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

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 earned 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 disenchantment increased. As early as 1913, a report submitted to the General Land Office indicated that the park's future did not look bright:

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. [232]

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. [233] 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. [234]

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." [235] 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 1930. [236] 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. [237]

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 monthly $1 salary with an extra $25 per month. [238] Between 1920 and 1928, the chamber alone contributed $2500 to the park's needs. W.M. Wood, Secretary of the Grand Junction Chamber 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." [239] 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. [240] The government was only able to supply two appropriations of $400 each for fencing between 1920 and 1928. [241] 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.

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." [242] 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:

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. [243]

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." [244]

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. [245] 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." [246]

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. [247]

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." [248] 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 ...." [249] When Otto finally 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. [250] 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 Colorado National Monument would today be a 'stinking sheep dump'—I have saved this much for humanity so far." [251]

By the end of Otto's custodianship, the National Park Service and the local 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.