government funding had been slim. Park Service officials had originally planned for an
appropriation from the 1930 budget. This hope was dashed when in April, 1929, the
Director of the National Park Service, Horace Albright, advised Senator Phipps that the 1930
Interior Department Appropriation Bill for national park and monument roads and trails had
been cut.“ Albright underestimated available funds. It is not clear if the money was left over
from the 1930 appropriation, but $2500 was allotted and authorized by Albright for the
proposed road. By April, 1931, another $5000 had been allocated by the National Park Service
for the Colorado National Monument.*

Despite the appropriation, the uncertain relationship between the chamber and the county
threatened to obstruct plans to start the road through the park. A disagreement arose when the
county officials decided to expend less than the chamber of commerce had thought it would on
the road. In his assessment of the situation, Park Service Engineer Kittredge stated that,
because of the seriousness of this misunderstanding, the appropriation might be more
productively used elsewhere. He also suggested that the Park Service make a "reconnaissance"
of the possible routes in the spring of 1931, and complete a survey of the stretch of road to be
constructed. Kittredge felt that. Park Service involvement might appease both local factions,
although he knew that the county’s willingness to construct an approach road to the park was
essential to the project.”

By late 1930, it was evident that, while the local management of Colorado National
Monument was still strong, the National Park Service had begun to involve itself more heavily
in the affairs of the park. The chamber of commerce still managed the park with the aid of
Otto, who had ostensibly been working for the chamber and claimed to have been the “acting
custodian" since his “resignation” in January 1927.” He resented the fact that the chamber
received so much of the credit for the Monument’s development, and still believed that his
contribution to the park was more important.”' With or without Otto’s help, the chamber had
effectively convinced National Park officials and politicians of the need for a road through the
park, and in doing so had increased Park Service involvement. Both the National Park Service
and the local communities of the Grand Valley were entering a new phase of their relationship.

“Ibid.
*Letter, Horace Albright, Director National Park Service, to Senator Lawrence Phipps, 9 February 1929.
Letter, Ammo B. Cammerer, Associate Director National Park Service, to John Otto, 20 May 1931.

Letter, F.A. Kittredge, Chief Engineer National Park Service, to Director National Park Service, 5
November 1930.

Letter, John Otto to A.E. Demaray, Acting Director National Park Service, 21 June 1929,
TMLetter, John Otto to A.E. Demaray, Acting Associate Director National Park Service, 1 April 1930.

St


at issue."*° He also stated that the case should be tried in Mesa County with a Mesa County
jury.

By July 1984, when Federal District Court Judge Richard Matsch issued his “pre-trial
order,” the cases had been consolidated, and the trial was set for August 28, 29 and 30, 1984,
in the Federal Courthouse in Grand Junction, Colorado.“ The "pre-trial order” also outlined
the arguments that would be presented by the plaintiffs (the county and Wilkenson) and the
defendants (the Park Service). In his assessment of the "claims and defenses" of the county,
Matsch stated that the county’s case was based on three claims for relief. The first of these was
43 U.S.C. Section 932, under which “the United States granted rights-of-way to the public lands
not reserved for public use."** Essentially, the county contended that the Park Service’s
policies represented "an arbitrary and unreasonable invasion” of the county’s "property rights”
to Rim Rock Drive. This assertion was based on the county’s contribution of money and labor
to road building in the Monument before and after its establishment, and its “understanding”
with the Park Service that it could enjoy "unrestricted access" to Glade Park via Rim Rock
Drive after the 1959 vacation of Serpents Trail.”

The county’s second claim for relief stated that it “acquired an enforceable property
Tight" both because of its contribution to the road’s construction and because of its use of the
toad. The third claim for relief asserted that the Park Service had overstepped the authority
conferred to it through statutes and regulations.** The basis of the county’s case was the
doctrine of equitable estoppel, which states:

when any one by words, acts or abstentions, has induced someone to act as though a
situation or relationship existed or had a certain character, this existence or character
may not thereafter be legally denied, if to do so will cause detriment to the person who
relied on it.”

The defendants (Park Service) addressed each of the county’s claims. In defense of the
county’s first claim, the Park Service stated that no right-of-way existed under 43 U.S.C section

*Ibid., p. 4.

“Ibid.

“Judge Richard P. Matsch, "Pre-Trial Order in the United States District Court, District of Colorado," 12
July 1984, in Board of County Commissioners of Mesa County, Colorado v. James Watt et al. (Civil Action No.
82-M-2171).

“Tbid., p. 2.

*Ibid., p. 3.

“Tbid., pp. 3-4.

e “Max Radin, Radin Law Dictionary, 2d ed. (Dobbs Ferry: Oceana Publications, Incorporated, 1970), p.
115

115


Colorado."* He was also considered the “original booster of the Monument Canyon as a
park," whose work was "noble and self-sacrificing."* The Daily Sentinel contributed to this
image. Very often it described Otto as "heroic," a "hero of nature,” and a “patriot to the
core."* The perception that he was patriotic was supported by his efforts to celebrate the

- Fourth of July in Monument Canyon. In 1909, he planned to fly a flag on the. Liberty Cap

summit. In 1910, he organized the Independence Day celebration in Fruita. There was also a
celebration at the base of Independence Monument, the 550-foot monolith on which he planned
to plant a 6 x 12-foot flag.*

At the same time, Otto’s admission—"As you know I’m up in the Monument Park. I
live in a tent and pay no rent"—-made him a somewhat mysterious figure to many people.”
There was something distinctly unusual about this man who lived in tents and spent all of his
time building trails and promoting the Monument Canyon. Those who knew him remember
him as a “virtual pest,” who stopped people on the streets to discuss the Monument and annoyed
the editors of the Daily Sentinel with endless letters regarding the park proposition, as well as
other local and national events.” He was most notable for the eccentric side of his life and
was often referred to as "the hermit of Monument Cafion."* In one of his many letters to the
editor of the Daily Sentinel, Otto rejected this label:

Once upon a time I was dubbed (however in a friendly way) a hermit. A hermit means
a recluse. Not so, however, am I a hermit. I have not retired from the world: you would
have to retire the whole Monument Park proposition as far as it already goes to make
that stick.”

Otto was also involved in the original land withdrawals for the park. By 1907, he and
the local community submitted petitions requesting a national park. Although Otto collected

“The Charter of the City of Grand Junction, Colorado (Grand Suction: Merrill Printing Co., 14 September
1909), p. 46, courtesy of Colorado Historical Society.

""Jobn Otto Determined to Build Scenic Road," Daily Sentinel, 6 February 1909; "Early Experiences in
Life of the Great Grand Valley Trail Builder," Daily Sentinel, 7 June 1911.

"Daily Sentinel, 7 June 1911; "To Hoist Flag On Independence Rock,” Daily Sentinel, 2 July 1910.

TM"Otto Unfurls Flag off Peak," Daily Sentinel, 9 July 1909; "Otto Plans Big Celebration on Independence
Day,” Daily Sentinel, 17 June 1910.

**John Otto Comments on Some Fiery Themes," Daily Sentinel, 30 March 1910; Daily Sentinel 7 June
1911.

“Look, “Who Was John Otto," p. 2.
**Investigation Made of Great Scenic Spot Near This City,” Daily Sentinel, 19 April 1909.
"John Otto Comments, . . .” Daily Sentinel, 30 March 1910.

17


. Final Construction Report on Scenic Rim Rock Road, 12 July 1937. e@

. Final Construction on Scenic Rim Rock Road Acct. No. 507-14-1010 Washington D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 3 August 1937.

. Monthly Report to F.A. Kittredge, Chief Engineer National Park Service, 5 December
1931. Photocopy. National Archives Record Group 79, Colorado National Monument Museum
and Archive Collection.

ase Superintendent’s Monthly- Narrative Reports-for Colorado-National-Monument,- 1933-1949. sane
Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Reports for Colorado National Monument, 1950-1960.
Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Reports for Colorado National Monument, 1961-1976.

Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Reports for Colorado National Monument, 1977-1980.

Legal Documents in Colorado National Monument Museum and Archive Collection

Black, Bruce. Assistant U.S. Attorney. "Motion to Dismiss,” 24 August 1984. Filed in the United
States District Court, For the District of Colorado." In United States v. John R, Wilkerson.
(Criminal Case No. 81-CR-210).

. "Proposal for the Orderly Litigation of Issues," 9 December 1983. Filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado. United States of America y. John R. Wilkenson
(Case No. 81-CR-210); United States of America v. John R. Wilkenson, et al. (Case No.83-CR-
388); John R. Wilkenson v. Department of the Interior of the United States et al. (Case No. 81-
M-1825); Board of County Commissioners of Mesa County, Colorado, et al. v. James Watt, et al.
(Case No. 82-Z 2171).

Matsch, Judge Richard P. “Proposal Order in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado," 15 May 1984.

. “Pre-Trial Order," 12 July 1984. Filed in the United States District Court, District of
Colorado. Board of County Commissioners of Mesa County, Colorado, et al. v. James Watt et al.
(Civil Action No. 82-M-2171).

. "Memorandum Opinion and Order," 2 May 1986. Filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado. John R. Wilkenson v. Department of the Interior of the United
States, et al. (Civil Action No. 81-M-1825) and Board of County Commissioners of Mesa County,
Colorado, et al., v. James Watt, et al. (Civil Action No. 82-M-2171).

Wilkenson, John R. "Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Include Mesa County

Commissioners as Parties,” 29 September 1982. John R. Wilkenson v, Department of the Interior,
et al. (Civil Action No. 81-M-1825).

146



“Raise Money For Highway to Utah Line." Daily Sentinel.

Rice, Ginger. "Cattlemen Press for Trail Drive.” Daily Sentinel, 4 December 1989.
“The Rimrock Tragedy.” Daily Sentinel, 17 December 1933.

"Says Road Can be Built for $6500." Daily Sentinel, 25 January 1912.

“Senseless Order," Daily Sentinel, 19 June 1974.

Silbernagel, Bob. "Get Along Little Doggies: Cowpokes Herd 200 Head of Cattle Across
Monument." Daily Sentinel, 8 May 1990.

. "Government Drops Glade Park Appeal." Daily Sentinel, 21 November 1986.
. "Groups Oppose Monument Expansion." Daily Sentinel, 26 January 1989.

. "Head ’em Out: Ranchers Get OK to Use Monument Cattle Trail." Daily Sentinel, 3 May
1990.

. "Park’s Expansion Fuels BLM Battle." Daily Sentinel, 19 November 1989,

. "Regulation Differences Pointed Out." Daily Sentinel, 19 November 1989.

. "Stock Trail Shutdown Spurs Feud." Daily Sentinel, 30 November 1989.

. "4 Groups Fight Monument Plan for Expansion." Daily Sentinel, 13 November 1989.
"Stockmen Protest Closing of Glade Park Road," Daily Sentinel, 16 June 1974.
Sullivan, Jim. "Group Forms to Oversee Government." Daily Sentinel, 2 March 1983.
"Taylor Asks $25,000 for Road to National Monolithic Park." Daily Sentinel, 10 June 1911.
"Taylor Tells of Naming the Park." Daily Sentinel, 27 June 1911.
"Teller Institute Should be Alien Detention Camp." Grand Junction Daily News, 10 June 1918.
“To Hoist Flag On Independence Rock." Daily Sentinel, 2 July 1910.
"To Photograph the Monument." Daily Sentinel, 23 April 1909.
“Truck Traffic Restrictions on Monument Road Based." Daily Sentinel, 25 June 1974.
“Truckers Gain 24-Hour Access Through Monument." Daily Sentinel, 24 July 1974.
"U.S. Attorney Files for Dismissal of Suit on Monument Road." Daily Sentinel, 20 October 1981.

“Up to People to Boost Park.” Daily Sentinel, December 1909.

141




Secretary of Interior Watt and Director of the Park Service Russell Dickinson. The summonses
ended up in the dead letter office and delayed any response from these officials. Wilkenson’s
case, on the other hand, was still in the pre-trial stages.“

Wilkenson himself had become increasingly militant in his efforts to fight the Park
Service. Whereas he had once stated that he would welcome a county lawsuit so that he could
“fade into the woodwork,” now he was determined to win his case against the U.S. government.
Wilkenson’s attitude toward the road controversy changed when it became clear to him that:

The park was not the issue, the road was not even the issue. At a certain point and time
with me, the system itself became the issue.“

His newly acquired knowledge of the law coupled with his experiences with local politicians,
park officials, and government in general soured Wilkenson toward “the system.” In March
1983, for example, he joined 25 citizens who decided to form a watchdog group for local
government. The group’s goal was to publicize government activities, and as Wilkenson put it,
promote “accountability in govemmment."“ Yet, his more noteworthy actions were directed
at the Park Service. In addition to increased numbers of letters to the editor of the Daily
Sentinel, and his usual letters to park officials, Wilkenson also led a series of protests at the east
entrance of the Monument during that summer.

The east entrance protest in June 1983 revealed the extent of government resentment
harbored by Wilkenson and his supporters. It also indicated to the Park Service that Wilkenson
was hungry for any kind of publicity regarding the road issue. A local television station alerted
park officials of a possible protest on June 4 that never occurred. On June 5, however, twenty
vehicles led by John Wilkenson held up traffic at the east entrance station for nearly thirty
minutes. The protesters refused to pay the fee and many of them thrust tape recorders into the
faces of fee collectors. Finally, park officials called the Mesa County Sheriff for back-up since
the vehicles blocking the approach road leading to the Monument were violating state laws. By
the time the sheriff arrived, most of the protesters had either proceeded to Glade Park (citations
were issued) or had gone back to Grand Junction.”

Up to this point park officials had taken Wilkenson’s antics and the lawsuits in stride.
They tried to maintain normal park management while preparing for the trial. When each
fee-collecting season arrived (May through September), they informed their seasonal fee
collectors of the lawsuit and Wilkenson. They continued to collect fees from visitors and to
require the affidavits of Glade Park residents. Through Department of the Interior news

*Tbid.
“John R. Wilkenson, Interview by Lisa Schoch, 17 August 1992.
“Jim Sullivan, “Group Forms to Oversee Government," Daily Sentinel, 2 March 1983.

“Henry Schoch, "Narrative of Events: Protest at East Entrance Colorado National Monument,” 5 June
1983.

111


While the National Park Service compromised with the chamber regarding privately
owned lands, it also devised a plan to acquire former Ute treaty lands. Portions of the land that
the Park Service wanted to acquire had once belonged to the Utes. Under the Ute Indian Treaty
of 1880, this land was subject to a fee of $1.25 per acre to be paid to the Ute Indians.”
Congressman Taylor offered to introduce a bill in Congress that requested the $1.25 per acre
payment. This bill, and the chamber’s purchases, were expected to convince officials in
Washington of the need for a presidential proclamation.*’ On March 1, 1933, the Secretary
of the Interior, Ray Lyman Wilbur, submitted to the President of the United States a
proclamation that suggested the following boundary changes:

This proposed proclamation amends the description of the Colorado National Monument
so as to include additional scenic and scientific and other features. Also it extends the
boundaries so as to include the Rim Road and other land to facilitate the administration
of the monument. This proposed proclamation would add to the present monument
approximately 3,800 acres. Of this area 3,089.74 acres are public lands and 200 acres
are owned by the Town of Fruita for park purposes. The remaining land, approximately
500 acres, are in private ownership. However, the proclamation is made subject to all
valid existing rights.”

On March 3, 1933, President Herbert Hoover signed the proclamation, thus changing the
Monument’s boundaries. In the preface to the proclamation "the protection of the Rim Road"
was cited as one of the reasons for the additions to the. park.”

From 1931 to 1933, the National Park Service benefitted from, and even relied on, local
involvement in order to coordinate the first construction phase. Mutual local and Park Service
needs resulted in cooperative interaction between these two parties. Yet, for the first time since
the park was established, the Park Service had a physical presence in Colorado National
Monument that began to erode direct local involvement in the park’s planning and development.

Road Construction, 1933-1942

Between 1933 and 1942, a new phase of construction began with the establishment of the
Civilian Conservation Corps and other federal work camps in and near Colorado National
Monument. Overall, the CCC had an extraordinary impact on the National Park System. Plans
for this work program began during the depression when unemployment rose 22 percent
between 1929 and 1933. Unemployment among the nation’s young men increased faster than
overall unemployment. The “dust bowl” convinced many people that the nation’s natural

“Letter, A.E. Demaray, National Park Service, to F.A. Kittredge, Chief Engineer, 10 February 1933.
“Memorandum for the Director of the National Park Service, 23 February 1933.
**Letter, Ray Lyman Wilbur, Secretary of Interior, to President Herbert Hoover, 1 March 1933.

**President, Proclamation, "A Proclamation by the President of the United States," Statutes at Large, (3
March 1933), 47 Stat., 158.



Memoranda

(Unless otherwise indicated all documents are located in the Colorado National Monument Museum
and Archive Collection.)

Banta, Jerry. Memorandum to Superintendent Dennis Huffman, ca. 1982.
Burchard, Duncan. Memorandum to Superintendent Dennis Huffman, 20 October 1982.

Cammerer—Arno-B.., Director of Nationa] Park Service. Memorandum for.the Assistant Secretary of _
the Interior, 13 October 1933.

, Director of National Park Service. Memorandum to Harold L. Ickes, Secretary of the
Interior, 13 June 1936.

, Director National Park Service. Memorandum to Harold L. Ickes, Secretary of the
Interior, 13 July 1936.

Finch, Breyton. Memorandum to Coordinating Superintendent Mesa Verde National Park, 21
September 1946.

Huffman, Dennis, Superintendent. Memorandum for Files regarding Meeting with Mesa County
Board of Commissioners and Glade Park Residents, 1 August 1980.

, Superintendent. Memorandum, “Draft Special Regulation for Inclusion in 36 CFR,
Chapter 1, Part 7," to Lorraine Mintzmyer, 8 Apri] 1981.

Memorandum for the Director of the National Park Service, 23 February 1933.

Memorandum of Understanding Between the Superintendent, Curecanti Group, National Park Service,
Department of Interior, and the Commander, Field Command, Defense Nuclear Agency,
Department of Defense For Use of Road in the Colorado National Monument, 1972,

Mintzmyer, Lorraine, Regional Director Rocky Mountain Region. Memorandum to Dennis Huffman,
Superintendent, 27 August 1980.

Moskey, G.A., Chief Counsel National Park Service. Memorandum to Acting Chief of Engineering
National Park Service, 8 December 1941.

Nusbaum, Jesse L., Superintendent Colorado National Monument. Informal Memorandum, to Mr. A.
H. Furr, 22 November 1937.

. Memorandum for the Director, 27 May 1939.
Powell, Robert. Memorandum to Superintendent Dennis Huffman, 22 October 1982.

Schoch, Henry A., Chief Ranger. Memorandum to Dennis Huffman, Superintendent, 31 July 1980.

144



investigation, was a sign that public support of the road project was considered important to
higher level officials. In the second investigation, E.B, Rogers emphasized the importance of
community opinion as well. ‘While his report included interviews with workmen, it was
primarily an effort to measure the community’s support of the road project. Finally, two
editorials appearing in the Daily Sentinel expressed sympathy toward the victims’ families, but
also highlighted the road project’s economic importance to the Grand Valley.“ Ultimately,
the Half-Tunnel accident was another example of the role that the community played in the
Colorado National Monument’s development. Because of nine local deaths and years of interest
and money invested in the park, the people were naturally affected by the first major fatality on
the road project. As the years passed, however, and Park Service road policy changed, many
local residents pointed to the half-tunnel to indicate the sacrifice the community made for the
road.

The availability of labor was an important gauge of local perceptions of the road project
as well, Local employment levels varied. The original rosters for CCC camps 824 and 825
reveal that the majority of workers were from outside Colorado. The National Park Service
was allowed to employ a certain percentage of LEMs, whose principal task was to train new
enrollees. In 1934, restrictions were relaxed on the amount of LEMs hired.”’ Local men
were also hired by relief groups other than the CCC. In December 1933, for instance, 50
unemployed men from Glade Park were hired by a federal civil works program to work on the
road project.“ Nevertheless, it is not clear just what percentage of workers in the Colorado
National Monument was from the local area.

The community often panicked when projects were temporarily stopped due to lack of
funding. Throughout the years of heavy construction, layoffs were common. In January 1934,
for instance, there were 816 unemployed with 2100 dependents in Mesa County. The labor
bureau urged the park to hire more workers despite already filled quotas. The park certainly
could have used more labor but was not able to enroll any more men.” In March 1935, the
closing of a Public Works project in the park put 165 men out of work. When families poured
into the area from the dust-ravaged areas in Kansas and Nebraska, the already critical
unemployment situation in the Grand Valley worsened.” The temporary closing of a CCC
camp and a PWA camp in April 1935 prompted daily inquiries from local men seeking
employment. Eventually 26 former employees of the camps went to the local relief office to

“"The Rimrock Tragedy," Daily Sentinel, 17 December 1933.
“Paige, The CCC and the National Park Service, p. 19.
“Norgaard, "Nine Killed by Slide. ...," Daily Sentinel, 13 December 1933, 1.

“*Clifford Anderson, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for
January 1934" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 3 February 1934), p. 2.

-*Clifford Anderson, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for
March 1935” (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2 April 1935), p. 3.

71


transportation of settlers and goods, “providing jobs,” and making Grand Junction an important
commercial center.* Between 1883 and 1900, the number of businesses in Grand Junction
tripled.“ In addition to publishing three newspapers by 1884, Grand Junction also had a
volunteer fire department and numerous other public services.”

The rise of the fruit and sugar industries sparked potential residents’ interest in the
community. In 1883, Elam Blaine introduced fruit trees to the Grand Valley. Highly adaptable
to the climate and irrigation, peach and apple trees produced profitable cash crops. Orchards
quickly spread across the valley.“ Publicity linked to the fruit industry, such as annual “Peach
Days" was easily marketed on a national level. The sugar industry started when the state’s first
sugar factory was built in Grand Junction by the Colorado Sugar Manufacturing Company at the
tum of the century. Soon sugar beet fields dotted the Grand Valley.”

An important element in the early growth of the Grand Valley, and more specifically,
Grand Junction, was the work of boosters in promoting the area. After it was established in
1903, the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce waged a campaign to promote the Grand
Valley, emphasizing everything from the area’s agricultural potential to the quality of Grand
Junction’s citizens. A booklet entitled "Valley of the Grand: The Place for You,” issued by the
chamber after 1906 exaggerated about the area’s climate, fruit industry, and social institutions.
For instance, the Grand Valley was the "garden spot of the country,” the fruit "unequalled," the
climate “without extremes of temperatures."° In addition, it had "a good society, its
citizenship being made up of intelligent, sociable progressive people from the East and Central
West."*

Toward the end of 1906, the promotional campaign entered a new phase. Once centered
on attracting settlers, the campaign eventually focused on tourism. Efforts to establish the
"Monument National Park" out of the canyons of the Colorado Plateau running along the
valley’s southern edge characterized this trend. At first, descriptions of the area highlighted
Monument Canyon. A booklet distributed by the Fruita Bureau of Information stated that "for
a more general outing place, Monument Cafion, Fruita Park, Devil’s Cafion etc. al! within two

Emma McCreanor, Mesa County, Colorado: A 100 Year History 1883-1983, edited by Lani Duke (Grand
Junction: Museum of Western Colorado Press, 1986), p. 3; Underwood, Town Building on the Colorado
Frontier, p. 27.

“Underwood, Town Building on the Colorado Frontier, p. 27.
*"McCreanor, Mesa County Colorado, pp. 3-4.

“Mehls, The Valley of Opportunity, p. 138.

*Vandenbusche and Smith, A Land Alone, p. 151.

“Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, "The Valley of the Grand, The Place for You," (Denver: Smith-
Brooks Press, no date), courtesy Colorado Historical Society.

“bid.


Matsch’s summary revealed that, while there was no legal precedent for his decision, the
“unique factual history of the development of the Colorado National Monument” obligated the
Park Service to permit public access of the 3.3-mile segment of Rim Rock Drive on the park’s
east side.” Charging fees was both an “unlawful interference" with the public right-of-way,
and a violation of 36 C.F.R. section 71.13(d). Matsch then issued his formal decision:

Ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that a public right-of-way exists in the portion of Rim
Rock Drive extending from the East entrance of the Colorado National Monument to the
Glade Park Cut-Off, connecting the DS Road in Glade Park with the Monument Road
to Highway 340, and-the use of that-road for the purpose-of continuous travel through
the Monument is a non-recreational use for which no entrance fee may lawfully be
charged, and the defendants are enjoined from charging any such fee or otherwise
preventing such non-recreational use of the roadways,”

Not surprisingly, reaction to the decision was mixed. In an interview with the Daily
Sentinel, Superintendent Huffman stated that the ruling probably would not affect the
Monument’s normal operations. He also discussed alternatives for fee collection: the popular
idea of moving the fee booth up near the Glade Park Cutoff was one way to satisfy the judge’s
decision and to maintain good relations with the local residents. Both Huffman and Assistant
U.S. Attorney Bruce Black felt that the ruling "left many questions unanswered."* Their
primary concern involved the issue of road ownership. Huffman stated that, if Rim Rock was
considered a county road, then the county should pay for its maintenance. At that time, the
Park Service was considering appealing the decision.*” The Park Service also felt that Judge
Matsch’s decision was historically weak regarding the right-of-way issue. According to Matsch,
atoad through No Thoroughfare Canyon existed and was used prior to the park’s establishment.
The Park Service, however, researched the history of the area and was unable to find the road
to which he referred.”

Wilkenson’s reaction was tentative. Shortly after the decision was made, he told the
Daily Sentinel: "If we get to use the road I will be happy." Nevertheless, he later admitted
that the judge had bypassed the real issue of the case. While the decision seemed to favor

*Ibid., p. 31.

TMTbid.

*Tbid.

"Judge Nixes Monument Segment Fee," Daily Sentinel, 3 May 1986, p. 4A.
“Tid.

Dennis Huffman, Telephone interview by Lisa M. Schoch, 6 February 1994.

Ibid.



driveway, which had not been in use for a number of years. Originating north of the Glade
Park Store, the trail cut across the park and eventually descended into the valley just north of
Fruita. When Superintendent Jimmy Taylor researched the issue, he found that a right-of-way
was never formally granted for the driveway. As a result, he told the ranchers that he would
not authorize their request. Aubert and Young promptly hired a lawyer.®

Although Superintendent Taylor’s decision was upheld by the Rocky Mountain Regional
Office, the ranchers turned to Washington D.C. for guidance; the offices of both Senator Biil
Armstrong and U.S. Representative Ben Nighthorse Campbell began working to resolve the
matter. Baird Brown, attorney for the ranchers, observed that the stock driveway was: simply
another example of the Park Service’s increasing trend toward “walling themselves off from the
community ... ." By May 1990, Superintendent Taylor was advised by the Rocky Mountain
Regional Office to honor Aubert’s and Young’s requests for stock trail use. Although Taylor
was not told why the change in policy was made, Congressman Campbell’s influence was most
likely a part of the explanation. Campbell notified one of the ranchers by mail of the revised
decision. Pleased with the new policy and with Taylor’s willingness to cooperate, the
ranchers planned to make a drive only days after the decision was reversed.

Each of these conflicts reveals that local opinion continues to be a factor in the
Monument’s activities and policy. As two of these examples (the expansion and the stock
driveway) indicate, local opposition toward the federal government in general often challenges
park policy. Currently, events in other national parks indicate that local conflicts have become
increasingly threatening to the future of both the parks and the Park Service in general. A
perfect example is the recent battle between various Native American tribes and the National
Park Service over the issue of historical treaty rights on certain park lands. Among the more
notable of these conflicts: the Blackfeet Tribe of northern Montana filed a lawsuit against the
federal government, seeking “all hunting, logging, fishing and spiritual worship rights restored
in eastern Glacier National Park, which abuts their reservation."“’ Twelve different tribes
have treaties or historic claims in six different western parks.” Above and beyond the
political correctness of mending the mistakes of the past, when will the needs of the resource
be recognized in these situations? If every historical claim to national parks—whether from

Bob Silbernagel, "Stock Trail Shutdown Spurs Feud,” Daily Sentinel, 30 November 1989.
Ginger Rice, "Cattlemen Press for Trail Drive," Daily Sentinel, 4 December 1989.

“Bob Silbernagel, "Head ‘em Out: Ranchers Get OK to Use Monument Cattle Trail,” Daily Sentinel, 3
May 1990.

“Bob Silbernagel, "Get Along Little Doggies: Cowpokes Herd 200 Head of Cattle Across Monument,"
Daily Sentinel, 8 May 1990.

©Todd Wilkinson, “Tribes Assert their Rights to Use National Parks,” Denver Post, 13 December 1992.

“Ibid.
126


Figure 4.2. CCC camp NM-I1-C at present site of Monument Canyon Trail parking area,
Colorado National Monument Museum and Archive Collection.

Figure 4.3. Portion of group photo of CCC enrollees and army personnel at Colorado
National Monument. Colorado National Monument Museum and Archive Collection. @



wonders. Part of this effort included a meeting between Secretary Mahoney of the chamber of
commerce and an agent from the Colorado Midland Railroad. The chamber wanted to convince
railroad agents of the scenic beauty of the area. Colorado Midland promised to have an official
photographer take pictures of the area and to provide a unique publicity opportunity for Grand
Junction. Soon thereafter, the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad expressed an interest in
photographing and inspecting the Monument as well.’* With Otto serving as a guide to these
photographers, the chamber of commerce hoped to advertise the Monument Park as “one of the
most popular scenic sections in Colorado." Another part of the promotional campaign
included a visit from Enos Mills who was known for his support of national parks. In 1911, he

visited the valley to boost Monument Canyon and to create an interést amongst his “friends in ~~

Washington to get the park set aside as a national playground.""* Reference to national and
local playgrounds indicated that revenue generated by tourism was a high priority for many park
promoters.

The relationship between the chamber of commerce and Otto was important. In May,
1910, the Daily Sentinel reported that the chamber of commerce had proposed the creation of
a national park and Otto "made known the scenic wonders" but had only “assisted the Chamber
of Commerce in every possible way.""' This is only partially true. While Otto provided the
inspiration and the physical labor to develop the park, the chamber of commerce used its
credibility to garner the community support and political assistance necessary for withdrawal of
the land. In either case, because both Otto and the chamber were the primary local promoters,
they naturally felt that the Monument was there for the local community. The chamber saw its
economic potential; Otto saw it as his personal project. When the National Park Service’s
ideology that parks were “national treasures" was established six years later, local residents still
felt that the park somehow belonged to them.

Some of the chamber’s early efforts to draw attention to the park proposal involved
writing letter and sending resolutions to the Governor of Colorado.” Gradually, Colorado
politicians became involved in the park movement. In November, 1909, the Daily Sentinel
reported Congressman Edward Taylor’s interest in introducing a bill that would set aside land
in various cities in Colorado "for park purposes." One of these cities was Grand Junction.
Taylor commented that its businessmen were anxious to have the bill passed to set aside the
Monument Park. During the following month, the land office in Montrose received a resolution

"Ibid.

“Ibid.

%*Will Boost for Monument Park,” Daily Sentinel, 21 April 1911.
1" Almost Sure To Get a Park,” Daily Sentinel, 23 May 1910.

Letter, Fred Bennett, Commissioner General Land Office to Senator Simon Guggenheim, 27 December
1909.

"Means Much to This City," Daily Sentinel, 20 November 1909.

24



1974, the Mesa County Commissioners, Glade Park ranchers, and Benton presented their sides
“of the issue. Commissioner Ed Lamm pointed out that a great deal of county money had been
contributed to Rim Rock Drive in the past. The stockmen argued that the alternate routes were
more dangerous than Rim Rock for transporting stock. Benton discussed the issue of safety on

a road that was not built to handle such large trucks. The meeting resolved nothing, as Glade

Park residents essentially stated that they would not adhere to the regulations and Benton stated
that he would stand by his decision.“*

A well-attended public meeting held on June 25 resulted in modification of the
restrictions. Park Service officials, including Deputy Regional Director Glen Bean, the general
superintendent of the Curecanti Group, Karl Gilbert, and Park Service Regional Safety Officer
Jim Dempsey were present. Non-Park Service officials included District Highway Engineer
Dick Prosence representing the governor’s office, Bill Cleary of Representative Jim Johnson’s
office and representatives for Senators Floyd Haskell and Peter Dominick. The modifications
included the condition that trucks over 30 feet long were subject to restrictions between
Memorial Day and Labor Day from 8:30 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. with the hours between 1:00 P.M.
and 4:00 p.m. reserved for Park Service escorts. Logging trucks, however, were not subject
to any restrictions as long as they did not cross the double yellow line. Glade Park stockmen
were pleased with the changes, while the Park Service still expressed its concern over safety.
The Park Service was primarily concerned about tourists who were unfamiliar with the road,
rather than commercial drivers’ ability to handle the road. The topic of constructing an
alternate route was discussed briefly but not taken seriously.“

A meeting was held in July in which Benton explained to the Mesa County
Commissioners that, while the Park Service was trying to remain flexible, the Monument simply
did not have the "manpower" to provide escorts daily.“* While he maintained that the limited
access had been successful so far, in a six-day period the Park Service provided escorts to
fifteen livestock trucks and eleven logging trucks. During this period the escorts took three
hours per day away from visitor needs in the park, a fact that influenced Benton’s decision to
expand escort hours between 8:30 a.m. and 9:00 P.M. each day.“” From 1974 to 1976, the
escorts continued, and the superintendent made frequent trips to inspect the work being done on
Little Park Road, which Mesa County had begun to upgrade.*

Opposition to the Park Service’s regulations was not limited to the ranchers of Glade
Park. The Daily Sentinel, once considered a great booster for the park, printed several

“"Stockmen Protest Closing of Glade Park Road," Daily Sentinel, 16 June 1974.
"Truck Traffic Restrictions on Monument Road Eased,” Daily Sentinel 25 June 1974.
“Mary Louise Giblin, "Road Hassle Subject of Meeting,” Daily Sentinel, 21 July 1974.
"Truckers Gain 24-Hour Access Through Monument,” Daily Sentinel, 24 July 1974.

“Robert Benton, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for 1974-
1976" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service).

95



Chapter Three

The Otto Years: 1911-30

The impact of the Colorado National Monument’s establishment was not immediately
understood by its adjacent communities. For most of the park’s first nineteen years—1911 to
1930—local populations continued to use the area for recreational and non-recreational purposes
with little or no knowledge of how national monument status changed the area. Even with the
National Park Service’s establishment in 1916, federal guidance in the administration and
development of the park was limited. In fact, the Park Service’s indifference to the park's
needs was often frustrating to local park promoters. Consequently, community leaders in Grand
Junction and Fruita took an active role in promoting and eventually administering the park.
Frustrations over Park Service regulations and general cynicism toward the federal government
emerged for the first time during these years.

Otto’s Agenda

An important influence on the early development of the park was, not surprisingly, John
Otto. The formal establishment of the Colorado National Monument did not exhaust Otto’s
enthusiasm for the project. After 1911, his early energy for the “park proposition”
metamorphosed into a concerted effort to develop the park. His plans for the park, and the
manner in which he pursued those plans, were pivotal to the way in which the community
reacted to the park and eventually to the Park Service. Otto’s years as custodian reflected a
typical western frustration with the federal government in general. As the sole caretaker for the
park, he was often left to enforce the rules of an absentee Park Service. This necessarily
created resentment in Otto and eventually in those local residents who helped to develop the

park.

Representative Taylor suggested Otto for the custodian position shortly after the
establishment of the Colorado National Monument. Otto’s nominal salary of one dollar a month
came from a government contingency fund, which made him an official federal employee, and
authorized him to run the park.” Despite the meager salary, he took the job very seriously.
Aided by his letter-writing skills, Otto worked to improve roads and trails, waged a relentless
campaign to achieve national park status for the Monument, and even established a game
preserve complete with elk and buffalo.

In terms of developing the relationship with the local community, however, Otto’s
attempt to enforce regulations in the park was his most important contribution. Technically, he
should have been enforcing the Antiquities Act; instead he created his own form of law

"Kania, John Otto of Colorado National Park, p. 38.

31


Not everyone supported what was ‘happening. Almost from the moment construction
began, Otto found reasons to protest. He felt that the chosen route was a “half mile off
course,” and that construction should be halted until improvements were made. He was also
concerned that the road would not conform with the scenery of the park.“ Otto intimated that
local supporters of the Monument were kept in the dark regarding the use of funds.” His real
complaint seemed to be that the chosen route would damage the landscape in the Monument:

There is a shameful misuse of federal funds at the Colorado National Monument. Your
tinhorn landscape engineers and the wild construction engineer (T.W. Secrest) and your
Chief Eniginieer F/A~ Kittredge should have the steam shovel around their-necks and get
sunk in the Pacific. You never went over and studied this project and the engineers did
not either, and naturally things just ‘went haywire’. Come here and ‘face the music’!
When you throw a rock through a plate glass window it is ruined-spoiled-wrecked, but
you can send to the factory and get a new one, But real elegant fine scenery once torn
into like they did here at this high class scenic project—makes it bad.”

Not surprisingly, Otto’s complaints were disregarded by the local park promoters and by Park
Service officials, who were pleased with how construction was progressing. When Secretary
of the Interior Ray Lyman Wilbur responded to Otto, he explained that the Rim Rock Road
project had been carefully planned according to Park Service regulations, and that one of the
engineers’ primary objectives was to consider the landscape during construction. He pointed
out the importance of the road project to the local economy.” Thomas Vint, the Chief
Landscape Architect of the project, was less diplomatic in his opinion of Otto. He contended
that Otto’s letters were "the work of the hand of a fanatic."”

Despite overwhelming disapproval, Otto continued to harass officials until the spring of
1933, when he left for Yreka, California. He never returned to the Colorado National
Monument. A combination of factors contributed to his departure, but perhaps the most
compelling of these was that during the 27 years that he had resided in the Grand Valley, his
credibility with the local community and with the National Park Service had diminished. When
he left, the Colorado National Monument was no longer the place he originally boosted, It was
now officially recognized by the Park Service, and its development was taken seriously by that
agency for the first time in its history.”

Telegram, John Otto to Horace Albright, 25 November 1931.

*Letter, John Otto to Horace Albright, December 1931.

Letter, John Otto to Horace Albright, 12 October 1932.

TMLetter, Ray Lyman Wilbur, Secretary of the Interior, to John Otto, 28 November 1932.
Letter, Thomas C. Vint to A.E. Demaray, 14 December 1932.

Kania, John Otto of Colorado National Monument, p. 135.

56



"Monument Park Should be Developed; Let’s Do It Now." Daily Sentinel, 10 November 1916. e@
“Monument Plea is Taken to Washington." Daily Sentinel, 13 December 1916.

“Monument Superintendent Tells Rotarians of Colorado Monument Development Since 1911." Daily
Sentinel, 20 February 1952.

"More Subscribers to Otto Trail Fund." Daily Sentinel, 7 June 1910.

Munro, Drew. "Expansion of National Monument Draws Support of GJ Councilmen." Daily Sentinel,
16 November 1989. ae

“National Monument 2nd Most Popular Park in Colorado." Daily Sentinel, 27 May 1956.

“New Glade Park Road." Daily Sentinel, 13 January 1921.

“New Monument Chief Begins; Native Coloradan; Experienced. Daily Sentinel, 19 March 1958.
"New Road a Must." Daily Sentinel, 27 June 1974.

Norgaard, Noland. "Nine Killed by Slide on Monument Road." Daily Sentinel, 13 December 1933.
"Not Yet Fully Appreciated." Daily Sentinel, 10 October 1951.

“Organize to Build Road." Daily Sentinel, 26 April 1910. r
“Otto, Monument Canon Hermit, Speaks On Resort." Daily Sentinel, 25 July 1908.

"Otto Plans Big Celebration on Independence Day." Daily Sentinel, 17 June 1910.

"Otto Ready to Start Work on Park Highway." Daily Sentinel, 15 December 1911.

"Otto Receives Letter From President Taft,” Daily Sentinel, 27 May 1909.

"Otto Tells of Grand Mesa." Daily Sentinel, 7 August 1908.

“Otto’s Trail Completed." Daily Sentinel, 27 September 1909.

"Otto Unfurls Flag off Peak.” Daily Sentinel, 9 July 1909.

"Park Escort Amendment is Approved.” Rocky Mountain News, 26 September 1980.

"Park Service Mission said to Protect Lands for All: Monument Superintendent Huffman Grapples
with Protection versus Road Use Problem." Fruita Times, 6 October 1982.

“Party of Young People Visit Famous Otto Road." Daily Sentinel, 25 April 1910.

_Pratt, Mindy. “Monument Fee Prompts Brouhaha." Daily Sentinel, $ 9 July 1980. _ @



Taylor had a strong interest in national parks. In November, 1909, he wrote to the
mayors of 100 towns in the hopes of creating an awareness of the park idea. He also pledged
to introduce a series of bills in Congress for the purpose of securing park lands for various
Colorado cities.° In 1909, he expressed his beliefs regarding the importance of parks in an
interview with the Denver Post reprinted in the Daily Sentinel:

There is not a town or city in the mountain section of the state that is not blessed with
scenic beauties which, if set aside for park purposes, would make them better known,
and if Colorado is to be the playground of the country, as we have been told by ex-
President Roosevelt, we must provide the playgrounds and keep them in such shape that
they will never fall out of the ownership of the towns and cities of the state.”

In February, 1911, Taylor wrote to President William Howard Taft, enclosing a petition for the
“establishment of the Monument Park in Mesa County" signed by 300 citizens of Grand
Junction and the surrounding areas. In his letter, Taylor described the Monument as a
“picturesque cafion" whose formations are like those of the Garden of the Gods. He then
explained the process by which he and the community worked to create a park:

The people have been trying to have it set aside as a national park and Senator
Guggenheim and I have had bills in Congress for that purpose. But Congress does not
seem to be disposed to create national parks, especially small tracts like this one, and
after numerous personal interviews with the Secretary of the Interior and correspondence
with him and the citizens of Mesa County, Colorado, they have determined to ask the
President of the United States to create a National Monument out of this land."*

Both Guggenheim and Taylor initiated some of the earliest legislation toward the creation of
Colorado National Monument. In doing so, they supported the idea of setting aside and
protecting large portions of public lands, an ideology that conflicted with the way in which local
residents were already using the area: for stock drives and water lines.

On April 26, 1911, two mineral inspectors from the General Land Office, Charles L.
Duer and J. Golden, submitted a report to their commissioner regarding the location, geology,
and history of the proposed Monument National Park, The report reflected how closely local
needs influenced plans for the park. Focusing on both the transportation needs of the local
population and the park, the report proposed that a bridge and a road were necessary to reach
the park from Grand Junction. The existing wagon road from Grand Junction was such that
"eight miles over rough hilly roads is necessary in order to reach the Park."’’ Construction
of a bridge across the Grand (Colorado) River would decrease mileage so that a "straight road

~“"Means Much to This City," Daily Sentinel, 20 November 1909.
TIbid.
“Letter, Edward T. Taylor, to William Howard Taft, President of the United States, 25 February 1911.

‘Report, Charles L. Duer and J.P. Golden, Mineral Inspectors, to Commissioner General Land Office, 26
April 1911, 2.

27



fee of $10.%* In January, 1933, Fruita officials agreed to grant free use of water during the
construction. They realized the importance of the project to their town and the surrounding
communities and the necessity of their water to the project’s success.” Perhaps the pipeline’s
proximity to the Rim Rock Road prompted Fruita’s eventual decision to donate the pipeline land
to the Colorado National Monument. In a deed dated September 5, 1933, Fruita transferred the
land but reserved "an easement for the maintenance and operation of a reservoir.” The deed
stated that the easement would not “interfere with the operations of the Monument."TM

The community also acquired property in Fruita Canyon and No Thoroughfare Canyon
that was considered necessary for road construction. Congressman Taylor was actively involved
in this endeavor, and encouraged the Park Service to survey these lands. In an inspection of the
Monument, Taylor found that in order to ensure proper grading for the road, portions of it
would have to be constructed outside the boundary.** Taylor felt a presidential proclamation
was all that was needed to acquire the lands. Nevertheless, he feared that once people learned
of this, they might file on it in order to sell it later for a high price.”

The Park Service agreed to submit a presidential proclamation for the land. In the
meantime, the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce attempted to purchase certain privately
owned portions of the property.” One section of land that the chamber sought to acquire,
owned by William Streb, was part of No Thoroughfare Canyon.” The chamber stated that it
would raise $400 and requested that the Park Service pay the other half of the $800 purchase
price. The Park Service replied that it could not supply federal funds until a presidential
proclamation was secured to include the Streb lands.”

“Letter, W.M. Wood, Secretary Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, to A.E. Demaray, Acting
Director National Park Service, 6 October 1932.

“Letter, A.W. Bumey, Assistant Chief Engineer, to Horace Albright, Director National Park Service, 9
January 1933.

Memorandum, A.B. Cammerer, Director of National Park Service, to the Assistant Secretary of the
Interior, 13 October 1933.

*Letter, Representative Edward Taylor to Horace Albright, Director of National Park Service, 20 October
1932.

“Letter, L.W. Burgess, Chairman Park Committee to Horace Albright, Director of National Park Service,
19 October 1932.

“Letter, A.B. Cammerer to Representative Edward Taylor, 26 October 1932; Letter, W.M. Wood
Secretary Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, to Horace Albright, Director of National Park Service, 18
November 1932.

Telegram, Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce to Horace Albright, Director of National Park Service,
18 November 1932.

Letter, Horace Albright, Director of National Park Service, to W.M. Wood, Secretary Grand Junction
Chamber of Commerce, 26 November 1932.

59


editorials in the summer of 1974 that inflamed already negative local opinion of the Park
Service. In one editorial, entitled “Senseless Order,” the Sentinel pointed out how the
commercial vehicle ban threatened the livelihoods of many Glade Park residents. Its author also
questioned the authority of the Park to close the road, and stated that the road closure was
simply a "power play, to make the Monument road—the only decent access to Glade Park—into
a tourist road only.“ The article concluded that Benton could easily reverse the “senseless
restrictions” so that a court action would not be necessary.“° Another editorial, entitled "New
Road a Must,” presented the idea that the road controversy could easily have been avoided had
the Park Service not employed such “arbitrary” regulations:

... we blame the Park Service’s bulldozing tactics for much of the trouble because
National Park Service officials were dealing with a part of the West that doesn’t bulldoze
easily ... .“*

Such sentiments touched on a common theme that had been growing in the Grand Valley for
years—westemn resentment of government intervention.

Despite increased local resentment toward the Park Service’s road policy, the park itself
continued to grow in area. In January 1977, plans for the expansion of the park’s boundaries
were underway as congressional authorization and a promise of $490,000 for land acquisition
had already been assured. Included in the proposed 2,797 acres was the upper end of No
Thoroughfare Canyon, a 145-acre tract near Red Canyon, over four acres that would correct a
boundary fence error, thirteen acres of private land near the Fruita entrance, and close to 1,000
acres of other private tracts owned by the Fletchers, the Miracle Land Company, the Landing
family, and Robert Burford. Two-thirds of the new acreage was under Bureau of Land
Management administration.“

Superintendent Benton was especially pleased. with the county commissioners’ and the
chamber of commerce’s support of Senator Floyd Haskell and Representative Jim Johnson; both
men led the congressional campaign to expand the park. Concerns over the original boundary
revision, which would have traversed the county’s Little Park and DS Roads, stemmed from the
ongoing commercial vehicle conflict. Benton surmised that if those boundaries had been kept,
the Park Service would have had to restrict commercial traffic on those roads as well.
Fortunately, the boundaries were adjusted so that they only bordered the two roads.“ In

“*"Senseless Order," Daily Sentinel, 19 June 1974.
“Ibid.
"New Road a Must," Daily Sentinel, 27 June 1974.

“Alice Wright, “Colorado National Monument Growing," Westworld, 13 January 1977, Mesa County
Library Clipping File.

“bid.



The Decision @

On May 2, 1986, Judge Matsch issued his 32-page decision regarding the road
controversy. After a brief overview of the facts of the case, Matsch summarized the heart of
the conflict between local residents and the National Park Service that had existed in the
Monument since its creation:

The conflict has followed the progress of development of the Monument as a recreational
facility and the residential growth in Glade Park and the Grand Junction community. It
is a classic Western quarrel over the use of public land in-which the early years were -
characterized by cooperation in pursuit of common interests and where now the parties
have sharply conflicting interests and claims. The government’s policy has gone from
indulgence, through tolerance, to rigid regulation.”

Ultimately, Matsch’s decision favored the plaintiffs. It was shaped by several factors:
the history of the Monument and its fee policy, and the laws regarding the establishment of
public rights-of-way. Although the case seemingly dealt with a combination of issues, and was
complicated by the merging of the county’s and Wilkenson’s cases, it focused on one question:
whether a public right-of-way existed on the segment of Rim Rock Drive from the east entrance
station to the Glade Park cutoff.

In his decision Matsch examined both the history of the Monument’s development and
its fee policy. This section focused mainly on the history of road-building in the area and
Otto’s role in publicizing the park. It also discussed briefly the construction of Rim Rock @
Drive, the 1959 Serpents Trail vacation order, and land added to the Monument in 1933, 1959,
and 1976. Matsch’s intent was to establish that prior to Otto’s work the area that would
become the park was used by people for recreation, and by ranchers from Glade Park to
transport livestock to the Grand Valley. In addition, he emphasized the strong local role in the
park’s establishment and in road-building.*®

Matsch’s analysis of the Monument’s fee system attempted to show the Park Service’s
inconsistency in its fee policy from 1937 to the 1980s. He outlined the 1939 policy toward
Glade Park residents, in which they were not required to pay a fee. He also traced the policy’s
development until the Park Service began to restrict commercial vehicle use in the 1970s.

Matsch pointed to the original law regarding public rights-of-way to further support his
decision. In 1866, Congress passed a statute that was later codified as 43 U.S.C. Section 932,

Judge Richard P. Matsch, "Memorandum Opinion and Order In the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado," 2 May 1986, p. 3, in John R. Wilkenson v. Department of the Interior of the United
States, et al. (Civil Action No. 81-M-1825) and Board of County Commissioners of Mesa County, Colorado, et
al., v. James Watt, et al. (Civil Action No. 82-M-2171).

*Ibid., p. 8. @
“Tbid., pp. 10-11.



beauty,” indicating that, from the start, the road served a dual purpose.* Although Otto
started: blasting for the road in January, 1912, it was not clear how much construction could
take place before the limited funding ran out.”

In January, 1913, Otto wrote to the Commissioner of the General Land Office hoping
to secure money for additional construction:

The world’s greatest driveway shall be built on the top of the shelfrocks overlooking the
National Monuments named after our great men in history. We hope that the department
can recommend to congress an appropriation be made; Congressman E.T. Taylor has a.
bill on the calendar I believe.TM

A report filed by the General Land Office echoed Otto’s belief about the importance of a road
through the park. General Land Office employee J.E. Connolly stated that, "unless some
money is expended on the building of such a road or trail as will enable the ordinary citizen to
wander at some convenience through it,” the Colorado National: Monument would probably not
"become of great public interest" any time soon.'” Connolly concluded his report by
suggesting an appropriation of $300 for a caretaker’s residence, and $800 for the "purpose of
constructing roads or trails to the monument."* The request appears to have been denied.

The politics of road building had a strong impact on the success of this road proposal.
Otto and the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce maintained a stormy relationship during
these years. Competition between Otto’s Union Trail, which the chamber felt was a "hopeless"
endeavor, and the chamber’s Midland Trail created a rift in the relationship. Otto believed that
his route through the plateau country of Pinon Mesa was far more scenic than the chamber’s
Midland route that ran from Grand Junction through the desert to Utah. The chamber at first
supported Otto’s route, and then publicly denounced it. In Otto’s assessment, the chamber was
a "tin-hom road organization, automobile crazy beyond all hope."*' At. one point he even
threatened to quit his work on the Rimrock Route.

Despite these differences, the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce took an active
interest in constructing a scenic route through the park. When Otto’s exhaustive requests for
appropriations continually failed, the chamber began its own campaign to gain support from the
General Land Office and the Secretary of the Interior via Congressman Taylor. In January,

"Says Road Can be Built for $6500," Daily Sentinel, 25 January 1912.
"Otto Ready to Start Work on Park Highway," Daily Sentinel, 15 December 1911.
“Letter, John Otto to Commissioner General Land Office, 22 January 1913.

“Letter, J.E. Connolly, Special Agent General Land Office, to Commissioner General Land Office, 22
November 1913.

Ibid.
Kania, John Otto of Colorado National Monument, p. 87.

37


by 1937 they were able to access most of the park. Increased access created new challenges.
Although two CCC enrollees registered visitors at the checking station and two enrollees
guarded the entrances, it was difficult to monitor visitor activity once they entered the park.
Attempts were made to stop picnickers from driving off the road. By October 1937, 25-mile
speed limit signs were placed at each entrance of the park. Actual tests concluded that this was
the safest speed by which one could drive the road. Stop signs were also placed at the checking
station.”

Other regulatory measures were taken as well. An entrance sign was placed at the Glade
Park boundary, caution signs were put up on the Fruita Canyon road and larger boundary signs
were placed at the four entrances to the Monument in the hope that wood-hauling, firearm use,
grazing and hunting would be discouraged.” It was evident after the anniversary of the road’s
opening that local use presented more problems than regular tourist use:

Most of the March travel was local travel, either Grand Junction people out for an
afternoon drive or Glade Park residents traveling back and forth to town. This local
travel does a great deal of damage to the road in negotiating it during muddy or wet
conditions. This condition will be removed when the road is hard surfaced. And the
hauling of coal and other heavy supplies over the road by residents of Glade Park area
cuts ruts badly during wet weather. One entrance to the Glade Park area certainly ought
to be eliminated; and this would save many hundreds of dollars. annually in road
maintenance.®

In July 1938, seventy-five to eighty people were stopped for speeding; Luther reported that "the
worst trouble is still with the local people, especially the residents adjacent to the Glade Park
store."TM He felt that educating local residents was the key to preventing abuse of the park
and National Park Service regulations.”

Despite Luther’s efforts, there were still elements of the local population who
disregarded Park Service regulations. In April 1938, for instance, sheep herds were ordered off

Jesse Nusbaum, “Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for
October 1937" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1 November 1937), pp. 3-
5.

“Jesse Nusbaum, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for
November 1937" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 30 November 1937), p.
2.

James Luther, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for March
1938" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, | April 1938), p. 3.

“James Luther, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative for Colorado National Monument for July 1938"
(Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1 August 1938), p. 4.

*2Jesse Nusbaum, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report of Colorado National Monument for August
1938" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 5 September 1938), p. 3.

79


disease, and World War I threatened the Park Service's land use policies.’* By the late 1970s,
threats included “residential development, energy extraction, and industrial development” as
well as air and water pollution.”

Historically, the National Park Service has encountered one of its biggest challenges in
the western attitude toward public land use. The commonly held belief that all public lands,
including national parks, were meant for private and public use, created numerous conflicts
between local communities and the National Park Service. The history of the Colorado

_National Monument and its adjacent communities in many ways exemplifies the conflict over

public land use in the West. The scenario isa familiar one. Prior to the creation of Colorado— —-———

National Monument, the communities of the Grand Valley built roads, trails, stock driveways,
and water pipelines through the future park. When the Colorado National Monument was
established, these uses were either restricted or prohibited. As the years passed, relations
between Park Service employees and the local population became increasingly tense.

At the heart of the conflict was the issue of public access to and through the park. Road
building before and after the Monument’s creation was an important element of early and later
interaction between the local communities and the National Park Service. Early efforts to build
a local road to Glade Park via the Monument coincided with efforts to build a scenic road
through the Monument. In fact, the first adequate route to Glade Park—Serpents Trail—was
also the first scenic road through the park. The dual purpose of this road fueled later
controversy over the Park Service’s replacement road—Rim Rock Drive.

Interwoven into this story of conflict is also one of cooperation between the local
community and the National Park Service. Local civic groups were instrumental in the
creation, early development, and initial administration of Colorado National Monument. During
the depression, communities of the Grand Valley provided labor and some financial support to
the Park Service for the construction of Rim Rock Drive. At the same time these communities
benefitted greatly from federal funding for the road project.

The evolving relationship (1911-1986) between the Colorado National Monument and its
adjacent communities embodies many of the elements of western public land conflicts. At
Colorado National Monument, road building and road. use served as the medium through which
the conflict was expressed. The local attitude toward land use and the changing economic needs
of the Grand Valley contrasted with Park Service ideology, increased regulations, and frequent
changes in the administration of the park.

John Ise, Our National Park Policy: A Critical History (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1961), p. 207.

“John C. Freemuth, Islands Under Siege: National Parks and the Politics of External Threats (Lawrence:
University of Kansas Press, 1991), pp. 16, 18-19, 22.

viii

,



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract of Thesis iti

Acknowledgements iv

Preface 22... ttt ence eee vi

Chapter One

The Landscape / The Setting ........... see wae 1
The Roots of Conflict 1881-1911 3

Chapter Two

“The Nationalization of a Cafion": The Local Park Movement: 1906-1911 .......0. 0.0.00. 14

Chapter Three

The Otto Years: 1911-30 2... eee eee eens 31
Otto’s Agenda... 6... eee see bee ~. 31
Road Building, 1911-1927 ............. tae see see + 34
Park Administration and Otto’s Ouster 44
The Chamber of Commerce and its New Program, 1927-1931 48

Chapter Four
Construction of Rim Rock Drive: 1931-1950 2.0... cee eens 52

Road Construction, 1931-1933 52
Road Construction, 1933-1942 60
The CCC and Federal Work Camps at Colorado National Monument, 1933-1942 . . 62
The Road Project and the Community .................0-4 oe 67
Administration of Colorado National Monument, 1933-1942 ...... beeen -. 7
The Postwar Years 2... eee ete nee 81

Chapter Five

Origins of the Road Controversy: 1951-1980 2... 2... kee eee eee 84
Administration of Colorado National Monument, 1951-1980 . wee see .. 84
Local Use of Colorado National Monument, 1951-1980... 0... ee ee ees 90
The Commercial Vehicle Issue, 1955-1978... ee eee 92

Chapter Six

The Lawsuit: 1981-1986 2... ee eee eens 104
The Lawsuit see
The Decision 2.0... eee eee etn teen 118

Conclusion 2... ee eet t eee eee 123

Works Cited 2... cece e eee eee 128


Wilkenson, John R. "Glade Park: Jury or Jail? The Truth Behind the Glade Park Controversy."
Palisade Tribune, 19 January 1984

. "Speaking the Public Mind: Unconscionable Trial Delay.” Daily Sentinel, 13 October
1983.

Wilkinson, Todd. “Tribes Assert their Rights to Use National Parks." Denver Post, 13 December
1992.

“Will Boost for-Monument-Park." Daily Sentinel, 21 April 1911. _

"Work Roads on May 2 Scheme." Daily Sentinel, 25 April 1916.

Miscellaneous

(Unless otherwise indicated all documents are located in the Colorado National Monument Museum
and Archive Collection.)

Acting Assistant Manager, Midwest/Rocky Mountain Team, Denver Service Center. "Truck Route
Study of Route 1 Colorado National Monument." 28 April 1980.

Benton, Robert. "Environmental Review and Selected Alternative Concerning Commercial Vehicle
Use In Colorado National Monument," 24 August 1979.

Copy of Application and Affidavit for Glade Park Permit, Colorado National Monument.

The Charter of the City of Grand Junction, Colorado. Grand Junction: Merrill Printing Company, 14
September 1909. Courtesy Colorado Historical Society.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service. "Draft, Resource /Boundary Evaluation for Lands
Adjacent to Colorado National Monument, Colorado." September 1989.

Fruita Bureau of Information. "Fruita, Colorado." Fruita Bureau of Information, ca. 1910. Courtesy
Colorado Historical Society.

Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, "The Valley of the Grand, The Place for You." Denver:
Smith-Brooks Press, no date. Courtesy Colorado Historical Society.

Index of Filings Regarding the Road Controversy on the East End of Colorado National Monument’s
Rim Rock Drive.

Kasparek, Robert B., Henry A. Schoch, and Robert L. Randall. "Environmental Assessment:
Commercial Vehicle Use in the Colorado National Monument.” Colorado National Monument,
Rocky Mountain Regional Office, United States Department of the Interior, National Park
“Service, 1.

Longtime Chamber Support for Access to Glade Park Continues." News and Views, Issue #80-CUPS
112-870, August 1982. r

142



the war, Otto decided to issue permits for 50 cents a load for anyone willing to haul his own
wood out of the park. When one resident took wood without a permit, Otto promptly obtained
a search warrant, and went to the man’s home to collect the money.” Another resident,
W.H. Post, appealed to the Secretary of the Interior, claiming that it was "unamerican to make
old timers” pay for wood “taken from any Park or from the public domain."* Although
Post’s comment was directed at Otto’s wood business, it also symbolizes the overall feeling
-among many westemers: that the public domain, even when a national park was involved, was
for public use. Otto frequently encountered this attitude.

The wood hauling business was equally frustrating to Otto, who originally hoped to use
the funds to finance his road. His repeated requests for Park Service appropriations over the
years were denied. To make matters worse, once the National Park Service learned that he was
making money off the wood business, they demanded that he send them every dime. Otto set
up an account worth $35.05 in the Bank of Grand Junction. He agreed to send it to the Park
Service but hoped to keep 10 percent of the money as commission. The Park Service refused
him that as well."" This interaction typified Otto’s relationship with the National Park
Service, which was absent during the first years of the park’s development.

As the park’s first custodian, Otto naturally shaped local views of the new park.
Unfortunately, he was in a position where he gained little support from Park Service officials
and increasingly alienated himself from local residents. Nevertheless, other aspects of Otto’s
agenda for the park were beneficial to local interests. His involvement in road building efforts
throughout the Grand Valley and in the Colorado National Monument, for example, allowed
him to work cooperatively with local communities.

Road Building, 1911-1927

Road building continued to be a mutual interest for park promoters and non-promoters
after Colorado National Monument was established. The communities of Grand Junction, Glade
Park and Fruita pushed to build a road to Glade Park, while Otto and the Grand Junction
Chamber of Commerce worked for a scenic route through the park. The nature of road
building to and through the park revealed that local and park transportation needs were closely
linked.

Each of the Grand Valley’s communities had practical and economically motivated
transportation needs. In 1909, the newly formed State Highway Commission accepted plans for
two state roads in Mesa County: a route from Grand Junction to the Utah state line and one

TMKania, John Otto of Colorado National Park, pp. 101-102.
“Letter, W.H. Post to Secretary of Interior, 15 May 1922.

"Letter, Ammo B. Cammerer, Acting Director Nationa] Park Service, to John Otto, 20 June 1922; Letter,
Arno B. Cammerer to John Otto, 20 July 1922.

34



western end.” By July 1937, approximately 20 gravel miles of the eventually 23-mile gravel
road were completed.’ Between September 1937 and April 1940, another $39,111.87 was’
allotted for construction.

Laborers for the Rim Rock Road project represented federal and local labor sources.
Along with the CCC, the WPA, the Public Works Administration (PWA), the Emergency Relief
Administration (ERA), LEMs, and National Park camps contributed to numerous aspects of the
road project. Each work group was responsible for different elements of construction and
overall park development.” Construction and employment possibilities were contingent on the
availability of funds. When funding ran out, projects were temporarily stopped and layoffs
occurred. Monthly totals of men at work in the park indicated the precarious nature of
employment on the project. In December 1933, for instance, there was a total of 689 men
working, but in January 1934, 814 men were accounted for.” These monthly totals varied
markedly between 1933 and 1942. Construction was also disrupted by CCC enrollment periods,
which generally lasted six months before new enrollees replaced those who were dismissed.

TMSee construction maps in Figures 4.1 and 4.9.

TW. Secrest, Final Construction on Scenic Rim Rock Road Acct. No. 507-14-1010 (Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 3 August 1937), pp. 1-5.

“Horace Miller, Final Construction Report on Scenic Rim Rock Road Sections A,B,C,D Account 508, 1937-
1940 (United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1940).

"See Figures 4.4 and 4.5.

TMClifford Anderson, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for
December 1933" (Washington: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2 January 1934), p. 1;
Clifford Anderson, “Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for January
1934” (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 3 February 1934), p. 1.

65


Figure 4.10. Workers remove blast rubble from
coyote hole or pilot bore in one of the road’s
three tunnels. Colorado National Monument
Museum and Archive Collection. >re

Figure 4.11. North porta] of tunnel #3 on east
Rim Rock Drive. Colorado National Monument
Museum and Archive Collection.

aaa

14



D562

: @ as fe A Classic Western Quarrel: : :
~ A History of the Road Controversy at
j Colorado. National Monument | vee

bys

de se" Tiga’ Schoch-Roberts

CULTURAL RESOURCES. SELECTIONS -

js -No: 10", . : ea ©) Intermountain Region.
| “4997 ° oy S)° © National Park’ Service 22-7: an
we “. CPA Me UE an PLEASE RETURN-70:

vs gan woes ae a . : TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER Les
Peet is SERVICE :
Baw Scans iy On HUCROFILM e007 NATIONAL PARK SRM SS

2h]206 =.


vehicle traffic.“ In April 1980, when these estimates were available, the most cost-effective
alternative was the improvement of Rim Rock Drive to accommodate heavy traffic. Yet, the
assessment stated that such improvements would "destroy much of the scenic beauty the
Monument was created to preserve."*” The other alternatives, improving Little Park Road or
constructing a two mile bypass from Little Park Road, far exceeded the costs of improving Rim
Rock Drive.

Each side of the issue held its own reasons for opposing the Park Service’s original
alternatives. Mesa County officials argued that the cost of improving Little Park Road ($2.7
million) was too high. They questioned the Park Service’s authority over the 4.8 miles of road
on the park’s east side that led to Glade Park. The county believed that this portion of the road
was “part of the county network for the benefit of the community."

Glade Park residents, on the other hand, opposed the alternatives for both practical and
emotional reasons. They felt that Park Service restrictions would “interfere with their future
options as landowners".“* Past contributions of labor and money to Rim Rock led Glade Park
residents to believe that they were entitled to use the road however they pleased. This attitude
was evident in Glade Park residents Doug King and Doug Jones at an August 1980 meeting
between the Mesa County Commissioners, Glade Park residents, and Park Service
representatives from the Monument. King and Jones felt that it was the Park Service’s
responsibility to. provide the escorts for commercial vehicles since the Park Service was
“kicking them off the road" anyway.

In the midst of all of this turmoil, Colorado National Monument’s administration @

underwent another shift when Superintendent Dennis Huffman arrived in 1980. Facing an
already "rocky" relationship between local residents and the National Park Service, Huffman
launched a campaign to change the community’s attitude toward the Monument. ‘Through
regular involvement in civic groups and the local media, Huffman worked to inform people of
the park’s plans and to advertise its role as a resource to the community.“” Huffman, like

“Memorandum, Richard A. Strait, Associate Director Planning and Resource Preservation Rocky Mountain
Region, to Assistant Manager Midwest/Rocky Mountain Team, Denver Service Center, 19 March 1980.

““Acting Assistant Manager, Midwest/Rocky Mountain Team, Denver Service Center, "Truck Route Study
of Route 1 Colorado National Monument," 28 April 1980.

“Ibid.
“Letter, Mesa County Commissioners to Cecil Andrus, Secretary of the Interior, 25 January 1980.
“Memorandum, Henry A. Schoch, Chief Ranger to Dennis Huffman, Superintendent, 31 July 1980.

“Memorandum, Dennis Huffman, Superintendent, for Files regarding Meeting with Mesa County Board of
Commissioners and Glade Park Residents, 1 August 1980.

“Dennis Huffman, Telephone interview by Lisa M. Schoch, 6 Feb 1994,
ep y ruary

100



Conclusion

The road controversy in the Colorado National Monument indicates that local conflicts
are often the result of years of interaction between adjacent communities and the National Park
Service. Former Superintendent Robert Benton observed that the road conflict was inevitable
because the administration of the park over the years shifted from “laissez-faire” to restrictive
as the park gained more prestige. People accustomed to a certain degree of freedom when
using the park’s facilities were irritated by Benton’s more restrictive stance. Former
Superintendent Dennis Huffman perceived the road conflict on a wider scale. He noted that
local conflicts often obstruct protective legislation for national parks. Echoing a problem that
was evident throughout the Monument’s history, Huffman observed that because the superinten-
dent’s role is not clear to loca! residents, friction develops between those communities and the
National Park Service, especially in the West.”

Surprisingly, the road controversy did not affect Monument operations in any significant
manner. Fee collection returned to what it had been prior to the affidavit policy.’ The road
controversy was significant, however, in terms of the interaction between local residents and the
Park Service. As this study has indicated, the development of the Monument was unique.
Local involvement was prevalent in both the park’s establishment and in the construction of Rim
Rock Drive. The location of the Monument is also somewhat unique. Because Colorado
National Monument, unlike most Western national parks, is surrounded by several well-
populated communities, the local element forms an integral part of the park’s daily
management. The lawsuit revealed that the conflict between local residents and the Park
Service was inevitable. No one can dispute the importance of the local role in the creation of
the Monument in 1911. The result of this contribution, however, was unrealistic expectations
once the park was fully developed. For example, throughout the lawsuit, local residents
appeared to have forgotten that they took full advantage of the benefits of the federal funding
supporting the road project during the depression era. Local residents supported the park when
it was convenient for them, but once the Park Service regulated use of the park, their needs
became unreasonable. Why, for instance, should. the Park Service be responsible for
maintaining a federal road for the county’s use? The lawsuit revealed that the nature of the
local role in Colorado National Monument’s history led to such an arrangement. The lawsuit
also revealed that the local population’s needs and perceptions of the federal government had
changed a great deal between 1911 and 1986. Whereas once the community worked desperately

Robert Benton, Telephone interview by Lisa M. Schoch, 23 January 1994.
Dennis Huffman, Telephone interview by Lisa M. Schoch, 6 February 1994.
“Tbid.

123



: @ aoe “SELECTIONS from’ the ‘DIVISION:OF CULTURAL RESOURCES. °
: an “Rocky: Mountain Region, ‘National Park Service” .

No... Cultural Resource Inventory and Testing i in the Salt Creek Pocket and Devils ‘Lan
“" “A¥eas, ‘Needles District, Canyonlands National Parks. Utah: “by. Be
Nancy ‘J, Hewitts; 1989 a A

‘Gateways to ‘Commerce: ‘The VU. $: ‘Army. Corps of Engineers? 9 Foot Channel , :
2) on, the Upper Mississippi | River by William Patricle O° Brien, Mary ‘Yeater Rathbun, and °
oo Patrick 0% "Bannon, 1992." : :

No.3 The ‘Archeology of Beaver- Creek. Shelter @rcurt: A preliminary Statement by.
“ess Lynn Marie Alex; 1991. mee . :
x . No. 4: Archeological Investigations at Two ‘Sites ‘in’: Dinosaur National Monument:
A2UN1724 and 5MF2645 by: James A. Truesdale; 1993.

< No.5, The History of the Construction of the Road System i in “Yellowstone: ‘National Park,
1872-1966:: Historic Resource. Study Volume I by Mary’ Shiyers Culpin;-1994..

The Obsidian Clift Plateau Pretiistoric LithicTM Source; Yellowstone National Park,
“Wyoming by: Leslie ‘B. Davis, Stephen ‘ Ay . Aabers, and James: G. Schmitt; 1995.

“Holocene Archeology near 1 Sau Butte, Canyonlands National: Park, Utah by-Betsy
L. Tipps:: 1995. u

CULTURAL: RESOURCES SELECTIONS -
Intermountain Region, National Park Service:

; ‘Cultural Landscape 0 rt: Fruita Rural Historie District; Capitol Reet National
°P. rk. -by Cathy A: Gilbert and Kathleen L..-McKoy?1997- 72

"9 Ethnographic Overview and “Assessment of Devils Tower National Monument,
ul ‘Wyoming by Jeffry R. Hlatison and Sally Chirknos 1997. :

Me, 10: “A Clasiie Western Quarrel" A History of ‘the Road: Controversy at Colorado :
~ National, Monument yt Lisa Schock Roberts; 1997, : : renee



FOREWORD

As a part of the National Park Service’s mission to protect and interpret its resources,
it is important to make valuable, historical information readily available. To further that goal,
I am pleased to present this volume in our occasional series of publications on the
Intermountain Region’s past.

This-history-is-the-first_volume_of Colorado National Monument’s Administrative

History. Other volumes relating to the’ creation of the monument and additional pertinent
issues will be published over the next few years. The history, written by Lisa Schoch-Roberts
as her Master’s Thesis from Colorado State University, addresses many issues related to the
development of the monument and its roads, the use of the roads and the importance the roads
have played in the history of the monument and the surrounding area. The comprehensive
coverage of the subject will aid present and future managers to protect the valuable resources
at Colorado National Monument and will introduce new employees to the rich history of the

monument’s past.
} Kk
John E. Cook

Director
Intermountain Region

Mission: As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has
responsibility for most of our nationally-owned public lands and natural and cultural resources.
- This includes fostering wise use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife,
preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and
providing for the-enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our
energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interests
of all our people. The Department also promotes the goals of the Take Pride in America
campaign by encouraging stewardship and citizen responsibility for the public lands and
promoting citizen participation in their care. The Department also has a major responsibility for
‘American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S.

Administration. NPS-D52. 1997.



Benton, faced the challenge of local resentment. He too often made unpopular decisions,
including his continuance of Benton’s road policy.

The result of the 1980 meetings was Mesa County’s agreement to seek funding for the
construction of a bypass from the Little Park Road to the community of Rosedale. The Park
Service supported this by agreeing to inform various agencies of the county’s need for funding.
It also stated that it would create regulations that would “alleviate” problems with 36 C.F.R.
5.6(b)—the federal code governing park operations—until the construction was completed.
Finally, the Park Service once again asserted that any commercial vehicles using Rim Rock
would have to provide their own escorts.

The issue of escorts raised some important points regarding the Park Service’s overall
road policy. While Mesa County officials and Glade Park residents believed that it was the
Park Service’s responsibility to fund whatever facilities were necessary to ensure the safety of
its visitors, the Park Service stated that it was not funding that was at issue. Park Service
Regional Director Lorraine Mintzmyer made it very clear that it was “inappropriate” for the
federal government to subsidize commercial interests, and that Rim Rock Drive was not
constructed for that kind of use in the first place.“ This was true. Despite what many local
residents believed, Rim Rock Drive was built to accommodate tourist traffic through the park,
not to carry heavy commercial vehicles.

In the meantime, local and state politicians worked to ensure that the Park Service would
take responsibility for the road issue. Colorado Senator Bill Armstrong and his aides felt the
Park Service was inflexible in its policy toward escorts.” A letter to Armstrong from Mesa
County Commissioner Rick Enstrom may have prompted the senator’s interest in the issue. In
the letter, Enstrom stated that Mesa County had pledged $600,000 for the construction of half
the bypass agreed to in the July 1980 meeting. He also asked Amnstrong’s help in funding
escorts until the road was completed. Armstrong apparently felt so strongly that he negotiated
a deal with Senator Stevens of the Appropriations Committee to include language in the Interior
Department Appropriations bill that required the Park Service to fund escorts.’ This topic
lasted an unusually long period of forty-five minutes during the committee meeting.” The

“Memorandum, Lorraine Mintzmyer, Regional Director Rocky Mountain Region, to Dennis Huffman,
Superintendent, 27 August 1980.

“Lorraine Mintzmyer, Regional Director Rocky Mountain Region, "Briefing Statement: Escort Service
Colorado National Monument,” 29 September 1980.

“National Park Service Message Record, Phone Call, Dave Jensen and Dennis Huffman, Superintendent,
23 September 1980.

“National Park Service Message Record, Phone Call, David Jensen to Dennis Huffman, Superintendent, 23
September 1980; "Making Appropriations for the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies," 96th
Congress, 2d Session, Senate Report # 96-1470, May 16

National Park Service Message Record, Phone Call, between Dave Jensen and Dennis Huffman,
Superintendent, 24 December 1980.

101


a wagon road.""* Believing that Grand Junction would eventually be the “hub of the West,"
Otto proposed that all the nation’s roads be built so that they ran through the Monument.’”

On April 26, 1910, the Daily Sentinel reported local efforts to build a scenic road:

A number of public-spirited people are going to organize the Monument Park, Health
and Pleasure Drive appropriation to build the Grand Rimrock Boulevard, the world’s
greatest driveway.”*

This road was supposed to start in Grand Junction at the Main Street Bridge, proceed up to-the -

“granite bench in Monument Cajion,” follow the rimrocks past Liberty Cap to “Big Park”
(Glade Park) and skirt the rims of the "forks" of Monument Canyon. The road would end with
a connection to the Fruita road."” Not surprisingly, the economic potential of the road was
disguised as a “scenic driveway." Efforts to build a road intensified after the park’s
establishment in May, 1911. Until then, there were more road proposals than actual
construction.

Conflict over road building was inevitable, especially since roads served more than one
purpose. In the context of the community, roads fulfilled business and residential needs. When
Otto’s "road fever” was first publicized in the Daily Sentinel in 1910, local communities were
interested in improving roads throughout the Grand Valley. Fruita’s interest in a road to
Glade Park for the purpose of building a business relationship, and Glade Park’s interest in
improving its route to the Grand Valley, characterized the local road campaign. Ail parties
involved in road promotion were equally enthusiastic about the possibility of connecting their
communities to.one another via the Monument. For Otto and the Grand Junction Chamber of
Commerce, this enthusiasm translated into more than a local endeavor to improve
transportation. Their interest in building a road through Monument Canyon was yet another
step in the process of making their proposed park accessible to visitors. Outside interest in the
development of a park road emerged as well. In 1910, Senator Simon Guggenheim introduced
the first of two bills for "Creating the Monument National Park,” which included a section
proposing a $20,000 appropriation for the construction of a road "to and through” the park.”

“"[nvestigation Made of Great Scenic. . . ." Daily Sentinel, 19 April 1909.
“Kania, John Otto of Colorado National Monument, pp. 70, 78.
*8"Organize to Build Road,” Daily Sentinel, 26 April 1910.

‘Ibid.

Kania, John Otto of Colorado National Park, p. 78.

TMUj,§. Congress, House, Creating the Monument National Park, 61st Congress., 2nd sess., S. 4934, (6
January 1910).

22



meetings of the Mesa County Coordinating Committee, he went to the Pifion Mesa Stock-
growers’ Association meeting to discuss realignment of existing stock drives in the park.
Unlike Luther, however, Finch had some assistance in his work. Another ranger, Charles E.
Smith, transferred to the park in March of that year. In April 1941, ranger Homer Carson
came to the Monument. For a while everything ran more smoothly than it had in years. Work
on construction accelerated, the road was prepared for oiling, and the additional rangers
alleviated many of the stresses of park management.”

The United States’ entrance into World War II in December 1941 necessarily interrupted
both the construction of the road and the administration of the park. CCC camp strength
weakened as enrollees enlisted for active duty, and eventually all construction ended in the park.
The checking station closed and fee collection ended in November 1941. Eventually, Park
Service personne! were called to active duty. Ranger Charles E. Smith left for military service,
and even though new rangers replaced him, park activities were at an all-time low.”

The Postwar Years

The postwar years were characterized by a revitalization of the Colorado National
Monument. Park activities abandoned during the war resumed; the checking station reopened
in June 1946, and road maintenance once more became a priority.” At the same time, some
of the older CCC buildings were removed and restoration of those areas commenced.” The
most noticeable change was increased tourism. In March 1946, custodian Finch reported a 151
percent increase in the travel year to date, and in August 1946, a 785 percent increase was
noted. These phenomenal increases, however, were the source of conflict between rangers
and visitors. One of the largest problems was that there were far more visitors than the limited
personnel at the Monument could monitor. In 1946, it was estimated that about 75 percent of
the visitor travel never reached the checking stations, which were located 4 miles from the

**B.M. Finch, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for March
1941” (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1 April 1941), pp. 1-3.

B.M. Finch, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for April
1941" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1 May 1941), p. 3.

*B.R. Finch, "Superintendent’s Monthly Reports for Colorado National Monument for 1942" (Washington:
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1942).

TMB.R. Finch, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for June 1946”
(Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1 July 1946).

**B.R. Finch, Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for March
1946" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, t April 1946), pp. 1-2.

B.R. Finch, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for March 1946" (Washington: U.S. Department
of the Interior, National Park Service, 1 April 1946), p. 1; B.R. Finch, “Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative
Report for August 1946" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2 September
1946), p. 1.

81


to us and our future generations." One of the worst problems was name-carving in the
sandstone around the Devils Kitchen picnic area and Cold Shivers Point. To prevent further
damage, Anderson planned to put up a boundary line sign, warning against “disfiguring or
defacing” park property. He also worked to prevent rampant wood hauling from the park by
commencing daily patrols.

Anderson initiated many changes during his short time as custodian of the Colorado
National Monument. Many of his policies conformed to the Park Service mission but were also
shaped by local conditions and activities taking place in the park. His decision to restrict visitor
access to the park was a response to heavy construction on Rim Rock Road. The section of
road in Fruita Canyon involved some of the heaviest construction on Rim Rock Drive and was
also a magnet for curious visitors eager for a glimpse of the work being done there. On
February 18, 1934, there were over 600 visitors watching as charges of powder blasted the
walls of the canyon. By June 1934, Anderson’s fears that the presence of tourists
endangered both visitors and workmen had compelled him to restrict visitor access to the park.
He also decided to install a box to register visitors.”

Anderson’s custodianship exemplified a new level of Park Service presence in the
Colorado National Monument. In addition to his campaign against vandalism and his efforts to
monitor visitation of the park, he also conducted daily inspections of work projects in the park
and maintained relations with the chamber of commerce. By August 1934, the Black Canyon
of the Gunnison National Monument was placed under the jurisdiction of Colorado National
Monument. Anderson began periodic inspection trips there as well. In June 1935, his idea for
a registration box was expanded into a checking station, by which he hoped to provide
information for visitors in addition to checking levels of visitation. He placed two iron pipe
gates "to control travel from entering from Glade Park and Cold Shivers during the nights."“
He was determined to control local access to the park during construction and probably planned
to extend this policy once the road was completed.

Anderson’s departure from the Colorado National Monument in July 1935 resulted from
an administrative conflict that arose between himself, Secrest, and the landscape architects over

“Letter, Clifford Anderson, Custodian Colorado National Monument, to A.B. Cammerer, Director National
Park Service, 30 November 1933.

“Tid.

“Clifford Anderson, “Superintendent’s-Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for
February 1934,” (Washington: U.S, Department of the Interior, National Park Service, March 1934), p. 2.

*Clifford Anderson, “Superintendent Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for June
1934” (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, July 1, 1934), p. 3.

“Clifford Anderson, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for June
1935" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 3 July 1935), p. 1.

76



EXPLANATION
Monuneent GouNDane TPRNRARY SA acd shoe

roar ea, SECONDARY KIGQWAY Herd eutin
ancora eT UrY ROAD Hard Ione ert
WON AREAS ee UNIeROWED ROAD

o Dae OF THE REDLANDS © nveestare roure
ancora, rin Busroure
‘otioeo ogee Sar ove "
2 mosteer
° . paws.
Ba ar
y T i Treowais

Figure 1.1, Colorado National Monument and Surrounding Communities, From Stanley Lohman, The Geologic
Story of Colorado National Monument (Washington, D.C,.; Government Printing Office, 1981). @



monthly $1 salary with an extra $25 per month.” Between 1920 and 1928, the chamber alone
contributed $2500 to the park’s needs. W.M. Wood, Secretary of the Grand Junction Chamber e
of Commerce, referred to the Monument as "perhaps the most unique of Government properties

in that it has been financed almost entirely by local capital.""’ Cynicism toward the federal
government, specifically the National Park Service, already infused the local attitude. One of

the Park Service’s biggest mistakes at this time was either its inability or lack of interest in
becoming more involved in the Colorado National Monument. The Park Service’s absentee role

only reinforced the belief that the local community was in charge of the park.

Perhaps the communities of Grand Junction, Fruita, and Glade Park were not aware that,
although the Park Service became an agency in 1916, it was not equipped to appropriate vast
sums of money for all parks. Between 1917 and 1922, only $75,500 was expended on all
national monuments. The Colorado National Monument received very little of this.” The
government was only able to supply two appropriations of $400 each for fencing between 1920
and 1928.*' The Park Service’s lack of support for Colorado National Monument during its
first decade was not a sign of its apathy; rather, it was indicative of the Park Service’s lack of
funding in general.

Lack of Park Service funds was not the only local frustration. Over the years, Otto’s
and the chamber’s efforts to convince officials in Washington to visit the Colorado National
Monument were unsuccessful. Otto had written numerous letters to various officials, including
the Director of the National Park Service, Stephen Mather, and his assistant Horace Albright,
urging them to visit the park. His attempts were largely unsuccessful. r

Otto’s role in the development of the Monument, however, was soon to be extinguished.
As early as 1924, officials in Washington, tired of his incessant letters, began to put them into
“files unanswered.” In July, 1926, Otto’s relations with local officials worsened as well.
Fruita’s Mayor Merriell wrote to the Acting Assistant Director of the National Park Service,
A.E. Demaray, to express.a common complaint with Otto and his ideas:

Letter, R.A. Ross, President Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce to A.E. Demaray, Acting Director
National Park Service, 7 January 1927.

*Letter, W.M. Wood, Secretary of Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, to Senator Lawrence Phipps,
13 December 1928.

“Cameron, The National Park Service, p. 43.
Letter, Wood to Phipps, 13 December 1928.

"Letter, A.E. Demaray, Administrative Assistant National Park Service, to Frank Pinkley, Superintendent
Southwestern Monuments, 22 October 1924.

46



Service.” By September 1959, the Monument was once again the subject of negative
publicity regarding Mission 66. This time it involved a conflict over whose needs were more
important in determining Mission 66 projects: local residents or out-of-state visitors. Local
residents felt that access to the lower canyons and jeep roads was important and that these
improvements should be addressed by the Park Service. In his monthly report Bussey
summarized Park Service beliefs regarding Mission 66:

Since most of the demands appear to be of special interest to local rather than out of
state visitors, efforts have been made to point out the importance of first taking care of
the needs of out-of-state visitors, such as more campground facilities, improved roads,
additional interpretive facilities, turnouts, and overlooks under the Mission 66 program.
Local needs are recognized, but are in lower priority on the Mission 66 program.”

Despite this, Superintendent Bussey continued to make Mission 66 presentations to local
organizations and the Daily Sentinel continued its coverage of Mission 66 projects. It was clear
that Bussey’s interpretation of Mission 66 reflected the Park Service’s original purpose in
creating the program: to accommodate tourism. In August 1959, Monument officials continued
to emphasize the importance of the out-of-state visitor. A presentation to the Lions Club, and
contact with the Daily Sentinel, Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, and the chamber’s
Tourist Committee were part of the campaign to make local residents understand why out-of-
state visitor needs were important to Mission 66.

Another element of the Mission 66 program that drew negative responses from the
community was that of fee collection. In June 1960, the new east entrance station opened.
Glade Park landowners, worried that they would be inconvenienced by fee payment, were
reassured by Bussey that they would not be required to pay. They would instead receive
“season gate-passes” that enabled residents to access the "shortest, most direct route to and from
the Glade Park area” but did not allow them to use any other Monument facilities.“ Anyone
visiting Glade Park residents was required to use the east entrance and go directly to Glade Park
without any stops, except in cases of emergency.” A modification of James Luther’s 1939 fee
collection, this policy became problematic once population levels in Glade Park increased. For
the time being, however, it appeased fretful local residents, who were beginning to realize the
disadvantages of having a national park in close proximity.

Fred Bussey, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for July
1959” (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 12 August 1959), p. 3.

“Fred Bussey, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for August
1959” (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 11 September 1959), p. 3.

“Thid., p. 4.
"Junction Entrance to Monument to be in Operation By July 1," The Morning Sun, 20 June 1960.
“Thid.
88



The Road Project and the Community

Community support of the road project was challenged on December 12, 1933, when the
so-called “half-tunnel accident” took place. On that day, 20 Glade Park men recently hired by
the CWA worked to cut part of the road into a cliff face in the shape of a half-tunnel. They
had been blasting small sections of rock and then clearing by hand the debris from under the
newly formed overhang of rock. Newspaper accounts stated that after the final shots were
fired, supervisors of the project made the men wait 20 minutes before they went in to clear
rocks. The men were working in what appeared to be a safe area when a powder charge fired
by another work group on the opposite side of the canyon supposedly dislodged the cliff.”
Three men actually jumped over the 300-foot cliff to escape, six men were instantly crushed,
and one man was partially buried, living only through that night. The victims ranged in age
from 19 to 60 years.”

The tragedy immediately raised a host of questions regarding the safety of workers and
the competency of supervisors. The morning after the incident, the coroner arranged an inquest
in which witnesses to the event testified. After all the testimony was heard, officials concluded
that what had occurred had been an unavoidable accident.*' Yet, only three days after the
accident, about thirty workers from the road project circulated a petition for a grand jury
investigation and informed the District Attorney, William F. Haywood, that proper precautions
for worker safety had not been taken prior to the accident or at any other time during the road
construction. The workers also submitted statements to the Daily Sentinel that openly stated
that not enough time had elapsed between the final blast and when the men continued work, and
that the entire cliff face had not been investigated properly before the accident.” Finally on
December 18, the same delegation of workers insisted on holding a public hearing at which the
Chamber of Commerce, T.W. Secrest, and William Haywood were present. Most of the men
agreed that the supervisors and foremen were blameless as far as the accident was concerned,
although they unanimously stated that the chief powder man (explosives expert), Mr. McEwan,
had not always been careful in his work.”

See Figures 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8.
Noland Norgaard, "Nine Killed by Slide on Monument Road," Daily Sentinel, 13 December 1933, p. 1.
“William F. Haywood, Report on Fatal Accident, 13 December 1933.

"Greater Precaution to Protect Men on Rimrock Road asked by Employees," Daily Sentinel, 16 December
1933.

“Haywood, Report on Fata] Accident, pp. 1-3.

67


from Grand Junction” could be built to access the park.’* Because the Colorado River
separated the Colorado National Monument from Grand Junction, a bridge would serve several
purposes. For residents of Grand Junction, a bridge would provide an easier route to the
Colorado National Monument. For Glade Park residents, the bridge would create an easier
route to the Grand Valley.

Transportation to the park was important, but the report’s geologic descriptions
reinforced the original purpose of the park. The name "Monument Park" derived from the
presence of the “great monoliths of sandstone” in the Monument and Shackleton canyons.
The most imposing of these monoliths, Independence Rock, was described as follows: "500 feet
high, 250 feet. long and 100 feet wide at the base” with a cap rock resembling "a gigantic rock
like the hat on a man, it forms one of the features of the entire Park."* The Liberty Cap,
another of the monoliths, was not as large as Independence Rock, but showed "the wonderful
effect of Time’s Erosion upon the massive beds of sandstone." Finally, the report explained
that the "magnificent views” from the rim rocks afforded views of the Grand Valley a "thousand
or more feet below and extending for about thirty miles."*’ After it described agricultural
lands deemed unnecessary "to preserve the monuments," the report made its recommendation:

In view of the above facts, we therefore recommend with the approval of M.D.
McEniry, Chief of Field Division, that the following sections be immediately set aside
by proclamation of the President under provisions of Section 2 of the Act of June 8,
1906 (Chapter 3060), to be known as the Monument National Park, and that proper steps
be taken for the management and care of the same: embracing 13,967.22 acres,
according to the Government Survey, exclusive of Sections 31 and 32, Tp. 1 S.,R. 1
W. Ute Meridian, which have not been subdivided and contain approximately 1280
acres, making 15,247.22 in all.

Not long after this report was submitted, a controversy over naming the park developed.
The Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce suggested "Hooper National Park" in honor of
Major S.K. Hooper, who for 30 years had served as the head of the passenger department for

“bid.

“According to Kania’s John Otto of Colorado National Monument, this canyon was also known as
Chackleton Canyon. Kania’s book features an early article in the Daily Sentinel which indicates that John Otto
took people up to a point where they could view both Monument and Chackleton Canyons simultaneously.
Former Chief Ranger Hank Schoch stated that only Devils Canyon (not part of Colorado National Monument)
or possibly Lizard Canyon could be viewed simultaneously with Monument Canyon. Clearly
Shackleton/Chackleton was renamed, but it is not known when this occurred or which of the canyons acquired a
new name. See Kania, John Otto of Colorado National Monument, p. 6.

Report, Duer and Golden, Mineral Inspectors to President Taft, 25 February 1911, p. 4.
“Ibid., pp. 4-5.
“Tbid., p. 5.
“Tbid., pp. 7-9.
28



to take matters into their own hands. In July, 1919, G.F. Hinton approached the Mesa County
commissioners with a petition signed by 60 residents of Glade Park who offered nearly $800 for
the construction of a road. Clearly not interested in the proposal, the commissioners did not
address the road idea until July, 1920, when Glade Park residents submitted yet another
petition. This time, however, the residents stated that they would furnish $5200 for the
construction. The county agreed to this, provided that it was not obligated to begin the road
until the money was raised.”*

A series of meetings between the county commissioners and local residents led to the
eventual construction of a road, that probably began where construction on the original Glade
Park Road had ended. In September, 1920, Glade Park rancher and engineer Bruce Claybaugh
agreed to survey No Thoroughfare Canyon’s road-building potential. Otto met with the county
commissioners to suggest his Union Trail as a possible route. Eventually, the commissioners
requested that Claybaugh survey both No Thoroughfare and the Union Trail. In November, the
commissioners advertised bids for road construction on both routes. No one responded to the
advertisement until December, and even then, only two contractors submitted bids. Contractor
W. Wear proposed to construct the road for two dollars per cubic yard of material, while J.S
Shaw stated that he could build the road for an overall sum of $14,500, or for one-and-a-third
dollars per cubic yard of material. On December 10, the county awarded the contract to J.S.
Shaw.7°

Even though it hired Shaw, the county still insisted that Glade Park raise $5200, or its
equivalent in escrow, before construction began. In January Glade Park residents collected
$5,375, and promised an additional $200 to $300. In February, the county directed the road
supervisor to assemble a volunteer work force from Glade Park.”” The county worked on the
lower end of the proposed road and the ranchers started work in the higher elevations.”* The
road itself wound through difficult terrain:

The man who does not understand engineering may well take off his hat to the engineer
who has the possibility of an auto road to such a spot. It is about 300 ft. straight up in
the air from the bottom to the rimrock and underneath the foot there is nothing but solid
rock with great canons on either side.’®

Local volunteers proceeded to work on the road. Work on the road was carried out by
local volunteers. A “gang of men” under the direction of Claybaugh began blasting despite
concerns about the route’s difficulty. Claybaugh dismissed these concerns by stating that most

Tom Hutchins, "A History of the Glade Park Road Controversy," Fruita Times, 3 October 1984, p. 29.
TMTbid., p. 32.

Ibid.

"New Glade Park Road," Daily Sentinel, 13 January 1921.

Ibid.



@ Commissioners."*! Wilkenson stated that he had been unable to reach any agreement with the

county regarding its position on the case. He also promised to supply the court with a copy of

the August 1982 county commissioner’s meeting with Glade Park residents, which in his
opinion reflected the county’s intent to join the case.”

Mesa County’s involvement in the lawsuit officially began in August of 1982, when it
made the decision to sue the Park Service over the issue of access to Glade Park.TM In
September, County Commissioner Rick Enstrom and Pueblo land use lawyer Eric Damian Kelly
facilitated a meeting with Glade Park residents to determine the local perspective on the history
of Rim Rock Drive. What they discovered at this meeting was that local contribution to the
construction of Serpents Trai] and Rim Rock Drive had been significant. During the meeting
Enstrom expressed some typically anti-government sentiments:

We’ve got one recourse to find out whose road that is and | think you all believe as we
do that it’s a county road. He who has the most information at that court case is going
to get that road. I intend for that to be the citizens of Mesa County.TM

In December 1982, Mesa County filed a summons and complaint against the National
Park Service in U.S. District Court in Denver. The county’s suit reflected the eight years it
spent fighting the Park Service over commercial vehicle use on Rim Rock Drive. Represented
by Eric Damian Kelly, the county requested that escort costs for use of the road be eliminated,
and that restrictions on commercial vehicles be lifted. The county based its suit on the belief
that Rim Rock Drive was “part of the county network” of roads.’ Because the Park Service
e@ had once allowed “free and unrestricted access to Glade Park," the county did not believe that
the Park Service should have changed that policy simply because Rim Rock Drive was opened.
They suggested that an easy solution was to move the East Entrance station to the Glade Park
cutoff, or simply return to trust the word of residents traveling to Glade Park. They stated that
they were not going to join Wilkenson because “the suit is a complex one and Wilkenson is
acting as his own lawyer." Ironically, when the Park Service first enacted its affidavit
policy, the county provided tax rolls to park officials to aid in verifying property claims of
Glade Park residents wishing to use the road.*”

“Ibid., p. 2.
“Ibid.
"It's Official: County to Sue Park Service,” Daily Sentinel, 18 August 1982.

“Minutes of County Commissioners’ Meeting with Glade Park Residents Regarding the Possible Rim Rock
Drive Lawsuit, 7 September 1982.

*Mary Louise Giblin, "County Sues Park Service on Glade Park Access Fee," Daily Sentinel, 27 December
1982.

*“Tbid.
@ “Henry A. Schoch, Telephone interview by Lisa M. Schoch, 27 April 1994.

109


Under instructions of Chief Field Division, while in Grand Junction in October 1913, I
made an examination of the Colorado National Monument, interviewed John Otto, the
caretaker, and have the honor to report that since the establishment of this monument by
proclamation May 24, 1911, practically nothing has been done there.”

Nothing had been done, because at that time there was no single agency to administer
the national parks. When the Colorado National Monument was established in 1911, different
government agencies, including the General Land Office and the War Department administered
national park lands. Consequently, a consistent park policy failed to emerge. This made it easy
for each Secretary of the Interior—who exercised ultimate authority over each park—to
implement his own agenda. Inconsistent park policy eventually inclined park advocates to push
for the organization of an agency that assured a standard of regulations for all parks.» The
Antiquities Act of 1906 frustrated attempts to administer national monuments in any uniform
manner. Instead of assigning one agency to administer all national monuments, Congress
simply left the parks under the authority of the bureaus originally in control of those areas. In
1911, of the 28 national monuments, 13 were administered by the Forest Service, and 15 were
under the auspices of the Department of the Interior. As a result, many national monuments,
such as the one in Colorado, suffered from inadequate and poor management.TM

Unfortunately, even after the National Park Service Act was signed in August, 1916 by
Woodrow Wilson, the status of national monuments remained the same. The Park Service was
a “separate government agency committed solely to park management and protection,"** This
meant that it remained under the control of the Department of the Interior but that the Secretary
of the Interior no longer had direct control over each park. Many national monuments,
however, were still left under the authority of the Forest Service and the War Department until
the 1930s. This, along with the fact that the newly established Park Service had only a
$20,000 appropriation with which to work, aggravated any local attempts to develop the
national monuments.”

Between 1911 and 1927, the chamber of commerce, the county, and other local sources
had invested $40,000-$45,000 in the Colorado National Monument. This included financing
road proposals, the purchase of elk and bison for the game preserve, and subsidizing Otto’s

Letter, Connotly to Commissioner General Land Office, 22 November 1913.

Alfred Runte, National Parks: The American Experience, 2d ed., (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press,
1987), p. 97.

TMIbid., pp. 97-98.
*Ibid., pp. 95-96.
TMbid., p. 102.

*'Jenks Cameron, The National Park Service. Its History, Activities, and Organizations (New York: D.
Appleton & Company, 1922), p. 43.

45


. For the Construction of a National Road from Grand Junction, Colorado, to and through @
the Colorado National Monument, 62d Congress., 1st sess., H.R. 11379 (8 June 1911).

Congress. Senate. Committee on Public Lands. Grant of Certain Lands to Fruita, Colo.. 59th Cong.,
Ist sess., 1906. Report No. 3620.

Federal Register (13 February 1972) Vol. 37, No. 31.

. (14 March 1982) Vol. 47, No. 52.

Secretary of Interior. Boundary Revision. "National Park Service Colorado National Monument."
Federal Register (19 January 1978) vol. 43, no. 20, 4310-10.

U.S. President. Proclamation. “Colorado National Monument, Establishment, Proclamation 1126."
Statutes at Large (24 May 1911) Vol. 37.

. Proclamation. "A Proclamation by the President of the United States." Statutes at Large,
(3 March 1933) Vol. 47.

U.S. Department of the Interior/National Park. "Resource /Boundary Evaluation for Lands Adjacent
to Colorado National Monument Colorado" Draft, September 1989.

_ e
United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Topographic Map of the Colorado
National Monument Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series, 1962, revised 1973.

Theses, Dissertations

Berger, Merton. "The Development of Fruita and the Lower Valley of the Colorado River From 1884
to 1937." M.A. thesis, University of Colorado, 1937.

Cawley, R. McGreggor. "The Sagebrush Rebellion.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Colorado State University,
1981. .

Interviews

Albers, Maxine. Interview by Lisa M. Schoch, 20 August 1992, Grand Junction, Colorado,

Benton, Robert. Telephone interview by Lisa M. Schoch, 23 January 1994.

Ela, Lucy. Interview by Sally Crum, 25 March 1976. Transcript, Oral History Collection, Colorado
National Monument Museum and Archive Collection.

.._Files, Loyd. Interview by Lisa.M. Schoch, 19 August.1992, Grand Junction,_

Colorado. ae . @ |

130



of the work would be done on sandstone that yielded easily to dynamite. The total estimated
cost of the road was $12,000." All of the work on the road—drilling, blasting, rock
hauling—was done by hand.” The county formally organized the Glade Park ranchers and
paid them $2.50 a day until April, when poor economic conditions forced wages down to 40
cents a day. The final cost of the road was $3,165, which the county paid to J.S. Shaw in July,
1921.7

Known as the Serpents Trail, the road was significant for a number of reasons. With its
52 switchbacks, the physical reality of the road was awesome.” It was 19 feet wide, with
toom for two cars to pass, and only one blind tum. By 1925, when it was done, hundreds of
people had driven up and down its winding "serpentine" path.TM At this time, only the upper
2'A-mile portion of the road lay within park boundaries; the rest of the road was eventually
considered a county route.

The Serpents Trail, like most of the early road proposals, served a dual purpose. It was
used twice a year by Glade Park ranchers as a stock driveway to Grand Junction, and as a
general transportation route between Glade Park and Grand Junction. The road considerably
shortened the distance between the Pinon Mesa/Glade Park region and the stockyards in Grand
Junction. To Otto and the future of the Colorado National Monument, however, the Serpents
Trail was more than just a county road. It represented the first successful attempt to make the
wonders of the park accessible to visitors. Otto already envisioned that the Serpents Trail
would continue “around all the rims of the various canons of the Colorado National Monument
and beyond."TM Neither Otto nor local residents could envision, however, that this narrow
road would cause the trouble it did once the park was fully developed, and community needs
shifted.

Additionally, the construction of Serpents Trail shaped local perceptions of the National
Park Service. Even though a portion of it ran through the national monument, the road was
entirely funded by private and county dollars. The Park Service contributed nothing to this
project. Consequently, local residents felt that the Park Service was not doing its part to
develop the park, which was true. W.M Wood of the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce

=Ibid.

Loyd Files, Interview by Lisa M. Schoch, 19 August 1992, Grand Junction.
Hutchins, “A History of the Glade Park Controversy;" p. 32.

TMSee Figures 3.1 and 3.2.

Kania, John Otto of Colorado National Monument, p. 93.

Memorandum, Breyton Finch, 21 September 1946.

=Kania, John Otto of Colorado National Monument, pp. 91, 93.

41


Figure 4.8. Half-Tunnel site after the December 12, 1933 accident. Colorado National
Monument Museum and Archive Collection.

In the meantime, Congressman Taylor received a telegram on December 15 from Robert
N. Moreland, the father of one of the accident victims. Moreland requested another
investigation, which Taylor assured him had been ordered by the Park Service.“ E.B.
Rogers, then superintendent of Rocky Mountain National Park, carried out the second
investigation. On December 21, he met with local officials, including the chamber of
commerce, the district attorney, the county certifying officer for CWA, and workers in the
park. He concluded that the community generally agreed that the accident was unavoidable and
that local residents still had faith in Secrest’s abilities as supervisor of the road project. The
workmen, however, were critical of W. Liddle, the foreman in charge of the workers involved
in the accident, and C.E. McEwan, the explosives foreman. Finally, Rogers concluded that the
controversy about the accident had been needlessly kept alive by people who were not directly
involved in'the incident, and that for the most part, the situation was finally settling down.’

The Half-Tunnel accident established a lasting connection between the road project and
surrounding communities. Because only local men were killed, the accident was an especially
sensitive issue. Nevertheless, the accident indicated that local interest in the park was still
strong, and that the Park Service considered community support of the road project necessary.
Congressman Taylor’s intervention on behalf of Robert Moreland, which resulted in a second

"Investigation by Competent Engineer,” Daily Sentinel, ca, 15 December 1933.
“Letter, E.B. Rogers to Director National Park Service, 27 December 1933.

70



both thé Fruita Canyon road (the old Dugway) and the Serpents Trail. When confronted with @
this, sheepmen responded that they had used these roads for 30 years.” By 1940, a
“consistent, determined effort” was made to eliminate the running of stock across the
Monument. Monument officials worked with the Grazing Service to prevent further problems

with stockmen. Nevertheless, on several occasions throughout the year, fines were assessed for
breaking park regulations and for violating “trail permits” issued by the Grazing Service.

The attitude of local ranchers had not changed much since Otto’s custodianship. As a result,

it was difficult for current superintendents to implement new rules. Inefficiencies in early park
management allowed many violations to go unchecked, so that when new regulations were
enforced, local ranchers simply reverted to their old ways.

The Monument under James Luther’s superintendency experienced many challenges to
Park Service regulations. The major source of these challenges involved the newly opened Rim
Rock Drive, and the use of the park by local residents. Before he left the Monument near the
end of 1940, Luther initiated regular patrols of the road. In March 1940 alone, 19 patrol trips
were made over the Rim Rock Drive.® Fee collection also became an’ issue during Luther's
custodianship. On May 12, 1939, he used enrollees to collect fees. from “cars, trailers, and
motorcycles” who passed through headquarters 7 A.M. to 9 P.M. daily. Luther was instructed
to pass without charge anyone he knew to be a resident of the Glade Park-Pinyon Mesa region
whose sole access to their homes was over the Rim Rock Drive. ‘The same policy was afforded
Grand Valley residents with farming or stock interests in Glade Park. At that time,
preferential treatment of local residents seemed the best way to balance fee collection for park
use and residential traffic to Glade Park via Rim Rock Drive. In an effort to maintain good r
relations or just for the sake of convenience, Luther implemented an open-ended fee policy that
was bound to create conflicts once the population of that region became too large for park
officials to recognize. Luther’s efforts to maintain a cooperative relationship with local
residents extended into other areas as well. He even attended the monthly’ Mesa County
Coordinating Committee meetings in order to keep abreast of community activities and
needs.”

Between 1941 and 1942, the Monument underwent yet another series of administrative
changes. In January 1941, the new custodian, ranger Breyton Finch, arrived at the park to
replace Luther. Like Luther, Finch was conscientious of local opinion, He not only attended

“James Luther, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative for Colorado Nationa] Monument for April 1938"
(Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1 May 1938), p. 4.

“James Luther “Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for April
1940* (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1 May 1940), p. 2.

“James Luther, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for March
1940" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 8 April 1940).

“Memorandum for the Director by Jesse L. Nusbaum, 27 May 1939.
Luther, “Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report Colorado National Monument for April 1940," p. 2. @

80


from Grand Junction to Montrose.’* The county commissioners and Grand Valley automobile
owners backed the Midland Trail (today’s I-70), the desert route from Grand Junction to Utah
that competed with Otto’s Union Trail. In 1912, a portion of the Midland Trail from Mack to
Utah was completed, thus eliminating the Grand Valley’s isolation from the rest of the
country.”

Other road proposals were less dramatic in scope. Citizens of Fruita met in December,
1911, to discuss the possibility of building a better road from Fruita to Glade Park for the
purpose of generating business relations with that area. In April, 1912, Glade Park residents
petitioned the county commissioners for a "road through No Thoroughfare Canyon and also
submitted a survey showing the location of the road.""’ Glade Park was still working to find
a better route to Grand Junction on which to drive cattle and transport farm goods. In
December 1912, Otto joined the effort to construct a road to Glade Park, when he, John G.
McKinney, and William C. Hermann formed the Colorado River Auto Transportation and Toll
Road Company. Its purpose was to "build, construct, operate, and maintain a toll road" from
Grand Junction, through No Thoroughfare Canyon, and up the rim rocks toward Glade Park.”

Developing transportation in the Grand Valley was intertwined with the effort to build
a scenic road through the Colorado National Monument, a fact that became problematic as the
park developed, and as the communities grew and their needs changed. Due to its location, the
Monument was a natural thoroughfare between Grand Junction and Glade Park, so it was
logical to build roads that served both as scenic routes for the park and as access to the Grand

Valley.

The original promoters of the Monument—Representative Taylor, John Otto, and the
Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce—were instrumental in working to build a road through
the park. Taylor introduced a bill on June 8, 1911, “for the construction of a National Road
from Grand Junction, Colorado to and through the Colorado National Monument."*
Although the bill did not pass, it requested an appropriation of $20,000 for the construction of

**McCreanor, Mesa County, Colorado, p. 24.

“Kania, John Otto of Colorado National Monument, pp. 79, 85; McCreanor, Mesa County, Colorado, p.
24. .

TM*Eruita After a Road from Glade Park," Daily Sentinel, 6 December 1911.

"Mesa County, Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners, Book 5, 1 April 1912, p. 86, Mesa
County Courthouse, Grand Junction, Colorado.

“Kania, John Otto of Colorado National Monument, p. 79.

John Otto, John G. McKinney, and William C. Hermann, “Articles of Incorporation of the Colorado
River Auto Transportation and Toll Road Company,” 12 December 1912, pp. 1-2.

“"UJ.S. Congress, House, For the Construction of a National Road from Grand Junction, Colorado, to and
through the Colorado National Monument, 624 Congress., Ist sess., H.R. 11379 (8 June 1911).

35


Wilkenson, he felt that "it was somewhat of a compromise." The judge’s decision centered
on the issue of right-of-way. Wilkenson thought that the decision should have focused on the
regulations and statutes. Even though the regulations clearly stated that the Park Service could
not collect recreational fees for nonrecreational use, Park Service employees proceeded to
collect anyway. In his opinion, the overall issue, that of “government disobedience to the law*

.was never addressed. In addition, Wilkenson contended that he should be compensated for

the time he spent on the case. Judge Matsch disagreed.*

By November, the road controversy had officially ended. The Park Service’s decision
not to appeal Matsch’s ruling contributed to the finality of the situation. Jim Harpster, the
Rocky Mountain Regional Chief of Public Affairs, cited several possible reasons for the Park
Service’s decision:

I can only assume that the question of whether to appeal hinged on the likelihood of
success and the impact of the ruling as issued by Judge Matsch, as well as the legal
correctness of that ruling. | think there’s a tangible here; the desire of the park and the
park staff to be recognized as good neighbors to the people of the community.”

Perhaps Harpster’s assessment was accurate. The Monument’s history indicates that
local involvement was important to the park’s early development. As the administration of the
Monument shifted, park managers were careful to maintain good relations with local residents,
civic organizations, and government officials. The road controversy, however, illustrates that
park officials did not base their decisions on the needs of the local community, but on the needs
of the park itself. The Monument’s early fee policy, toward Glade Park residents was based on
good faith. It was never an institutionalized policy. An increase in Glade Park’s population,
and abuse of the fee policy prompted the Park Service’s implementation of a new system.
Unfortunately, changes in policy were perceived as arbitrary and inconsistent by local residents
who had a heightened sense of their past contribution to the park. This contribution, and the
simple proximity of the Monument initiated a strong local influence on park policy—an
influence that former Superintendent Huffman identifies as both important and somewhat
unavoidable.”

A more viable reason for the Park Service’s reluctance to appeal Matsch’s decision was
political in nature. The lawsuit and the eventual decision took place during the presidency of
Ronald Reagan. His choice of James Watt as secretary of the interior in 1980 reflected a

John Wilkenson, Interview by Lisa M. Schoch, 17 August 1992.
"Ibid.
“Ibid.

Quoted by Bob Silbernagel, "Government Drops Glade Park Appeal,” Daily Sentinel, 21 November 1986,
p. IB.

Dennis Huffman, Telephone interview by Lisa M. Schoch, 6 February 1994.

121


issued a second version of the application that did not include the aforementioned section.
Whether the language was removed to mollify local residents is not known.

Wilkenson also believed that the Park Service lacked the authority to control free public
access over Rim Rock Drive. His argument was based on his belief that section 1227.3 of
Title 36 prohibits the Park Service from collecting recreational fees for nonrecreational
purposes. For Glade Park residents, accessing their homes was considered “non-recreational,”
since they were not using any of the park’s facilities. Park Service officials, on the other
hand, explained that they would continue to collect entrance fees in accordance with the Land
& Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 as amended, and with applicable sections of Title 36
Code of Federal Regulations.*® Yet, they made it very clear that they did not require Glade
Park residents to pay any fees. Instead they wanted residents to simply sign the affidavits.

Wiikenson’s references to federal regulations indicated that the regulations themselves
were easily misinterpreted. The Park Service, however, staunchly upheld these rules. Parts
one through seven of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations is the framework “used by the
National Park Service to protect the natural and cultural resources of the parks and to protect
visitors and property within the parks."*" More specifically, parts one through six are general
tegulations for all park areas, while part seven includes special regulations that often serve to
supplement the general rules. Revisions in these regulations occurred in 1966 and in 1980 in
response to widespread changes in the National Park system. The revisions were also made in
order to simplify the regulations for the public.*? Wilkenson focused his attention on Section
6, "Miscellaneous Fees: Recreation Fees; Entrance and User Fees.” He specifically pointed to
the section about fee exemptions to support his claims.

On the surface, Wilkenson seemed to exhibit the characteristics of a "Sagebrush rebel."
Initially, however, he was not anti-government. He wanted the government to be accountable
for its mistakes. One of Wilkenson’s first actions against the Park Service was his refusal to
cooperate with the new fee policy. Case reports for the summer of 1981 kept by fee collectors
and law enforcement officers at the Monument indicate that he would not pay or submit to an
affidavit on numerous occasions.” As a result he was issued citations under Section 6.5 of

“Letter, John R. Wilkenson to Henry Schoch, Chief Ranger, and Dennis Huffman, Superintendent, 4 June
1981.

Letter, John Wilkenson to Henry Schoch, Chief Ranger, and Dennis Huffman, Superintendent, 18 June
1981.

“Letter, Henry Schoch, Chief Ranger, to John R. Wilkenson, 22 June 1981.

“Federal Register (14 March 1982) Vol. 47, No. 52, p. 11598.

“Ibid.

“Raymond Skiles, Supplementary Case/Incident Record, Colorado National Monument, 25 August 1981.

105


of numerous events occurring simultaneously throughout the duration of the suite: Wilkenson’s @
civil suit in Federal District Court (81-M-1825) filed in December 1981, the criminal case
against Wilkenson (81-CR-210) filed in August 1981, the consolidation of those two cases in
February 1982, an additional criminal case against those involved in the June 1983 protest (83-
CR-388), and Mesa County’s civil case (82-Z-2171) in December 1982.

Black suggested that the best solution to the trial delay was to consolidate all criminal
and civil cases, since they all dealt with essentially the same issue—"the authority of the Park
Service_to regulate Rim Rock Drive."*” The county’s lawyer, Eric Kelly, agreed to the _
proposal, with the stipulation that the "case can be structured so that the board and the other
plaintiffs in this case remain separate from the criminal defendants."** Kelly stated at that

time that the county “abhorred” the "tactics" of Wilkenson.”

Wilkenson did not favor Black’s proposal; instead, he felt that the criminal cases should
be tried first, and then the civil cases. He felt so strongly that he issued an official response
to the defendants’ “proposal for the orderly litigation of issues." In Wilkenson’s opinion, the
"logjam" was not attributable to what Assistant United States District Attorney Bruce Black
referred to as the “delay in procedural requirements of the criminal and civil processes,” but to
the "continuing bad faith of the civil defendants."*' The basis of Wilkenson’s argument was
that the Park Service displayed a “contempt for justice, the Constitution, the law, and this Court
by their ongoing efforts to misstate the truth and deceive the Court." Along with his usual
accusations against the Park Service, Wilkenson also pointed out that "the Glade Park Access
controversy is a no-win situation for the civil defendants” since “everyone in Mesa County r ]
knows it is not a crime to drive between Grand Junction and Glade Park over the road segment

“Tbid., p. 3.

“Tpid., pp. 7-8.

“Mary Louise Giblin, "Lawyers Want Merger in Glade Park Road Case,” Daily Sentinel, 14 January 1984.

“Thid.

“Ibid.

“John R. Wilkenson, "Response to Civil Defendants/Criminal Plaintiff's Motion for Order to Restructure;
and Response to Summons in 83-CR-388; and Civil Plaintiff's/Criminal Defendant's Counter Proposal for the
Orderly Litigation of the Issues" in United States District Court for the District of Colorado, 19 December
1983, p. 1, in John R. Wilkenson v. Department of the Interior of the United States, et al. (Case no. 81-M-

1825); United States of America v. John R. Wilkenson (Case no. 81-CR-210); United States of America v. John
R. Wilkenson (Case no. 83-CR-388); Board of County Commissioners of Mesa County, Colorado, et al. v.

114



Stating that: "The right of way for the construction of highways over public land, not reserved
for public uses, is hereby granted."** Matsch thought that the "difference between concepts
of a right of way” was at the center of the case. The plaintiffs understood right-of-way to mean
“access to the land for the purpose of traversing it,” while the defendants believed that “a right-
of-way for a public highway must be limited to a constructed roadway over a reasonably
definite and specific route."** Matsch discussed the history of each segment of Rim Rock
Drive, and denied the defendants’ claim that the 1959 Serpents Trail vacation order did not have
any “legal significance” to the present case.” Stating that it had to be considered in context,
he said that although the Serpents Trail was abandoned, it must have been the understanding of
the county commissioners at that time that they could still use the Rim Rock Drive (often
referred to as the New Serpents Trail) as a travel route.TM

Once Matsch established that a public right-of-way existed, the other elements of the
case, such as fee collection and the commercial vehicle issue, were quickly resolved. In his
analysis of fee policy, Judge Matsch: questioned whether an entrance fee should have been
collected from people who were only interested in using Rim Rock Drive to access Glade Park.
The Park Service responded that the collection of fees was part of its effort to raise revenue,
and that entrance fees are collected in national parks regardless of the intent of the person
entering the park. Matsch concluded, however, that the legislation dictating fee collection
specifically excluded both commercial traffic and other nonrecreational activities and that the
Park Service misinterpreted those statutes.”

In his assessment of the commercial vehicle issue, Matsch stated that, while there was
a “rational basis for the regulation” regarding commercial vehicle restrictions, the Park Service
"misapplied their own regulation."* Based on the evidence, Matsch determined that Rim
Rock Drive was the only all-weather access to Glade Park and Pifion Mesa and that it was
"wholly impracticable” to daily assess the condition of Little Park Road. Matsch decided that,
because the court already recognized the public right-of-way in that region, the Park Service’s
imposition of commercial vehicle restrictions was “contrary to the public’s right-of-way."
Right of access, according to the Matsch, applied to commercial traffic as much as it did to
Glade Park residents.”

“Ibid., p. 12.
"Ibid.

*Tpid., p. 18.
*Tbid.

*[bid., pp. 21-26.
*Ibid., p. 30.
*pid., 31-31.
*Did., p. 30.

119


Look, Al. “Who Was John Otto?" [photocopy]. Museum of Western Colorado Manuscripts, F-675,
Al Look Manuscripts, Grand Junction, Colorado.

Mintzmyer, Lorraine, Regional Director Rocky Mountain Region. "Briefing Statement: Escort Service
Colorado National Monument," 29 September 1980.

Minutes of County Commissioners Meeting with Glade Park Residents Regarding the Possible Rim
Rock Drive Lawsuit, 7 September 1982.

Moore, Catherine S. "Original History of Glade Park, 1962" [photocopy]. Museum of Western
Colorado Manuscripts, F-886 Progress of Glade Park, Grand Junction, Colorado. :

National Park Service Message Record, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, 9 January 1980.

Jensen, Dave. National Park Service Message Record Phone Call to Dennis Huffman, 23 September
1980.

. National Park Service Message Record Phone Call to Dennis Huffman, Superintendent, 24
December 1980.

News Aids--Warnings. Published by the Chamber of Commerce of Grand Junction, Colorado. Grand
Junction: Chamber of Commerce, 15 December 1932,

Nisley, Frank. Appraisal of Present Market Value of Fruita Pipeline property, 2-3.
Otto, John. Flier of Regulations, Colorado National Monument, no date.

Otto, John, John G. McKinney, and William C. Hermann. "Articles of Incorporation of the Colorado
* River Auto Transportation and Toll Road Company." 12 December 1912.

Phipps, Lawrence. "Improve Colorado National Monument," Washington Weekly Newsletter, 10
March 1928.

Randall, Bob. Case Incident Record. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 9 April
1979.

Schoch, Henry. "Narrative of Events: Protest at East Entrance Colorado National Monument," 5 June
1983. :

. "News Release, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service," 19 May 1983.

Supplementary Case/Incident Record, Colorado National Monument, submitted by Raymond Skiles,
25 August 1981. :

Wilkenson, John. “Legal Notice Attention Colorado National Monument Employee,” 24 July 1983.

143


r . "Response to Civil Defendants/Criminal Plaintiff's Motion for Order to Restructure; and
Response to Summons in 83-CR-388; and Civil Plaintiff’s/Criminal Defendant’s Counter Proposal

for the Orderly Litigation of the Issues" in United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, 19 December 1983. John R. Wilkenson v. Department of the Interior of the United
States, et al. (Civil Action No. 81-M-1825); United States of America v. John R. Wilkenson
{Criminal Case No. 81-CR-210); United States of America v. John R. Wilkenson (Criminal Case
No. 83-CR-388); Board of County Commissioners of Mesa County, Colorado, et al. v. James
Watt, et al. (Civil Action No. 82-M-2171). .

"Trial Brief of Board of County Commissioners, et al,” 21 August 1984, Filed in the U.S. District
Court, District of Colorado. Board of County Commissioners of Mesa County, Colorado et al. v.
James Wait et al. (Civil Action No. 82 M 2171) and John R. Wilkenson v. Department of the
Interior of the United States et al. (Civil Action No. 81 M 1825).

147


A Classic Western Quarrel:
A History of the Road Controversy at
Colorado National Monument

by

Lisa Schoch-Roberts

U.S. Department of the: Interior
National Park Service
Intermountain Region

Denver, Colorado
1997


! @ , Secretary Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce. Telegram to National Park Service, 6
October 1932.

, Secretary Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce. Letter to A.R. Nowels, 29 May 1936.
, Secretary of Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce. Letter to Senator Lawrence Phipps,
13 December 1928.
Newspaper Articles

(Unless otherwise indicated all newspaper articles are part of the Alan Kania Research Materials or
lawsuit records located in the Colorado National Monument Museum and Archive Collection.)

"2500 Available For Scenic Road in National Monument West of City," November 1930. Photocopy,
National Archives Record Group 79, Colorado National Monument Museum and Archive
Collection.

"Almost Sure To Get a Park." Daily Sentinel, 23 May 1910.

“Alternate Road Plan Outlined for Glade Park." Daily Sentinel, 14 November 1979.

“Another Old Timer, Trail of the Serpent, Gets Retirement Papers after 28 Scary Years." Daily
e@ Sentinel, 18 April 1950.

Associated Press. "Agency Set to Battle For Lands.” Daily Sentinel, 7 November 1989.

“Biographical Sketch of Congressman Edward T. Taylor, 4th District of Colorado." Montrose Daily
Press, 27 October 1926. Clipping file. Colorado Historical Society.

"Can Raise $1500 for Park Road." Daily Sentinel, 18 December 1916.

“Commercial Vehicle Regulation Established at National Monument." Fruita Times, 13 June 1974.
“County Investigates Glade Park Access." Daily Sentinel, 25 September 1979,

"County Officials Term Road Damage Major." Daily Sentinel, 11 March 1980.

"County Seeks Congress Aid on Monument Road." Daily Sentinel, January 1980.

Crowell, T. Michael. "Monument Gate Crashers Face Citations." Daily Sentinel, 26 July 1983.
"Do Not Approve Name of Park.” Daily Sentinel, 10 May 1911.

"Early Experiences in Life of the Great Grand Valley Trail Builder." Daily Sentinel, 7 June 1911.

"Endorsed For Custodian," Daily Sentinel, February 1927.

137



vehicle use, decrease use, or eliminate it altogether.” Four hundred copies of the assessment e@
were distributed to the community in the hopes that the regional director would make a decision
regarding the issue by September.” Park officials were surprised that "reaction from Glade

Park focuses on NPS rather than Mesa County.” Assuming that local residents were looking

to the county for improvements, the Park Service underestimated local frustration with the
federal government.

The Park Service preferred a combination of alternatives that included the complete
elimination of commercial traffic by January 1, 1982. Until 1982, any commercial vehicles
crossing the Monument would be required to provide theif own escorts. In addition, Mesa
County was expected to complete any extra improvements necessary on Little Park Road.
While the Park Service was unable to provide any financial assistance, it did encourage Mesa
County to apply for federal assistance. The Park Service alternative was deemed the most
advantageous to the park itself: "Damage to the resources will be lessened, air quality improved
and most pollution reduced. "*”

Local opposition to the Park Service alternative was prevalent, Numerous meetings
between the Park Service, Mesa County, and residents of Glade Park indicated that the
stagnancy of the situation had taken its toll on local patience. The county commissioners, after
assessing the Park Service’s authority to close the road, began to consider their alternatives,
which included construction of another road to Glade Park and pursuit of federal legislation that
would make that segment of Rim Rock Drive a county road.” One of the county’s biggest
obstacles, not surprisingly, was its budget. With nearly 500 miles of county roads to maintain,
and other road projects besides the Glade Park road to consider, County Commissioner Maxine
Albers expressed the local community’s lack of patience with the Park Service:

The county will never be in a position to finance the road. The feds need to finance it.
They caused the problem.

“Robert Benton, "Environmental Review and Selected Alternative Concerning Commercial Vehicle Use In
Colorado National Monument,” 24 August 1979.

“Robert Benton, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for July
1979" (Washington: U.S, Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 7 August 1979), p. 4.

Robert Benton, "“Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for June
1979” (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 5 July 1979), p. 4.

“Robert Benton, "Environmental Review and Selected Alternative. ..." 24 August 1979.

"County Investigates Glade Park Access," Daily Sentinel, 25 September 1979; "Alternate Road Plan
Outlined for Glade Park," Daily Sentinel, 14 November 1979.

“Mary Louise Giblin, "Lack of Funds Stopping Roads," Daily Sentinel, November 1979; "County Officials r
Term Road Damage Major," Daily Sentinel, 11 March 1980.

98



campaign urging local residents to “come here for the Monument Drive."* The chamber of
commerce estimated that in 1932 there were 18,000 visitors, and in 1933 there were 20,000 to
the Colorado National Monument. Estimates such as these convinced both the local community
and the National Park Service of the importance of continuing the road project.”

Support for the road project, however, extended beyond the chamber of commerce.
Grand Junction lawyer Samuel McMullin wrote to Congressman Taylor in early 1933,
expressing his appreciation for the road project’s influence on economic conditions in the Grand
Valley. He was especially impressed with T.W. Secrest’s work:

... he has exercised a great deal of care in giving local destitute people employment on

this work, going to the extent of staggering the work around so as to benefit the most

number of people. Unfortunate and destitute ranchmen have been enabled through this

work, to provide for the necessities in a considerable number and a good portion of the

expenditures have been for labor. This has resulted in helping the small storekeeper,

who is as necessary and needs as much assistance as anyone in these times.”

The Park Service also recognized the importance of the project, and appreciated the local
attitude toward it, as is evidenced in a letter from Horace Albright to Congressman Taylor in
early 1932:

Of course when we started this project this winter to help relieve conditions around
Grand Junction we did not expect to go into it on such a large scale although I knew that
we could not build roads in that country for the small amount of money which the local
people were claiming the road would cost. However, we have such splendid cooperation
from the local people and the road work has helped so tremendously in tiding men over
this winter that we have felt obligated to go along with it just as far as we possibly
could.”

From 1931 to 1933, the local role in land acquisition for the park indicated that in
addition to supporting the road project, local residents were also interested in expanding the
park. There were two instances in which acquisition of lands outside Monument boundaries
was deemed necessary to continue construction as planned. The first of these was the land
surrounding the Fruita water pipeline that ran through Fruita Canyon to several reservoirs on
Glade Park and provided the municipal water supply for Fruita. In late October, 1932, the
town of Fruita agreed to supply water to the Monument during the construction for an annual

*Letter, W.M. Wood, Secretary Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, to F.A. Kittredge, Chief Engineer
National Park Service, 16 February 1932.

Telegram, W.M. Wood, Secretary Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, to National Park Service, 6
October 1932; Telegram, W.M. Wood, Secretary Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, to A.B. Cammerer,
Director National Park Service, 5 October 1933.

Letter, Samuel G. McMullin to Edward T. Taylor, 13 January 1933.

“Letter, Horace Albright, Director National Park Service, to Edward T. Taylor, 16 March 1932.

58



Figure 3.2. Car ascending Serpents Trail. Colorado National Monument Museum and
Archive Collection.

Park Administration and Otto’s Ouster

The way in which the Colorado National Monument was administered increased
frustrations in local park promoters and in those local residents resistant to park regulations.
Otto, the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, and the National Park Service had
responsibility at one time or another for running the park. Nevertheless, it seemed as if the
local community actually administered the park, while the Park Service exercised an absentee
role in the park’s administration. Otto and the chamber of commerce inspired people to
contribute time and money for the park’s development, while the General Land Office and
eventually the National Park Service advised Otto and the chamber of commerce regarding law
enforcement, appropriations and the overall development of the park as a tourist attraction.
What emerged was the feeling that the local community, because of its tireless contribution to
the roads and other park projects, had eamed the right to a certain amount of authority over
park activities.

The dynamics between Otto, the chamber of commerce and the National Park Service
reveal that, during most of the "Otto Years," local desenchantment increased. As early as
1913, a report submitted to the General Land Office indicated that the park’s future did not look
bright:


Over the years, commercial vehicle use on Rim Rock Drive had taken many forms. In
March 1955 park officials, already alerted by uranium mining activity near the west boundary,
also became concerned by one mine company’s regular shipments of ore over Rim Rock
Drive.“ By 1960, Superintendent Bussey,’ concerned over damage incurred by heavy truck
use on Rim Rock Drive, established that vehicles going to Glade Park with a gross weight of
eight tons or more were required to enter and leave the east entrance.“* In 1963, Park Service
concern prompted officials to attend the annual picnic of Glade Park Pinyon Mesa Stockmen’s
Association to discuss the mutual problems associated with commercial trucking.“* In October
1963, a loaded three-decker semi-trailer stock truck obstructed a portion of Rim Rock for nearly
two hours when it overturned to avoid a passenger car, This ordeal convinced park officials
that commercial traffic was both dangerous and unsuited to Rim Rock’s narrow lanes and
numerous curves. Such large vehicles simply could not traverse the tight curves without
crossing the center line.”

Early policy toward commercial vehicle use was inconsistent and indicated that decision-
making at Colorado National Monument was weakened by its inclusion in the Curecanti Group.
In July 1972, Park Service officials in Washington directed the Superintendent of the Curecanti
Group, of which Colorado National Monument was a part, to reach an agreement with the
Commander of the Defense Nuclear Agency (Department of Defense) regarding the use of 4.8
miles of Rim Rock Drive from the east entrance to the Glade Park turnoff. This stretch of road
allowed the Department of Defense and its associate Mixed Company to access a nuclear test
site at Glade Park. Under the conditions of the agreement, the Park Service allowed the
Department of Defense to use the road, provided personnel to conduct inspections of the road,
kept records of road repair costs and billed the Department of Defense for those repairs. The
Department of Defense agreed to plan its deliveries of high explosives so as to avoid extensive
damage to the road, provided personnel to jointly inspect the road, notified the Park Service of
oversized loads and agreed not to cross Monument property without a Park Service escort. They
also agreed to reimburse the Park Service for repair costs. The terms of the agreement were
to extend until January 1974 barring any unexpected changes.“*

“Homer Robinson, “Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for
March 1955” (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 6 April 1955), p. 3.

"Junction Entrance to Monument to be in Operation by July 1," The Morning Sun, 20 June 1960.

“Fred Bussey, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for August
1963" (Washington: U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, 11 September 1963), p. 7.

“Fred Bussey, “Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for October
1963" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 12 November 1963), p. 2.

“Memorandum of Understanding Between the Superintendent, Curecanti Group, National Park Service,
Department of Interior, and the Commander, Field Command, Defense Nuclear Agency, Department of
Defense, For Use of Road in the Colorado National Monument, 1972. Note: It is not clear if the terms of the
contract were ever fulfilled. Other documentation regarding this agreement between the Department of Defense
and the National Park Service was not found.

93


300 signatures, it is not known to whom he submitted his proposal.” In June, Mesa County
Judge Walter Sullivan submitted a petition asking the Department of the Interior to "set aside
certain lands for a public park" in Mesa County.” Within a week, the petition was submitted
to the General Land Office in Montrose, Colorado for review. By mid-July, temporary
withdrawals for nine and a half sections of land had been approved by the General Land Office
in Washington, D.C.:

the vacant unappropriated public lands within the following described areas are
withdrawn from all forms of disposal under the public land Iaws, subject to all prior

valid adverse claims, for the proposed” Monument Canyon-National Monument or - - -
Park.”

On December 24, 1909, more land was temporarily withdrawn in accordance with public
land laws, "pending action by Congress to reserve the lands, with other lands withdrawn by this
Department on July 15, 1907, as a national park."” These land withdrawals encouraged local
promoters to focus on the park’s money-making potential. The Grand Junction City Charter of
1909, for instance, recognized the rewards of a national park in the area. It noted that "Grand
Junction has the national Monument Park, set apart by the Government and regarded as one of
the scenic wonders of the great West." .

Otto also promoted the Monument area with an energetic letter-writing campaign to the
local newspaper and government officials in Washington. Otto’s letters reveal that his
motivations for creating a national park fluctuated between the economic benefits and the
inspiring scenery. As early as 1909, he wrote to President Taft, inviting him to visit the Grand
Valley and the "Monument Park” as it was then called." Taft attended the Valley’s Peach
Festival in September 1909, but he made no further response regarding what Otto often referred
to as his "park proposition."°’ The majority of Otto’s letters were written to the editor of the
Daily Sentinel. One of these, dated October 17, 1910, revealed that the development of the
park was an economic venture that was important to the growth of the Grand Valley:

“AI Look, John Otto and the Colorado National Monument (Denver: Denver Westerners Inc., 1961}
reprint, Grand Junction: Sandstone Publishing Co., 1962), p. 25.

Letter, Walter Sullivan, Mesa County Judge, to Bryson P, Blair, 5 June 1907.

*Letter, Fred Bennett, Acting Commissioner, General Land Office to Register and Receiver, United States
Land Office, Montrose, Colorado, 15 July 1907.

*Letter, Fred Bennet, Commissioner General Land Office, to Senator Simon Guggenheim, 27 December
1909.

“The Charter of the City of Grand Junction, Colorado, p. 39.
"Oto Receives Letter From President Taft,” Daily Sentinel, 27 May 1909,
“Kania, John Otto of Colorado National Monument, p. 33.

18



Chapter Two

"The Nationalization of a Caiion":
The Local Park Movement: 1906-1911

anew phase between 1906 and 1911, when the park was finally established. During those years
individuals and organizations worked to set the area aside as a scenic attraction. Because the
National Park Service was not in existence until 1916, there was no federal agency to lobby for
the park’s creation. As a result, local efforts were necessary to establish the proposed
"Monument Park.”

The passage of the Antiquities Act in 1906 facilitated local park movements by providing
a legal mechanism for the creation of national monuments. In effect, it enabled the President
to protect unique scenic areas by proclamation. The idea of national monuments first appeared

in legislation introduced to protect archaeological ruins in the American Southwest. Widespread.

vandalism and “wholesale commercial looting” of ruins in places such as Mesa Verde
commenced soon after their discovery." Toward the end of the nineteenth century, the
Smithsonian Institution, the Bureau of American Ethnology, the Colorado Cliff Dwellers
Association, the Geological Survey, and the Office of Indian Affairs actively sought protection
against vandalism. Representative John F. Lacey of lowa, chairman of the House Public Lands
Committee, was instrumental in introducing and passing a number of bills concerning
conservation. While his early bills related to the protection of wildlife, he also pushed for the
protection of ruins. In 1900, Representative Jonathan Dolliver of lowa introduced a bill
authorizing the President, the Secretary of the Interior and the General Land Office
Commissioner to set aside, among other things, "monuments" for the purposes of “a public park
or reservation. "”

With the passage of the Antiquities Act on June 8, 1906, a new level of land use and
protection commenced. Emerging at a time when the idea of national parks was relatively new,
and the Park Service was not yet created, the Antiquities Act anticipated problems with people
either not familiar with, or simply not interested in, the idea of preserving land for park
purposes. Section one imposed a fine of $500 or a ninety-day prison term on anyone
responsible for the destruction of any "prehistoric ruin or monument or any object of antiquity”
on government land.” Section two enabled the President by proclamation to set aside land "to

“tse, Our National Park Policy, p. 145.
“Ibid., pp. 147, 149.
*An Act For the Preservation of American Antiquities, Statutes at Large, 34, sec. 1, 225 (1906).

14

Local interest and involvement in the area of the Colorado National Monument entered —



January 1978, 2,739.65 acres of land were added to the Monument.“ Symbolic of the park’s
renewal under Benton, the additional land also signified that the local community could still be
an important force in park development.

Between 1977 and 1979, Park Service concerns over the commercial vehicle issue
deepened. In 1978, an estimated 200 heavy vehicles used Rim Rock Drive; of those, 107 were
formally escorted by Park Service officials.“ In a meeting including Superintendent Benton,
Glade Park representatives, county commissioners, and state representative Bob Burford in
February 1978, the Mesa County Commissioners committed themselves to “accelerating” the
improvement of Little Park Road. Benton was particularly active in maintaining a dialogue with
Glade Park residents and Mesa County officials. One of his main goals was to ensure that
Mesa County would follow through on its promise to improve Little Park Road.

By 1979, it was evident that no amount of compromise would resolve the commercial
traffic issue any time soon. The Park Service aggressively worked to develop a policy that it
believed would please all those involved. When the Cougar Mining Company, which was part
of the W. W. Lang Company, approached the Monument about transporting shipments of
barium ore across Rim Rock Drive from a mine located near the Utah state line, the Park
Service denied the request until an assessment of the impacts could be made.“ In April 1979,
park officials conducted an experiment to support an environmental assessment that presented
alternatives to the use of commercial vehicles on Rim Rock Drive. They hired a belly dump-
truck from the local Com Construction Company to drive Little Park Road and assess its
potential as an access road. While Chief Ranger Hank Schoch videotaped the truck’s progress
on the road, Ranger Bob Randall rode in the truck. The driver of the truck determined that it
was better than most mining roads he had driven.*

In the summer of 1979, the Park Service finalized an environmental review and list of
four alternatives to the commercial vehicle issue: maintain the status quo, increase commercial

“Secretary of Interior, Boundary Revision, "National Park Service Colorado National Monument," Federal
Register (19 January 1978) vol. 43, no. 20, 4310-4311.

“Robert B. Kasparek, Henry A. Schoch, and Robert L. Randall, "Environmental Assessment: Commercial
Vehicle Use in the Colorado National Monument," Colorado National Monument, Rocky Mountain Regional
Office, United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, p. 1.

“Robert Benton, “Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for
February 1978" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 10 March 1978); Robert
Benton, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for August 1977"
(Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service 6 September 1977).

“Kasparek, Schoch, and Randail, "Environmental Assessment," p. 1.
“Bob Randall, Case Incident Record, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 9 April 1979.

97


to the Senate, where he served on mining, agriculture, forestry, conservation of natural
resources and public lands committees.” He was responsible for initiating two bills regarding
the Monument park. The first of these, “A Bill Creating the Monument National Park,” was
introduced on January 6, 1910 to the Public Lands Committee during the second session of the
61st Congress.’*

Although the bill did not pass, it outlined expectations for the development and
management of the park, and provided a definition of the park’s role as a public attraction. The
first section of the bill listed the 17,000 acres already withdrawn to be "set apart as a public
reservation or pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people."“ Section two”
of the bill stated that the “park shall be known as the Monument National Park."“* It would
be under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior who would establish and enforce the
tules for the area. The biil further stated that the Secretary could "grant leases for building
purposes," sections of land that might be necessary for the construction of buildings for visitors,
and that the revenues from such land leases would go toward "the construction of roads,
bridges, and bridle paths therein."“’ Section three outlined punishment for anyone found
guilty of destroying property within the park. The crime would be considered a misdemeanor
and if convicted, the defendant faced a fine of no more than $1000, a jail term of no more than
12 months, or both. Section four requested an appropriation of $20,000 for the purpose of
constructing "roads and bridges from Grand Junction, Colorado leading into and through the
said park.""’ Senator Guggenheim introduced the exact bill again on April 6, 1911, which
was, in turn, referred to the Senate Committee on Public Lands during the first session of the

62nd Congress.

Edward T.. Taylor’s involvement in the establishment of the Colorado National
Monument was important as well. First elected congressman for Colorado in 1908, Taylor was
re-elected in 1910 and 1912. For his first 12 years in office, he was a member of the House
Public Lands Committee and was involved in water rights issues in Colorado. He was also a
member of the Interior Department Subcommittee that appropriated money for the Interior
Department and all bureaus under its jurisdiction. These included the “public Domain,
reclamation projects, national parks, and all western matters,"‘*

‘¢"Former Senator of Colorado Dies,” Denver Post, 3 November 1941.

U.S. Congress, House, Creating the Monument National Park, 61st Congress, 2nd sess., S. 4934 (6
January 1910).

“Ibid.
“Tid.

“Tid., p. 3.
“Tbid., p. 3.

“Biographical Sketch of Congressman Edward T. Taylor, 4th District of Colorado," Montrose Daily
Press, 27 October 1926, 3. Courtesy Denver Public Library, Western History Department.

26



Wilkenson’s case against the Park Service was unusual for a number of reasons. In the
first place, he represented himself. Even before he filed his complaint in Mesa County District
Court, he advised Park officials that he was "quite capable" of representing himself.” Yet,
this caused some problems for Wilkenson. Because he was not formally trained as a lawyer,
many of his actions delayed the case’s progress in the courts.

Wilkenson’s most time-consuming error involved the way in which he filed his suit. His
complaint was filed in Mesa County District Court in September 1981. By late October,
Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Jost, who represented Chief Ranger Schoch and Superintendent
Huffman, had filed a motion requesting dismissal of Wilkenson’s suit on the grounds that the
county court did not have the jurisdiction over a federal case,*” District Court Judge William
Ela eventually ruled that he did not have the authority to try the case. Since it involved federal
lands, he decided the case should be tried in U.S. District Court. Wilkenson tried to prevent
these changes by stating that federal rules did not apply in a state court, but his argument failed
to convince the court. The case was removed to federal court where a hearing was set for
November 25, 1981.”

In the meantime, Wilkenson was also fighting criminal charges filed against him by the
Park Service. His interpretation of the events indicated that because he was not willing to sign
the affidavit, Park officials wanted him to pay the $1 entrance fee. When he refused, he was
issued a citation. He found it ironic that the Park Service stated that there was no fee for
traveling between Grand Junction and Glade Park, but when he did not sign the affidavit, they
expected him to pay the fee anyway or face violation of Title 36 CFR, Section 6.5.% He
pleaded not guilty to two criminal charges that he entered the Colorado National Monument
without paying the required fee. Although the charges were petty offenses, they could amount
to fines of up to $500 and a maximum sentence of six months in jail.

When he appeared before Federal Magistrate Royce Sickler, Wilkenson found that his
criminal case would have to be tried either by a magistrate or a federal judge. Sickler’s job was
to "hold pretrial hearings in an attempt to dispose of cases before they go to trial." In his
assessment of the case, Sickler decided that he would transfer the case to Judge Matsch, but
advised Wilkenson that he should "give a little bit and conform to the regulations."TM

* Letter, Wilkenson to Schoch and Huffman, 18 June 1981.
="U.S. Attorney Files for Dismissal of Suit on Monument Road,” Daily Sentinel, 20 October 1981.

Mary Louise Giblin, "Glade Park Access Case Moved to Federal Court," Daily Sentinel, 23 October
1981.

TMJohn Wilkenson, “Glade Park: Jury or Jail? The Truth Behind the Glade Park Controversy,” Palisade
Tribune, 19 January 1984, p. 4.

*"Glade Park Man Seeks Trial Before Federal Judge," Daily Sentinel, 19 November 1981.
“Tbid.
107


Works Cited

Books

Cameron, Jenks. The National Park Service: Its History, Activities, and Organizations. New York: D.
Appleton & Company, 1922.

Everhart, William C. The National Park Service. Boulder: Westview Press, 1983.

Fishell, Dave. The Grand Heritage: A Photographic History of Grand Junction, Colorado, 2d ed.,
Norfolk/ Virginia Beach: The Donning Company/Publishers; 1994,

Freemuth, John C. Islands Under Siege: National Parks and the Politics of External Threats.
Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1991.

Gleyre, L.A., and C.N. Alleger, eds. History of the Civilian Conservation Corps in Colorado; That
the Work of Young America May Be Recorded. Denver: Press of the Western Newspaper Union,
1936. Colonel Harold Booth Collection, Museum of Western Colorado.

Ise, John. Our National Park Policy: A Critical History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1961.

Kania, Alan J. John Otto of Colorado National Monument. Boulder: Roberts, Rinehart, Inc.
Publishers, 1984.

Kirkendall, Richard §. The United States 1929-1945: Years of Crisis and Change. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974.

Lamm, Richard D. and Micheal McCarthy. The Angry West: A Vulnerable Land and its Future.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1982.

Limerick, Patricia Nelson. The Legacy of Conquest: The. Unbroken Past of the American West. New
York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987.

Lohman, Stanley W. The Geologic Story of Colorado National Monument. Washington D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 1981.

Look, Al. John Otto and the Colorado National Monument. Denver: Denver Westerners Inc., 1961;
reprint, Grand Junction: Sandstone Publishing Co., 1962.

Mackintosh, Barry. The National Parks: Shaping the System. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
the Interior, 1991.

Malone, Michael P. and Richard W. Etulain. The American West: A Twentieth Century History.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989.



of seeing the Monument, only to find that although good roads lead to its boundary at e@
various places, to actually see it requires an uncomfortable trip by horseback or foot.’”

Senator Phipps responded by urging the National Park Service to consider the road
proposals. In March, 1928, the Park Service requested that its Chief Engineer, F.A.
Kittredge, visit the Monument to survey the proposed road plans for both the trans-Monument
_route and the shorter road through Monument Canyon. Kittredge eventually inspected the
Colorado National Monument twice. The second inspection, in August, 1930, was the most
beneficial to the park’s road development plan. A tentative appropriation of $2500 was offered
after Kittredge made his inspection and recommended that contract work commence on the road
around the rim of the park.%* The money would only be available, however, if the road was
built according to National Park guidelines and if the county was willing to build approach
roads to the park.”*

In the summer of 1930, the local community conducted some of its own surveys of the
road proposal. In June, the chamber of commerce sent two engineers to survey a proposed
“auto trail from the top of the Trail of the Serpent leading northward to take in as many of the
canyons as possible."** Another group, including W.M. Wood of the Grand Junction
Chamber of Commerce, and Al Look of the Daily Sentinel conducted an inspection of the road
site in August. The result of this inspection was a local commitment to planning and financing
the new road. The $2500 appropriation encouraged the chamber of commerce and the county
to provide the additional expenses necessary for construction. The chamber agreed to conduct
a proper survey, and to open construction to competitive bidding with the expectation that the e@
county would be the low bidder.”

The $2500 appropriation symbolized progress to the focal community. Ever since the
chamber began its most recent campaign for a scenic route through the park, the hope for

Letter, W.M. Wood, Secretary Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, to Senator Lawrence Phipps, 13
December 1928.

=Senator Lawrence Phipps (issued by), "Improve Colorado National Monument," Washington Weekly
Newsletter, 10 March 1928.

“Letter, A.E. Demaray, Acting Director National Park Service, to Chief Engineer National Park Service, 5
March 1928.

“Telegram, A.E. Demaray to W.M. Wood, 14 August 1930.

28"2500 Available For Scenic Road in National Monument West of City," November 1930, (photocopy),
National Archives Record Group 79, Colorado National Monument Museum and Archive Collection.

*Letter, W.M. Wood, Secretary Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, to A.E. Demaray, Acting
Associate, 27 June 1930.

*“E,A. Kittredge, Chief Engineer National Park Service, "Conference and Inspection of Proposed Road e@
Activities, Colorado National Monument, Grand Junction, Colorado,” 13 August 1930.

50



Chapter Six

The Lawsuit: 1981-1986

Talk of lawsuits was nothing new regarding the controversy over Rim Rock Drive. Rick
Enstrom, one of the more- outspoken of the Mesa County Commissioners, mentioned in. June
1980 that he thought that the only solution to the problem was to give the road back to the
county. Enstrom suggested that the county might even file a civil suit to determine to whom the
toad really belonged.” In June 1981, however, the prospect of a lawsuit became more of a
reality for the Park Service. During this month, Glade Park property owner John Wilkenson
began his five-year crusade against the Park Service’s affidavit policy. Wilkenson had
purchased. property in Glade Park from his brother in May 1981.“ When he learned of the
Park Service’s affidavit policy, he began to conduct extensive research regarding both the road’s
history and the law. What he found convinced him that the Park Service was acting outside its
jurisdiction regarding the use of Rim Rock Drive.”

Wilkenson spent the summer of 1981 trying to prove to the Park Service that, because
a public right-of-way had been established before the Monument was established, the affidavit
policy was illegal. Moreover, the language of the affidavits and the windshield stickers
incensed many Glade Park residents. In addition to providing a legal description of their
property, residents were required to agree to the specific conditions as follows:

I-understand and agree that any privilege granted me by the National Park Service for
free access across Colorado National Monument is restricted to one short line route of
my choice, and that I am otherwise obligated to pay any recreational fees that may be
charged in accordance with the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as
amended, and with Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations.**

Wilkenson contended that by signing the document he was essentially agreeing that he "had no
tight to use the road” and that the Park Service would give residents the "privilege to use the
toad."*” This affidavit was used for the first two weeks of June 1981. Then the Park Service

"Glade Park Road Plan Fails to Please Enstrom," Daily Sentinel, 21 June 1980,

“Deed, David Wilkenson to John R. Wilkenson, Reception No. 1257437, Book 1314, Mesa County,
Colorado, 19 May 1981, p. 296.

John R. Wilkenson, Interview by Lisa M. Schoch, 17 August 1992, Orchard Mesa, Colorado.
“Copy of Application and Affidavit for Glade Park Permit, Colorado National Monument.
John R. Wilkenson, Interview by Lisa M. Schoch, 17 August 1992.

104



Figure 4.4. View from cliff above the
south portal of tunnel #3 (bottom right)
and east side road and switchbacks.
Colorado National Monument Museum
and Archive Collection. > me

Figure 4.5. Men working at Cold Shivers Point on east Rim Rock Drive. Most of the
work on the road was done by hand. Colorado National Monument Museum and Archive

Collection.



publicized of Otto’s efforts, known as the "Corkscrew" or "Otto’s Trail,” was visited by local
businessmen who were impressed by the "grandeur of the scenes which met their eyes.""”
The work that they observed was of “the self-sacrificing hermit who, they say, has performed
the work of five men since he began the building of the winding, twisting, and rugged trail."TM'
This particular trail was costly. Otto requested a dollar from subscribers to a “trail fund” that
eventually totaled $154." Local responses to Otto’s plea for funds were an encouraging sign
that some people were willing to support development of the Monument. Another trail
completed in July of 1909 led to the Liberty Cap and consisted of "five miles of his remarkable

cmt)

-and beautiful scenic roadway.*'"

Figure 2.1. Historic photo of John Otto at what appears to be mouth of Fruita Canyon.
Colorado National Monument Museum and Archive Collection.

*°"Otto’s Trail Completed,” Daily Sentinel, 27 September 1909.
“bid.
“Kania, John Otto of Colorado National Monument, p. 73.

‘TM"Otto Unfurls Flag off Peak,” Daily Sentinel, 25 April 1909.
20


responded to the overwhelming increase in tourism that had arisen in the post-World War II e@
years and to the projected 80 million visitors estimated to descend upon the parks in 1966. The
program was set to begin in 1956 and to end during the SQth anniversary of the National Park
Service in 1966. Mission 66 had several goals: to conduct a “study of the national park
problem”; to develop the parks so they could accommodate visitor needs; to construct employee
housing; and to provide more convenient and often longer hours for maximum visitor use and
enjoyment.” Congress expressed its support by allotting $48,866,300 for fiscal year 1956 and

made comparable, if not larger, appropriations each year thereafter. The estimated total cost
reached $786 million.*”

The prospectus for Mission 66 in Colorado National Monument and Black Canyon was
completed in June 1956 and approved in February 1957.*° In Colorado National Monument,
Mission 66 brought about numerous changes in the development and administration of the park.
First, it modernized the Monument’s facilities and increased the park staff. The construction
of new hiking trails, interpretive signs, ranger residences, and a new visitor center provided
permanent facilities not only for visitors, but also for personnel. Mission 66 was also a great
public relations tool for park officials. Reports and presentations about the progress of Mission
66 projects were regularly given to a variety of local organizations, including the Grand
Junction and Fruita chambers of commerce. Frequent “indoctrination trips” were made to
Denver, Ouray, Montrose, and Delta, to create interest in Monument activities.“ In this way
the Park Service maintained its link to the community and continued to gain support for the
park. In addition, park officials implemented new regulations in response to the increase in
both local park use and out-of-state tourism. @

According to the Monument prospectus, the biggest problem facing the park was the
"inadequacy of present developments and services for visitors."*"* In the first quarter of 1955,
the Monument was the second most popular attraction in Colorado, with a visitor draw rivaled
only by Rocky Mountain National Park.“* At an estimated cost of $743,920, Mission 66
developments for the Monument were in full swing by the spring of 1957. A museum
prospectus was completed in April 1957, and in May 1957 a geologic history of the park was

“Ise, Our National Park Policy, pp. 546-547.
“Ibid.

“Homer Robinson, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for June
1956" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 6 July 1956), p. 5; Homer
Robinson, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for February 1957" (Washington: U.S. Department of
the Interior, National Park Service, 8 March 1957), p. 4.

“Fred Bussey, “Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for April
1958” (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 9 May 1958), p. 3.

*5*Mission 66 for Colorado National Monument" (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
ca. 1956), Mesa County Public Library Clipping File, p. 2.

“National Monument 2nd Most Popular Park in Colorado," Daily Sentinel, 27 May 1956.

86



Chapter One
The Landscape / The Setting

The landscape of the Colorado National Monument is one of constant change. A simple
drive, run, or biking trip across the Rim Rock Drive, which hugs the edges of the canyons in
some places and winds for twenty-eight miles between the park’s western and eastern entrances,
teveals a legacy of billions of years of extreme geologic and climatic change. Evidence of these
extremes is most notable in the deeply cut canyons, multi-colored rock layers, and strange,
almost otherworldly monoliths rising arbitrarily from the canyon floors. Aesthetically, change
is perceived each day when the sunrise and sunset turn the sandstone a brilliant orange. The
canyon walls are often dramatically spattered with desert varnish, an iron and manganese oxide
that darkens the sandstone as if it had been rubbed with giant pieces of charcoal." Even the
monoliths, seemingly sturdy and one-dimensional, change shape depending on the angle from
which they are viewed. In comparison to the Grand Valley, which runs along the northern
edge of the Monument, and the Grand Mesa at the valley’s eastern end, the Colorado National
Monument resembles a different planet, and in fact, has been likened to the landscape of the
moon and Mars."

A semi-arid climate dominates the Colorado National Monument and the Grand Valley
below. Rain is scarce, except for summer cloudbursts whose intensity has been known to wash
out entire sections of the park’s road and create temporary waterfalls that tumble from the
canyon rims. Average yearly rainfall measures around 6 to 10 inches. The winters are mild,
with an average temperature of 40 degrees, and moderate snowfall.” The wildlife is suited to
the harsh environment. Lizards, canyon wrens, nighthawks, varieties of snakes, deer, and even
occasional golden eagles and peregrine falcons comprise only a fraction of the creatures that
inhabit the Monument each day. The present climate makes it difficult to believe that millions
of years ago the area was covered by a vast sea and inhabited by the dinosaurs.

The Colorado National Monument is part of the northeastern section of the canyon lands
of the Colorado Plateau Province, an area that covers 150,000 square miles in portions of
Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico. The Monument occupies approximately 20,457
acres of this province with canyons that expose layers of rocks with a long and colorful history

“Stanley W. Lohman, The Geologic Story of Colorado National Monument (Washington D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1981), p. 32.

“Information taken from Bookcliff overlook exhibit, Colorado National Monument.
“Information taken from Coors International Bicycle Classic promotional literature.

"Steven F. Mehls, The Valley of Opportunity: A History of West-Central Colorado (Denver: Bureau of Land
Management Colorado State Office, 1982), p. 4.


~ wee penne cee eee cece neem

Figure 4.6. Blasting at Half-Tunnel site (not

actual accident blast). Colorado National

Monument Museum and Archive Collection.
mre

ctual accident blast). Colorado National
lonument Museum and Archive Collection.
aa :

69


Despite the uncertainty of the CCC’s future, work camps in the Colorado National
Monument accomplished a great deal. The years from 1937 to 1942 reflected not only the
problems associated with labor cuts, but also the effectiveness that the work camps were capable
of displaying. By June 7, 1937, 20 miles of Rim Rock Drive, including two tunnels, were
opened for visitor use.** Numerous other projects were completed as well. The work camps
built visitor facilities, an employee residence, and planned an administration area. Acting
custodian Jesse Nusbaum commented in his monthly report for the park that "Colorado National
Monument is beginning to shape up and looks more like a monument should. There is a far
better spirit of cooperation between all agencies working on the Monument."

Nevertheless, once the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred on December 7, 1941, work
strength in the CCC decreased as national defense needs increased. In February 1942, all CCC
projects were terminated but were picked up by the WPA until June 1942, when construction
in the camp ended. Even the custodian and rangers at the park were called to active duty.

Administration of Colorado National Monument, 1933-1942

Throughout the construction years, shifts in the management of Colorado National
Monument significantly influenced local opinion of the Park Service and local use of the park.
For the first time in its history, the Monument was supervised by superintendents, each of
whom had his agenda for the park and his own idea of how to implement regulations. As each
superintendent instituted more stringent regulations, local residents acquired the classic

- symptoms of Westerners who reject federal control as much as they rely upon it. At the same

time that local residents accepted the employment supplied by the road project, they resented the
government’s control of the road once it was completed.

On November 14, 1933, Clifford Anderson arrived from Yellowstone to assume
custodial responsibilities at Colorado National Monument. He immediately met with the
secretary of the chamber of commerce W.M. Wood for a briefing on the park.” One of his
first objectives was to educate the local populous about proper behavior in the park. He noted
to National Park Service Director Amo Cammerer that in the past the Monument had been
"abused terribly” and that he did not believe “people realize what these natural features mean

“See Figures 4.9, 4.10, and 4.11.

‘Jesse Nusbaum, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for
October 1937" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1 November 1937), p. 6.

°B,W. Finch, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for February
1942" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1 March 1942), p. 1; B.W. Finch,
*“Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for June 1942" (Washington:
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1 July 1942), p. 2.

**Letter, Clifford Anderson to Director National Park Service, 15 November 1933.

75


especially want to thank my friend and fellow graduate student Greg Silkensen for his support,
empathy and tolerance throughout graduate school. My brothers Dave and Doug Schoch and
my sister-in-law Mary Schoch were there through thick and thin as well. Even my
grandparents, James and Alice Benvie, enquired about the thesis on the phone from Cincinnati!!
T extend heartfelt thanks to my husband John Roberts. His love and support carried me through
the roughest times. “He did all of the computer formatting for the original thesis, spent long
hours in the computer lab printing with me, and was a good sport throughout.

I dedicate this document to my parents, Hank and Judy Schoch. | thank dad for
everything he has done in the past three years. Not only did he encourage me to take on the
project, but his seventeen years as Chief Ranger of Colorado National Monument was
invaluable to me in the research and writing of the thesis. He made it possible for me to access
the park’s records and eventually transport them to Fort Collins. His firsthand knowledge of
the Monument’s history as well as his involvement in the road controversy were very helpful
in shaping my perspective of that event. Dad also read and edited the entire thesis manuscript,
writing important comments on nearly every page!!_ My mom’s emotional involvement during
the thesis writing kept me on my toes. She, more than anyone, anxiously awaited the day I
would finally call to tell her "I’m done.” Actually, when I did finish, 1 think she was more
relieved than I was! I thank both my parents for convincing me to continue when I had already

quit. :


Testrictions were “only another step in attempting to deny us complete use of the road."
Glade Park frustrations had finally reached a breaking point:

We can no longer accept the continuing changes and apparent harassment. It seems we
have had to fight this problem with each new change of local or regional Park
administration. It is our decision to submit application to the Mountain States Legal
Foundation to represent us in this matter.”

Residents of Glade Park did file a complaint with the Mountain States Legal Foundation, asking
for legal representation. The Foundation was once headed by the controversial James
Watt—Secretary of the Interior at the time—and was a non-profit, public interest firm formed
by businessmen to fight "excessive bureaucratic regulation." The ranchers stated that if the
Foundation would not handle the case, they were considering filing their own suit against the
Park Service.”

The conflict over commercial vehicle traffic on Rim Rock Drive was the product of the
most significant shifts in the Monument’s administration and development from the 1950s to the
1970s. Accustomed to a certain level of cooperation from the Park Service, local residents
grew impatient when traffic restrictions appeared to threaten their livelihoods and their freedom.
Park officials, on the other hand, responded to commercial traffic according to the needs of the
park, including environmental considerations and the safety of increasing amounts of visitors.
Eventually, the commercial vehicle issue fueled a far more complex conflict between local
residents and the Park Service. Still centered on road use, this conflict ultimately ended in a
lawsuit between the Park Service, Mesa County, and a landowner in Glade Park.

Letter, Douglas A. Jones, Secretary of Pifion Mesa Livestock Association, to Dennis Huffman,
Superintendent, 15 June 1981.

*Tbid.

“Mary Louise Giblin, "Rancher Heads to Court over Fee on Monument Road," Daily Sentinel, 1 August
1981.

103



116

32

RW,

Fe pz
nee 5.
RAW.

OFFICE OF NATIONAL PARKS,
QUILOMNGS AND RESERVATION S

COLORADO NATIONAL MONUMENT,
VICINITY MAP i
OFFICE OF THE cnIEE CHOWHEEA

DAN FRANCISCO, CALIF,
MEBI934
uM

Coxo-4952

Figure 4.9. Progress of Construction on Rim Rock Drive. From T.W. Secrest, “Final Construction Report on
5 Scenic Rim Rock Drive," 3 August 1937. Colorado National Monument Museum and Archive Collection.

73



By this time, the conflict between the Park Service and the local community had begun
to echo some of the ideas generated by the "Sagebrush Rebellion." The "Sagebrush Rebellion”
was originally a bill passed by the Nevada legislature which demanded state control of 49
million acres of federally held lands in that state.“ Although the "Sagebrush Rebellion” ran
its course in about two years, its powerful rhetoric was felt and understood throughout the
Rocky Mountain West. Originally led by western ranchers, the rebellion appealed to
Westerners’ sense of rugged individualism and their historical “deep distrust of the federal
government."* It pointed out the historical relationship between Westerners and what they
viewed as their “distant landlord"—the federal government. It revealed Western resentment
over the fact that most of the West was run by non-Westerners.*” Community opposition to
the Park Service’s road policy exhibited the same frustrations.

By January 1980, the Park Service responded to opposition when it agreed to delay its
earlier plan for “phased restrictions” until the three sides could find the best way to handle the
problem of commercial vehicles. The Park Service granted Mesa County two 30-day
postponements. The county and private individuals used this time to appeal to state
congressmen and senators regarding the road issue.** Senators William Armstrong and Gary
Hart received a barrage of letters protesting the Park Service’s decision. Most of the writers
were Glade Park residents, many of whom mentioned relatives who helped build Rim Rock
Drive. A letter to Senator Hart from Jay and George Van Loan stated that the road controversy
was a “moral issue." The Van Loans’ grandfather, four of their uncles and their father helped
to construct the road, and one uncle perished in the 1933 Half-Tunnel accident. They felt that
their family, who had lived on Glade Park for sixty years, had “paid its dues" and should not
be “denied the right” to use the road.” This was a typical attitude among local residents,
especially those who had direct ties to the construction of Rim Rock Drive.

Despite opposition, the restrictions were upheld. As a result, escorts were still
necessary, but the Park Service refused to provide that service.” In March 1980, the Park
Service requested cost estimates for improving the existing Rim Rock Drive and Little Park
Road and for the construction of a bypass route at the upper part of the Little Park Road. It also
considered the idea of installing a traffic system in the park that would regulate commercial

“Cawley, "The Sagebrush Rebellion,” p. 95.

“Short, Ronald Reagan and the Public Lands, pp. 10, 13; Lamm and McCarthy, The Angry West, p. 153.
“Lamm and McCarthy, The Angry West, p. 238.

"County Seeks Congress Aid on Monument Road," Daily Sentinel, January 1980.

Letter, Jay and George Van Loan, to Senator Gary Hart, 19 January 1980, Gary Hart Papers, Courtesy
Western Historical Collections, University of Colorado at Boulder.

“Letter, Daniel J. Tobin Jr., Associate Director National Park Service, to the Honorable Ken Kramer,
House of Representatives, 25 February 1980.


Chapter Five

Origins of the Road Controversy: 1951-1980

Administration of Colorado National Monument, 1951-1980

Between 1951 and 1953, Colorado National Monument was on the verge of another
administrative shift. Since 1935, it had been officially run by a coordinating superintendent at
Mesa Verde National Park, although the real work of managing the park belonged to the
resident ranger and two assistant rangers. Personnel by 1951 had not changed very much.
There was still a resident ranger, referred to as superintendent, and.two rangers on duty in the
park. Officials from Mesa Verde continued to conduct inspections. By 1952 the staff had
expanded and began more specialized training. Rangers attended fire and personnel training
conferences and, in May 1952, the first seasonal rangers were hired for the summer.*!

While the boom in post-World War II tourism generated more interpretive and protective
duties on the part of the rangers, the bulk of activity in Colorado National Monument between
1951 and 1953 centered on the maintenance of Rim Rock Drive. Russell Mahan, who became
superintendent of the Monument in 1949, believed that national monuments and parks were "for
the people’s use and enjoyment."“ As a result, the improvement of facilities and roads was
first priority during his years as superintendent. Approximately 16 miles of road seal-coating
was completed during Mahan’s first two years as superintendent.” A maintenance crew was
employed throughout the year to work on other aspects of road upkeep. One of the issues that
kept park officials in contact with local officials was the status of approach roads to the park.
Both the Fruita and Grand Junction roads needed repair and it was determined that the status of
these roads had “an adverse effect" on visitation levels by the summer of 1951. The
improvement of other park facilities, including a group picnic area, also took place.“ In

Russell Mahan, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for 1952"
(Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

"Not Yet Fully Appreciated,” Daily Sentinel, 10 October 1951.
“Ibid.

“Russell Mahan, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for July
1951” (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 27 July 1951), p. 1.

“Russell Mahan, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for April
1951" (Washington: U.S. Department of the: Interior, National Park Service, 27 April 1951), p. 2.

84



Chapter Four

Construction of Rim Rock Drive: 1931-1950

The initial years of road construction in the Colorado National Monument occurred
during the Great Depression. The 1929 collapse of the nation’s economy affected nearly every
aspect of American life. Businesses failed, farms were lost, unemployment increased and the
average income decreased.” In Colorado the depression developed more slowly. Because its
economy was primarily based on agriculture, Colorado felt less of the economic downturn until
after 1930. Unemployment increased and agricultural prices fell more slowly than elsewhere.
Yet, by 1931, cities such as Denver and Pueblo experienced more unemployment. Rural
Coloradans suffered and as agricultural prices dropped, they headed for the cities when they lost
their farms. The environmental impact of the dust bowl and the decline of the economy,
combined to force farmers to leave for the city.”

The depression had a surprisingly less dismal effect on the National Park Service and
congressional appropriations for park development. In 1930, appropriations increased by $3
million. Tourist levels remained steady. Road construction was the one aspect of park
development that received the most attention during the depression. Across the nation, various
national parks, such as Rocky Mountain and the Grand Canyon, received grants for road
construction. Road appropriations in 1931 expanded to include the improvement of approach
toads to parks as well. That year, approximately $100 million was appropriated for roads to
and through national parks and monuments, including $75000 for the Colorado National
Monument.”

Road Construction, 1931-1933

Between 1931 and 1933, local and federal involvement in the Colorado National
Monument occurred simultaneously. Once the $7500 appropriation was available to the
Colorado National Monument, the National Park Service and the local community immediately
planned for the. initial construction of the road through the park. In the first week of November
1931, Park Service engineer T.W. Secrest conducted a reconnaissance of the Colorado National
Monument in which he developed and submitted road surveys to the Washington office for

Richard S. Kirkendall, The United States 1929-1945: Years of Crisis and Change (New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Company, 1974), pp. 5-12.

TMMark Waldman, "1930 Employment 1980,” in 1930 Employment 1980: Humanistic Perspectives On The
Civilian Conservation Corps In Colorado, ed. Thomas Lyons, (Boulder: Colorado Humanities Program, 1981),
pp. 61-64. .

TMIse, Our National Park Policy, pp. 326-27.

52



decided to abandon his crusade against the Park Service, he insisted that he did not have time
for government positions anyway because he was "going into politics." He then organized his
own “Colorado River Basin Chamber of Commerce“ to further develop his interests in the
Grand Valley.” His final assessment of his contribution to the park was, as always, to the
point: "I believe it is safe to say that if it hadn’t been for me the Colerado National Monument
would today be a ‘stinking sheep dump’—I have saved this much for humanity so far."*

By the end of Otto’s custodianship, the National Park Service and the iocal community
enjoyed a cooperative relationship. Even the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce established
a working relationship with the Park Service. Both the chamber and the mayor of Fruita
asserted enough control to convince National Park officials that Otto was unfit to serve as
custodian. At the same time they emphasized their “deep interest" in the park. It was evident
that a shift from the visionary plans of John Otto to the “new program" of Grand Junction
community leaders was taking place. The role of the Monument was changing as well. With
the construction of the Serpent’s Trail, and new plans for a more extensive route across the
park, public use of the Colorado National Monument was sure to increase.

The Chamber of Commerce and its New Program, 1927-1931

Between 1927 and 1930, the Colorado National Monument underwent a number of
significant administrative changes that signalled increased National Park Service involvement.
Although Otto stated that he had no further interest in the Colorado National Monument, he
continued to grace the National Park Service with his opinions and suggestions. In the
meantime, the National Park Service searched for a suitable custodian for the Colorado National
Monument. After all of the turbulence surrounding Otto’s dismissal, Frank Merriell. was not
appointed custodian. Park Service officials seemed to think that he would accept the position
right after Otto’s ouster. Merriell, however, expressed on several occasions that, before he
accepted the job, he wanted members of the chamber of commerce to meet with Otto and
“tactfully bring to his attention the need for a change."*’ The problem of actually eliminating
Otto’s interference seemed to exacerbate the effort to hire a new custodian. It is not clear if
Merriell felt threatened by Otto, but the fact that he never accepted the position indicates that
this was a possibility.

By April, 1927, Grand Junction businessman A.T. Gormley had been offered the
custodianship with the assurance that Otto was no longer affiliated with the Monument.” Otto
seemed satisfied with this choice, and had at an earlier point even recommended Gormley as a

**Letter, John Otto to Arno B. Cammerer, Acting Director National Park Service, 12 February 1927.
*Letter, John Otto to Stephen Mather, Director National Park Service, 1 March 1927.

**Letter, Arno B. Cammerer, Acting Director National Park Service to R.A. Ross, President Grand
Junction Chamber of Commerce, 11 February 1927.

*SLetter, Amo B. Cammerer, Acting Director National Park Service, to A.T. Gormley, 29 April 1927.

48



Park, accepted students. Even though only three pupils were needed to maintain a school, the e@
institutions indicated that the Glade Park area had become a permanent community despite its
isolation from the Grand Valley. Originally, the only roads were foot trails that were nearly
impassible in bad weather. Even in good weather, the trip from the Little Dolores region of

Glade Park down to the Valley required an entire day.” With the demand for roads on which

to transport stock to winter range, and the need for farmers and settlers to travel to Grand
Junction, better roads became a necessity.

..-_-_.-Long before_the Colorado National Monument. was established, Glade Park ranchers

used parts of that area to access the Grand Valley. The first roads from Glade Park to Grand ~ ~~~ ~
Junction led through the eastern end of what is now the Colorado National Monument. In

1883, Mesa County initiated the construction of a road from Grand Junction to East Creek

Divide on Glade Park. A road petition submitted to the Mesa County Commissioners by local
residents, requested construction of a "public highway or road” between these two termini. As

a result, the County Commissioners appointed J.M. Russell, C.C, Hammond, and Charles F.

Shanks to view the proposed road site.* The campaign for this road lasted into 1884. In his

report to the County Commissioners in January 1884, Deputy County Engineer J.D, Robinson
described the route "from the terminus of the present ‘county road’ on the west side of the

Grand River in a southern direction to point on the north side of the ‘East Creek Divide.’"*
Robinson noted that “the greater portion of this route has already been opened for travel,” but

that it needed refinement.” His report also included a map of the route that eventually became

Little Park Road. Skirting the eastern edge of the Monument, Little Park Road was one of
several roads from Glade Park to the Grand Valley. r

Other lesser quality roads and trails crisscrossed the region as well. Gordon’s Toll Road
came up through Little Park behind where the east entrance of the Colorado National Monument
is today.” When ranchers complained that the toll was too high given the road’s poor, they
surveyed their own route. This led through "Deer Pass," which was a trail used by deer
ascending through the rim rocks.“ Another road, known as Jacob’s Ladder, extended from
Little Park to Pifion Mesa by way of Monument Springs.” The Billy Goat Trail ascended the

*McCreanor, Mesa County, Colorado, p. 6.

*Road Petition for the Board of County Commissioners, filed at the Office of the County Clerk, 13
November 1883, p. 8.

“Report of J.D. Robinson, Deputy County Surveyor on Road From End of Present County Road to East
Creek Divide, 30 January 1884, pp. 122-124, submitted to the Mesa County Commissioners.

*Tbid.
*Moore, Original History of Glade Park, p. 8.

“Lucy Ela, Interview by Sally Crum, 25 March 1976, p. 1, transcript, Oral History Collection, Colorado
National Monument Museum and Archive Collection. @

*Moore, Original History of Glade Park, p. 7.

10



Park Road committee had mapped a route through the park that, again, was most likely parallel
to, or part of, Otto’s earlier survey for the Glade Park/Rimrock Road.

Other groups joined the push for the road as well. The general passenger agent of the
Denver and Rio Grande Railroad, Frank Wadleigh, commented that a road through the park
would attract more tourists.” The Mesa County commissioners were approached by a
committee including John Otto and other promoters to request that the approach roads to the
park be maintained.*” Glade Park ranchers even agreed to pledge $1500 for the construction
of “John Otto’s Rimrock” provided the county commissioners would also supply funds. Tired
of the poor road conditions from Glade Park to Grand Junction, they were willing to contribute
labor and money for an improved route, even if it happened to be a scenic road.*" By this
time, George Bullock of the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce planned to travel to
Washington to “plea for aid for the Monument National Park" with National Park Service
Director Stephen Mather.”? Unfortunately, like most attempts to acquire funds for park
improvements, this too was unsuccessful.

In June, 1917, the United States entered World War I, a conflict that interrupted local
financing of road projects in the park but eventually contributed to road building efforts in the
Grand Valley. Throughout 1917 and 1918, there was very little newspaper publicity regarding
the road. The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel teported on a few of Otto’s schemes, but its
campaign to develop the park was nonexistent. By the middle of 1918, however, western
Colorado was suggested as an appropriate spot for an internment camp for German prisoners-of-
war. The Germans housed there would be an ideal labor force for the building of roads
throughout the Grand Valley. Roads were needed to "help the government win the war" by
providing routes for the transportation of produce and other goods from the Grand Valley to
other regions.”’ In support of the idea of prisoner-of-war labor, Otto wrote to Congressman
Taylor and revived the issue of a road through the park: “what good will a national park be to
us unless there are the proper highways to connect up to it?"

After the war, the community revived its efforts to build a decent route to Glade Park
that would also serve as a scenic road through the park. Years of unsuccessful road proposals
and failed attempts to acquire government support for the road prompted community members

"Map Monument Park Road Out,” Daily Sentinel, 16 December 1916.
"Monument Park Campaign Given Boost by Wadleigh," Daily Sentinel, 2 December 1916.
»°*Monument Park Development Work Gaining Impetous Daily," Daily Sentinel, 16 November 1916.
TM*Can Raise $1500 for Park Road," Daily Sentinel, 18 December 1916.
"Monument Plea is Taken to Washington,” Daily Sentinel, 13 December 1916.
TM*Teller Institute Should be Alien Detention Camp," Grand Junction Daily News, 10 June 1918.
TMTbid.
39


43

“Te andy
adiag JO MaLA [eLIoy

HY poe GYys) Perl sau

MUO [EUONEN] OPeIOZOD *(ya]) saLiq, yooruary

UinasnjAy wweull =

“WONda[[OD sarqory pue



3

convince officials to continue funding for the projects.” It is not clear if this appeal was
successful, but it indicates that the local economic situation was such that the community relied
upon the road project. .

Rooseveit’s attempt to make a permanent agency of the ECW in 1935 resulted in the
closure of camps and reduction of enrollees in the Colorado National Monument and other
parks. In September 1935, Roosevelt instructed ECW director Robert Fechner to reduce the
ECW from its peak enrollment of 600,000 to 300,000 men by June 1936. In May 1936, he
instructed the National Park Service to reduce its state and National Park camps by 20, and the

number of enrollees per camp from 200-to 160.° Enrollment levels in CCC camps at.

Colorado National Monument averaged 160 as early as March 1936, and the custodian reported
that “work projects suffered, because.of the low company strength. "**

Roosevelt continued his push for a smaller, permanent agency in January 1937 when he
presented his annual budget message to Congress. He eventually hoped to decrease the ECW
to 300,000 men and war veterans, 10,000 Native Americans, and 7,000 from U.S. territories.
Congressional input was necessary because the ECW had only been authorized until June 1937.
Roosevelt again pitched for a permanent agency in March 1937; under this plan the CCC would
be an independent agency, new employees would be subject to Civil Service guidelines, and
enrollees would be between the ages of 17 and 23 with evidence of proven need. Instead of
creating a permanent agency, however, Congress passed a bill in which the ECW officially
became the CCC and was extended until 1940. Despite the obvious changes in his plans for the
CCC, Roosevelt signed the bill.*

This bill signaled a turning point for the CCC. Cuts in the program continued through
1937 and 1938. As more camps closed, officials in Washington received complaints from park
superintendents who felt that certain projects and necessary park functions were interrupted and
postponed. A measure to stabilize the CCC passed both the House and the Senate in 1938. In
an effort to prevent the closure of 300 camps, $50 million was allotted to work relief programs.
In addition, the number of National Park camps increased to 77 and state programs increased
to 245.°% Even after this effort, the CCC increasingly lost its effectiveness, By the time the
U.S. entered World War II, its termination was inevitable.

“Clifford Anderson, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Reports for Colorado National Monument for
April 1935" (Washington: U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, 3 May 1935), p. 1.

**Paige, The CCC and the National Park Service, pp. 21-23.

Jesse L. Nusbaum, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for
March 1936” (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2 April 1936), p. 1.

“Paige, The CCC and the National Park Service, pp. 23-24.
*“Tbid., 25-26.

72



Kittredge, F.A. Letter to Horace Albright, 9 November 1931. e

, Chief Engineer National Park Service. Letter to Director National Park Service, 5
November 1930.

Mahoney, Thomas F., Secretary Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce. Letter to Edward T. Taylor,
15 May 1911.

Marsh, George A., Secretary Grand Junction Rotary Club. Letter to Edward Taylor, 7 April 1933.
Mather, Stephen, Director National Park Service. Letter to John Otto, 18 February 1919. ~ mw

McEniry, M.D. Chief General Land Office. Letter to the Smithy Brothers, 18 November 1913. Alan
Kania Research Materials, Colorado National Monument Museum and Archive Collection.

McMullin, Samuel G. Letter to Edward T. Taylor, 13 January 1933.

Merriell, Frank C. Letter to A.E. Demaray, Acting Assistant Director National Park Service, 1 July
1926.

Mesa County Commissioners. Letter to Cecil Andrus, Secretary of the Interior, 25 January 1980.

Nusbaum, Jesse L., Superintendent Colorado National Monument. Letter to J.A. Elliot, District
Engineer Bureau of Public Roads, 29 September 1937.

Otto, John. Letter to Horace Albright, December 1931. @
. Letter to Horace Albright, 12 October 1932,
. Telegram to Horace Albright, 25 November 1931.
. Letter to Arno B. Cammerer, Acting Director National Park Service, 10 February 1927.
. Letter to Arno B. Cammerer, Acting Director National Park Service, 14 February 1927.
. Letter to Arno B. Cammerer, Acting Director National Park Service, 12 February 1927.
. Letter to Arno B. Cammerer, Acting Director National Park Service, 19 February 1927.
. Letter to Arno B. Cammerer, Assistant Director National Park Service, 20 October 1927.
. Letter to Commissioner General Land Office, 22 January 1913.
. Letter to A.E. Demaray, 2 April 1927.
. Letter to A.E. Demaray, Acting Assistant Director National Park Service, 10 May 1927.

. Letter to A.E. Demaray, Acting Director National Park Service, 21 June 1929. e

134



European-descended. Americans or Native Americans—were honored, how long would it be
before there were no more parks?

The parks face other challenges as well. A 1992 congressional underfunding of $2
million dollars forced the nation’s 367 national parks, historic sites, battlefields and other areas
to cut back. Reduced hours, maintenance, and patrols, hiring freezes, closure of certain areas,
and fewer interpretive services represent a sampling of what most parks face. Former
superintendent of Rocky Mountain National Park Jim Thompson observed yet another problem
confronting the parks today: the visitor. In Thompson’s opinion, more park visitors have
adopted the attitude that they should be able to do what they want in the parks with few
restrictions.”

The problems facing the National Park Service today are vast. While the road
controversy at Colorado National Monument is only one of many conflicts facing the entire park
system, it represents the attitude that seems to prevail regarding national parks. Judge Matsch’s
assertion that the development of the road controversy was a "classic western quarrel”
accurately portrays the evolution of the relationship between the local community and the Park
Service and how this relationship eventually climaxed during the lawsuit. The road controversy
reflects the cooperation and conflict prevalent throughout the history of Colorado National
Monument. It also exemplifies the unique quality of these western Colorado communities and
their recent history of resistance toward the federal government.

Deborah Frazier, “Cuts Force National Parks to Adopt Austerity Plans," Rocky Mountain News, 3
December 1992, 10, 13.

“Kevin McCullen, "Some Parks Could Close, Retiring Officials Warns," Rocky Mountain News, 1992.

127


San Luis Valley to reservations in various portions of the Western Slope. When whites decided
they needed more land, they pushed farther into the Western Slope.* Slogans such as "The
Utes Must Go” and early newspaper headlines such as “The Utes are gone and the white man
is here" reflected the general sentiment of white settlers, and fueled more interest in the area.”
After the Meeker Massacre in 1879, which began when Utes murdered Indian Agent Nathan
Meeker at the White River Agency, the removal of all Utes, including the Southern, White
River, and Uncompahgre bands, was inevitable. By September 1881, the last of the Ute bands
left the Western Slope via the Grand Valley.” Located at the confluence of the Colorado and
Gunnison rivers, the Grand Valley attracted people even before it was open for settlement. In
fact, even though the land ceded in the August 1880 treaty with the Utes would not be available
for 10 months, within days of the treaty settlers poured into the area."

Land use conflicts involving Colorado National Monument originated in 1881, when
whites first settled the Grand Valley. Early in their development the communities of Grand
Junction, Glade Park, and Fruita grew accustomed to unrestricted use of the area that would
become Colorado National Monument. Sandwiched between the Grand Valley and Glade Park,
the Monument served as a natural thoroughfare for these three communities.”

The early growth of Grand Junction was remarkable. Only four years after the Ute
removal, more than 850 people resided in Grand Junction, where seventy businesses, five
churches, and many voluntary groups already existed.” In 1882, work began on irrigation
canals in the Valley.* The Pioneer Ditch and the Pacific Slope Ditch provided water for both
agricultural and household use. The Denver and Rio Grande Railroad arrived in 1882, and the
Midland Railroad in 1890. Both were instrumental in promoting the town through the

*Carl Ubbelohde, Maxine Benson, and Duane A. Smith, A Colorado History (Boulder: Pruett Publishing
Company, 1988), pp. 183-88.

**Grand Valley: Its Resources and Advantages"; Fishell, The Grand Heritage, p. 26.
*"Ubbelohde, Benson & Smith, A Colorado History, pp. 188-192.

“Kathleen Underwood, Town Building on the Colorado Frontier: Grand Junction (Albuquerque: University
of New Mexico Press, 1987), pp. 4-5.

"See Figure 1.2.
*Underwood, Town Building on the Colorado Frontier, p. 13.

“Duane Vandenbusche and Duane A. Smith, A Land Alone: Colorado’s Western Slope (Boulder: Pruett
Publishing Company, 1981), p. 147.


McCarthy, Michael. "History of the CCC in Colorado," in 1930 Employment 1980: Humanistic
Perspectives on the Civilian Conservation Corps in Colorado. Edited by Thomas Lyons. Boulder:
Colorado Humanities Program, 1981.

McCreanor, Emma. Mesa County, Colorado: A 100 Year History (1883-1983). Edited by Lani Duke.
Grand Junction: Museum of Western Colorado Press, 1986.

Mehls, Steven F. The Valley of Opportunity: A History of West Central Colorado. Denver: Bureau of
Land Management Colorado State Office, 1982.

Paige, John C. The Civilian Conservation Corps and The National Park Service, 1933-1942: An
Administrative History. National Park Service: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1985.

Pinto, Leonard. "The CCC in Colorado: The Enrichment of Social Life: The Gift of a People to
Themselves," in 1930 Employment 1980: Humanistic Perspectives on the Civilian Conservation
Corps in Colorado. Edited by Thomas Lyons. Boulder: Colorado Humanities Program, 1981.

Radin, Max. Radin Law Dictionary. 2d ed. Dobbs Ferry: Oceana Publications, Incorporated, 1970.

Runte, Alfred. National Parks: The American Experience, 2nd ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press, 1987.

Short, C. Brant. Ronald Reagan and the Public Lands: America’s Conservation Debate, 1979-1984.
College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 1989.

Ubbelohde, Carl, Maxine Benson and Duane A. Smith, A Colorado History. Boulder: Pruett
Publishing Company, 1988. .

Underwood, Kathleen. Town Building on the Colorado Frontier: Grand Junction. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press, 1987.

Vandenbusche, Duane and Duane A. Smith. A Land Alone: Colorado’s Western Slope. Boulder:
Pruett Publishing Company, 1981.

Waldman, Mark. "1930 Employment 1980," in /930 Employment 1980: Humanistic Perspectives On

The Civilian Conservations Corps In Colorado. Edited by Thomas Lyons, Boulder: Colorado
Humanities Program, 1981.

Government Documents

(Unless otherwise indicated, all documents are located in the Colorado National Monument Museum
and Archive Collection.)

An Act For the Preservation of American Antiquities. Statutes at Large. Vol. 34 (1906).

Congress. House. Creating the Monument National Park, 61st Congress., 2d sess., S. 4934, (6
January 1910).

129


Mr. Otto has a great many ideas some of them good about the Monument, but I am
sorry to say that the rest of us do not always understand all of them and frequently do
not agree with them when we do.”

Merriell also explained that Otto had been subsidized by the Grand Junction Chamber of
Commerce at $25 per month but had shown few signs of actually making progress with his
projects. Despite Otto’s obvious dedication to the park, Merriell suggested that it was time for
a "new program."

The Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce joined the effort to relieve Otto of his
duties. In January, 1927, the president of the chamber wrote to the National Park Service
stating that Otto had "served his purpose as custodian" and that his poor judgement threatened
the future of the Colorado National Monument. He also explained that the chamber had a “very
deep interest in this Monument" and that it recommended Merriell to replace Otto.% Park
Service officials began to heed the chamber’s advice, and they agreed that Otto was “certainly
not the type of man we should have representing the National Park Service."“

On January 22, 1927, Merriell was offered the custodianship and the ouster of Otto was
complete. When Otto learned of this, he reacted with indignation:

I heard this moment that I am to be supplanted by another man. You can’t send him
along any too quick. I don’t give a whoop whom you do appoint.”

Otto’s bitterness grew when he learned that Merriell, who he felt had “no national park kick in
him” was offered the custodianship. Otto resented Merriell for his endorsement of the Midland
Trail, which competed with Otto’s Union Trail. He also lashed out at Fruita, a town that had
not “contributed a cent in the last ten years toward this monument."“* On February 23, 1927,
the Park Service officially terminated Otto as custodian of the Colorado National Monument.
Otto did what he could to fight the decision. He continued to protest Merriell’s appointment:
"I’ve done my own engineering on all my trails, fences, etc., and I didn’t need him over me
whatever ... he is not very popular among his own people in Fruita... ."“” When Otto finally

Letter, Frank C. Merriell, to A.E. Demaray,’ Acting Assistant Director National Park Service, 1 July
1926.

Kania, John Otto of Colorado National Monument, p. 119.

Letter, Ross to Demaray, 7 January 1927.

*L etter, A.E. Demaray to A.B. Cammerer, 12 January 1927.

| etter, John Otto to Arno B. Cammerer, Acting Director National Park Service, 10 February 1927.

Letter, John Otto to Amo B. Cammerer, Acting Director National Park Service, 14 February 1927;
Letter, John Otto to Arno B. Cammerer, Acting Director National Park Service, 19 February 1927.

“Letter, John Otto to A.E. Demaray, 2 April 1927.

47


Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.2.
Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.2.

Figure 3.2.
Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.4.

Figure 4.5.
Figure 4.6.
Figure 4.7.
Figure 4.8.
Figure 4.9.
Figure 4.10.

Figure 4.11.

LIST OF FIGURES

Colorado National Monument and Surrounding Communities. ...........-
Topography of Mesa County, Colorado... 2.2222 eee
Historic photo of John Otto at what appears to be mouth of Fruita Canyon. ....
Historic photo of John Otto (top) and Whipple Chester ascending the 550-foot

Independence Monument. ... 2... 022. eee

Car ascending Serpents Trail, 2.0... 0.2000. c eee ee
Progress of Construction on Rim Rock Drive.
CCC camp NM-I-C at present site of Monument Canyon Trail parking area. .. .
Portion of group photo of CCC enrollees and army personnel at Colorado
National Monument. 2... 0. eee
View from cliff above the south portal of tunnel #3 (bottom right) and east side
road and switchbacks. 2.6... 6 ee ees
Men working at Cold Shivers Point on east Rim Rock Drive.............-
Blasting at Half-Tunnel site 26... 6. ee eee eee
Blasting at Half-Tunnel site 2... 0... 0.0... eee
Half-Tunnel site after the December 12, 1933 accident.
Progress of Construction on Rim Rock Drive. .......---- 000 ee eee eee
Workers remove blast rubble from coyote hole or pilot bore in one of the road’s
three tunnels. 2... tee
North portal of tunnel #3 on east Rim Rock Drive, ... 6.6.6... eee ee eee



Life in the work camps at the Colorado National Monument included a variety of
elements: army discipline, educational benefits, and work experience. The U.S. Army and the
Park Service split the responsibility of camp management. The army supplied materials,
uniforms, and personnel needed to train, feed, and organize social and recreational events for
the enrollees.

After December 1, 1933, regular army officers returned to their duties, and reserve
officers supervised the majority of camps in the Colorado district." While in camp, enrollees
were under the authority of an army commanding officer. In some cases LEMs and other
enrollees served as barracks leaders. The Park Service, on the other hand, supervised the work
projects in the park, It hired a foreman and an engineer to supervise the LEMs and the
enrollees while they worked on projects throughout the park.”

Along with the discipline, enrollees were introduced to educational and recreational
opportunities. Camp NM-2-C provided classes in typing, bookkeeping and accounting in
addition to woodworking and photography. It also boasted a library of 400 volumes. At one
point, 80 percent of the workers were involved in aspects of the educational program in NM-2-
C. Camp NM-3-C produced its own newspaper, known as Monument Murmurs, which was
printed every two weeks. A stone recreation facility was built for the enrollees of NM-2-C to
enjoy in their free time. Enrollees from both camps also participated in numerous intercamp
athletic events." In fact, a baseball diamond was constructed in Camp NM-2-C—now the
Saddlehorn parking lot—in May 1934.”

Construction was an enormous undertaking financially and physically. Between 1932
and 1937, funding from a variety of sources fueled the road project. Among those providing
funds were the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, the Civilian Works Administration, the
Emergency Conservation Works, the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the National
Park Service Emergency Roads and Trails, and regular National Park Service appropriations.”
The road project was constructed in sections. Each camp worked on different sections, which
were built as funding became available. Between July 1932 and July 1937, the sum of
$528,772.27 was allotted for the construction of Rim Rock Road. Construction included rough
grading of sections 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D, as well as completion of two tunnels on the park’s

»-Tyrone Farrell, "The Civilian Conservation Corps on The Colorado National Monument," Journal of the
Westem Slope Vol. 6, No. 4 (Summer 1991):7-8.

”Gleyre and Alleger, History of the CCC in Colorado, p. 11.
Farrell, "The CCC on The Colorado National Monument,” pp. 7-8.
TMGleyre and Alleger, History of the Civilian Conservation Corps in Colorado, pp. 133 and 136.

“Clifford Anderson, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for May
1934" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 4 June 1934), p. 2.

“Informal Memorandum, Nusbaum to A.H. Furr, 22 November 1937.



I should be glad to be able to do something for the upbuilding of Grand Valley! I hope
to stay with the Monument Park proposition and make that spot known (someday) all
over the world. Isn’t it in the first place also a business proposition, that the people of
the Grand Valley get their scenic spots made accessible? So they can take their friends
that may come here to visit out in the hills and have a place for themselves to go on
Sunday.”

Otto indicated the Monument’s economic potential again when he stated that he wanted
“to not only make Monument park a local play ground, but to make it a world’s famous place.
Such was my intention from the start..." Another letter to the Daily Sentinel editor
reflected Otto’s personal investment and his increasingly proprietary attitude toward the
Monument:

I don’t know what success the Chamber of Commerce of Grand Junction will have in
getting Monument National Park established: I call it already the Monument National
Park and am doing what I can to advertise it and a great cause connected with it ...°”

While Otto’s letters to the Daily Sentinel heightened awareness of the park proposition,
his trail building in the canyons provided people the opportunity to explore the region. More
adventurous visitors to the park, such as climbers, still rely on Otto’s foot and hand holds when
scaling the 550-foot Independence Monument. Although the work was difficult and dangerous,
Otto drilled holes and placed short pieces of pipe into the rock of the monolith. He then moved
up and built a “pipe ladder" on which to climb. At one point, he nearly fell to his death trying
to climb over the cap rock of Independence Monument, and frequently drilled holes at the same
time that he tried to grasp the slick sandstone surface of the monolith.’ Few people were as
daring as Otto.” In 1907, when he began collecting names for a petition to set aside the area
as a national park, of the 300 people that signed, only Otto had ever been to Monument
Canyon, and the only way to reach that area was by foot."*

Otto began building the first trails in Monument Canyon in 1909. County
commissioners and members of the chamber of commerce often came to watch him work and
marvelled at some of the impossible feats he accomplished. His "trailwork extended through
the rock walls, getting through places many sceptics deemed impassible.""’ One of the more

John Otto Has Narrow Escape From Death From Explosion,” Daily Sentinel, 17 October 1910.
TM"Up to People to Boost the Park,” Daily Sentinel, December 1909.
"Otto, Monument Cafion Hermit, Speaks On Resort,” Daily Sentinel, 25 July 1908.
“Kania, John Otto of Colorado National Monument, p. 43.
See Figures 2.1 and 2.2.
TMLook, John Otto and the Colorado National Monument, p. 9.
Kania, John Otto of Colorado National Monument, p. 71.
19


Emergency Conservation Work (ECW), precursor to the CCC, officially began on April @
5, 1933. The program started with an initial enrollment of 25,000 men. At first, the National

Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service were overwhelmed by large numbers of enrollees,
problems with work projects, and the impact of restrictions on work camp locations. Yet, by

May of 1933, the Park Service was ready to employ 12,600 men in 63 camps located in
national parks and monuments across the country.”

Colorado benefitted a great deal from the CCC. By the spring of 1933, 30 to 35 camps
were established in the Colorado District. The Grand Junction District had 20 camps.**
Enrollees were organized and trained by Colonel Sherwood A. Cheney at a reconditioning-camp-
set up at Fort Logan, Colorado. By mid-May, 1933, workers were shipped from Fort Logan
to posts across the state, and Colorado’s CCC officially began its work.’” The CCC in
Colorado ultimately had a positive impact on nearby communities, While some communities
were not in favor of the camps, most found that the CCC not only provided jobs, but was also
a social outlet. The relationship was reciprocal. Many CCC camps relied upon local
communities to achieve success in completing projects. In the Colorado National Monument,
for instance, the camps’ water supply came from the Fruita water pipeline. When drought hit
the Grand Valley in November, 1934, camp water mains were closed, and water was shipped
from Grand Junction.” In addition, it was not at all unusual for the CCC to become involved
in community activities. In some instances, camps were responsible for flood relief, and even
participated in search parties for missing persons from the community.TM

The CCC and Federal Work Camps at Colorado National Monument, 1933-1942 @

The original federal work camps were established in the Colorado National Monument
to ease poor economic conditions in the Grand Valley, and to provide more labor on the Rim
Rock Drive project. In spring 1933, local business leaders urged government officials to assist
in acquiring emergency employment relief for the Grand Valley. The Grand Junction Chamber
of Commerce appealed to the Secretary of the Interior, Harold L. Ickes, to include in the next

“I[bid., pp. 12-15.

“Michael McCarthy, "History of the CCC in Colorado," in 1930 Employment 1980: Humanistic
Perspectives on the Civilian Conservation Corps in Colorado, ed. Thomas Lyons (Boulder: Colorado
Humanities Program, 1981), pp. 1-5.

L.A. Gleyre and C.N. Alleger, eds. History of the Civilian Conservation Corps in Colorado: That the
Work of Young America May Be Recorded (Denver: Press of the Western Newspaper Union, 1936), Colonel
Harold Booth Collection, Museum of Western Colorado, p. 10.

“Clifford Anderson, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for
November 1934" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1 November 1934), p.
I.

“Leonard Pinto, "The CCC in Colorado: The Enrichment of Social Life: The Gift of a People to
Themselves,” in 1930 Employment 1980; Humanistic Perspectives on the Civilian Conservation Corps in @
Colorado, ed. Thomas Lyons (Boulder: Colorado Humanities Program, 1981), pp. 99-107.

62



"Former Senator of Colorado Dies." Denver Post, 3 November 1941. Clipping file. Denver Public r
Library. Western History Department.

Frazier, Deborah. “Cuts Force National Parks to Adopt Austerity Plans." Rocky Mountain News, 3
December 1992.

"Fruita After a Road from Glade Park." Daily Sentinel, 6 December 1911.

Giblin, Mary Louise. "County Sues Park Service on Glade Park Access Fee." ~” Daily Sentinel, 27
- ~  December1982. _ aoe - - - eee

Giblin, Mary Louise. "Glade Park Access Case Moved to Federal Court.” Daily Sentinel, 23 October
1981.

. "Glade Park Access Lawsuit ‘Snagged in Bureaucracy.’" Daily Sentinel, 10 March 1983.
. "Glade Park Dwellers Need Access Permits." Daily Sentinel, 5 June 1985.

. "Glade Park Man to name Watt, Interior Department in Lawsuit." Daily Sentinel, 27
November 1981.

. "Lack of Funds Stopping Roads.” Daily Sentinel, November 1979.

. "Lawyers Want Merger in Glade Park Road Case." Daily Sentinel, 14 January 1984. e@
. "No Fast Judgement Expected on Road.” Daily Sentinel, 30 August 1984.

. "Rancher Heads to Court over Fee on Monument Road." Daily Sentinel, 1 August 1981.

. "Road Hassle Subject of Meeting." Daily Sentinel, 21 July 1974.

. "Road Suit Could Affect Nation." Daily Sentinel, 4 April 1985.

. "Visitors Speed Work on Nature in Eroding National Monument." Daily Sentinel (?), 2
Way 1956.

"Glade Park Man Seeks Trial Before Federal Judge." Daily Sentinel, 19 November 1981.
"Glade Park Road Plan Fails to Please Enstrom.” Daily Sentinel, 21 June 1980.

"Glade Park Residents See Inequities in Rim Rock Fees." Fruita Times, 20 October 1982.
"Glade Park Road One of Scenic Grandeur.” Daily Sentinel, 26 December 1911.

"Glade Park Road Plan Fails to please Enstrom." Daily Sentinel, 21 June 1980.

"Grand Junction Gets Lands Set Apart for a Great National Park." Daily Sentinel, 1 January 1910.

"Grand Valley: Its Resouross and Advantages." Grand Junction I News, 2 December 1882. a .

138



@ ns 23

rom,

‘A BSO1BO
DF CONSTRY
: |ARY ISBT
pe 32
‘R
aw snare

[vr ewnes
Ts

ant JR
2) “Toy HS Room.

ao

Po rere

oePan Tene ce THE TERIOR
OFFICE OF WATIONAL PARKS
BUN DINGS AnD AE SERVATIONS
COLORADO NATIONAL MONUMENT
VICINITY MAP

OFHICE OF THE CHIEF CHOWEER
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF

F£8.1994
NM seat
COL0-A S52

Figure 4.1. Progress of Construction on Rim Rock Drive. From T.W. Secrest, "Final Construction Report on
Scenic Rim Rock Road," 12 July 1937. Colorado National Monument Archive and Museum Collection.

355


Reserve” on Pifion Mesa where there were several reservoirs.” In February, 1906, the Fruita
Forest Reserve was established by presidential proclamation. Located approximately 20 miles
south of Fruita, this area promised to provide ample supplies of water for municipal use.* The
construction of the pipe, however, proved difficult. There were 23 miles of "mountains and
precipitous cliffs," including what is now Colorado National Monument, between Piflon Mesa
and Fruita.” Pipe had to be hauled from the railroad in Fruita, across the river by ferry, and
up to Fruita Canyon. The Fruita Dugway, which had served as a stock driveway since the
1880s, was blasted out of rock and built up through this canyon to accommodate lifting 40-50

carloads.of pipe from the valley over the canyon walls, The Fruita bridge, which crosses the

Colorado River, was also built in 1906 to facilitate the transportation of construction materials:
In 1907, the pipeline was completed.” The wooden pipe, known as the Fruita aqueduct,
stretched from the reservoirs on Pifion Mesa, down to the Glade Park cutoff, through the
present park campground. Eventually it terminated in the reservoir at the base of the Colorado
National Monument via Fruita Canyon." Water was obtained from two 20-million-gallon
reservoirs in the Fruita Reserve and one smaller reservoir in Fruita Canyon. Thirty years after
its construction, the system delivered 750,000 gallons of water in 24 hours.”

The water pipeline linked Fruita to the Colorado National Monument. After the park’s
establishment, the presence of the pipeline formed an association between Fruita and officials
of the National Park Service. During the depression, when Rim Rock Drive was built through
the park, the pipeline supplied water to the CCC camps. In addition, National Park Service
camps were supplied with 10 percent of the flow in return for replacing the original wooden
water line with cast iron pipes.”

The development of these three communities — Fruita, Grand Junction, and Glade Park
— reveals that interest in, and use of, the Monument had already surfaced by the time the park
was officially established. Adjacent community use of the area created a framework for a
relationship with the National Park Service that from 1911 to 1986 became increasingly
conflictive. Park Service conflicts with local residents are not unusual. As John C, Freemuth
points out in his book Islands Under Siege, today’s national parks have been confronted with the
threat of adjacent land activity for many years. On the other hand, adjacent landowners often

Merton Berger, "The Development of Fruita and the Lower Valley of the Colorado River From 1884 to
1937” (M.A. thesis, University of Colorado, 1937), p. 64.

“Congress, Senate, Committee on Public Lands, Grant of Certain Lands to Fruita, Colo., report submitted
by Mr. Hansborough, 59th Cong., Ist sess., May 16, 1906, Senate Report No. 3620, pp. 1-2.

“Berger, "The Development of Fruita and the Lower Valley of the Colorado River,” p. 64.
*Ibid., pp. 64-65.

"Frank Nisley, Appraisal of Present Market Value of Fruita Pipeline property, pp. 2-3.
TMBerger, "The Development of Fruita and the Lower Valley of the Colorado River,” p. 65.
"Ibid.

12



the Rio Grande Railroad and was instrumental in attracting tourists to the state." Residents
of Fruita vehemently opposed this name on the grounds that it was “not sufficient in its scope”
and failed "to comprehend the intention to make it a great national reserve.’ The Fruita
Chamber of Commerce filed a complaint with Congressman Taylor, suggesting "the National
Monument Park" or the "Centennial Monument Park" as possible names.“ In response, the
secretary of the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce wrote that "there is no controversy here
over the matter. We are more interested in having the place set aside as a National Park or
National Monument than in selecting the name for it." His letter further stated that the
“Fruita people” could easily have suggested a name, and that John Otto should be consulted
before a choice was made.

Once again, the chamber of commerce supplied a list of suggestions for Congressman
Taylor. Included were 18 potential names. Among them: "Otto National Monument," "Dinosaur
National Monument," "Grand River National Monument," "Escalante National Monument,"
"Mile-High National Monument," and “Mesa Rojo National Monument."* Otto, whose
bizarre sense of humor puzzled many people, suggested "Smith National Monument Park," as
that would account for the many Smiths living in the Grand Valley and around the country.'*
Eventually Congressman Taylor’s wife suggested "Colorado National Monument"; by then no
national monument existed yet at all in Colorado, and Taylor reasoned that, because he was also
planning to have the name of the Grand River changed to the Colorado River, this seemed a
fitting name for the park.'* Taylor submitted the name to the Secretary of the Interior and,
upon approval, the presidential proclamation presented “Colorado National Monument" as the
official name for the park.

On May 23, 1911, Secretary of the Interior Walter L. Fisher, a man "devoted to park
preservation,” submitted a proclamation “creating the Colorado National Monument” to
President William H. Taft.“ The Secretary described the Monument’s unusual landscape, and
teferred to the General Land Office’s report, which explained that the lands were “not valuable
for agriculture, and in part only produce a very scant growth of native grasses which are of

"Hooper National Park," Daily Sentinel, 10 May 1911.
"Do Not Approve Name of Park,” Daily Sentinel, 10 May 1911.
“Thid.

“Letter, Thomas F. Mahoney, Secretary, Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, to Edward T. Taylor, 15
May I911.

“Tid.
“Kania, John Otto of Colorado National Monument, pp. 36-37.
‘s*Taylor Tells of Naming the Park,” Daily Sentinel, 27 June 1911.

“Letter, Walter L. Fisher, Secretary of Interior, to William H. Taft, President of the United States, 23
May 1911; Ise, Our National Park Policy, p. 89.

29




possible candidate for the job.“ Gormley accepted, and attempted to resume Otto’s
interrupted plans for fencing the park. The National Park Service appropriated $400 for fencing
materials. In August of that year, however, plans for the park were once again interrupted
when Gormley resigned. Otto took the opportunity to remind the Park Service that since he had
been “bucked out" nothing had been done to improve the Colorado National Monument. He
also: pointed out that Gormley had been too impatient and ill-prepared to handle some of the
physical tasks necessary for the custodianship.**

The resignation of Gormley left the National Park Service and local park promoters in
a familiar quandry. Park Service officials were faced with the challenge of finding a “local
representative” to manage the Monument’s affairs, since it still was not able to finance a full-
time employee at the park. Otto expressed his interest in the position, but the Park Service was
not willing to reappoint him. Instead, they suggested that perhaps Otto, working under the
Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, might manage the park.** By late October, 1927, the
Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce had officially accepted the responsibility of
administering the Colorado National Monument. Of course the Park Service still exercised
ultimate authority over the park’s development.*”

The chamber’s new position of authority persuaed Park Service officials and politicians
to consider constructing a road through the Colorado National Monument. While the Serpents
Trail was certainly better than no road at all, it did not access some of the park’s more
outstanding features. Due to’ increasing tourist levels and the chamber’s increasing
embarrassment over the Monument’s lack of facilities, it requested an appropriation of $5,000
from Colorado Senator Lawrence Phipps for the construction of a smaller road from the edge
of Monument Canyon to Independence Monument. It was hoped that a road across the park
could also be constructed eventually. The larger road spanning the park would cost an
estimated $50,000, and was necessary if the Colorado National Monument was ever to reach its
potential as a tourist attraction:

The difficulty in making available the features of the area has been the tack of a highway
leading into it. People come here from all sections of the United States with the object

Letter, John Otto to A.E. Demaray, Acting Assistant Director National Park Service, 10 May 1927.

*Letter, John Otto to Stephen Mather, Director National Park Service, 17 October 1927; Letter, John Otto
to Amo B. Cammerer, Assistant Director National Park Service, 20 October 1927,

Letter, A.E. Demaray, Acting Director National Park Service, to W.M. Wood, Secretary Grand Junction
Chamber of Commerce, 24 October 1927.

**Letter, A.E. Demaray, Acting Director National Park Service, to W.M. Wood, Secretary Grand Junction
Chamber of Commerce, 3 November 1927.

*4Letter, W.M. Wood, Secretary Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, to A.E. Demaray Acting Director
National Park Service, 1 March 1928.

49


be national monuments."” Section three allowed for the “examination,” “excavation” and
“gathering” of objects on these lands by authorized institutions for the purpose of expanding
knowledge.*

The Antiquities Act provided a great deal of latitude regarding the types of areas that
might become “national monuments." The term itself did little to describe the diversity of areas
set aside.” One facetious definition pointed out the "inconsisteacy” of national monuments:

A National Monument is a piece of land containing from 1 to 1,000,000 acres, either flat
or rough, timbered or bare ... But the most clearly outstanding character of the National
Monument is its complete inconsistency.”

Despite this type of criticism, the Antiquities Act and the idea of national monuments
achieved immediate success. In September, 1906, Devil’s Tower, the first national monument,
was established in Wyoming. In December of that same year, El Morro in New Mexico, and
Montezuma Castle and Petrified Forest in Arizona, were set aside. At the same time, however,
Westerners began to realize that setting aside many of these areas posed "a threat to the
economic ‘development’ of their states."" Several bills were introduced to amend the
Antiquities Act, including some that attempted to eradicate the President’s ability to set national
monuments aside. Although none of these bills passed, it was clear that Westerners felt
threatened by this new act. Between 1906 and 1978, however, ninety-nine areas became
national monuments. Presently, about 20 percent of all National Park Service sites are national
monuments.”

Colorado National Monument was established by a proclamation of President William
H. Taft on May 24, 1911. As with many national parks and monuments of this time period,
local economic conditions and the work of individuals and civic organizations influenced the
park’s creation. Not all local residents were involved. In fact, there was a clear distinction
between ideas of land use expressed by local ranchers and those espoused by park promoters.
Noticeably absent in the park movement were those local residents for whom national parks
were the most threatening. With little knowledge of, or interest in, national parks or the ideas
behind their creation, many Grand Valley ranchers and farmers did not actively support the
campaign to establish Colorado National Monument. Years of unrestricted use of the area led
many ranchers to believe that they could continue those uses even after the park was

"Ibid.

“Ibid.

*Ise, Our National Park Policy, p. 154.

Frank Waugh quoted in Ise, p. 155.

"Ise, Our National Park Policy, p. 160.

“Mackintosh, The National Parks: Shaping the System, p. 14.

15


Wilbur, Ray Lyman, Secretary of Interior. Letter to President Herbert Hoover, 1 March 1933. @

, Secretary of the Interior. Letter to John Otto, 28 November 1932.
Wilkenson, John R. Letter to Rick Enstrom, 10 September 1981.

. Letter to Superintendent Dennis Huffman, 24 June 1981.

. Letter to Superintendent Dennis Huffman, 9 July 1981.

. Letter to Superintendent Dennis Huffman, 13 July 1981.

. Letter to Superintendent Dennis Huffman, 22 July 1983.

. Letter to Judge Richard P. Matsch, 9 December 1985.

. Letter to Henry Schoch, Chief Ranger, and Dennis Huffman, Superintendent, 4 June
1981.

. Letter to Henry Schoch, Chief Ranger, and Dennis Huffman, Superintendent, 18 June
1981.

Wood W.M., Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce. Telegram to Horace Albright, National Park
Service Director, 7 November 1931.

, Secretary Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce. Letter to Horace Albright, Director of
National Park Service, 18 November 1932.

, Secretary Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce. Telegram to A.B. Cammerer, Director
National Park Service, 5 October 1933.

, Secretary Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce. Letter to A.E. Demaray, Acting
Director National Park Service, 15 May 1926.

, Secretary Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce. Letter to A.E. Demaray, Acting
Associate, 27 June 1930.

, Secretary Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce. Letter to A.E. Demaray, Acting
Director National Park Service, 1 March 1928,

, Secretary of Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, Letter to Director National Park
Service, 10 March 1923.

, Secretary Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce. Letter to F.A. Kittredge, Chief
Engineer National Park Service, 16 February 1932.

, Secretary Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce. Letter to A.E. Demaray, Active
___ Director National Park Service, 6 October 1932, _ @

136



Fnuita entrance and 18 miles from the Grand Junction entrance to the park. There were no
actual entrance stations in the park at this time. Most visitors entered and used the park without
making contact with a ranger who could explain park regulations. Consequently, visitors’ dogs
ran leashless and people removed rocks, flowers, trees and other objects. Night travel became
popular as people realized what a spectacular view of the Grand Valley the Monument afforded.
Use of the park at night increased the probability of campfires in restricted areas. With rangers
only able to make two complete loops of the park in an eight-hour period, much of the park was
left unprotected.TM

Local violations of park regulations during these’ years were prevalent. When local
stockmen learned that Monument personnel were going to relocate their stock drives outside the
park boundary, they were prepared to resist. Stock had originally been driven over the old
Fruita Dugway and the Serpents Trail from Glade Park and Pinyon Mesa. When the Serpents
Trail became part of the Rim Rock Drive, and the Dugway was obliterated during road
construction, stockmen were without a road. The park’s expansion in 1933 further exacerbated
the situation because the proclamation made both access roads to Glade Park and Pinyon Mesa
a part of the park. Eventually, an alternate road through the south end of No Thoroughfare
Canyon was provided, but it was long, and often stock was held there overnight. Even though
there was no water on this route, stockmen seemed temporarily satisfied. When park personnel
suggested a road outside the park, a conflict arose. Although this plan was halted, both park
officials and stockmen were left with unfavorable circumstances. Containing all the elements of
a westem conflict over land use, the situation included Park officials who did not want a
permanent stock driveway through their Monument, and stockmen who wanted their old stock
drives back.TM For the time being, the situation remained static.

A relationship that was bound to become volatile was that between the Park Service and
residents of the Glade Park region. The stock drive problem, and heavy trucking on Rim Rock
Drive by landowners in Glade Park and Pinyon Mesa were issues that needed to be resolved.
In spite of Park Service regulations to the contrary, marketable stock and wood were hauled
over Rim Rock Drive by Glade Park residents. Both the county and the Forest Service used the
road to haul heavy equipment from Pinyon Mesa, and by 1946, there was a rumor that a mining
company planned to start a copper mine and haul ore from the Glade Park region. Park
officials maintained that engineers never designed the road for this type of use.” Ironically,
while many Glade Park residents began to resent the Park Service, many had also benefitted a
great deal from the employment opportunities provided by the road project.

Despite some conflict, local initiatives also helped the park. A new road between Fruita
and Grand Junction in June 1948 decreased the distance from Monument headquarters to Grand

“Memorandum, B.R. Finch, Custodian Colorado National Monument, to the Coordinating Superintendent
of Mesa Verde National Park, 21 September 1946.

“Ibid.
*Tbid.
82


the road to be “built under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior." Response to the
bill indicated that the economic potential of the road was important:

The construction of this road will mean much to Grand Junction in that it will mean a
way of reaching the park by a good road by automobile. This means that thousands of
visitors will see the park where only hundreds would in other large parks of natural
wonders, tourist traffic is a prominent feature of summer traffic.'*

Taylor introduced the same bill in every session of Congress between 1911 and 1917.
The final attempt in April 1917 also failed. The rejection of Taylor’s bills reflected
governmental and congressional attitudes toward national parks in general. Prior to the creation
of the National Park Service in 1916, Congress had little interest in developing the parks."
In fact, Congress did not appropriate any money for national monuments until 1916—ten years
after the Antiquities Act passed.'*

Despite the lack of legislative support, the campaign for a road continued. The first
substantive efforts toward building a road through the Colorado National Monument were part
of Otto’s plans to include the Monument in a transcontinental highway known as the Union
Trail. The Union Trail was designed to stretch from Grand Junction’s Main Street Bridge,
through the Colorado National Monument and the plateau country of Pinon Mesa, toward
Moab, Utah. The section of the road that would eventually traverse the park essentially
followed the same route but acquired several names: Rimrock Route, Otto’s Road, Glade Park
Road, and the Grand Rimrock Boulevard.”

More commonly referred to as Glade Park Road or Rimrock Route, this section of road
was supposed to perform numerous functions: a route to Glade Park, a scenic drive, and a
stretch of the transcontinental highway. Otto estimated that $1000 would be needed to construct
it, but the $100 he had already raised would be a good start. He also took the time to challenge
any engineer to survey a better route. Mesa County Engineer James Fisk surveyed and
approved of Otto’s proposed route just days later. In his description of the road, Fisk
commented that "there is one place where the traveler looks straight down for 400 feet into the
depths of the Monument Park.""* He estimated that for $6500 it could be built and would be
an "important step toward development for this city” as well as a road of the "greatest scenic

“Ibid.

Taylor Asks $25,000 for Road to National Monolithic Park," Daily Sentinel, 10 June 1911.
“Letter, Commissioner General Land Office to John Otto, 30 January 1913.

Ise, Our National Park Policy, p. 160.

Kania, John Otto of Colorado National Monument, p. 78.

TM*"Raise Money For Highway to Utah Line,” Daily Sentinel, circa 1911.

TM*Glade Park Road One of Scenic Grandeur," Daily Sentinel, 26 December 1911.

36


the construction of the road.“ According to Secrest, Anderson had become too involved in
the engineering of the road for which he had no experience or qualifications. When he was
appointed custodian, he was expected to carry on relations with local organizations and attend
to the overall protection of the park. Secrest was responsible for road. construction and
supervision. Although the two men maintained a cooperative relationship, Secrest commented
that “it was unfortunate and unfair for both Mr. Anderson and the Government that a policy
exists whereby authority and control of expensive Government works are vested in an
administrative head as such, regardless of the experience or ability. Mr. Anderson cannot be
blamed too severely—he was a victim.”* Anderson felt that, in light of this conflict, his
services would be of greater use in another park. He left the Colorado National Monument on
good terms with the community and with Secrest.” Secrest was designated acting custodian
until a replacement was selected.“

In August 1935, Mesa Verde National Park assumed authority of the Colorado National
Monument and the Black Canyon of the Gunnison. Emest P. Leavitt became acting
superintendent of the Monument and Black Canyon on August 13. On October 4, 1935,
Paul R. Franke, Assistant Park Naturalist at Mesa Verde, assumed Leavitt’s duties as acting
superintendent.” During that same month, Park Service officials decided to "kill all plans for
a permanent ranger or custodian at this time," and to "continue having the superintendent of
Mesa Verde in charge as acting custodian." They felt that, because vandalism had not
worsened since Otto’s days, a resident custodian was unnecessary. Furthermore, the road
project was the first priority: "the big job is to push the road ahead with all force."*"

In May 1936, the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce expressed its displeasure with
this decision, once again illustrating that it still affected Park Service policy to a certain degree:

“Memorandum, Arno B. Cammerer, Director of National Park Service to Harold L. Ickes, Secretary of the
Interior, 13 July 1936.

“Letter, T.W. Secrest to F.A. Kittredge, Chief Engineer National Park Service, 30 January 1936.
Letter, Clifford Anderson to A.B. Cammerer, Director of National Park Service, 13 July 1935.

“Letter, Hillory A. Tolson, Acting Director of National Park Service, to F.W. Bocking, President Fruita
Chamber of Commerce, 20 July 1935.

Memorandum for the Washington Office by Hillory A. Tolson, Acting Director, 15 August 1935.

“Memorandum for the Washington Office by Hillory A. Tolson, Acting Associate Director of National
Park Service, 4 October 1935.

Letter, Arno B. Cammerer to A-E. Demaray, 4 October 1935.

77


unemployment."“ Albright responded by stating that funds were not available for the
construction of the entire road but that he would authorize funds for the first section of
construction.”

Just weeks before construction began, the Park Service’s plans were interrupted. During
the second week of November, 1931, the chamber of commerce and county commissioners,
anxious to start construction, authorized the beginning of work on the road to the Monument
boundary. They even donated equipment to the cause.“ The National Park Service,
however, wanted to postpone construction until a landscape architect evaluated the proposed
routes. The Park Service also wanted-a full description of the road-project to-be approved by
its offices in San Francisco. When these issues were resolved, construction officially began
on November 21, 1931.

The first section of construction, from Station 0+00 Section 1B to Station 83+00
Section 1B, was chosen for a number of reasons.” The construction began near the center of
the present Rim Rock Road, and headed west toward Fruita Canyon. The goal was to make the
scenery of the Monument Canyon accessible to tourists as soon as possible, so construction
started near the canyon rim. Monument Canyon contained the park’s most outstanding physical
features—the monoliths—but access to it was limited. Initiating the construction in this section
was also important because it completed the loop from Grand Junction to Fruita. Because the
Serpents Trail was already built on the east side of the park, it made sense to start where this
road ended. According to this construction plan, part of the loop was already completed.”
During the first phase of construction, about 50 men from all over Mesa County were employed
by the project, which provided some of the only work to the county’s unemployed. The project
benefitted local businesses, because workers had money to spend on goods and project officials
purchased construction supplies from local stores.” .

Telegram, Edward Taylor to Horace Albright, 8 November 1931.
*Telegram, Horace Albright to Edward Taylor, 9 November 1931.
*Telegram, A.E. Demaray to F.A. Kittredge, 10 November 1931.

Telegram, Horace Albright to F.A. Kittredge, 12 November 1931.
See Figure 4.1.

TW. Secrest, Final Construction Report on Scenic Rim Rock Road Stations 210+ 00 to 370+00 Section
1B Account F.P. 95.8 (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 15 March 1937), pp. 1-3.

TMNews Aids—Warings, (Grand Junction: Chamber of Commerce, 15 December 1932), p. 2.

34



There is no relation between Mesa Verde and the Colorado National Monument, nor has
the Superintendent the least interest in or conception of how a project should be carried
on.”

The National Park Service considered the chamber’s opinions, but eventually decided it was best
to have a permanent national park superintendent in charge of the Monument as Secrest was
only a temporary ECW employee.” As late as December 1937, however, the Mesa County
Commissioners adopted and passed a resolution in which they stated that, because of the
differences between Colorado National Monument and Mesa Verde, the "joint administration”
of the parks was “incompatible with the best interest, proper development, and fullest utilization
of Colorado National Monument in which the people of Grand Junction and the surrounding
territory are vitally interested... .""* A copy of the resolution sent to Congressman Taylor
indicated the local community’s continuing proprietary attitude about the park; they requested
that a separate administration and custodian be acquired for Colorado National Monument for
the sake of the "large public investment."”*

In early 1936, the management of Colorado National Monument shifted once again as
Jesse Nusbaum, superintendent of Mesa Verde, became the acting superintendent of the
Monument. At first, administration under Mesa Verde consisted of a series of bi-monthly
inspections by the acting superintendent. Usually the inspections lasted a day or more and then
the acting superintendent returned to Mesa Verde. For the most part, the acting superintendent
umpired the relationship between the various federal agencies working on the road and the local
community. Many of Nusbaum’s policies, like those of his predecessor, were shaped by local
conditions. He realized that due to the diversity of work camps in the park an interruption in
the work program would endanger at least 600 jobs. To prevent such an event, he devised a
plan that included the following: improvement of worker morale, definition of community
needs, transfer of a resident ranger, and pushing the work so that more visitors could access. the
park. He transferred all Colorado National Monument funding, fiscal, and accounting records
to Mesa Verde National Park as well.’”

In September 1937, a resident ranger, James Luther, arrived at Colorado National
Monument to serve as the "resident representative” for Mesa Verde.” Luther came to the
Monument at the same time that Rim Rock Drive opened for visitor use. The road opening
changed ranger duties markedly. Previously, visitors were limited by heavy construction, but

Letter, W.M. Wood, Secretary Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, to A.R. Nowels, 29 May 1936.

“Memorandum, Arno B. Cammerer, Director of National Park Service, to Harold L. Ickes, Secretary of
the Interior, 13 Juné 1936.

Mesa County, Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners, Book 10, 2 December 1937, p. 155.
"Ibid.

“Informal Memorandum, Nusbaum to Furr, 22 November 1937.

*Tbid.

2B



had "persecuted" him by misinterpreting Code of Federal Regulations 36 Section 6.5. He also
told Huffman that if Assistant U.S. Attorneys Richard Jost and Bruce Black continued to
represent Huffman and Schoch, then they too were part of the “conspiracy to deny” his rights.
Wilkenson’s concluding remarks indicated how deeply involved in the lawsuit he had become
and how radical his rhetoric had become:

If you want to establish exclusive jurisdiction over the road segment at issue, then I
suggest you follow proper procedure and talk to the Colorado Legislature, or go into
court against Mesa County and Colorado and fight for it. It would seem that your smug
and arrogant criminal persecution of me is nearing the failure that has been its destiny
since its inception. Nevertheless, I request that you stop your criminal activities on your
own volition before the court stops them for you.*

Not long after this letter was written, even Wilkenson began to doubt the court system.
In October 1983, he wrote a letter to the editor of the Daily Sentinel, explaining his frustrations
with the delay in his trial. He stated that he had “exhausted all possible avenues for obtaining
administrative relief," and that he had “work{ed] diligently" in the court system for two years
in the hopes that the lawsuit would be resolved.” It had been two years since Wilkenson filed
his suit and, while the newspapers only discussed the more important events of the case, a great
deal of interaction took place in court that was never reported. Between August 1981, when
Wilkenson filed a Notice of Citations and January 4, 1984, when Assistant U.S. District
Attorney Bruce Black filed the Government’s Omnibus Reply, there were 103 separate filings
regarding Wilkenson’s criminal and civil cases, and the county’s civil case.

By January 1984, the lawsuit became even more complex when Assistant U.S. Attorney
Bruce Black asked that the county’s case be consolidated with Wilkenson’s case. In his
"proposal for the orderly litigation of issues," submitted to the court in December 1983, Black
requested "an order restructuring these cases and providing for a schedule for discovery,
motions and trial of all issues."** The request further suggested “alternative solutions for the
resolution of the procedural logjam that has stalled these cases and proposes alternative methods
for the expeditious resolution of legitimate substantive issues."** The "logjam" was the result

“Letter, John R. Wilkenson to Superintendent Dennis Huffman, 22 July 1983.

John Wilkenson, "Speaking the Public Mind: Unconscionable Trial Delay," Daily Sentinel, 13 October
1983.

Index of Filings Regarding the Road Controversy on the East End of Colorado National Monument’s Rim
Rock Drive, Colorado National Monument Archive and Museum Collection.

“Bruce Black, "Proposal for the Orderly Litigation of Issues," Filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado, 9 December 1983, pp. 1-2, in United States of America v. John R. Wilkenson (Case
No. 81-CR-210); United States of America v. John R. Wilkenson, et al. (Case No. 83-CR-388); John R.
Wilkenson v. Department of the Interior of the United States et al. (Case No. 81-M-1825); Board of County
Commissioners of Mesa County, Colorado, et al. v. James Watt, et al. (Case No. 82-Z-2171).

“Ibid.

113


932, and that it had not taken any property rights from the county. To the county’s second
claim, the Park Service stated that “estoppel and adverse possession do not min against the
government.” Past court decisions. established that estoppel was not applicable in cases
where the U.S. government and one of its agents were involved in litigation. Finally, in
Tesponse to the third claim, the Park Service stated that no “procedural or constitutional defect”
existed in the statutes and regulations. The Park Service also contended that the plaintiffs did
not succeed in stating a claim that could be granted and that the court still lacked the jurisdiction
to try the case. The Park Service asserted that, even if the County did acquire a right-of- way
on Rim Rock Drive, in 1959 they formally vacated Serpents Trail. For the Park Service, the
1959 vacation order signalled an abandonment of that right.”" —— 7

In late August 1984, Assistant U.S. Attorney Bruce Black filed a motion to dismiss the
criminal cases against Wilkenson and the protesters. Both the U.S. Attomey’s office and the
Park Service believed that the issues raised in the criminal cases would be resolved in the civil
cases.” Earlier that summer, the Park Service received an “interim order" from Judge
Matsch to continue the fee/affidavit policy for the summer of 1984 in order to “preserve the
rights of the parties and protect the public peace.”*”

On August 21, 1984, the plaintiffs submitted a 73-page trial brief to Judge Matsch. The
document outlined in full the county’s claims against the National Park Service. Beginning with
a detailed history of roads between Grand Junction and Glade Park before and after the
Monument’s establishment, the brief stated that the “unifying theme underlying the whole
history of the Glade Park Road is access." Although this statement is true, it is ironic that
the county chose to refer to Rim Rock Drive as the Glade Park Road. This only reinforced
how the Park Service and the county held vastly different views of the purpose of Rim Rock
Drive. The document then discussed the development of the county’s right-of-way over Rim
Rock Drive and the necessary laws upholding this right. The county asserted that roads existed
even before John Otto began to build trails and that the existence of such roads was evidence
of an established right-of-way before the Monument was formed.” The county also stated

TMMatsch, “Pre-Trial Order,” p. 4.
“Ibid., pp. 5-6.

TMBruce Black, Assistant U.S. Attorney, "Motion to Dismiss, In the United States District Court, For the
District of Colorado,” in United States v. John R. Wilkenson, 24 August 1984, p. 2. (Criminal Case No. 81-

CR-210).

Judge Richard Matsch, "Proposed Order In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,”
15 May 1984.

*Frial Brief of Board of County Commissioners, et al.," 21 August 1984, p. 5, in the U.S. District Court,
District of Colorado, Board of County Commissioners of Mesa County, Colorado et al. v. James Watt et al.
(Civil Action No. 82 M 2171) and John R. Wilkenson v. Department of the Interior of the United States et al.
(Civil Action No. 81 M 1825).

116



The Grand Junction chamber of Commerce was an equally important element in the
success of the "park proposition,” and like Otto, it soon developed a proprietary attitude toward
the Monument. In December 1908, Otto approached members of the chamber, hoping to
interest them in a tour of his "Monument Cajion proposition."” They declined due to bad
weather. In June, he again extended his offer and was once more rejected because the weather
"was rather too hot." Otto was still hopeful when he expressed these sentiments:

When I return this fall I'll call again for I’m a stayer. I hope then it will be neither too
cold or too hot nor too wet or too dry—but just right. There is a whole lot of work in
sight and by working together much can be accomplished. For the people, the people at
home and the people that come—they must see the natural national monuments,TM

Once the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce finally agreed to “work together" with Otto,
the promotion of Monument Canyon acquired a new energy and a voice that most people
probably trusted more than that of Otto. Part of the chamber’s initial involvement in the
promotion came in the form of "inspections" and “investigations,” which usually resulted in
flowery write-ups in the Daily Sentinel about Otto’s tireless devotion to the Monument Canyon.
One such headline illustrated that the chamber’s primary interest in Colorado National
Monument was economically motivated:

Investigation Made of Great Scenic Spot Near This City: Wonderful Sights Viewed by
Committee from Chamber of Commerce--Grand Junction Asleep to Possibilities of
Opening to the World of One of the Greatest Paradises of Natural Beauties to be Found
in the West—Right at the Gates of the City.”

Each of the chamber’s inspections were described in terms of the “possibilities” for Grand
Junction, a city that the chamber of commerce believed had "a golden opportunity to be
nationally known for the scenic wonders that are at its door as well as nationally known for its
fruit and its climate." Referring to the Monument as "a wealth of scenic beauty so near the
city,” also reinforced the idea that the scenery could somehow translate into an economic gain
for the city.'”

While descriptions of the chamber’s trips to Monument Canyon were certainly important
in building interest in the area, public access was the key to serious development of the park.
In April of 1909, the chamber began its campaign to advertise the Monument Park’s scenic

TM"Otto Tells of Grand Mesa," Daily Sentinel, 7 August 1908.
=Tbid.
“bid.
=*Investigation Made of Great Scenic Spot. . . ." Daily Sentinel, 19 April 1909.
“Tid,
TM*To Photograph the Monument," Daily Sentinel, 23 April 1909.
23




1979 with the passage of Assembly Bill 413 by the sixty-member Nevada Legislature.
Assembly Bill 413 was a public land act in which the state of Nevada called for state control of
“certain lands within the state boundaries" under the administration of the Bureau of Land
Management.’ Totaling 48 million acres, this BLM land comprised 79 percent of the state of
Nevada. According to the authors of AB 413, the Sagebrush Rebellion was fueled by the
perception that the federal government was both ignorant and unsympathetic to the impact of its
policies on the West.* Supporting the movement’s inherently anti-government rhetoric, Utah,
Wyoming, and New Mexico soon joined in the "rebellion." In the fall of 1979, Utah Senator
Orrin Hatch introduced legislation proposing the transfer from federal to state ownership of 544
million acres of land in thirteen western states.”

Proposed “Sagebrush” legislation revealed the percentage of western lands administered
by the federal government. More than half of the land inass of the western United States is
federally managed. Individual state percentages appear startling: Utah was 64 percent federally
managed, Idaho 63 percent, Wyoming 47 percent, Arizona 42 percent, and Colorado 36
percent. In contrast, no more than 12 percent of any state east of Colorado is federally
managed.* Historically, however, the United States has always held the title to more land in
the west than in the east.? Three “superbureaus" administer the majority of western land: the
National Park Service administers 20,000,000 acres, the Forest Service manages 163,420,000,
and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oversees 174 million acres.”

Of the three superbureaus, the National Park Service exercises the most restrictive land
use policies. Unlike the Forest Service and BLM, the Park Service generally does not allow
multiple use activities in its parks and monuments. Its 1916 mission “to conserve the scenery
and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment
of the same in such manner and by such means as wili leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment
of the future generations” created conflicts from the moment of its inception." During first
Park Service Director Stephen Mather’s administration, dams, stockmen, miners, fires, wildlife

‘Cawley, "The Sagebrush Rebellion," p. 95.
‘Tbid., p. 96.
*Malone and Etulain, The American West: A Twentieth Century History, pp. 69, 220.

‘Richard Lamm and Michael McCarthy, The Angry West: A Vulnerable Land and its Future (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1982), pp. 237-238.

*Robert Sterling Yard, Our Federal Lands: A Romance of American Development (New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1928), p. 10.

"Lamm and McCarthy, The Angry West, p. 238.

“Barry Mackintosh, The National Parks: Shaping the System (Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the
Interior, 1991), p. 19.

vii


Fishell, Dave. Interview by Lisa M. Schoch, 14 August 1992, Grand Junction, Colorado.

Huffman, Dennis. Telephone interview by Lisa M. Schoch, 6 February 1994,

Schoch, Henry. Telephone interview by Lisa M. Schoch, 27 April 1994,

Wilkenson, John R. Interview by Lisa M. Schoch, 17 August 1992, Grand Junction, Colorado.
. Interview by Lisa M. Schock, 17 August 1992, Orchard Mesa, Colorado.

Woods, Vern. Interview by Maria Baldi, 10 June 1976. Transcript, Oral History Collection, Colorado
National Monument Museum and Archive Collection.

County Documents

(Unless otherwise indicated, alt documents are located in the Colorado National Monument Museum

and Archive Collection.) ,

Mesa County, Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners, Book 5, 1 April 1912, Mesa
County Courthouse, Grand Junction, Colorado.

. Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners, Book 10, 2 December 1937.

. Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners, Book ?, 23 November 1959. Records
of the Mesa County Courthouse, Grand Junction, Colorado.

Robinson, J.D. Deputy County Surveyor. Report on Road From End of Present County Road to East
Creek Divide, 30 January 1884. Submitted to the Mesa County Commissioners.

Road Petition for the Board of County Commissioners, filed at the Office of the County Clerk, 13
November 1883.

Wilkenson, David. Deed to John R. Wilkenson, Reception No. 1257437 Book 1314. Mesa County,
Colorado, 19 May 1981.

Correspondence/Telegrams

(Unless otherwise indicated al! documents are photocopies of National Archives Record Group 79
Central Files, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service located in the Colorado
National Monument Museum and Archive Collection.)

Albright, Horace. Letter to L.W. Burgess, President Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, 29
February 1932.

. Telegram to F.A. Kittredge, 12 November 1931.

, Director National Park Service. Letter to Senator Lawrence Phipps, 9 February 1929.

131


"Greater Precaution to Protect Men on Rimrock Road asked by Employees." Daily Sentinel, 16
December 1933.

Harmon, Gary. "Neighbors Wary of Park Proposal.” Daily Sentinel, 28 January 1989,

"Hooper National Park.” Daily Sentinel, 10 May 1911.

Hutchins, Tom. "A History of the Glade Park Road Controversy." Fruita Times, 3 October 1984.
"Investigation by Competent Engineer," Daily Sentinel, ca. 15 December 1933.

"Investigation Made of Great Scenic Spot Near This City." Daily Sentinel 19 April 1909.

"Is Your Name On This List?" Daily Sentinel, 15 February 1910.

"It’s Official: County to Sue Park Service." Daily Sentinel, 18 August 1982.

"John Otto Comments on Some Fiery Themes." Daily Sentinel, 30 March 1910.

"John Otto Determined to Build Scenic Road." Daily Sentinel, 6 February 1909.

"John Otto Has Narrow Escape From Death From Explosion." Daily Sentinel, 17 October 1910.
"John Otto Released." Daily Sentinel, 24 February 1906.

“Judge Nixes Monument Segment Fee." Daily Sentinel, 3 May 1986.

"Junction Entrance to Monument to be in Operation By July 1." The Morning Sun, 20 June 1960.

Knox, Don. "Monument Chief Holds Steady to Stand on Coors Bike Race." Rocky Mountain News,
13 February 1986.

"Lawsuit Overshadows Park, County Neighbor Cooperation." Fruita Times, 27 October 1982.
"Many Visitors at the Canon.” Daily Sentinel, 1 September 1909.
“Map Monument Park Road Out." Daily Sentinel, 16 December 1916.

McCullen, Kevin. "Some Parks Could Close, Retiring Officials Warns." Rocky Mountain News,
1992.

"Means Much to This City." Daily Sentinel, 20 November 1909.
“Monument Park Campaign Given Boost by Wadleigh,” Daily Sentinel, 2 December 1916.
“Monument Park Development to be Considered at Meeting." Daily Sentinel, 11 November 1916.

"Monument Park Development Working Gaining Impetous Daily." Daily Sentinel, 16 November
1916.

139


Strait, Richard A. Memorandum to Associate Director Planning and Resource Preservation Rocky
Mountain Region, to Assistant Manager Midwest/Rocky Mountain Team, Denver Service Center,
19 March 1980.

Tolson, Hillory A., Acting Director of National Park Service. Memorandum for the Washington
Office, 15 August 1935.

, Acting Associate Director of National Park Service. Memorandum for the Washington
Office, 4 October 1935.

Articles

Farrell, Tyrone. “The Civilian Conservation Corps on The Colorado National Monument." Journal of
the Western Slope Vol. 6, No. 4 (Summer 1991): 1-28.

Wright, Alice. "Colorado National Monument Growing." Westworld, 13 January 1977. Mesa County
Library Clipping File.

Reports/Minutes

(Unless otherwise indicated all documents are located at the Colorado National Monument Museum
and Archive Collection.)

Duer, Charles L. and J.P. Golden, Mineral Inspectors. Report to Commissioner General Land Office,
26 April 1911, Alan Kania Research Materials, Colorado National Monument Museum and
Archive Collection.

Gorden, C., Mineral Examiner General Land Office. Report to Commissioner General Land Office,
17 June 1915. Photocopy. National Archive Record Group 79, Colorado National Monument
Museum and Archive Collection.

Haywood, William F. Report on Fatal Accident, 13 December 1933.
Kittredge, F.A., Chief Engineer National Park Service. “Conference and Inspection of Proposed Road
Activities, Colorado National Monument,Grand Junction, Colorado," 13 August 1930,

Photocopy. National Archives Record Group 79, Colorado National Monument Museum and
Archive Collection.

Miller, Horace. Final Construction Report on Scenic Rim Rock Road Sections A,B,C,D Account 508,
1937-1940 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1940.

"Mission 66 for Colorado National Monument." U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park
Service, ca. 1956.

Secrest, T.W. Final Construction Report on Scenic Rim Rock Road Stations 210+ 00 to 370+.00
Section 1B Account F.P, 95.8. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 15 March 1937.

145


1915, the chamber wrote to Taylor requesting an appropriation for the construction of a 25-mile
road through the park "that would surpass in scenic attractions any other road in Colorado."*
Whether or not the plans for this road extended beyond Otto’s route for the Glade Park/Rimrock
Road is not known. The chamber estimated that $25,000 “would complete it fit for motor
travel."TM A “national park committee" consisting of people appointed to "have charge of the
affairs of the park” who planned to “assist the government and the community" in developing
the Colorado National Monument, was also created by the chamber.TM Taylor’s response was
not positive. His attempts to acquire appropriations had failed, and he knew that it would be
impossible to obtain any money from Congress for road building.

The Daily Sentinel also joined in the "road fever” by waging a fierce campaign during
the fall of 1916 to promote the park and raise money for its development. Offering $25 toward
park improvements, the Sentinel appealed to citizens of Mesa County to do their part:

If our people would take hold of this proposition, properly fence it, add some
conveniences, widen and strengthen John Otto’s wonderful trails, improve the roads
from the city to the canyon and do a consistent and effective amount of advertising, we
believe that in a comparatively short time the Monument Park would attract as many
tourists each summer as the Garden of the Gods.”

The Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, the local women’s club, the county commissioners,
and even the Rio Grande Railroad responded to the newspaper’s plea by organizing fund raisers,
publicity opportunities, and actively improving the park. May 2, 1916, was declared "Good
Roads Day,” a time for local “businessmen, professional men, laborers, and everybody else”
to work on an approach road to the Colorado National Monument’s east end.TM In early
November, 1916, a meeting was called in which George Bullock, chairman of the Grand
Junction Chamber of Commerce, was put in charge of the "Monument Park Development."
With a donation of $100 to $200 from the Sentinel, this group hoped to "develop the park, trim
the trees, erect a small rest room, [and] place benches under the trees."*’

The road through the park was the most important element of the committee’s proposed
development plan. By December, 1916, the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce Monument

*L etter, L. Antles, Secretary Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, to Edward T. Taylor, 23 January
1915.

*Tbid.

*Tbid.

=3"Monument Park Should be Developed; Let’s Do It Now,” Daily Sentinel, 10 November 1916.
TM"Work Roads on May 2 Scheme," Daily Sentinel, 25 April 1916.

"Monument Park Development to be Considered at Meeting,” Daily Sentinel, 11 November 1916.

. 38



PREFACE e@

A prevalent theme in the history of the American West is the conflict between westerners
and the federal government over public land policy. The conflict stems from changes in the
federal government’s nineteenth-century public land policies and the way in which these changes
affected westerners accustomed to unrestricted use of that land. Throughout the late nineteenth
century, incentives such as the Homestead Act of 1862, the Timber Culture Act of 1873, and
the Desert Land Act of 1876 were used to entice people to settle the West and to facilitate
private_ownership of the land. Not yet equipped to handle the management of tl the public

domain, the government instead disposed of the land through legislation:"~~

In 1872, when Yellowstone National Park was established, the government’s role shifted
from temporary custodianship to “permanent land management."? As the conservation
movement emerged in the early twentieth century, the federal government withdrew millions of
acres from the public domain. Government agencies, including the Forest Service in 1905,
National Park Service in 1916, and the product of the Grazing Service and General Land
Office—the Bureau of Land Management in 1946—were formed to administer these lands. By
1909, there were 159 national forests encompassing 151 million acres of western land.
Conservation-minded President Theodore Roosevelt established five national parks, sixteen
national monuments and fifty-one wildlife sanctuaries and withdrew 50 million acres of coal
lands during his term in office. Shortly after Roosevelt’s presidency, the federal government
began to regulate and charge fees for grazing.’

Responses to the conservation movement indicated that many Westerners were concemed @
about the increasingly restrictive nature of federal land policies. Between 1907 and 1915, six
public land conferences were held in the western states, providing ranchers the opportunity to
voice their opinions over the news that grazing fees might be charged in national forest lands.
A generation later, between 1940 and 1943, Nevada Senator Patrick McCarran held committee
hearings to discuss transferring contro! of grazing lands to state ownership.‘ By the 1970s, a
pattern of local resistance to federal land policies was well established.

A more radical form of resistance, the "Sagebrush Rebellion" briefly emerged from
1979 to 1981. Considered more symbolic than substantive, the "rebellion" effectively began in

*Patricia Nelson Limerick, The Legacy of Conquest: The Unbroken Past of the American West (New York:
W.W. Norton & Company, 1987), p. 70; for general information on these three Acts see Benjamin Horace
Hibbard, A History of the Public Land Policies (New York: Macmillan Company, 1924).

*Limerick, A Legacy of Conquest, p. 70.

'Michael P. Malone and Richard W. Etulain, The American West: A Twentieth Century History (Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 1989), pp. 69, 220; R. McGreggor Cawley, “The Sagebrush Rebellion” (Ph.D.
Diss., Colorado State University, 1981), p. 120.

“C. Brant Short, Ronald Reagan and the Public Lands: America’s Conservation Debate, 1979-1984 e@
(College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 1989), pp. 10-11.

vi



enforcement. Otto’s interpretation of park regulations included a wide variety of restrictions.
In one of his fliers, entitled "The Colorado National Monument: Regulations," he outlined his
interpretation of the law in this way:

No Guns of any kind permitted. No Posts, Christmas Trees or Green Stuff of any kind
to be cut. No Wood to be taken without a permit. The marking of autographs, dates,
initials, drawings, or other pencilings or carvings of any kind whatsoever, and the
painting or posting of advertising signs on the rimrock walls or rocks or trees, is
prohibited. Do not set fire to growing trees or roll rocks down the sides of the canon.
Be careful in selecting the spot for your camp fire so as not to scorch the surrounding
trees, rock, etc, Assist in keeping the park clean. Wherever you camp or eat your lunch,
clean up all waste paper, boxes, plates, tin cans, etc. Leave no refuse,”

In his attempt to restrict local use of the park, John Otto bore the burden of enforcing
regulations single-handedly. More importantly, these rules created a chasm between Otto and
those local residents not interested in park development of any kind. His attempts to enforce
the regulations also indicated that some local residents, especially ranchers from Glade Park,
felt that the Monument was like any other part of the public domain and should be similarly
used.

Most of Otto’s efforts to protect the park were aggravated by its location, insufficient
manpower, and local residents either unfamiliar with, or resistant to, the regulations. Because
portions of the park were still used for stock drives, Otto frequently charged ranchers with
trespassing. On several occasions he became quite aggressive. As early as 1913, Otto
complained that some “half-witted cowpunchers” known as the Smithy brothers continued to
drive their cattle over the park’s trails, despite warnings that the trails were for horses and
people only. According to Otto, “other cow people have never attempted to drive stock over
these trails," so it seems that Otto previously tried to familiarize people with park policy. He
eventually requested that a federal court address the matter of convicting these men.'” The
General Land Office notified the “cow outfit” that continued illegal use would result in a
hearing before the U.S. District Attomney.”” Otto did his best to enforce regulations on his
own, but often sought advice from the General Land Office, and later, the Park Service.

Another far more colorful trespassing case began in the winter of 1914-15, when what
Otto referred to as a "Kaiser-worshiping, Hun-principled sheep man" named Gus Bullerdick
brought his sheep to the mouth of the Monument Canyon. It is not clear how Otto issued
warnings regarding trespassing, but his relations with Bullerdick indicate that he was not
diplomatic. In fact, Otto admitted that Bullerdick was the only person he “ever had to pack a

"John Otto, Flier of Regulations, Colorado National Monument, no date.
Letter, John Otto to M.D. McEniry, Chief General Land Office, 12 November 1913.
Letter, M.D. McEniry, General Land Office, to the Smithy Brothers, 18 November 1913.

32


teleases and personal letters, park officials reminded Glade Park residents of the upcoming fee
season and told them where new permits could be acquired. They made sure that residents
were given plenty of advance notice regarding the permits.”

At the same time, Chief Ranger Schoch and Superintendent Huffman began gathering
information for the trial. In an effort to establish consistency in fee collection, letters
requesting information on the park’s past fee policies were sent to former employees. Three of
these employees—Robert Powell, Jerry Banta, and Duocan Burchard—indicated in
correspondence with Dennis Huffman that between 1970 and 1975, Monument officials had not
charged Glade Park residents for access, but had issued special window stickers. -All three men
stated that the system had been badly abused.**

Trying to balance trial preparation with everyday park operations proved to be a
challenge. The June protest alarmed the Monument officials for a number of reasons. In his
report regarding the incident, Chief Ranger Schoch indicated that the protest was somewhat of
a turning point in Wilkenson’s conflict with the Park Service. In addition to the fact that the
protest was carefully planned—even the media were informed before the Park Service—it was
clear that those involved were seeking publicity. Seeking publicity was nothing new to
Wilkenson. He had already established himself as a prolific letterwriter; when he was not
writing to government officials, his letters were found in the Daily Sentinel, and other local
papers. Schoch was also concerned that the protesters would seek out nationally publicized
events, such as the annual Coors International Bicycle Classic, which was held in part on Rim
Rock Drive, for future protests. More importantly, the protest had "disrupted normal park
operations. °*

Two more protests were staged at the east entrance again in July. During the protest
held in late July, Wilkenson distributed flyers to the fee collectors in which he stated that
Schoch and Huffman were committing a felony by asking their employees to issue tickets. He
said that the tickets were a violation of Code of Federal Regulations 36, Section 6.5, and that
Colorado National Monument was acting out of its legal authority. He warned the fee
collectors: "Do not be swayed by any attempts at coercion and/or intimidation that may be
perpetrated against you by your superiors."

Wilkenson also wrote a letter to Superintendent Huffman in July. Referring to his letter
as a "final notice’ of Huffman’s “criminal activities," Wilkenson stated that the superintendent

“Henry Schoch, "News Release, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service," 19 May 1983.

*Memorandum, Robert Powell to Superintendent Dennis Huffman, 22 October 1982; Memorandum, Jerry
Banta to Superintendent Dennis Huffman, ca. 1982; Memorandum, Duncan Burchard to Superintendent Dennis
Huffman, 20 October 1982.

“Henry Schoch, "Protest at East Entrance... ," 5 June 1983.

“°T_ Michael Crowell,-"Monument Gate Crashers Face Citations," Daily Sentinel, 26 July 1983; John _
Wilkenson, "Legal Notice Attention Colorado National Monument Employee,” 24 July 1983.

112



entrance to No Thoroughfare Canyon near the present start of Rim Rock Drive.“ On the other
end of the valley, near the present site of the west entrance of Colorado National Monument,
a road known as the Fruita Dugway was built. It stretched from Fruita through Fruita Canyon,
toward Glade Park. The Fruita Dugway was built during the 1907 construction of the Fruita
Water Pipeline, which delivered water from reservoirs on Pifion Mesa to the city of Fruita.“
Both Glade Park and Grand Valley ranchers used the Dugway to drive their cattle to and from
summer and winter range on Glade Park and the Valley.”

Another community in close proximity to the Colorado National Monument is Fruita.
Its interests in the land of the Colorado National Monument were also quite apparent prior to
the park’s establishment. Located on the main line of the Denver and Rio Grand Railroad,
Fruita lies 12 miles west of Grand Junction. William E, Pabor established the town in May
1884. Shortly thereafter, he formed the Fruita Town and Land Company, which purchased 520
acres of land and enough water rights to irrigate the tract. By 1886, five-acre plots of this tract
were sold for $500.° Fruita continued its growth throughout the early 1900s. A variety of
advancements contributed to this growth. The first school was organized in 1884, the first
telephone used in 1900, and electricity came to Fruita in 1910.*

Fruita was an agricultural community where diversified farming with potatoes, sugar
beets, and winter wheat was common, but fruit was the most profitable crop. Pabor believed
the soi] around Fruita was ideal for fruit growing, and as early as 1883, he planted orchards in
the Lower Valley (Fruita’s location in the Grand Valley). Apples were particularly successful,
although other fruit crops were grown. By 1910, Fruita shipped its crops by rail to various
markets outside the Grand Valley.* Difficulties with irrigation and coddling moths led to the
decline of the fruit industry, which nonetheless remained central to the economy of the Grand
Valley until around 1911.

Until 1907 Fruita did not have an efficient water system. Water was hauled from the
river or from nearby irrigation ditches, presenting the danger of using contaminated waters. As
a result, the Fruita and Redlands districts decided to construct a pipeline from the "Fruita Forest

Ela, Interview by Sally Crum, 25 March 1976, p. 5.
“Moore, Original History of Glade Park, p. 8.
Memorandum, Finch to Mesa Verde, 21 September 1946.
"Mehls, The Valley of Opportunity, p. 139.

“McCreanor, Mesa County, Colorado, p. 5.

“Thid., p. 14.

“Tbid., p. 14.

il


@ | e e

| : (OBGEL “SSO OPwIOJOD Weiss”, JO WNasny :uONoUNG puLIN)
ayn uel Aq paupe ‘eg67 “£881 Aioisiy] 108% OI ¥ :oppiojoD ‘Kiunog vsayy ‘iouearpo vung worJ -opelojop ‘Ane PSOIA JO AydexBodoy, -7*] amsiy

|

! ep
a

+ OG¥LOTOD

09 spoon /

OF WhI30

we ae -



ABSTRACT OF THESIS
"A CLASSIC WESTERN QUARREL:" A HISTORY OF THE
ROAD CONTROVERSY AT COLORADO
NATIONAL MONUMENT

Between 1981 and 1986, Park Service officials at Colorado National Monument, Mesa
County officials, and Glade Park property owner John R. Wilkenson were embroiled in a legal
dispute over the use of the park’s scenic road, Rim Rock Drive. Presiding Judge Richard
Matsch’s 1986 decision in favor of the county and Wilkenson was based on pertinent laws as
well as the unique history of the park’s creation and development. In an effort to explain the
outcome of the 1986 lawsuit, this study traces the evolution of the conflict that developed
between the communities of the Grand Valley and the National Park Service from 1911 to 1986.

The conflict was the result of a variety of factors: 1) local residents’ involvement in the
park’s creation and management led to a proprietary attitude toward the park that conflicted
with the Park Service once that agency was established; 2) shifts in Park Service administration
and inconsistent Park Service policies allowed local residents to develop unrealistic expectations
of the park’s role and how they could use the area; 3) mutual community and Park Service
interests in road building through the park led to an inevitable conflict over road use; 4) the
local attitude toward land use and resistance to the federal government in general contrasted
with National Park Service ideology.

This study attempts to accomplish several things. In a local context, it provides a
history of Colorado National Monument and the community’s involvement in that park’s
development. In the context of the National Park Service, this study reveals the extent to which
local needs influenced park administration and ultimately, the park itself.

iii


to create the Monument, recent populations often displayed a contempt for Park Service r
regulations and policy that threatened the future development of the Monument.

Park Service officials, on the other hand, are not without fault. For the first few
decades of the Monument’s existence, the Park Service played a cursory role in its management
and development. So, from the very start, local park promoters were left with the responsibility
of managing the park, which included a crude form of law enforcement and development of
trails, a road, and other facilities. Once the Park Service did become involved in the

_ Monument, its policies were often shaped by local conditions. The Park Service was
responsible for allowing wood-hauling (in Otto’s time), stock drives, and commercial traffic on
Rim Rock Drive to take place. In addition, it instituted a fee policy based on the good faith of
its adjacent neighbors. Unfortunately, Park Service attempts to accommodate local needs with
a flexible fee policy backfired.

Conflicts at the Monument during the 1980s and early 1990s continued to reflect
elements of the typical western attitude toward the federal government. In 1986, Superintendent
Huffman made the unpopular decision to ban the "Tour of the Moon,” a stage of the Coors
International Bicycle Classic held annually in the Monument. Unruly race fans, and the fact
that the park was closed for a half-day were some of the reasons Huffman chose to cancel the
tace. His explanation indicated that many local residents still exhibited the proprietary attitude
toward the park that had existed since Otto’s time: “I realize that the park is here in Grand
Junction’s backyard. But people from Tennessee have just as much claim to it.""' Deemed
one of the most popular events on the Western Slope, the bike race was a natural moneymaker e@
for the Grand Valley at the height of tourist season. Many local residents were enraged by
Huffman’s decision, but he stood by it.‘*

Another local/Park Service conflict emerged in 1987, when the Park Service solicited the
aid of then Congressman Ben Nighthorse Campbell regarding the possible expansion of the
Colorado National Monument.*’ Encompassing 32,460 additional acres west of the present
park, the expansion was expected to redesignate the Monument into a National Park.“ In
1989, Congress directed the Park Service to conduct a study of the proposed addition, which
included Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Study Area and other lands west of the park. The
study essentially focused on two areas: “natural, cultural, and recreational resources", and
“possible boundary and management alternatives." !t presented four alternatives: two that
proposed expansion of the Monument, and two that envisioned continued Bureau of Land

“Quoted by Don Knox, "Monument Chief Holds Steady to Stand on Coors Bike Race,” Rocky Mountain
News, 13 February 1986, p. 30.

“Ibid.
Bob Silbernagel, "Park’s Expansion Fuels BLM Battle," Daily Sentinel, 19 November 1989.

““Drew Munro, "Expansion of National Monument Draws Support of GJ Councilmen;” Daily Sentinel, -16- - @ +
November 1989.

124



committee eventually approved an amendment that would require the Park Service to continue r
escorting large vehicles. Armstrong thought that if this were accepted into the Interior
Department’s 1981 appropriation bill, the commercial vehicle issue at the Monument might be
resolved. The appropriations bill would then go to a House-Senate Conference committee for
review.” Monument officials, on the other hand, were disappointed by the congressional
language as it created “much less flexibility in administering the escort problem."

The year 1981 represented a turning point in the commercial traffic issue. In April, the
Monument issued a draft of its commercial vehicle regulations which prohibited all trucks from
using any part of Rim Rock Drive except the portion from Grand Junction to Glade Park.
Escorts were required, with Park Service escorts costing a fee. The operation of the vehicles
was limited to daylight hours only, with Park Service escorts available only between 9:00 A.M.
and 3:00 P.M. Vehicles were not allowed to stop on the road unless it was an emergency.
Trucking permits were available for ten dollars per vehicle.

Even more disturbing to Glade Park residents, however, was the Park Service’s 1981
decision to require all Glade Park residents to sign an affidavit indicating their residence and
ownership of land on Glade Park.® The increase in population at Glade Park prompted the
Park Service to change its past policy of granting free access to residents. According to the
1939 fee policy, residents had been able to simply tell the fee collector that they were going to
Glade Park, but it became difficult for the Park Service to keep track of who really did reside
in Glade Park and who did not. Park officials noticed that many non-Glade Park residents had
begun to abuse the agreement with residents and believed that a new policy needed to be @
initiated.” In May 1981, Superintendent Dennis Huffman announced at a public meeting in -
Glade Park that the Monument would be issuing free windshield stickers to vehicles owned by
Glade Park Residents. No fee was assessed but affidavits were required. In addition, while
visitors to Glade Park had once been admitted free, they were now assessed a fee.” The new
policy only helped to fuel the already volatile road controversy.

Glade Park residents were infuriated by the newest road policy. In a letter from the
Pifion Mesa Stockgrowers Association to Superintendent Huffman, Doug Jones stated that the

"Park Escort Amendment is Approved," Rocky Mountain News, 26 September 1980.
Ibid.

“Memorandum, "Draft Special Regulation for Inclusion in 36 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 7," Dennis Huffman to
Lorraine Mintzmyer, 8 April 1981.

“Letter, Douglas L. Jones, Secretary Pifion Mesa Livestock Association, to Dennis Huffman,
Superintendent, 15 June 1981.

“Mindy Pratt, "Monument Fee Prompts Brouhaha," Daily Sentinel, 9 July 1980.
“Letter, Ira. J. Hutchison, Director National Park Service, to Mr. and Mrs. Jeff Brent, 9 July 1981.
Glade Park Residents See Inequities in Rim Rock Fees,” Fruita Times, 20 October 1982. @

102



resources were being abused. Conservation programs had been instituted in some states
already. While he was governor of New York, Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1929 convinced state
legislators to pass county and state reforestation laws. By 1931, New York state legislators
established an emergency relief administration, in which the unemployed were hired to do
reforestation work, fight fires, construct roads and trails, and complete other jobs. In August,
1932, the Society of American Foresters discussed a similar program, in which men would
work in national and state parks on various problems, including soil erosion, watershed
protection, and road and trail construction. After Roosevelt’s election in November, 1932, he
requested that Chief Forester, Robert Y. Stuart, design a plan for the employment of 25,000

‘men in federally owned forests. The plan was never approved, but Roosevelt used it to design

the CCC.TM

During his inaugural address on March 4, 1933, Roosevelt discussed the importance of
preserving both human and natural resources in the country. By March 9, 1933, he had called
a conference with members of his cabinet to discuss a program, in which the Army would
recruit and supervise 500,000 men in work camps throughout the United States. According to
this plan, the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior would oversee work projects assigned
to the camps. A bill was drafted but was withdrawn from congressional consideration due to
overall opposition and weaknesses in the plan. In March, 1933, the Roosevelt administration
formulated a more precise bill, in which states received grants for relief, a broad public works
program was initiated, and soil erosion and forestry programs were planned. Once the bill was
submitted, Congress added its own conditions; in return for forest fire prevention, construction
of roads and other work, men would receive room, board, a salary, and other benefits. Under
this bill, which eventually became the Federal Unemployment Relief Act, enlistment of men
was set at one year, workers earned $30 per month, and part of that salary was sent home to
dependents.”

The bill was signed on April 3, 1933. On that day, Roosevelt gathered his cabinet
members and assigned duties. The Department of Labor started nationwide recruitment; the
Army trained and transported enrollees to camps; and the Park and Forest Services supervised
the work and the camps. Later, the Army supervised the camps while the Park Service
coordinated work assignments. The April 3 meeting produced more changes in the program;
enrollees had to be between the ages of 18 and 25, and they had to send at least $25 of their
salary home each month. Roosevelt stipulated that each camp be composed of 200 men with
enrollment periods of six months. He also personally approved camps and work assignments.
The workforce varied. The Park Service often hired a certain percentage of locally employed
men (LEMs) but most of the workers were from larger urban regions.”*

John C. Paige, The Civilian Conservation Corps and The National Park Service, 1933-1942: An
Administrative History (National Park Service: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1985), pp. 1-5.

“Tbid., pp. 7-10.

“Tbid., pp. 10-12.
61


established. Local park promoters developed a different attitude toward the region. They were
interested in using the park’s scenery to promote their cities and to attract tourists. As they
became more involved in the campaign to establish the Monument, park promoters began to
believe that they had eared a certain amount of authority over the proposed park.

The most memorable, and certainly one of the most colorful, promoters of Colorado
National Monument was John Otto. Otto was a powder monkey—he worked with
explosives—on the Fruita water pipeline around 1906. While working, he became intrigued by
the sandstone canyons near the town. When his work on the water line was completed, he

moved into Monument Canyon, the best kiown afd larger of the canyons’ in that area.*~

Current speculation focuses on whether Otto was a visionary or a crackpot. Most people
concede that he was a little of both. Those who actually knew him admit that he was happiest
when he was in the canyons, building trails.”

Prior to his arrival in Grand Junction, Otto lived in Denver. Even then he led a peculiar
life. In 1903 he was accused of harassing Colorado Governor James H. Peabody with a series
of letters and of trying to harm him with a candlestick he insisted was not a weapon. In their
investigation, the Pinkerton Detective Agency discovered that Otto had previously spent brief
stints in asylums. Instead of incarcarating him, however, Denver officials sent him back to his
family in Illinois.*

Despite his problems in Denver, Otto returned to Colorado in 1906 to work on the
Fruita pipeline. Soon his unusual behavior led people to believe that he was crazy. A hearing
was held in Grand Junction to determine his mental state. The Daily Sentinel described him as
"the man who lived alone for several years in Monument Cafion and who is mentally
deranged."* The newspaper concluded its coverage of the hearing, by stating that, although
Otto was “given his freedom,” he was "not strong mentally."” Nevertheless, Otto managed
to gain local support for his efforts to set aside Monument Canyon as a park. Over the years,
his reputation earned him folk-hero status in the community.

The publicity over Otto’s insanity trial did not seem to influence local opinion
negatively. The Grand Junction City Charter recognized him as the “pathfinder of Western

"Kania, John Otto of Colorado National Monument, p. 2S.

“Al Look, "Who Was John Otto?" [photocopy], p. 1, Museum of Western Colorado Manuscripts, F-675 Al
Look Manuscripts, Grand Junction, Colorado.

“Kania, John Otto of the Colorado Monument, pp. 14-15, 21, 23, 24.
**John Otto Released,” Daily Sentinel, 24 February 1906.
*Tbid.

16



. Letter to A.E. Demaray, Acting Associate Director National Park Service, 1 April 1930.
. Letter to Director National Park Service, 4 March 1919.

. Letter to Franklin Lane, 17 January 1919.

. Letter to B.B. Marshall, Superintendent of National Parks, 6 June 1916,

. Letter to Stephen Mather, Director National Park Service, 1 March 1927.

. Letter to Stephen Mather, Director National Park Service, 17 October 1927,

. Letter to M.D. McEniry, Chief General Land Office, 12 November 1913. Alan Kania
Research Material, Colorado National Monument Museum and Archive Collection.

Post, W.H. Letter to Secretary of Interior, 15 May 1922.
Rogers, E.B. Letter to Director National Park Service, 27 December 1933.

Ross, R.A. President Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce. Letter to A.E. Demaray, Acting
Director National Park Service, 7 January 1927.

Schoch, Henry, Chief Ranger. Letter to John R, Wilkenson, 22 June 1981.
, Chief Ranger. Letter to John R. Wilkenson, 1 July 1981.
Secrest, T.W. Letter to F.A. Kittredge, Chief Engineer National Park Service, 30 January 1936.

Sullivan, Walter. Letter to Bryson P. Blair, 5 June 1907. Alan Kania Research Materials, Colorado
National Monument Museum and Archive Collection.

Taylor, Edward T. Telegram to Horace Albright, 8 November 1931.
. Letter to Horace Albright, Director of National Park Service, 20 October 1932.

. Letter to William Howard Taft, President of the United States, 25 February 1911. Alan
Kania Research Materials, Colorado National Monument Museum and Archive Collection.

Tobin, Daniel J. Jr., Associate Director National Park Service. Letter to the Honorable Ken Kramer,
House of Representatives, 25 February 1980.

Tolson, Hillory A., Acting Director of National Park Service. Letter to F.W. Bocking, President
Fruita Chamber of Commerce, 20 July 1935

Van Loan, Jay and George. Letter to Senator Gary Hart, 19 January 1980. Gary Hart Papers.
Courtesy Western Historical Collections, University of Colorado at Boulder,

Vint Thomas C. Letter to A.E. Demaray, 14 December 1932.

135


of geologic activity.* At its rough faulted and folded edge lies the Grand Valley, the largest e@
in western Colorado, bordered by the Bookcliffs to the north and the Grand Mesa to the east.”

The Monument is separated from the Grand Valley by the Colorado River, which stretches
through the Valley, running north of the park’s boundary.

Colorado National Monument contains nine canyons. Kodels, Fruita and Lizard canyons
are located near the west entrance of the park, approximately one and a half miles from the
town of Fruita. Next in the procession is the two-forked Monument Canyon, famous for its
towering monoliths. Its northern and eastern entrances spill out into the Redlands residential

area. Gold Star Canyon, much smaller than Monument Canyon; also opens up~ into” the—~-—-—-——
Redlands. Ute Canyon—formerly known as Lime Kiln Canyon—and Red Canyon dominate a

great portion of the area just east of Monument Mesa. Finally, Columbus and No Thoroughfare

canyons surround the park’s east entrance, approximately four miles from Grand Junction. The

mouths of all of these canyons open into the Grand Valley.” Prior to and during the
development of the Colorado National Monument, Fruita, Monument, and No Thoroughfare

canyons were the most frequently used. As both thoroughfares and scenic curiosities, these

canyons played an important role in defining relations between local residents and officials of

the National Park Service.”

The canyons are composed of multi-colored layers of rock, the oldest of which date back
1.5 billion years. Each layer—from the dark twisted Precambrian rock of the canyon floors, to
the erosion-resistant Kayenta caprock that preserves the canyon rims and the monoliths—formed
during different periods of geologic time. Millions of years of alternating wet and arid e@
climates, shallow seas, the presence of dinosaurs, and sand dunes created a turbulent setting for
the formation of these rock layers. Erosion, freezing, pressure, and heat determined the rocks’
color and resilience.”

The actual cutting of the Monument’s canyons began in the Quaternary Period,
approximately 2 million years ago, with the majority of this activity occurring around one
hundred thousand years ago. The ancestral Colorado River was responsible for this cutting.
At first the canyons were steep and V-shaped, but as erosional forces combined with the action
of the water, the canyons took on their present U-shaped appearance. Erosion also shaped the
monoliths. Independence Monument, one of the more imposing of the monoliths, used to be

"Lohman, The Geologic Story of Colorado National Monument, pp. 15-16.

Mehls, The Valley of Opportunity, p. 2.

"United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Topographic Map of the Colorado National
Monument Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series, 1962, revised 1973.

*See Figure 1.1.
*Lohman, The Geologic Story of Colorado National Monument, pp. 17-60. @



Cammerer, A.B. Letter to Representative Edward Taylor, 26 October 1932.”
Commissioner Genera] Land Office. Letter to John Otto, 30 January 1913.

Connolly, J.E., Special Agent General Land Office. Letter to Commissioner General Land Office, 22
November 1913. :

Demaray, A.E. Letter to L.I. Howes, Chief Engineer Bureau, 24 August 1926.
. Telegram to F.A. Kittredge, 10 November 1931.

, Acting Director National Park Service. Letter to Chief Engineer National Park Service, 5
March 1928, :

, National Park Service. Letter to F.R. Hall, Mayor of Grand Junction, 22 April 1933.
, National Park Service. Letter to F.A. Kittredge, Chief Engineer, 10 February 1933.
, Acting Director National Park Service. Letter to Frank Merriell, 7 May 1926.

, Administrative Assistant National Park Service. Letter to Frank Pinkley, Superintendent
Southwestern Monuments, 22 October 1924.

, Acting Director National Park Service. Letter to W.M. Wood, Secretary Grand Junction
Chamber of Commerce, 24 October 1927.

; Acting Director National Park Service. Letter to W.M. Wood, Secretary Grand Junction
Chamber of Commerce, 3 November 1927.

. Telegram to W.M. Wood, 14 August 1930.

Fisher, Walter L., Secretary of Interior. Letter to William H. Taft, President of the United States, 23
May 1911.

Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce. Telegram to Harold L. Ickes, Secretary of Interior, 24
March 1933.

. Telegram to Horace Albright, Director National Park Service, 18 November 1932.

Hall, F.R., Mayor of Grand Junction. Telegram to Horace Albright, Director of National Park
Service, 5 April 1933.

Hutchison, Ira J., Director National Park Service. Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Jeff Brent, 9 July 1981.

Jones, Douglas L., Secretary Pinon Mesa Livestock Association. Letter to Dennis Huffman,
Superintendent, 15 June 1981.

133


Figure 2.2. Historic photo of John Otto
(top) and Whipple Chester ascending the
550-foot Independence Monument. » > >

Road building was another of Otto’s activities. From the very start of the park
promotion, road building was a mutual interest for ranchers, farmers and park promoters. Part
of Otto’s "great cause" in Monument Canyon was his desire to build a "road around the
rimrock of the canyon.""* Otto was actually the first to suggest a scenic route through the
park, an idea that coincided with the local effort to build a road to Glade Park."* Just as he
collected money for his trail fund, Otto also mustered support for his road building by asking
one dollar of each member of the Fruita, Palisade and Grand Junction chambers of commerce
to aid in construction costs. Otto even did some of his own "crude survey and engineering" of
the canyons for the purpose of "marking out rude lines and courses for a foot trail and also for

TM"John Otto Determined to Build Scenic Road," Daily Sentinel, 6 February 1909.

“Look, "Who Was John Otto?", p, 3.

\

ral


directional signs on the highway, expanded camping facilities, and an increased staff brought to
the Monument the kinds of things it needed in order to function as a tourist attraction. More
importantly, these facilities indicated a break from how the park was managed and used in its
early years. Rim Rock Drive was the Monument’s first step toward modernity, but the Mission
66 facilities significantly contributed to the growing popularity of the park.

The year 1965 also marked another administrative shift. In April 1965 three national
park areas—Colorado National Monument, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument,
and Curecanti National Recreational Area—became part of the Curecanti Group and were
administered by a general superintendent.“ Because the three parks wereTM small and
underdeveloped, officials reasoned that it was easier to administer them from a central
office.’ Headquarters for the Curecanti Group, or Colorado West Group, as it was eventually
called, were located in Montrose, Colorado. The Colorado West Group was seemingly a step
away from what had been efficient leadership by individual superintendents in the park. Yet,
toward the end of this administration, some of the strongest and most controversial policy
decisions were made. Between 1965 and 1975, when the Colorado West Group eventually
dissolved, the Monument had three different managers: Paul Ellis (1965-1969), Robert Powell
(1969-1972), and Robert Benton (1972-1980). While these men essentially fulfilled the same
duties, they acquired different titles over the years: Ellis as Management Assistant, Powell as
District Ranger, and Benton as Superintendent. Each of these managers inherited the problems
of accessibility that surfaced shortly after Rim Rock Drive opened.

Local Use of Colorado National Monument, 1951-1980

Local use of the park between 1951 and 1980 created significant challenges to the Park
Service. As local residents exercised what they felt were their rights to use the Monument,
park officials became increasingly inflexible in their implementation of regulations. Although
Mission 66 increased tourism, the Park Service’s restrictive attitude was largely a result of local
use of the park. After years of cooperation, local residents grew to resent both the Park Service
and what they perceived as inconsistency in the Park Service’s enforcement of regulations.
They also felt that their past contributions to park development entitled them to a certain amount
of freedom in their use of the park.

Use of the park by local residents included various types of activities. Much of the
activity conformed with regulations, and was traditionally expected in National Park areas:
picnicking, hiking, sightseeing, and camping. Other potentially damaging activities, however,
were equally prevalent in the Monument. Between 1951 and 1959, vandalism, poaching,
hunting, and littering occurred on a regular basis. In 1955, the prevalence of vandalism

“Ww, Paul Ellis, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for April
1965" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 10 May 1965), p. 1.

“Robert Benton, Telephone interview by Lisa M. Schoch, 23 January 1994.



. Telegram to Edward Taylor, 9 November 1931. @
, Director of National Park Service. Letter to Edward T. Taylor, 16 March 1932.

-___, Director of National Park Service. Letter to W.M. Wood, Secretary Grand Junction
Chamber of Commerce, 26 November 1932.

Anderson, Clifford, Custodian Colorado National Monument. Letter to Director National Park
Service, 15 November 1933.

: Custodian Colorado National Monument, Letter to A.B. Cammerer, Director of National
Park Service, 30 November 1933.

. Letter to A.B. Cammerer, Director of National Park Service, 13 July 1935.

Antles, L., Secretary Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce. Letter to Edward T. Taylor, 23 January
1915.

Bennett, Fred, Commissioner General Land Office. Letter to Senator Simon Guggenheim, 27
December 1909. Alan Kania Research Materials, Colorado National Monument Museum and

Archive Collection.

, Acting Commissioner General Land Office. Letter to Register and Receiver, United States
Land Office, Montrose, Colorado, 15 July 1907.

Burgess, L.W., Chairman Park Committee. Letter to Horace Albright, Director of National Park
Service, 19 October 1932.

, Chairman Monument Park Committee. Letter to A.W. Burney, Acting Chief Engineer,
National Park Service, 7 June 1932.

, President of Grand Junction Chamber. of Commerce, to F.A. Kittredge, 21 November
1931.

Burney, A.W., Assistant Chief Engineer. Letter to Horace Albright Director National Park Service, 9
Jamuary 1933.

Cammerer, Arno B. Letter to A.E. Demaray, 4 October 1935.
, Acting Director National Park Service. Letter to A.T, Gormley, 29 April 1927.
, Acting Director National Park Service. Letter to John Otto, 20 June 1922.
. Letter to John Otto, 20 July 1922.

, Associate Director National Park Service. Letter to John Otto, 20 May 1931.

, Acting Director National Park Service. Letter to R.. AL Ross, President Grand Junction
Chamber of Commerce, 1] February 1927.7 ~~ . 2 —: r |


Junction from 23 to roughly 17 miles. Additionally, the town of Fruita and the State Highway
Department put up new signs near the approach roads to the park.” Throughout road
construction, Mesa County had improved approach roads to the park. During the postwar
years, however, the county was often hired to maintain Rim Rock Drive. After the Park
Service purchased the oil, the Mesa County Road Department applied it to the Rim Rock Drive
in May 1948."

While Mesa Verde still maintained its authority, Colorado National Monument personnel
began to develop their own understanding of the Park Service and their duties. Breyton Finch
was custodian of the park until February 1949, at which time the two rangers on duty took over
that responsibility. In April 1949, Russell Mahan became superintendent. Mahan continued the
important job of maintaining good relations with the community by attending Rotary Club
meetings in both Grand Junction and Fruita.” The idea of "interpretive services" in which
rangers kept track of the number of "contacts"—questions or discussions—they had with visitors
or local residents, began during the postwar administration as well. "Contacts" also constituted
speeches or meetings with local organizations. As always, the local factor Played a role in Park
Service activity on the Colorado National Monument.

By 1950, the Colorado National Monument had entered a new phase in both its
development as a tourist attraction and its relationship with the community. The cooperative
relationship between the National Park Service and the communities adjacent to the Colorado
National Monument was tested by Park Service attempts to regulate use of Monument facilities.
After the road construction, the National Park Service controlled all aspects of park
management. While the Park Service still recognized the importance of community support, it
found that local use of the park accounted for most of the park’s problems. Many of these
difficulties resulted from the opening of Rim Rock Drive, but many of them, such as the stock
driveways, had been developing since the park was set aside in 1911. Unlike the Otto years,
however, the postwar years reflected far more use of the park by tourists and by local residents
for recreational and nonrecreational uses. Relations with the local community were no longer
as simple to define. Whereas it had once been important to keep the Grand Junction Chamber
of Commerce and other local business groups happy, by 1950, the protection of the Colorado
National Monument had become the first priority.

BR. Finch, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for June 1948" (Washington: U.S. Department
of the Interior, National Park Service,.1 July 1948), p. 2.

*B.R. Finch, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for May 1948°
(Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1 June 1948), p. 1.

William D. Guillet, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for April 1949" (Washington: U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1 May 1949), p. 1.

B,R. Finch, “Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for July 1948" (Washington: U.S. Department of
the Interior, National Park Service 2 August 1948), 1.

83


part of a canyon wall until erosion slowly wore down and broke apart the wall. The remaining
structure, Independence Monument, will eventually succumb to erosion as well.

The geology of the Colorado National Monument is its most outstanding feature. The
layers of rocks exposed in the canyons tell, as early park promoter John Otto once remarked,
a “story without end."* Each year visitors flock to the park to admire its unusual beauty,
driving along its impressive highway, and hiking its many trails. Rarely, however, do visitors
consider the human element behind the park’s history. Colorado National Monument has been
the setting for human interaction, triumph, and conflict nearly as turbulent as its geologic
beginnings.

The Roots of Conflict 1881-1911

Prior to the arrival of white settlers, the Grand Valley was what historian Dave Fishell
teferred to as “one of the last, wild, unsettled frontiers in the lower forty-eight states."* Over
the course of 500 years the area was the intermittent home to bands of Ute Indians who lived
along the Grand Mesa, the Uncompahgre Plateau and the Bookcliffs. From the late eighteenth
to the nineteenth century, the area served as a thoroughfare to.a variety of explorers. Among
the most famous of these were Fathers Dominguez and Escalante, who skirted the Grand Valley
in 1776-77 on their unsuccessful trip from Santa Fe to a mission in Monterey, California. In
the 1840s and 1850s, groups of army explorers, including John C. Fremont and Captain John
Gunnison, made several trips through the Grand Valley while searching for an adequate
mountain railroad course. In the 1870s, the government’s Hayden and Wheeler survey groups
explored and mapped the area. Their data was eventually compiled in the "Atlas of Colorado"
complete with photos by William Henry Jackson.*

The Ute Indian removal of 1880 was instrumental in facilitating permanent white
settlement in the Grand Valley. Additionally, the removal contributed to the incorporation of
Grand Junction on September 26, 1881, by the Grand Junction Town Company.” The growth
of mining and a series of treaties from 1863 to 1880 led to the removal of the Utes from the

*Ibid., pp. 29, 79.

*Alan Kania, John Otto of Colorado National Monument (Boulder: Roberts, Rinehart, Inc. Publishers,
1984), p. 38.

TMDave Fishell, The Grand Heritage: A Photographic History of Grand Junction, Colorado, 2nd ed.,
(Norfolk/Virginia Beach: The Donning Company/Publishers, 1994), p. 12.

“Tbid., pp. 18, 30, 32-33.

TM*Grand Valley: Its Resources and Advantages," Grand Junction News, 2 December 1882.


The Mission 66 years also marked more boundary changes for the Monument. The draft
for presidential proclamation 3307 was submitted in November 1958. It eliminated 211 acres
of unwanted land from the park, and added 120 acres necessary for development of
administrative facilities at the park entrances.* It was accepted on August 7, 1959.
Additionally, in November 1959, the county and the Park Service finally agreed upon the future
of the old Serpents Trail. The status of the trail had been in question since 1937, when the
Park Service was about to construct the final section of the Rim Rock Drive. Higher level Park
Service officials and residents of adjacent communities felt that the trail was the logical route
for the last portion of the road. Engineers F.A. Kittredge and T.W. Secrest, however,
disagreed. At that time, the county ceased its periodic maintenance of the trail, leaving the
Park Service to determine whether to maintain the old trail, include it as part of the new Rim
Rock Drive, or simply construct the final segment along a different route.” Eventually, the
final segment of Rim Rock Drive was constructed through No Thoroughfare Canyon. By 1941,
the Park Service had begun proceedings for the county to abandon the Serpents Trail.” In
1950, the Serpents Trail was closed to vehicular traffic and was essentially dormant.” Finally
in November 1959, the Mesa County Commissioners adopted a resolution for the abandonment
of the old Serpents Trail road. According to the resolution, Mesa County claimed it had no
interest in the trail, and officially vacated it. As a result, the trail was declared unnecessary for
public ingress or egress on the Monument.*”

By June 1961, the section of the Serpents Trail from the east side tunnel to the floor of
No Thoroughfare Canyon had been rehabilitated as a hiking trail within the Monument.
Once the product of a fervent community desire for a more direct route to Glade Park and the
first scenic drive into the Monument, the Serpents Trail became a simple footpath. Its
abandonment and subsequent refurbishment symbolized the changes that had taken place in the
park during the Mission 66 years.

Most of the major Mission 66 projects within Colorado National Monument had been
completed by 1965. A new visitor center, employee residences, trails, roadside exhibits,

“Fred Bussey, “Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for November
1958" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 12 December 1958), pp. 2-3.

“Letter, Jesse L. Nusbaum, Superintendent Colorado National Monument, to J.A. Elliot, District Engineer
Bureau of Public Roads, 29 September 1937.

“Memorandum, G.A. Moskey, Chief Counsel National Park Service, to Acting Chief of Engineering
National Park Service, 8 December 1941.

“Another Old Timer, Trail of the Serpent, Gets Retirement Papers after 28 Scary Years," Daily Sentinel,
18 April 1950.

“Mesa County, Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners, November 23, 1959, Records of the
Mesa County Courthouse, Grand Junction, Colorado.

“Fred Bussey, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for June
1961" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, 14 July 1961), p. 5.

89


By December 1972, however, Superintendent Robert Benton arrived at Colorado
National Monument and the policy toward commercial traffic on Rim Rock Drive became more
restrictive. Although the Monument was still under the authority of the Curecanti Group,
Benton asserted his management style on the park. Like his predecessors, he maintained strong
involvement in community organizations and events. At the same time, however, he often made
decisions that were not popular with the community. Prior to his arrival at the park, Benton
received an informal-directive from the Colorado West Group’s Superintendent Karl Gilbert,
and the Midwest Regional Office in Omaha, Nebraska, to improve the Monument’s mediocre
status. Suffering from a lack of interpretive services, poor administration, and an increasingly

lax attitude toward regulations, the Monument had fallen into disrepair during-the Colorado -

West Group years.”

In July 1973, the "constant pressure” to allow heavy vehicles to access Glade Park via
Rim Rock Drive compelled Benton to institute a number of "safety preventive measures."*”
The west entrance was to deny access to all commercial vehicles over one ton. A tentative
meeting was arranged with the Glade Park Stockmen’s Association to discuss road control and
safety issues on the east side of the park. In addition, the Chief Ranger and the Superintendent
traveled up Little Park Road to inspect it, and to determine whether it was capable of handling
some diverted commercial traffic from Rim Rock Drive. Finally, Benton contacted Mesa
County and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) concerning the possible improvement of
Little Park Road. Both the BLM and Mesa County believed that such improvements were
possible. In fact, at that time, even though officials knew the work would take several years,
Mesa County "agree[d] in principle” to improve Little Park Road. In August 1973 final
plans for “signing and control" of the commercial traffic to Glade Park commenced. In
December, Benton attended a meeting with the BLM and the Mesa County Road Department,
in which Mesa County officials discussed their “intention” to improve Little Park Road to
accommodate driving speeds of 45 to 50° miles per hour.”

A series of meetings in June and July 1974 revealed the extent to which the Park Service
and local conflict had grown. In June 1974, Benton instituted new regulations on Rim Rock
Drive. Trucks longer than 25 feet were restricted to using the road only between the hours of
9:00 p.M. and 6:00 A.M. and trucks over eight feet in width required a permit or a ranger
escort.” Local stockmen vigorously protested the restrictions. In a meeting on June 16,

“Robert Benton, Telephone interview by Lisa M. Schoch, 23 January 1994,

“Robert Benton, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for July
1973" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2 August 1973), p. 2.

“Tid.

“Robert Benton, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Reports for August and December 1973"
(Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 5 September 1973, 2 January 1974), pp.
1,2.

"Commercial Vehicle Regulation Established at National Monument,” Fruita Times, 13 June 1974.



Local perspectives of both Wilkenson’s case and Mesa County’s case varied. The Grand
Junction Chamber of Commerce, for instance, issued its position on the Glade Park access issue
in August 1982:

The Chamber continues its support of the Mesa County Commissioners in the conflict
with the U.S. National Park Service regarding free access to the Glade Park area
through the Colorado National Monument. The Chamber has long believed that until the
U.S. Government provides a suitable alternate route, all citizens should be able to use
the Monument access.

County Commissioner George White referred to the county’s "friendly lawsuit" against
the Park Service and stated that the county did not have a problem with park officials. Instead,
the county found fault with "people up the ladder who are not aware of the local situation. "”
Surprisingly, even Glade Park ranchers seemed split on the issue. Rancher Bob Gobbo thought
that commercial vehicle restrictions had harmed the economy of Glade Park, and that the Park
Service should upgrade Rim Rock Drive. Eugene Vories stated that he had never had problems
with the Park Service’s affidavits but did question the inconsistency of its fee policy.”

The Park Service, on the other hand, defended its position regarding fee collection and
commercial vehicle traffic. In an October 1982 interview with the Fruita Times, Superintendent
Huffman evoked the Park Service’s origina! mission to explain the Park Service’s actions. The
original mission emphasized both protection of natural resources and public enjoyment of those
resources. He felt that the attitude that all public lands, including national parks, were meant
for local and private use, was part of the problem. The increase in visitation (800,000 in 1981)
coupled with population growth in Glade Park and Mesa County also contributed to the conflict.
When pressed to discuss solutions to the conflict, Huffman answered that the upgrading of Little
Park Road was the best alternative. He emphasized that the Park Service had helped to acquire
funding for such a project, but that it was told it could only fund a road built within park
boundaries. Huffman also stated that the problem of determining for whom the road
exists—visitors or commuters travelling to Glade Park—was at the heart.of the conflict.”

By 1983, the complexion of the lawsuit had changed considerably. In March, it was
clear that the case was, in the words of Eric Kelly "snagged in bureaucracy."*’ Kelly claimed
that the county’s case was slowed by a mistake in mailing summonses without postage to

*"Longtime Chamber Support for Access to Glade Park Continues," News and Views, Issue #80-CUPS
112-870, August 1982.

*"T awsuit Overshadows Park, Country Neighbor Cooperation," Fruita Times, 27 October 1982.
"Glade Park Residents See Inequities in Rim Rock Fees," Fruita Times, 20 October 1982.

“Park Service Mission said to Protect Lands for All: Monument Superintendent Huffman Grapples with
Protection versus Road Use Problem," Fruita Times, 6 October 1982, p. 3.

“Mary Louise Giblin, "Glade Park Access Lawsuit ‘Snagged in Bureaucracy," Daily Sentinel, 10 March
1983.

110



Along with Otto’s complaints, the initial phase of road construction raised the more
serious question of future funding—never a reliable factor. Between 1931 and 1933, financial
support for the road was contingent upon yearly congressional appropriations. In February,
1932, Albright, anxious to supply funds for unemployment relief in the Grand Valley, assured
the chamber that the National Park Service would secure an additional $4000 to carry the
project until the 1933 appropriation. After that, he wasn’t sure if Congress would allot money
out of the $950,000 available for road construction.TM In March, 1932, Albright wrote to
Congressman Taylor to discuss future funding. Estimating that it would take an additional
$192,000 to construct the remaining sections of road, he told Taylor that he thought he might
be able to aliot another $15,000 to extend the road to the Coke Ovens area, but that money for
the next section of road depended on the Roads and Trails appropriations for the year.”
Between November 21, 1931, and May 1, 1932, a total of $17,474.52 was allotted by National
Park Roads and Trails funds for the construction of the road. This amount included the initial
allotment of $7500 from the Park Service and $1500 from the Grand Junction Chamber of
Commerce. In July, 1932, the additional $15,000 was appropriated,’ followed by $50,000 from
an Emergency Relief Fund in August, 1932.

Local funds also contributed to the road project. By June, 1932, the Mesa County
Commissioners had expended a total of $10,000 on the improvement of Serpents Trail and the
construction of four miles of roadway from the Glade Park store to the Monument boundary
where Secrest’s road survey began. In a letter to the Park Service, the Chairman of the local
Monument Park Committee, L.W. Burgess, observed that enthusiasm for the road project was
widespread:

Hundreds of people are driving to the end of the road each week and it is our belief that
when the road is completed the drive will be one of the most popular in any of your
parks.*”

Local and Park Service perspectives of the road project were similar. Both saw the
importance of the project to unemployment, although the Grand Junction Chamber of
Commerce was more nervous about the possibility of interrupting the project due to lack of
funds. Shortly after construction on the first section began, the chamber had already established
its own "Emergency Committee for Employment," which contained a list of 700 potential
workers. Members of the chamber often visited the project site, and had already begun a

TMLetter, Horace Albright to L.W. Burgess, President Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, 29 February
1932.

TMLetter, Horace Albright, Director National Park Service, to Edward T. Taylor, 16 March 1932.
TMT.W. Secrest, Final Construction Report Stations 210+ 00 to 370+ 00, p. 1.

"Letter, L.W. Burgess, Chairman Monument Park Committee, to A.W. Burney, Acting Chief Engineer,
National Park Service, 7 June 1932.

s7


emergency relief bill funding to extend the Rim Rock project through the year. The chamber
stated that the project had been "immensely valuable in relieving unemployment” and that the
completed road would accommodate the local region in addition to opening up a "magnificent
scenic area." Grand Junction’s mayor, F.R. Hall, requested Albright’s help in securing
emergency employment relief. Hall argued that the Rim Rock project. was “one of [few]
Colorado projects which affords year around employment under ideai conditions.“ In a
letter to Congressman Taylor, the secretary of the Grand Junction Rotary Club, George A.
Marsh, also expressed his views regarding the Monument project:

We are of the opinion that no work in Colorado could be more practical or constructive
than the Colorado National Monument project, and although we would welcome forest
work, we believe that there is little if any such work that could compare or surpass in
economic value that of the Monument. ... Probably few government projects have been
given financial aid by local communities comparable with that of our Monument.”

Colorado National Monument’s first 200-man camp was approved in April, 1933, and
was a sign that heavy federal involvement in the road project had begun. Although local park
promoters still contributed funds to the road project, once the federal work camps were
established, most of the major decisions about the park and the road were made by the National
Park Service. Because funding was not yet available, the Park Service decided that it wanted
T.W. Secrest to serve as superintendent of the camp.” On May 20, 1933, Company 824,
consisting of a commanding officer, a medical officer, a staff sergeant, two corporals, a private,
and four enrollees, was organized at Fort Logan and sent to start a camp for the Colorado
National Monument. This camp was designated NM-1-C.TM When officers arrived, mess and
barrack tents were already set up in anticipation of 220 men. Water was supplied by the. Fruita
pipeline, and necessities were transported over newly cut roads. During the next few days, 26
LEMs and 50 Colorado Juniors from Mesa County were hired. That summer an additional 12
LEMs and 113 Colorado Juniors were employed. Camp NM-1-C was originally set up near the
Coke Ovens on the rim of Monument Canyon. Due to cramped conditions, it moved to a
permanent location at Camp NM-2-C at the Saddle Horn near the present site of the Visitor
Center. Company 825, known as NM-3-C, was originally set up near Glade Park in November
1933. Eventually this camp moved to the base of Fruita Canyon in June 1934. Enrollees from
these camps worked on sections of the Rim Rock Drive under the direction of T.W. Secrest.”

Telegram, Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce to Harold L. Ickes, Secretary of Interior, 24 March
1933.

Telegram, F.R. Hall, Mayor of Grand Junction, to Horace Albright, Director of National Park Service, 5
April 1933.

“Letter, George A. Marsh, Secretary Grand Junction Rotary Club, to Edward Taylor, 7 April 1933.
“Letter, AE. Demaray, National Park Service, to F.R. Hall, Mayor of Grand Junction, 22 April 1933.
“See Figures 4.2 and 4.3. ;

TMGleyre and Alleger, History of the CCC in Colorado, pp. 132-135.

63



hours ride, afford places of recreation and scenes of grandeur, rivaling the "‘Garden of the
Gods.’"* Photographs of the Monument in this booklet were captioned with phrases such as @
"scenes from Monument Cafion" and “Nature Freak Near Fruita,” describing what is now
known as the "Kissing Couple" monolith in Monument Canyon.* Even then, descriptions of
Monument Canyon emphasized its unusual landscape. The fact that it was part of the
promotional literature for both Grand Junction and Fruita indicated that the community realized
its potential as a tourist attraction. Public awareness fostered a local campaign to have the area
set aside as a national park. The Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce developed a vested

_ interest in the creation of the Colorado National Monument that cultivated its almost

“proprietary attitude” toward the park’s éStablishitient, and later its administration.“ -.— -——-.--—-

Glade Park was another community with interests in the Monument prior to its creation.
Early ranchers at Glade Park enjoyed squatters’ rights in the Colorado National Monument
region. A vast mesa located west and south of Grand Junction above the Colorado National
Monument, Glade Park was divided into seven sections prior to 1910: Glade Park, Little Park,
Pifion Mesa, West End, Beezer Creek, Coates Creek and Little Dolores.” Between 1883 and
1910, the proliferation of cattle and sheep ranches, and dry farms at Glade Park led to
permanent settlement of the region.

Cattle ranching commenced in 1883 when C.W. Sleeper and Wendell Ela, both
originally from New Hampshire, organized the 2V Ranch on the Little Dolores Creek. They
raised 6,000 head of cattle there. In 1885, Charles Sieber settled in Glade Park. He brought
in 10,000 head of cattle and started a retail meat market business in Grand Junction. Sieber e@
drove 8,000 head of cattle from Kansas and Texas to Glade Park in 1888. In 1897, he
organized the Sieber Cattle Company. By this time, Sieber had begun buying ranches along the
Little Dolores, Coats Creek and Pifion Mesa. Before he was shot from his horse over a
branding dispute in 1902, Sieber ran 30,000 head of cattle from the Sieber Cattle Company.”

Ranches flourished throughout the late 1880s and 1890s. Settlers poured into the region,
hoping to try their luck raising cattle. Most of the Grand Valley was an ideal area for winter
range, while the plateaus of Glade Park provided good summer range, so cattlemen began
looking for ways to transport their livestock to the Grand Valley.” Until 1908, Glade Park

“Fruita Bureau of Information, "Fruita, Colorado” (Fruita Bureau of Information, ca. 1910), p. 55, courtesy
Colorado Historical Society.

“Tbid., 55-57.

“Memorandum, Breyton R. Finch to Coordinating Superintendent Mesa Verde National Park, 21 September
1946.

“McCreanor, Mesa County, Colorado, p. 5.

“Catherine S. Moore, "Original History of Glade Park, 1962, " [photocopy] pp. 2, 4, 6, Museum of
Western Colorado Manuscripts, F-886 Progress of Glade Park, Grand Junction, Colorado,

“Mehls, The Valley of Opportunity, p. 108. @





prompted park officials to remove a wayside exhibit at Cold Shivers Point.* In May 1956
vandalism occurred so frequently that a special article about it was printed in the Daily Sentinel:
Part of the destruction appeared to be the result of ignorance, as local homeowners hauled dirt
from the park to plant their new lawns. The majority of the acts, however, were "plain
vandalism": cutting the boundary fences, carving initials on rocks significant for their ancient
Indian petroglyphs, and shooting locks off picnic area gates.”

Activity on the Monument’s boundaries was also cause for concern. Due to the uranium
boom in Grand Junction during the 1950s, uranium mining was prevalent throughout the Grand
Valley. In January 1955, patrols were made along the west boundaries of the park to check on
reports of uranium mining.“* By March 1955, the manager of the Atomic Energy Commission
(AEC) in Grand Junction was contacted by park officials about possible ore production on the
west end of the park. Already a mining company on Glade Park regularly shipped ore over
Rim Rock Drive. The locally based Atomic Power Uranium Company started unauthorized
construction of a road in No Thoroughfare Canyon to access its claims in the portion of that
canyon not yet included within park boundaries. When the local F.B.1. confronted the
company, its owners agreed to destroy the road at their own expense.*” Nevertheless, park
officials afterward felt even more vulnerable to outside threats to the park.

Some of the activities that took place in the park had happened before the Monument
was even established. The installation of cattle guards at the Grand Junction entrance in 1954
and at the Glade Park entrance in 1956 indicated that the issue of stock drives through the park
had not been resolved.“ In 1960 there were reports of stock being moved through the
Monument to Glade Park. In May 1963, the western stock drive through the park was used on
three different occasions.“’ Park officials tolerated this activity until an agreement could be
reached.

“Russell L. Mahan, “Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for
January 1955" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 4 February 1955), p. 1.

“Mary Louise Giblin, "Visitors Speed Work on Nature in Eroding National Monument," Daily Sentinel (2),
2 May 1956.

“Russell Mahan, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for January
1955" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 4 February 1955), p. 1.

Russell Mahan, “Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for March
1955" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 6 April 1955), p. 3.

“Russell Mahan, “Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Reports for Colorado National Monument for June
1954 and June 1956" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, July 1954, 6 July
1956), pp. 1, 5.

“Fred Bussey, “Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Reports for Colorado National Monument for April
1960, April 1963" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 11 May 1960, 13 May
1963), pp. 6, 4.

91


see the parks as threats to their freedom. Relations between officials of the Colorado National
Monument and its adjacent communities reflected a combination of these two perceptions. Prior
to the park’s establishment, however, there was no Park Service, so the community’s perception
was that the land was there to be used. The establishment of the Colorado National Monument
transformed and restricted these uses indefinitely. Over the years, the expectations of local
communities and the willingness of the National Park Service to meet those expectations became

problematic.

13


wrote to the Director of the National Park Service in 1923, clearly disgusted with government
inaction:

All money spent on this Monument to date, with the exception of a very small amount,
has been raised by public subscription and from the Chamber of Commerce funds and
we feel that we have developed it to such a stage that the Government should be willing
to pay something toward its maintenance and upkeep.”

The construction of Serpents Trail served as a catalyst for continued road building
through the park. In 1926, the idea for a road connecting the western and eastern ends of
Colorado National Monument emerged. Fruita’s mayor, Frank Merriell, requested Park Service
aid in constructing a road from town to Fruita Canyon. Because 24 miles of this road
remained outside park boundaries, the Park Service replied that it could only fund the stretch
of road within the park provided an estimate was sent.” The Grand Junction Chamber of
Commerce developed this Fruita road proposal further by suggesting to the Park Service that the
road be extended through the park to connect with the Serpent’s Trail to create a complete
“highway around the rim."” A road between Fruita Canyon on the far western end of the
park and the Serpent’s Trail on the eastern end would span the entire park. In August 1926,
A.E. Demaray, Acting Director of the National Park Service, arranged for an inspection of the
proposed road so that a "recommendation could be made to the Director regarding inclusion of
it as a project in a further National Park Service road program."” By this time, however,
citizens of Fruita were exasperated with bureaucracy. They did not support Merriell’s road
around the rimrocks, believing that the continued push for roads up to Fruita Canyon was a
waste of time and money. More effort, they stated, should be directed toward enlarging the
Fruita reservoirs and repairing the Fruita water pipeline on Pinon Mesa that supplied the city’s
water.” Yet, despite the intitial lack of enthusiasm, this road idea eventually gained both
local and federal support.

Letter, W.M. Wood, Secretary of Grand Junction Chamber of Commetce, to Director Nationa] Park
Service, 10 March 1923.

"Letter, A.E. Demaray, Acting Director National Park Service, to Frank Merriell, 7 May 1926.

=Letter, W.M. Wood, Secretary Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce to A.E. Demaray, Acting Director
National Park Service, 15 May 1926.

Letter, A.E. Demaray, to L.]. Howes, Chief Engineer Bureau, 24 August 1926.
"Endorsed For Custodian,” Daily Sentinel, February 1927.

2



planned. Bids for the construction of three employee residences were taken as well.‘” In
November 1958, the first sites for the proposed visitor center were considered and, in May
1963, it was completed and open to the public.** Other improvements included road and trail
work, roadside exhibits, and the movement of the Fruita entrance station to its present location.

Civic organizations contributed to the improvements in the park as well. A highway
sign contributed by the Fruita Chamber of Commerce was constructed in July 1956.‘” In 1960
the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce constructed a 10-foot by 40-foot sign at the junction
of Highways 6 and 50 and Colorado Highway 340 near Fruita. People not familiar with the
park were confused by its name; they thought it was a manmade monument commemorating the
state or the river. In order to clarify its identity and better advertise the Monument, the Grand
Junction Chamber of Commerce decided to put up the sign.”

Personnel also shifted during the Mission 66 years. The most significant changes were
increases in ranger and maintenance positions and the frequency of employee turnover. By July
1955, a new superintendent, Homer Robinson, had replaced Mahan. Other personnel included
one permanent ranger, two seasonals, one seasonal naturalist, four maintenance men, and a new
chief ranger." In 1958, an almost entirely new staff worked at the park when Fred Bussey
entered as the new superintendent.” Bussey was active in the promotion and planning of
Mission 66 projects during his six years at the Monument (1958-1964).

Local perceptions regarding Mission 66 varied over the years. Park Service officials
made every effort to educate and include local organizations in the Mission 66 process, but by
1959 not everyone was convinced that Mission 66 was in the best interest of the local
community. In July 1959, the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce Tourist Committee
criticized Mission 66 and accused the Monument of being "poor relatives" to the National Park

“Homer Robinson, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for 1957"
(Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Jan.-Dec. 1957).

“Homer Robinson, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for
November 1958" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 12 December 1958), p.
1; Fred Bussey, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for May 1963"
(Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 13 June 1963), p. 3.

“*Homer Robinson, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for July
1956" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 6 August 1956), p. 3.

“Fred Bussey, “Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for April
1960" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 11 May 1960), p. 5.

“Homer Robinson, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for July
1955" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 4 August 1955), p. 2.

=*New Monument Chief Begins; Native Coloradan; Experienced," Daily Sentinel, 19 March 1958.

87


from the chamber, along with a letter from Simon Guggenheim, proposing withdrawal of the
lands.* By January, 1910, these lands had been set aside under the direction of Secretary of
Interior Richard Ballinger. The Daily Sentinel attributed the land withdrawal to the "dream" of
Otto and listed the Daily Sentinel, the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, Senator
Guggenheim and Congressman Taylor as "enthusiastic champions” of Monument Canyon."*

The local media also had a hand in the Monument’s creation. The Daily Sentinel was
the local newspaper that reported the park promotion with regularity, although it had originally
printed plenty of stories on Otto’s earlier problems with "insanity." In addition to providing
coverage of Otto’s and the chamber’s efforts, it chronicled local responses to the park, and
became what John Otto referred to as the "official paper of our national park proposition."
Through the use of descriptive language, the Daily Sentinel created a mental picture of
Monument Canyon’s landscape. The Monument was known as "a world of natural beauty," a
place of “sublime grandeur and awe-inspiring massiveness,” and a "marvelous scenic Beauty
Paradise."*” In reference to the monoliths, the paper stated that there was "an almost endless
array of magnificent masterpieces of nature that make the world-famed Garden of the Gods at
Colorado Springs sink into insignificance when a comparison is made."’* While most of the
descriptions did very little to accurately portray the landscape, they made the area sound
especially attractive to potential tourists.

The Daily Sentinel also chronicled local efforts to support and establish the park. The
newspaper once printed the names of people who contributed to Otto’s trail building efforts with
the headline, "Is Your Name On This List?"”’ Another article described local support to the
Otto Trail Fund, and commented on the "continuation of local interest" in Otto’s work for
“present and future generations." In numerous ways the Daily Sentinel enlivened and
perpetuated the efforts to establish the park. The text of Senator Guggenheim’s April 6, 1911
bill, "creating the National Monument Park,” was published in full.’ Numerous articles
about Representative Taylor’s interest in local and regional national parks were printed as well.

Once the local commitment to the establishment of a park was evident, state politicians
joined more seriously the movement to create a park. In 1906, Simon Guggenheim was elected

Letter, Bennett to Guggenheim, 27 December 1909.

"s"Grand Junction Gets Lands Set Apart for a Great National Park," Daily Sentinel, 1 January 1910.
"Up to People to Boost Park,” Daily Sentinel, December 1909,

“Investigation Made of Great Scenic. . . ." Daily Sentinel, 19 April 1909.

“Tbid.

“"Is Your Name On This List?" Daily Sentinel, 15 February 1910.

*©*More Subscribers to Otto Trail Fund," Daily Sentinel, 7 June 1910.

"Almost Sure to Get a Park,” Daily Sentinel, 23 May 1910. ,

25


Management control over the area.“* During the week of January 23, 1989, public meetings
were held in Montrose, Grand Junction, Delta and Glade Park to discuss the expansion
alternatives. In preparation for the meeting, the Park Service distributed over 1,400 brochures
and 200 news releases to both the public and the media.**

Even the Park Service’s report anticipated opposition when it included a section
describing the local attitude toward federal involvement: "Many residents resent control of land
or any kind of outside interference. Government participation in projects is generally solicited
only when problems cannot be resolved locally."*’ Local opposition was widespread: The
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was perhaps the most vociferous in its opposition, since
the land in question was under its authority at that time. BLM chief, Delos "Cy" Jamison,
promised to fight the expansion, as he felt that the BLM’s land-use policy offered more
flexibility to visitors.** Other groups, such as Ducks Unlimited, the Colorado Bowhunters
Association, Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Society, and the Colorado Wildlife Federation also
fought the expansion.*’ Glade Park residents were concemed that if the Park Service acquired
the land, recreational use of the area would be too restrictive.®

While the BLM and local residents worried that their recreational freedom was
threatened, Park Service officials countered that resources, including some archaeological,
might not be protected as well under the BLM.“ Local proponents of the expansion, such as
the Concemed Citizens Resource Association and the chamber of commerce, believed that
expansion would increase tourism.” To date, this issue has not been resolved. Nevertheless,
it serves as another instance in which strong local opposition has played a role in Park Service
decision-making.

Between 1989 and 1990, a long-standing conflict—that of the stock driveway through the
park—finally climaxed. In use long before the park was established, stock drives through
portions of the park had been tolerated by the Park Service for years. In November 1989,
ranchers Dahl Aubert and Jim Young asked the Park Service if they could use the stock

“Department of the Interior/National Park Service, "Draft, Resource /Boundary Evaluation for Lands
Adjacent to Colorado National Monument, Colorado," September 1989, pp. 1-2.

“Ibid, p. 2.

“Ibid., p. 37.

““Associated Press, "Agency Set to Battle For Lands,” Daily Sentinel, 7 November 1989.

“*Bob Silbernagel, "4 Groups Fight Monument Plan for Expansion," Daily Sentinel, 13 November 1989.
“Gary Harmon, "Neighbors Wary of Park Proposal," Daily Sentinel, 28 January 1989.

“Bob Silbernagel, "Regulation Differences Pointed Out,” Daily Sentinel, 19 November 1989.

Bob Silbernagel, "Groups Oppose Monument Expansion," Daily Sentinel, 26 January 1989; Bob
Silbernagel, "4 Groups Fight Monument Plan... ,” Daily Sentinel, 13 November. 1989.

125


was primarily "cattle country," as evidenced by the following from a history compiled by one
of Glade Park’s early settlers:

There were very few fences. Everyone’s cattle went where they pleased, in the summer
on Pifion Mesa, and all over the area known as Glade Park. In the winter they were
pushed down on the benches toward the river.“

Although ranchers had sheep prior to this time, widespread sheep ranching began around
1908, when 40,000 sheep from the Goslin Sheep Company traversed a bridge over the Grand
River from Utah and moved into the Glade Park region.” The conflict between sheep and
cattle ranchers was especially troublesome in Glade Park from 1903 to 1915. Cattlemen
believed that sheep ruined the range and the water, and that their odor repulsed the cattle. A
likely reason for the disagreements between sheep and cattle owners, however, was the
competition for good grazing lands. It is not exactly clear what started the problems in Glade
Park, but by 1903 cattlemen had initiated a series of violent attacks on sheepmen. In that year,
Glade Park cattlemen drove 100 head of sheep off a cliff in Pifion Mesa, and two years later,
in 1905, a $1500 bounty was raised to kill a local sheepman. The plan failed when only $1000
was raised. The violence finally diminished after 1915, when Mrs. Nancy Irving’s Angora
goats were driven off a rim of No Thoroughfare Canyon. Violence was not unusual in Glade
Park. In fact, the area often served as a hideout for "outlaws." Glade Park ranchers were
frequently victimized by John Dalley, a train robber and cattle rustler, who continued his crimes
until the start of World War I.*

Dry farmers faced a less perilous reception from cattlemen, but their attempts to grow
produce on Glade Park were far from successful. Com, small grains, wheat, rye, and potatoes
were the primary crops. Most farmers sold their produce in Grand Junction.” In 1907,
Charles DuVall built the first dry farming homestead. After the Glade Park post office opened
in 1910, more families moved into the region to try dry farming. Because dry farmers were at
the mercy of the weather, they rarely experienced consistent success with crops. Typically
settlers shifted between dry farming and cattle ranching, hoping to find some sort of economic
security.”

Glade Park’s development reached a turning point in 1912, when the first schools were
established. Because parents paid for their children to attend, these early educational facilities
were known as "subscription schools." In 1912, seven schools, one for each section of Glade

“Moore, Original History of Glade Park, p. 6.
“McCreanor, Mesa County, Colorado, p. 5.
*Mehls, The Valley of Opportunity, p. 115.

“Vern Woods, Interview by Maria Baldi, 10 June 1976, p. 6, transcript, Oral History Collection, Colorado
National Monument Museum and Archive, Fruita, Colorado.

*Mehls, The Valley of Opportunity, p. 150.


approval.” The reconnaissance consisted of eight days spent "studying and traversing the
monument and approach roads."TM Part of this survey included the pipe line road leading up
to Fruita Canyon on the park’s west side. County officials stated that they would improve this
toad, “thus making a connection with a county highway leading from the trail of the
Serpent." County officials also offered to “furnish any equipment they had idle” for the
construction of the road.”*

The Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce influenced the course chosen for the road.
It wanted a road from which people could view the more impressive of the park’s features from
their automobiles. This route was more expensive because it required cutting through more
cliffs, but eventually the Park Service agreed to it.”” The ultimate goal was to construct a
complete loop from Grand Junction to Fruita via the Monument. The route stretched from the
Serpents Trail through the Monument and eventually emerged in Fruita Canyon on the western
end of the park. The original plan entailed construction of a "single-width highway of about
twenty-four miles," which followed the approximate route of today’s Rim Rock Drive.°”*

In addition to suggesting possible routes for the road; the chamber of commerce
contributed funds and some labor to the National Park Service. Local funding of the road
project, combined with Park Service appropriations, enabled early construction. The Grand
Junction Chamber of Commerce, working in conjunction with a presidential committee,
expended funds acquired from local sources. Although the amount of funding was relatively
small, it did contribute to the construction effort.” The chamber requested federal emergency
relief funds to reduce unemployment in the Grand Valley. It also suggested that the Park
Service choose Secrest to head the road project.” Taylor discussed the chamber’s requests
with Horace Albright. He tried to convince Albright that the initial construction should begin
not just for the “expeditious development of the Monument" but also to "relieve

Informal Memorandum, Jesse L. Nusbaum, Superintendent Colorado National Monument, to Mr. A.H.
Furr, 22 November 1937.

TMMonthly Report, T.W. Secrest to F.A. Kittredge, Chief Engineer National Park Service, 5 December
1931.

Tid.

TMTbid.

Letter, F.A. Kittredge to Horace Albright, 9 November 1931.
Informal Memorandum, Nusbaum to Furr, 22 November 1937, p. 1.

Letter, L.W. Burgess, President of Grand Junction Chamber of Comimerce, to F.A. Kittredge, 21
November 1931.

Telegram, W.M. Wood of Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce to Horace Albright, National Park
Service Director, 7 November 1931. .

53



careless and limited knowledge of the Park Service and its history. Prior to his appointment to e@
the position, Watt had expressed his “hostility” toward conservationists, and proposed that the
Interior Department “unleash” private industry by opening park lands for development.
Although the Watt years were short-lived, they left a legacy of poor policy toward the Park
Service. Future Secretary of the Interior William Clark and his successor Donald Hodel felt
that existing legislation regarding the protection of parks from external threats was
satisfactory.TM In order for the Justice Department to pursue an appeal of Matsch’s decision,
Secretary of the Interior Hodel had to request such an action. Despite the Justice Department’s

_ belief that the case carried a significant precedent for the region and should be appealed, Hodel
did not do so.® This left Monument officials with a court decision that they did not believe
was necessarily accurate, but that they were obligated to uphold.

William C. Everhart, The National Park Service (Boulder: Westview Press, 1983), p. 142.

Freemuth, Islands Under Siege, p. 8.
“Dennis Huffman, Telephone interview by Lisa M. Schoch, 6 February 1994,

122



Title 36, which states in part that "No person shall enter or use park areas ... without paying
the required fees and possessing the applicable permits. **“

Throughout the summer of 1981, Wilkenson also bombarded Park officials with letters
demanding that the Park Service state its position on various elements of the road
controversy.** In what Wilkenson deemed one of his “pre-action letters,” he asked that
Superintendent Huffman provide a "yes" or “no” answer to four questions regarding the Park
Service’s authority to control use of Rim Rock Drive.** The Park Service concluded that it
was “inappropriate” to respond to what they perceived as “loaded questions” regarding the

controversy. When his frequent correspondence regarding the road issue became what Chief ©

Ranger Schoch deemed “unnecessarily coercive,” relations between the two sides
deteriorated.” As the weeks passed and as the Park Service refused to respond to
Wilkenson’s demands, he increasingly discussed the possibility of settling the matter in court.
By this time, Wilkenson was convinced that it had been illegal for the Park Service to issue
citations to him for refusal to sign the affidavit or pay a fee:

It is true that a major court action is a hassle, and that 1 am a very busy person.
However, | am not too busy to defend myself against your illegal and unjust attacks."

The Lawsuit

On July 13, 1981, Wilkenson decided to file a civil suit against the Park Service. Ina
letter he explained his decision to Superintendent Dennis Huffman: "It is with regret that I
inform you that you have caused me to anticipate litigation between us to resolve our
differences."** By August 1, 1981, Wilkenson formally filed a motion in the Mesa County
District Court against Superintendent Huffman and Chief Ranger Schoch. District Court Judge
William Ela set the hearing for September 1. Huffman’s response indicated that the Park
Service was ready to resolve the issue one way or another:

It’s time the situation was clarified. What comes out in court we can live with. The
only place to make a resolution will be in court. For the last 30 years there has been a
question of the status of the road, That is the real issue.”

“Federal Register (13 February 1972) Vol. 37, No. 31.

*Letter, John R. Wilkenson to Superintendent Dennis Huffman, 24 June 1981.
“Tbid.

“Letter, Chief Ranger Henry Schoch to John R. Wilkenson, ! July 1981.
*Letter, John R. Wilkenson to Superintendent Dennis Huffman, $ July 1981.
“Letter, John R. Wilkenson to Superintendent Dennis Huffman, 13 July 1981.

“Mary Louise Giblin, "Rancher Heads to Court over Fee on Monument Road,” Daily Sentinel, | August
1981.

106



Wilkenson eventually stated that he would not be tried by "the government” for these criminal
charges because it was the government that was accusing him. He wanted a Mesa County jury
to try him.”

The hearing before U.S. District Court Judge Richard Matsch in late November proved
to be bittersweet for Wilkenson. Matsch dismissed Wilkenson’s case because he filed a suit
against specific park employees (Schoch and Huffman), who he claimed “violated his rights" to
use Rim Rock Drive. According to Matsch, Wilkenson should have filed his case against the
United States government, which maintains the Monument, rather than against its employees.
Instead of making him ‘start all over with a tew suit, Matsch gave Wilkenson’20 days to amend
his complaint and refile the suit, which he believed raised some important issues. Wilkenson
planned to alter his original complaint to include the secretary of the interior, the director of the
National Park Service and the Park Service’s Rocky Mountain regional director.”

By this time Wilkenson had already written to various government officials requesting
their position regarding the lawsuit. Between September and November 1981, he wrote letters
to NPS Regional Director Lorraine Mintzmyer, Secretary of the Interior James Watt, Acting
Deputy NPS Director Stanley Albright and even President Ronald Reagan. Each of these
government officials declined to comment on the case as it was currently in litigation. In early
September, Wilkenson wrote to County Commissioner Rick Enstrom and requested more
information about the case that the county planned to file. At that time, Wilkenson told
Enstrom that he would gladly "fade into the woodwork" if Mesa County was interested in filing
a suit:

I really do not like the feeling of being alone in this jurisdictional dispute. I wish the
commissioners would actually do something to protect me and other Mesa County
citizens in this matter.”

Wilkenson had tried to include the county in his case when he issued an official
"Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Include the Mesa County Commissioners as
Parties” in late September. The motion stated that because the county had proved its role in the
Glade Park access case at its meeting with Glade Park residents that the court should include it
in the case. In it he stated that in his opinion, the county had failed to get involved in the case
for "political reasons." At the time that Wilkenson filed this memorandum, the. county had
not yet filed a complaint. Wilkenson felt that "the controversy is the same, whether in this
ongoing action or an action potentially to be filed by the Board of Mesa County

Wilkenson, “Jury or Jail," Palisade Tribune, 19 January 1984.

TMMary Louise Giblin, "Glade Park Man to name Watt, Interior Department in Lawsuit," Daily Sentinel, 27
November 1981.

Letter, John R. Wilkenson to Rick Enstrom, 10 September 1981.

~ *John"R. Wilkenson, "Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Include Mesa County
Commissioners as Parties," 29 September 1982, p. 1, in John R. Wilkenson v. Department of the Interior, et al.

108



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Since I began the research for this project in the Spring of 1992, numerous people have
provided varying degrees of academic advice, research assistance, and emotional support.
Because-this_was-originally my Master’s thesis, | extend thanks to those who struggled with me

during my graduate school years and those who assisted me in revising it for publication. My
greatest appreciation is extended to the members of my thesis committee from the Colorado
State University history department who took time from their busy schedules to work with me.
I would first like to thank Dr. Dan Tyler, who was my academic advisor for the duration. His
guidance, support, patience and the personal time he invested throughout my years as a graduate
student and through the rough spots of the thesis are much appreciated. Mr. John Albright also
deserves my deepest thanks for his encouragement, guidance, and firsthand knowledge of the
National Park Service. His insights were very valuable to me during the writing and editing of
the thesis. Mr. Albright has also provided sound advice.and motivation since its completion.

During the course of the original research, I was assisted by numerous people. Mary
Shivers Culpin enthusiastically embraced this project from the moment of its inception, and
guided me through the revision and publication process. For her research advice,
encouragement and personal time I am grateful. The staff at Colorado National Monument
accommodated my needs and took a genuine interest in the project. 1 thank former
Superintendent Jimmy Taylor, former administrative clerk Paul Menard (for his computer
skills), Secretary Barbara Harger, Supervisory Park Ranger Ron Young, Park Ranger Bill Row,
Fee Collectors Michelle Berry and Joel Barnett, Interpreter Georgia Heinz, and ail the members
of the summer of 1992 maintenance crew who dropped by frequently to swap stories and see
how the research was going. Thanks as well to those who read the manuscript and provided
critical remarks for publication: Park Service Bureau Historian Barry Mackintosh, Dick Young,
Jimmy Taylor and of course, Mary Shivers Culpin.

Others aided in the original research during the summer of 1992. Judy Prosser
Armstrong and Dave Fishell of the Museum of Western Colorado were helpful in providing a
local context for the history of the Monument. Shirley Howard and Jean Hawk of the Mesa
County Courthouse were very helpful as-well. To those people whom I interviewed | am
especially grateful. Loyd Files worked on the original construction of Serpents Trail. His
excellent memory of that experience, and of John Otto were both fascinating and invaluable to
me. I would also like to thank former Mesa County Commissioner Maxine Albers, John R.
Wilkenson, former Superintendents Robert Benton and Dennis Huffman, and local historian
Dave Fishell for granting interviews. Their insights were helpful in providing a well-rounded
account to the road controversy.

Most importantly, I would like to thank my family and friends for their support and love
during some of the most challenging moments of the original thesis writing process. I

iv


March of that year, a new checking station was installed near the Saddlehorn just west of the
current visitor center.

Interpretive services, although seemingly overshadowed by the attention given to the
development of the park’s road and facilities, also had an important place in the park’s agenda.
Like his predecessors, Mahan established a strong rapport with local clubs and organizations.”
In a 1952 speech to the Grand Junction Rotary Club, Mahan disclosed elements of the
Monument’s master plan: expanded camping facilities, a museum, a ranger residence, a new
checking station at the Grand Junction entrance and more road oiling.“ Keeping local
residents abreast of the park’s plans was an integral part of Mahan’s superintendency. -

The Monument was also entering a period when it was the subject of a different kind of
media attention. Stories about the park had always regularly appeared in the Daily Sentinel,
which covered everything from John Otto’s early letters to the editor to information on the
construction of Rim Rock Drive. By the 1950s, however, the historical significance of the park
had become a popular topic. Ironically, one of the first feature articles appeared in Empire
Magazine in September 1951 and told the story of “early pioneer" John Otto. Otto himself died
less than a year later in June 1952, his legacy and dedication to the park only beginning to be
appreciated.”

Park officials were surprised to learn in June 1953 that the Colorado National Monument
and the Black Canyon had been removed from Mesa Verde’s administration. Instead, both
areas were placed under the Monument’s jurisdiction. Mahan pointed out the disadvantages to
the Monument: “It will mean quite a load with no clerical help but we will carry on with
‘business as usual.’"*” For the most part, activity in the park remained essentially what it had
been before the change. Development of facilities continued to be the main goal of Monument
officials. The additional responsibility of Black Canyon included inspections of that park,
which was in the midst of facility improvement and construction. Management of Black
Canyon, however, never interfered with the development of Colorado National Monument.

In 1955, Colorado National Monument was included in a nationwide plan to improve and
expand facilities throughout the National Park System. Known as Mission 66, this plan

“Ibid. p. 1.

“Russell Mahan, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for June
1949" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 3 July 1949), 3.

"Monument Superintendent Tells Rotarians of Colorado Monument Development Since 1911," Daily

* Sentinel, 20 February 1952.

Russell Mahan, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for June
1952" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 27 June 1952), p. 2.

“Russell Mahan, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for June
1953" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 30 June 1953), p. 1.

85


little value for grazing.”*” He also stated that the “people of Colorado” were “unanimous in @
their approval" of the “permanent reservation of the tract."* On May 24, 1911, Wiliam
Howard Taft signed the proclamation setting aside approximately 13,883.6 acres for the purpose

of establishing the Colorado National Monument. The introductory paragraph of the
proclamation detailed the reason for the park’s establishment, recognizing the importance of the

park to the community:

Whereas, in Mesa County, Colorado, the extraordinary examples of erosion are of great
scientific interest and it appears that the public interest would be promoted by reserving
these natural formations as a National Monument, together with as much public land as
may be necessary for the proper protection thereof.”

At last the efforts of individuals and organizations in the Grand Valley made what the Daily
Sentinel referred to as the "nationalization of a cafion,” a reality.

‘“Fisher to Taft, 23 May 1911.
‘Ibid.

“President, Proclamation, "Colorado National Monument, Establishment, Proclamation 1126," Statutes at r
Large (24 May 1911) Vol. 37, p. 156.

30





that, while Little Park Road was built in 1884 and should have been a sufficient route to Glade
Park, “residents of Mesa County needed the same thing 80 years ago that they need now—
decent access between Grand Junction and Glade Park."** Why Mesa County was not willing
to finance the construction of a road remains to be seen. Undoubtedly the Park Service
wondered the same thing.

Testimony was to be completed late on August 30, 1984, after which time Judge Matsch
stated that he would return to Grand Junction to hear more oral testimony before writing his
decision.” The official decision was not presented until May 2, 1986. Until then, each side
of the controversy formed its own opinions regarding the outcome. Eric Kelly, representing the
county, felt that the lawsuit could have national significance. In an order issued in March of
1985 {after the trial), Judge Matsch focused on whether the Park Service should be able to
charge fees at all. Kelly noted that Matsch’s questions regarding the fees had little to do with
the history of the road, which the county and Wilkenson had used in their arguments. Matsch
addressed several questions: if fees were valid; if it is valid to charge fees for people driving
through the park without stopping; and whether it is valid to charge fees of people or
commercial traffic travelling to Glade Park. Kelly said that, if the judge determined that the
collection of fees was void, he could avoid the more complex issue of road ownership. If
Matsch decided that fees were invalid, collection of fees in all national park areas could be
endangered.**

Assistant U.S. District Attomey Bruce Black would not comment on the judge’s order
publicly, stating it was inappropriate.“ In the meantime, until Monument officials received
news of a court decision, they continued to collect fees and require affidavits.” Wilkenson,
on the other hand, was more impatient regarding the pending decision. In December 1985, he
wrote a letter to Judge Matsch reminding him that the road controversy "remains unresolved”
and that the lack of decision had affected his life:

Personally I need to know whether I can relax and get on with the rest of my life, or
whether I must gear up to defend myself in a political confrontation with the
government. I would appreciate a decision before sufficient time has passed to
politically justify applying to the Circuit Court for a remedial writ ... .TM

*Tdid., pp. 9-10.

Mary Louise Giblin, "No Fast Judgement Expected on Road,” Daily Sentinel, 30 August 1984.
"Mary Louise Giblin, "Road Suit Could Affect Nation,” Datly Sentinel, 4 April 1985.

*Tbid.

“Mary Louise Giblin, "Glade Park Dwellers Need Access Permits," Daily Sentinel, 5 June 1985.
“Letter, John R. Wilkenson to Judge Richard P. Matsch, 9 December 1985.

117


Other uses of the park, most of them not locally initiated, revealed both the popularity
of the park’s scenery and the Park Service’s willingness to remain open-minded and flexible to
unusual requests. In 1953, for instance, MGM requested permission to spend two days shooting
scenes in the Monument for an upcoming movie. Park officials advised them that permission
would be granted only after they had an opportunity to discuss the project with the filmmakers.
Eventually, the plans were postponed.” Nevertheless, the Monument continued to hold
fascination for moviemakers. Nearly 30 years later, in the summer of 1984, sequences for the
Warmer Brothers film “American Flyers” were filmed in the Monument.

The Park Service response {o violations involvéd increased implementation and
enforcement of regulations. By 1961, park officials recognized the need to begin “special law
enforcement practices.“ Additionally, Colorado National Monument through the 1950s and
early 1970s reduced its reliance on community input. While past decision-making was often
based on advice from the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, the more recent years
reflected an administration that frequently made decisions that were unpopular with the
community. The relationship that had developed between local residents and Park Service
officials at Colorado National Monument was now characterized by the Park Service’s
willingness or unwillingness to meet the needs and expectations of the communities adjacent to
Colorado National Monument without:compromising the integrity of the park itself.

The Commercial Vehicle Issue, 1955-1978

No community felt more restricted by Park Service policies than Glade Park. At the
center of the conflict was Rim Rock Drive, the main thoroughfare for Glade Park’s residential
and commercial traffic by the 1950s. The only other access to Glade Park from Grand Junction
was Little Park Road, which had been constructed in 1884. Due to its gravel surface, Little
Park Road was nearly impassable when wet.

When commercial traffic on Rim Rock Drive became more prevalent in 1955, park
officials were still adjusting to the enormous impact of that road’s construction on the park.
With mounting threats to the Monument—vandalism, hunting, adjacent land activity—it was not
surprising that heavy commercial traffic along Rim Rock alarmed Monument employees. In the
Park Service’s opinion, commercial traffic presented a threefold dilemma: it was a safety
hazard, it inflicted long-term damage to the road, and it did not fit the philosophical premise of
the Park Service mission. For Mesa County the commercial vehicle issue posed a financial risk
because building new roads and improving existing roads was costly. Glade Park residents, on
the other hand, viewed the issue as simply another restriction imposed by the Park Service.
Eventually, efforts to restrict the use of Rim Rock Drive prompted a local backlash against the
policies of the National Park Service.

“Russell Mahan, “Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for June
1953" (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 30 June 1953), p. 3.

“Fred Bussey, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report for Colorado National Monument for January
1961* (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 10 February 1961), p. 4.

2



gun for."'* On one occasion, Bullerdick threatened to split Otto’s head with an axe.” In the
winter of 1918, Bullerdick again tested Otto’s patience, when he and his sheep broke through
the fence across the mouth of Monument Canyon. Later that year, he allowed his sheep to
graze near the intake of the Fruita water system near the park’s west entrance. In January,
1919, Bullerdick brought his herd of more than 1,000 sheep to the upper rim rocks of the
park.” For Otto this was the final straw. He appealed to Stephen Mather, then Director of
the National Park Service, for advice.

Mather’s response to Otto indicated that regulations regarding national park lands were
quite specific, and that it was important for local people to understand their significance. He
advised Otto to enlighten Bullerdick regarding Section 56 of the Criminal Code which stated the
following:

Whoever shall drive any cattle, horses, hogs, or other livestock upon any such lands
(that is, any lands of the United States in pursuance of any law that have been reserved
or purchased by the United States for any public use) for the purpose of destroying the
grass or trees on said lands, or where they may destroy the said grass or trees shall be
fined not more than $500, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.’”

Bullerdick was warned that if he continued to ignore regulations, criminal proceedings
would be brought against him. Otto's hope that the Park Service would "prosecute him good
and right" was an indication that an authority other than Otto was needed to oversee problems
of this nature.” The Smithy brothers, and the Bullerdick case reveal that some individuals
were either not aware or were openly defiant of regulations within the park. These situations
also reflect the kind of attitude that many local residents held toward the park—that public lands
were to be used, not preserved,

Problems with trespassing plagued Otto’s years as custodian, but enforcement of
regulations extended into other areas as well. In some cases, individuals were so incensed by
these regulations that they appealed to the Secretary of the Interior. This occurred when Otto
started a wood hauling business in the park. With the proceeds he hoped to finance the
completion of a scenic road through the park. Otto initiated the enterprise during World War
I when economically depressed condtions characterized the Grand Valley, Thinking he could
alleviate some of the hardship, Otto wrote to the Department of the Interior, requesting
permission to supply dead wood from the park for people to heat their homes. At the end of

Letter, John Otto to Franklin Lane, Secretary of the Interior, 17 January 1919.

"Ibid.

“Tid.

Letter, Stephen Mather, Director National Park Service, to John Otto, 18 February 1919.

*Letter, John Otto to Director National Park Service, 4 March 1919, (photocopy), National Archives
Record Group 79, Colorado National Monument Museum and Archive Collection.

33