“The “Nation’s River”: At the Confluence of Urban and Rural Ideals”

This paper presents the history of efforts in the mid-twentieth century to both conserve and develop the Potomac River—the “Nation’s River,” as President Lyndon B. Johnson and his Interdepartmental Task Force referred to it.  In a real sense, the Potomac River of the 1960s was the Nation’s River.  It had become, in Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall’s words, a “microcosm of America.”  It had intertwined with the people and businesses occupying its shores, and while some beauty still remained, its dirtiness and ugliness showcased the imprint of humankind.

In 1965, Johnson officially asked Udall to review the basin development plan, begun by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1950, and to prepare a program for Johnson’s consideration.  Johnson intended for development of the Potomac River to serve as a national model for river development in cities and states across the country.   He planned to start in his own backyard, in Washington, D.C., with the stated intent of motivating others.  As Udall later recalled, they “saw it as an area where you could bring the conservation ideas into the city and do positive things,” and the project became a “kind of laboratory” for their “new ideas.”  The project allowed them an opportunity to “show the importance of the conservation idea to the urban areas.”  Yet the multipurpose project—with dams and reservoirs for water supply, navigation, pollution abatement, and recreation—never came to fruition despite years of study and planning.

The paper answers my research question of how the Potomac River Project informs our understanding of the national dilemma of choosing between conservation and development.  Arising at a time when the dangers of rapid growth and technological advancements reached critical levels and of nascent environmental awareness, the need to both conserve and develop the Nation’s River seemed to be self-evident and viable.  Instead, this paper argues that the differing urban and rural ideals worked together to prevent completion of the proposed work that would have changed the landscape of the Potomac River basin.

The paper engages with primary source materials in conjunction with actual results.  Sources employed include task force reports, transcripts of hearings conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, government publications, local newspaper articles, and legislative action.