161,

167

Olson, Sigurd F., 69, 70, 87

Palisades District, 142-43, 145-46, 147, 182-

83

Palmer, George A., 119-20, 154

Park Police, U.S., 44, 69, 133,134,143,147,

155

Parks and History Assn., 182

Parsons, John G., 110, 113, 123, 124, 127

Pasarew, I. Alvin, 60, 61

Passett, Barry, 149

Paull, Joan, 181

Paw Paw, 50, 73, 76, 114

Paw Paw Tunnel, 1,57,120,159,160

Pearson, Mrs. Drew, 111

Pennifield, Sylvester, 21, 33

Pennsylvania Canal Society, 124

Pennyfield Lock, see Lock 22

Permain, Jack, 71

Permits, 29, 55,64,83, 100, 101, 104, 172-

77

Pfost, Gracie, 83, 84-85, 86

Philadelphia regional office (Region Five), 75,

76, 119, 135, 137

Phillips, Neill, 77

Piedmont District, 142

Pinchot, Mrs. Gifford, 65

Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 103, 172

Pohlmann, Wilhelmina, 149

Point of Rocks, I, 7, 8,9,11,12,16,18,25,

29

Poland, Charles P., Jr., 149

Potomac Appalachian Trail Club, 69, 70, 77,

82, 99, 153

Potomac Company, I, 23

Potomac Drive, 5, 7

Potomac Edison Co., 22-23, 174

Potomac Electric Power Co. (PEPCO), 172,

173-74

Potomac Fish and Game Club, 112-13, 137,

168

Potomac Interceptor Sewer, 79, 106, 162

Potomac National River, 94-96, 97, 98, 105,

115, 120, 174

Potomac Palisades Parkway, 49, 133, 169

Potomac Valley Conservation and Recreation

Council, 66, 78-79, 140

Praether's Neck, 112, 113, 120

Preston, Herbert R., 9

Price, Jackson E., 120

Progressive Citizens Assn. of Georgetown, 77,

82

Public Roads, Bureau of,'l1 , 45, 52, 56, 59

Public Works Administration (PWA), see

Federal Emergency Administration of Public

Works

Pusey, Merlo, 68-69, 70, 71-72
Radin, Alex, 92

Reagan, Ronald, 168

Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC),

12, 15, 16, 17,20

Reed, Nathaniel P., 121, 123, 173

Reuss, Henry S., 106

Reynolds, Jo, 149

Richards, Thomas Wo, 147

Ricker, Po t., 35

Rileys Lock, see Lock 24

Rinker, Harry, 123-24

Ritchie, David Ao, 140, 141, 148

Ritter, Colin, 71, 99

Riverbend Dam, 50, 51, 82,87, 91, 92, 93,

94

Robinson, Charles A., 82-83,92

Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway, 25

Rogers, Edmund B.; 34-35

Rollins, Kenneth S., 149

Roosevelt, Eleanor, 9-10

Roosevelt, Franklin Do, 9-11, 12-13, 17,31,

40,90, 183

Root, Irving Co, 53, 133

Roper, Daniel C., 43

Ross, Wendy, 175

Rothrock, Howard E., 44

Rowe, Abbie, 38, 39

Saint-Gaudens, Augustus, 5

Sandberg, George W., 108

Sanderlin, Walter S., 2, 58, 69

Saylor, John Po, 86, 88, 97

Scarpelli, James F., 149

Schorr, John, 69

Schwagel, Rome r., 122, 147, 148

Sconyers, Walter H., 134

Seaton, Fred Ao, 90

Seneca, 70, 125, 135, 162

Seneca Aqueduct, 122, 135, 162

Seneca Dam, 93, 94, 99-100

Settle, Thomas So, 14-15

Seven Locks, 22

Shaffer, Charles, 21

Shannon, Donald, 149

Shipley, Carl L., 149

Shollenberger, Louis W., 69, 70

Shriver, George M., 16

Sideling Hill Creek Aqueduct, 166

Sierra Club, 171

Sigafoose, John So, 21

Sipes, Dale a., 143, 144, 145

Skyline Drive, 11, 16

Slattery, Harry, 52

Smith, Anthony Wayne, 65, 69, 70, 74, 82,

93, 96, 98-99, 121-22

Smith, Spencer M., Ir., 87,98

Southworth, Constant, 65, 69, 71

Spalding, Branch, 15

Speaker, J. a., 21

Speiregen, Paul, 173

207

Spring Gap, 125

Stahr, Elvis J., 92

Stanley, Marjorie, 149

Stanton, Richard L., 105, 107-08, 110, 111,

113, 121, 123, 128, 143, 144-46, 148, 149,

150,168,171, 173

Stanton, Robert, 147, 177

Starry, Silas r., 149

State Highway Administration (Md.), see State

Roads Commission

State Planning Commission (Md.), 60, 63

State Roads Commission (Md.), 60, 63, 64,

103, 105-06, 176-77

Staub, John, 109

Stewart, Charles, 22, 33

Stewart, Harold r., 138

Stratton, Samuel S., 96

Sullivan, Sue Ann, 149

Sumner, George a., 87-88

Sutton, Dick, 56

Swain, Frederick, 156

Swain, Robert, 156-58

Swain, Virginia, 156

Swains Lock, see Lock 21

Tawes, J ° Millard, 147, 149

Taylor, Floyd s., 138, 140

Taylor, Roy A., 99

Taylor, Sam, 21

Thompson, Ben a., 74, 76, 135, 153

Thompson, George, 119, 135

Thompson, Harry To, 41, 60-62, 63-64, 65,

69,70,71,73,74,103,134,135

Thompson (Harry To) Boat Center, 29, 182

Tidelock, 13,28., 176, 182

Tingle, Thomas Co, 134

Tobin, Daniel J., 135

Tolson, Hillory Ao, 21, 39, 78

Toms, Linda, 112, 145-46, 147

Tonoloway Creek Aqueduct, 57, 152, 166

Town Creek Aqueduct, 166

Towner, Lester Wo, 62

Towpath, 35-36, 46-48, 49, 107, 113-14, 119-

20, 127-28, 140-41, 153-55, 159, 162-63,

165, 168, 175, 180

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co., 172

Troxell, Bonnie, 149

Tydings, Millard Eo, 52

Udall, Stewart t., 91, 92, 94, 95, 96,174

Ullman, Albert Co, 87-88

Unrau, Harlan Do, 154

Utley, Robert Mo, 24

Van Gelder, n. Eo, 77

Vaughn, Ernest Ao, 60, 61, 82

Vint, Thomas Co, 74

Violette, Mrs. A. t., 22

Violettes Lock, see Lock 23

Visitation, 182-83
208

Wahbe, Vladimir, 147, 148

Walters, Roger E., 90

Washington, George, 1, 23

Washington Aqueduct, 46, 48, 78, 126

Washington Harbour, 175-76

Washington Post, 65, 67-69, 71-72, 76,83-84,

86, 124, 138

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

(WSSC), 172-73

Watt, James G., 150, 170

Watts Branch, 123, 172-73

Weidenfeld, Sheila Rabb, 149

Welfare and Recreational Association, 38,41,

181

Wesely, Edwin F., 127, 147, 148, 149, 159

Western Maryland Railway, 3, 18, 29, 103,

104, 114-16, 117, 129, 130

Whitaker, John C., 112

White, John R., 44-45

Whites Ferry, 113

Widewater, 31,35,46,47,48, 126, 127-29,

141, 144, 154, 159, 163

Wilderness Society, The, 65, 69, 82, 85

Wildlife Management Institute, 82, 172

Wilkins-Rogers Milling Co., 22

Willard, Daniel, 8, 16, 18, 20, 22

Willard, Daniel, Jr., 21, 24

Williamsport 45, 120, 125, 130-31, 162, 167

Williamsport Preservation Training Center,

167

Wirth, Conrad L., 59, 63, 65, 73, 74, 75, 78,

81, 83, 85, 87, 89, 91, 96, lOS, 135, 153,

154, 158, 159, 172

Wohlman, Abel, 84

Work Projects Administration (WPA), 45-46

World War 11,46,48, 134, 179

Worthington, Frances J., 134

Wright, Frank C., 16-17

Yeaman, Barbara, 149

Young, James D., 142, 146, 147, 150

Young, Rogers W., 23, 36-37, 58

Zahniser, Howard, 65, 69, 70, 78

INDEX
o 5 Kilometers 10

o 5 Miles 10

220

Canal and

towpath trail Other trail

Canal mileage

marker

Rapids and

hazardous area

WARRIOR MOUNTAIN

Hiker-biker

campsite

Campground

Boa t launch

Telephone

Restrooms

Picnic area

Handicap access

STATE FOREST

PENNSYLVANIA

A

/

Stlckplte Hili

A

r

__--~~------ 522 ""Be ey;~~~......... :J ~~ancock Information Center 180 W. Main Street

WEST

VIRGINIA

J./

-[~ /

$

$

it it s

s ....

f/)

£ 81

11

ec

J

,. ......_------_..... "...... -, , - y_.....-

VIRGi

J

MARYLAND
Official Map and Guide

The C&OCanal started asa dream of passage to western

wealth, operated asa conduit of eastern coal, suffered extensive andfinally fatal flooding, andthen resisted being pavedas

a highway. Today it enduresasa national historical park- a

pathway into history, nature, and recreation.

Information Canal Recreation

Bes ide the Potomac River, the C&O Canal stre tches from the mouth of Rock Creek in Georgetown to Cumberland, Maryland. lis 74 li lt locks

raise it from near sea level to an elevation of 605

feet at Cumberland. lis towpath today provides a

nearly level byway for hikers and bicyclists. Its

watered sections provide qu iet waters for can -

oe ists , boaters, and anglers.

The canal was proclaimed a national monument in

1961 and named a national historical park in 1971.

lis 184.S-mile length preserves both history and

nature. From tidewater at Georgetown in Wash -

ington, D.C., to Cumberland on the Allegheny

Plateau, the canal winds through the Piedmont,

past the dramatic Great Falls of the Potomac, and

then through the ridge and valley section of the

Appalachian Mountains. lis rich floodplain forests

are gilts of the river's frequent floods.

The National Park Service operates information

ce nte rs at Georgetown, Great Falls Tavern,

Hancock, and Cumberland. For ge neral in formation write: Sup er int endent, C&O Canal Natio nal

Historical Park , Bo x 4, Sharpsburg, MD 21782 , or

phone (301) 739 -4200. For information about the

Georgetown to Seneca section, phone (301)

299-3613. For eme rgencies phone (301) 739-4206,

or, from Georgetown to Seneca,(202 ) 619-7300.

Maps and books about the canal are sold at some

information centers and by mail. For a free li st

write: Parks and History Assoc iation, P.O. Box

40929, Washington, DC 20016, or phone (202)

472-3083.

Georgetown to Swains Lock

Georgetown Information The canal information center is in the Foundry Mall betwee n 30th and Thomas Jefferson Streets;

phone (202) 653-5844.

Great Falls Information The canal visitor

center is in the Great Falls Tavern , 11710

MacArthur Blvd ., Potomac, MD 20854;

phone (301) 299-3613.

Boat Trips Relive the canal's heyday afloat

under mule power and lock through with a

crew of costumed inte rpreters. Boats run at

Geo rgetown and Great Falls from mid-April

to mid-October. Ticke ts go on sale two hours

before each trip. Reservations are taken for

organized groups only. For Georgetown

tickets, go to the canal information center

(location above) , or phone (202) 472-4376.

For Great Falls, go to the tavern vis itor

center, or phone (301) 299-2026.

Rentals Rent canoes, boats , and bicycles

at Thompson's Boat Center, (202) 333-9543;

Fletcher's Boathouse, (202) 244-0461 ; or

Swains Lock , (301) 299-9006.

Georgetow n Georgetown predates creation of the Nation 's Capital. It was an early,

busy tidal port for the East Coast and Europe

trades . The canal's tidelock lies at the mouth

of Rock Creek , near the John F. Kennedy

Center for the Performing Arts . Canal and

towpath today thread a quaint commercial

and residential area featuring fine restaurants and shops . In the canal's heyday Georgetown was a thriving industrial center.

Great Falls The Great Falls of the Potomac

River attracted tourists from the canal 's early

days. The tavern, first built as a lockhouse,

was expanded twice in its first four years.

From Widewater- an earlier river channel -

upstream to Great Falls the canal adjoins an

exc iting river landscape. Mather Gorge below Grea t Falls was carved by the falls. A

trail system provides scenic but sometimes

rugged hiking options.Ask at the tavern

visitor center for directions to the Maryland

Gold Mine. The visitor center exhibits show

a lock model and canal era artifacts.A snackbar at Great Falls is open April through

October. No rentals.

Ranger Programs and Museum Info rmation about the walks and evening programs,

conducted year-round, is available at information centers. A museum in the historic

Great Falls Tavern includes an exhi bit about

the canal's operation.

Hiking and Bicycling The canal's towpath

is an elevated trail 184.5 miles long. It was

origi nally built 12 feet wide as a path for

mules that pulled canal boats. Today it provides through-travel opportunities for hikers

and bicycl ists. Mile markers are posted,

Camping Drive-in camping areas (primi tive

facilities only, no group camping allow ed) at

McCoys Ferry, Fiftee n Mile Creek, and

Spring Gap ope rate on a first-c ome, firstserve d basis. Group campgrounds are found

at the Marsden Tract, Antietam Creek , and

adjacent to Fifteen Mile Creek . Hiker-Biker

overnight campsites for tent camping occur

approximately every five miles between

Horsepen Branch and Evitts Creek . The

Marsden Tract site requires a free permit.

Obtain this from the park ranger at Great

Falls Tavern (see address and phone number under "Great Falls Information" by

smaller map). Camping is permitted in designated areas only.

Supplies Camping supplies, ice, food , and

beverages can be bought at most stores

along access roads. Water-pump handles

are removed in winter, so water must be

carried then .

Canoeing and Boating Canal canoeing and

boating are popu lar in watered levels , or

sections, between Georgetown and Violettes

Lock . You must portage around each lock.

Canoes can be rented at Swains Lock and at

Fletcher's Boathouse (see map below).

Above Violettes Lock only short, isolated

stretches can be canoed - Big Pool, Little

Pool, and a 4.5-mile section from Town Creek

to Oldtown. Motorized craft are generally

prohibited, except electric trolling motors

are allowed at Big Pool.

o 0.5 , Kilometer

o 0.5

,

River Canoeing and Boating Only experienced canoeists should attempt to canoe on

the Potomac River. Obtain canoeing information at Great Falls Tavern. For safety,

canoeing is discouraged in these areas: little Falls to Chain Bridge; Great Falls of the

Potomac ; and between Dam 3 and the U.S.

340 bridge downstream from Harpers Ferry.

Boating in these areas is extremely hazardous and shou ld not be attempted when

water levels are high. All boating on the

Potomac is subject to Maryland reg ulations;

the river is not within the park. The National

Park Service prov ides pub lic access boat

ramps- see maps.

Horse Use Horseback riding is permitted

from Swains Lock to Cumberland . Horse

part ies are limited to five riders. No horses

are permitted in the campgrounds or the

hiker/biker campsites. Horse riders should

contact park headquarters for complete regulations on overnight camping. Horses must

be kept at least 50 feet from picnic areas

and campgrounds. They are not permitted in

the Paw Paw Tunnel.

Picnicking You may picnic anywhere along

the canal , but fires are perm itted only where

fireplaces are provided.

Vehicles Prohibited All motor vehicles, including mopeds, motorcycles, snowmobiles,

and horse-drawn vehicles, are prohibited on

the towpath.

Safety and Management Swimming and

wading are prohibited in the canal. River

currents are stro ng, deceptive, and unpredictable. The Potom ac River must be respected as extremely dangerous. Hunting

and trapping are prohi bited. Fishing is

subject to Maryland or Washington, D.C.,

regulations.

Cover photo: Darby

Mill, Williamsport,

Md., about t895.

11R<il-- -.Jl...- pOTOMAC

'CrOPO 1991-281-954 /20150 Rep',nt '~1